March 6, 2024 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:03] The March landmarks board meeting is called to order. Welcome to the March 6, 2024. Landmarks board meeting. It is 601 Pm. And as in previous virtual meetings, we will begin with Marcy going over the meeting decorum for this evening's virtual format. Thank you. 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 members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identity lived experiences and political perspectives. More about this vision and the project's community engagement process can be found online below. you can go to the next slide. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the bolder device code and other guidelines that support this vision, these will be upheld during the meeting.

[1:04] 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. Obscenities, racial epithets, or other speech and behaviour that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited, and participants may raise their hand to speak during open comment and public comment periods. During hearings, individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted online. And, Claire, if you could go back to the slide about the raise hand function here we go. But yup this one so if you are on a PC. You can raise your hand. By using alt y option y on a macintosh or star 9 on your phone, or you can find the raise hand function in the bar at the bottom of the screen under reactions. Raise hand, and Amanda will be managing the the public comment there, so you might get

[2:07] a message from her. To help put your full name if needed. And then generally, we don't use the chat during Zoom Meetings unless it's for a technical issue back to you, Abby. Thank you so much, Marcy. I do wanna acknowledge that we have a quorum this evening, although one of our board members is out of town, a recording of this meeting will be available in the Records Archive and on Youtube. Within 28 days of this meeting we'll do a real quick roll call and introductions. I'm Abby Daniels, the current chair of the Landmarks Board. Chelsea. Hi. Chelsea, Castellano Landmarks Board, Member Renee. Renee, Globeic Landmarks Board, member and last, but certainly not least, Ronnie

[3:02] Ronnie Palusio also a Landmark Board member. Thank you. And for some of you who may have heard earlier, our liaison from the planning board is unable to join us this evening. Before we get started. We know that people who are here to participate may have strong emotions about certain projects presented this evening. We want to hear from you, and we have found it more productive if you speak, to try to persuade us, rather than berating us, staff or the applicant. as with regular landmarks, board meetings, and Marcy already alluded to. This you may only speak at the appropriate time during the public hearing request to speak outside of those times, or public participation before the public hearings will be denied as the Board chair. We will do a roll call vote on any motion entertained this evening. and with that we'll move to the first agenda. Item. This is approval of the February seventh, 2024 meeting minutes, and I know that these minutes are a lot longer and more complex, and most of them meeting notes review. And I hope everybody did have a chance to review them thoroughly, because

[4:18] especially with the discussion around the designation of the historic district. Most of you know, it's been 18 years since we even had to have that on minute meeting. So I don't know if anyone has any alterations or corrections to the minutes as we receive them. I'm gonna give you a few more seconds. I don't have any. I thought you guys did an excellent job with that, because I know there were multiple motions. And I know the the meeting went on late into the evening. So I move that we approve these minutes. Do we have a second? I'll second.

[5:01] Thank you, Ronnie. On a seconded by Ronnie. We'll do a roll call. Vote Chelsea to approve the minutes. Okay, thank you, Renee. Aye. Ronnie, Hi and I vote I so the minutes are approved unanimously. Now's the time for the meeting where people may speak to anything that is not on the agenda. Any items that are not one of the 2 hearings before us. And again, Marcy, this is where you raise your hand. If you're joining on the zoom, call or phone and press the appropriate start to get. Let us know. You'd like to speak with us this evening. and I'll give Amanda a few moments to see if anybody. Yes, thank you. It looks like so far, we have one hand raised 2, 2 hands.

[6:04] So we can go ahead and start with that if you'd like. okay. And the first person is first, the first person is Gavin Mcmillan, followed by Aaron Cook. Thank you. Yeah. Hi, Kevin Gavin, you should be able to unmute, and you'll have 3 min to speak. And Gavin, before you be, I mean, do when you do. When your 3 min commence, do say your full name once again for the record. Okay, can everyone hear me? We can. My name's Gavin Mcmillan and along with my partner, is Brady, Burke, and Bober, as we own the building at 2260 baseline we were in front of you in January to discuss the demolition of of that building, and in February we met on site with landmark staff and Abby and John from the landmarks board. We sat down and rolled out the plans that we've been working on for the last year and a half, and had a really good discussion, I think, about the challenges

[7:01] and difficulties associated with keeping the existing building and retrofitting it for housing. We really appreciated hearing everyone's questions, and hopefully we were able to illustrate just how difficult it is, if not impossible, to to keep the building and build any significant amount of housing. So our position has not changed since that meeting we just it's not possible to develop the amount of housing that the site is zone for and calls for, and also that we believe our community really needs while keeping the existing building on site. So to quickly summarize the constraints and and challenges we're up against first building height. We're unable to expand the existing building to the west. due to height restrictions, and the way height is measured. And since expanding the existing building is not an option, we're unable to retrofit the building with a significant amount of housing. We're actually forced to develop 2 separate buildings. And we did discuss that I think in in great detail at our meeting.

[8:00] That just poses a lot of challenges. First, it's significantly more difficult to provide accessibility and energy efficiency. Providing Ada accessibility between 2 separate buildings that don't share a parking structure. Would be very costly. And to this point time we have not figured out a way to do that with 2 separate buildings. and additionally providing efficient mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems to 2 separate buildings is inefficient and definitely very, very expensive parking, keeping. The existing building prevents us from building structured parking under the building, and this severely limits the amount of parking space available to meet the parking requirements in C, which in turn again prevents us from from building. Housing on site. and last is just cost is a as a general category. There are significant construction costs associated with retrofitting the building to meet modern residential energy and building codes going from commercial to residential. But the but the real primary costs and the biggest implication associated with keeping the building, is it?

[9:03] It limits? It places on the amount of housing. That can be built on site. We have determined that the project is not financially feasible, and we're not able to proceed with development of housing on the site unless we can remove the building and and build a new structure. So really appreciate all, all the all the back and forth. I just wanted to let you know kind of where we stand as of as of today, and I know that you'll talk about it later, and we're not part of that discussion. But I just wanted to reiterate our position. So at this time we just determined that demolition of the building is the only economically viable path forward for us. With that. Thank you very much for your time and service. Thank you so much, Gavin. like we have Aaron Cook is up next. Hi, welcome, Erin, and if you again would state your full name for the record, and your 3 min will commence.

[10:01] Hi! My name is Erin Cook, and I'm the director of facilities and operations at Nairobi University, and the University just wanted to reach out and thank you all for expediting the process. And just. you know, working with us and doing the site visit and making it happen in a couple couple of months. It's just we. We understand that it's a huge task, and we're just completely grateful. I can't overstate how appreciative and thankful we are for the work you've done. And and expediting the process. So thank you. That's all I got. Well, thank you, Erin, and I know the Board members appreciate everything you did to make site visits available and everything. So thank you for that. And Amanda, any other members of the public wishing to speak this evening. Oh, yes, we do have one more hand raised. Lynn Siegel.

[11:03] Hi, Lyn, it looks like you're unmuted. So again, state your full name for the record and you can begin. Lynn Siegel. Yeah, regarding Western resource advocates, this is the problem that exists. So our landmarks are getting obliterated. We're demoing every you know, or closing great places like art co-OP art hardware, you know, like historic places that get Demo like 7, 70 circle. It needs to go through EAB first, which is at the same time as this, so I can't go to EAB, which I'm kind of resentful about. I never can go there because I'm at landmarks board. So the environmental people need to review these cases. and also the planning board needs to review them now. at the Western Resource Advocates building Baseline, Broadway.

[12:00] There were. They were given up to 30,000 square feet from 19,000 square feet, 19,000 for commercial, but 30,000 for residential. Then they come and complain to us that they can't get enough parking for that 30,000 residential. Well, they've already been bribed enticed into housing, and you know I've about had it with housing, housing, housing, and and and so is the rest of this community. Because housing is not a panacea. Housing of all income levels causes the need for more housing for the service workers to service, the housing that's being built, the contractors that are working on it the the all the services that the residents actually use. You know, this is a population issue. and meanwhile we are losing our base. That hobby wagoner building is beautiful is

[13:03] in good shape. It requires not that much adaptation. But Gavin and the folks have been bribed into begging for Demo. And that's not right, that's not ethical. it really is not. And I'm trying to be nice, Abby. but you know, when ethics are violated and we lose our landmarks, that's a big problem for me. We haven't got much left in Boulder. It's you you watch this place in in 6 months. You're gonna be blown away, you know, by the hosimoto's by the millennium by Olive, which is already there. You know all of the the Double Hill Ho Hill hotels, the east part business park, the airport contemplation which is, should not even be in the mind of anyone.

[14:01] Housing is not the panacea that it is, and it's really unfortunate that Gabin was bribed this way. Not okay. Lynn. Thank you. I personally and respectfully disagree with your characterization of that. But we do always appreciate your participation. Amanda, before we close public participation. Any other raised hands. No, I'm not seeing any other raised hands at this time. Okay, we will go ahead and close public participation for items not on to night's agenda. And then, Marcy, I think I'm going to turn it back to you for a discussion of landmark, alteration and demolition applications, applications issued, and pending. Thank you. We have, 3 days of demolition active right now. We'll start with 2111 Arapaho Avenue. The stay of demolition actually expires tomorrow. So this one has been decided that the board will let it go.

[15:12] so I won't spend too much time on it. But as a recap, I'll say, this is kind of one of the interesting mid century. Commercial buildings was built as a medical office. That is typical of that era, pushes the envelope just a little bit and the site visit we had is at the end of January. And then at your last meeting the Board decided not to schedule an initiation hearing before the stay expires tomorrow. So as Erin alluded in the public comment the board did expedite this process really rallied to have those conversations early and and made a decision. So this one is open and and shut.

[16:01] So next one, unless there's questions on on this one. Yeah. all right. The next one is at 1015 Juniper Avenue, and I'll save any comments, because we have a public hearing on this one as item 5 B. This evening. and then the third one is the Commercial building on the southwest corner of 2,006 road. I do wanna clarify it. It looks like a Hobart Wagner building. It's, I think, very similar to the lotus building that that Wagner designed. But it it wasn't designed by Wagner. However, it is a potentially eligible mid-century modern building. We've had one meeting with the applicants. On February fifteenth, and Abby and John were present. So welcome your recap of the meeting as well, I thought that did a very concise and thorough job about

[17:05] recapping the meeting. We we bet we looked at plans we have understood and and talked through. The various con constraints of this property, including the height limit that it's not possible to retrofit it unless there's 2 buildings which drives up the cost. that the parking requirements add additional restrictions, the overall project cost, and then ultimately, that that keeping this building would limit the amount of housing possible for the project. So I'll kind of do a look ahead and then turn it over to Abby. But the decision tonight, for this one would be direction on whether the board, and and particularly Abby and and Don, who's not here would like to set up a follow up meeting to continue the discussion on the stay of demolitions, or

[18:05] sorry to continue the conversation on the alternatives to demolition or to not make that decision tonight and let the State continue. So, looking ahead, it is March you have until next month. April would be your scheduling decision, because May first is the last regularly scheduled meeting before the stay expires a month later on June first. Abby, is there anything you'd like to add or share about the meeting on February fifteenth, with the applicants. Thank you, Marcy. Well, first of all, I do think the applicants went above and beyond. When they met with us in the materials, they had the explanations the way we walked around and really got to, you know, see it close and personal. And I think, my! I walked away with the understanding that what they initially proposed to the city to build another building, and then, you know, rehabilitate this gym of the building.

[19:11] They weren't able to do. You know it? It just the things there were too many things they had to meet that couldn't be done with the site limitation. There's a really variants in the grade and everything. But I it was very, very helpful to be there on site. I do think I know we can't take any action tonight, anyway, because that requires the scheduling of a public hearing. I feel like II would look forward to on April third, hearing what John's comments were as the architect who attended that meeting. I mean? What is kind of cool is, it is? It's almost like a sister duet building to the Green Shield Building that Wagner did this design nearby, and that kind of struck me 2 ways like, Oh, wouldn't it be cool to have 2 buildings like that? And then I was grateful that one of them was already landmarked and being preserved. So

[20:07] you know that that's interesting to kind of contemplate what I don't know I feel like with the amount of information the the the conversation. When we met on site. I think the only reason, Marcy, to schedule another on-site visit is, if the other 3 board members have any interest in getting on site to see it before any sort of decision is made. Otherwise, I I definitely have the information I would need when we get to the next conversation. Thanks. I'm happy to set up a site, visit Ronnie Renee or Chelsea. You're interested in in seeing the building, and also. Thank you, Abby. It's the Green Shield Building. I don't know why I have it in my head that it's the Lotus Building.

[21:07] So question for your fellow board members. Would you all like to schedule a site visit prior to the scheduling decision that's coming up next month on on April first. or if any call. I likely wouldn't. Usually these happen during the work day, so I likely wouldn't be able to attend one of those, anyway. So I I'm I feel confident, without having to be on site to make a decision. Given the information that's gonna be provided. Thank you. Marcy, II I would just be interested in seeing the building, so if if we can schedule one great, I think it gives us a little more insight on either. Which way we didn't get to hear

[22:02] john's part, because he's not here today. So being that he might have some information in the next one. It might be good if we can get another site visit if that's workable. But you could also send it out via email. See if they're willing to do that and then follow up that way. Okay, great, thank you. Yeah. I'm not having John here. It's kinda hard, because I would love to hear if felt like he had adequate information. Abby or Marcy, did you have a conversation with John about that? And he indicated anything about follow up site visits, or I did not. Yeah, I did not hear what his impressions, what his thoughts were after the meeting. Yeah. You know, I, hearing Abby's confidence level, and what the information that she has.

[23:03] and knowing John's ability to kind of comprehend what's happening through one site visit, I, personally don't feel like I need to attend another site visit, but if you ended up scheduling one I'd be interested in knowing, and if I can attend, I would but it does seem to me like we might have adequate information at this time. and more, it might be possible, because the applicants have been really easy to communicate with, and have kept saying, if you have questions, might be this possible, if you have a discussion with them that they could say. Renee could, you know, is welcome to come and park there, and you know, walk around the exterior, or something, and that might be enough. I think this is one of those site visits and meetings where I felt that a lot of the things we would look for as creative alternate alternatives had already been discussed and considered. So I think I felt, Marcy, do you know what I mean? I felt like we. We were even further ahead than some of the initial site visits with other properties in the city.

[24:16] But I think that that's a characterization that I agree with, which is that the The ownership team has gone through all the way to building permit this option that incorporated the existing building. And so they were very prepared. So they. They've studied this for the last year, and of really understanding and and conveying what the constraints are. So sometimes we get demo applications where people say, I don't know what I wanna do. And this is part of the exploration. And those conversations, I think, have multiple potential outcomes. This one is a little bit different in that it has been studied. Quite extensively in terms of understanding what? What could be done in in terms of development.

[25:05] Okay? So look for a email from us about scheduling an optional site visit and then between now and the next meeting. Know that that decision of scheduling a hearing or not before the stay of demolition will be in front of you at your next meeting on April third. Okay, thank you, Marcy. It's now time to move on to our first public hearing this evening. Item 5. A is a public hearing and consideration of a landmark, alteration, certificate, application to construct a new 1,500 square foot accessory structure at 1590 hillside road, a contributing property in the Hillside historic district pursuant to section 9, 1118 of the Boulder Revised Code 1,981, and under the procedures prescribed by Chapter one, through 3. Quasi-judicial hearings of the Boulder Revised Code.

[26:10] and my understanding is clear as going to do this presentation. I am, thank you, Abby, so I'll go through the quasi judicial hearing procedures. All speaking to the item will be sworn in, and board members will note any ex parte contacts. I'm going to give the staff presentation, and after that the Board may ask questions. The applicant will have 10 min to present to the board and the board may ask questions. Then we'll open the public hearing. After all, members of the public have made comments. The applicant may respond to anything that was said. We'll then ask everyone to mute their computers, and the Board will deliberate. Motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass. Our record of this hearing is available in a couple of days as a video recording, and the official record will be added to the archive within 28 days, usually sooner. So I'm going to pass it back to Abby for ex parte contacts, a reminder that this has not been previously reviewed, as the Ldrc. Does not review any new construction of the size back to you, Abby.

[27:20] Thank you, Claire. I have. I have none. Chelsea. none. Renee. none. And Ronnie thank you. Great. 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 of the property. The architecture, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color and materials are compatible with the character of the property.

[28:05] and that the Landmarks board considers the economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of energy, efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled. The options today are for the Landmarks board to approve the application, and 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 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. So, as I mentioned, this is a proposal for a new building, larger than 340 square feet, so the boulder revised Code requires the proposal. Come directly to the full board at a quasi-judicial public hearing.

[29:09] Alright. So 1590. Hillside is located at the end of hillside road. This is hillside road. Here in the hillside historic district. The traditional front of the house, which is a garage entry, actually faces hillside road right here. There's also an entry porch that faces south. This way. Towards Grand View Avenue, which is right here, and the University of Colorado Buildings, which are along Fifteenth Street. Here to the north of the house the property falls steeply down the hill towards the creek and Boulder High School, which is down here. So this is a historically Shattucks Hillside Park, and it was designed by Herbert A. Shattock in 1 7 to take advantage of that wonderful natural landscape and views above Boulder Creek. The neighborhood had has elaborate terracing, and and and had very strict rules about what could and could not be built.

[30:22] You can see that the circle here is the is the property, and you can see that the university buildings now up here and and here back in around 1938 to 1947. So the the history of this house was a little tricky. It wasn't researched thoroughly for the historic district designation. So we dug into a little bit to find some background. and Sarah Barrett commissioned the neighboring house at 1,600 Hillside, which is just down here. and her daughter, Elizabeth Peebles bought some neighboring lots. We suspect that the family wanted a garage. There were a lot of of boys in the family, and they had a lot of vehicles.

[31:16] But the original rules forbade the erection of any buildings other than dwellings. So we think that they constructed this building that includes the the garage, and a dwelling on Elizabeth's land. To serve that purpose. Elizabeth rented the house to University faculty and students as it's right next to the university, and eventually moved into the house herself. and that family owned it until the current owner purchased it in 2,019. So this is the house. The house itself is quite small. It's approximately 26 feet by 24 feet as a footprint, with a 15 by 13 foot rear addition. It has a gable roof with wide, overhanging eaves. This is facing hillside, road, hillside, road. Right here there's a rectangular projecting bay centred above the garage entrance, which you can see right here. The lower level is constructed of randomly coursed rough quarried stone, and includes that garage level.

[32:28] The upper walls are stucco. The the South elevation, which is this one right here, which you might be confused, is actually the facade faces the the Institute of Behavioral Science Building, which is one of Cu's buildings and their property, and includes a shed roof porch. With these shingle, batted columns and and a half wall right here. The windows on this house are mainly double, hung with some 6 over one divided light.

[33:06] So this is the proposal. It shows the construction of a new 1,508 square foot detached accessory building. Right here it has an approximate 60 foot by 25 footprint the east end of the building is offset from the west end of the building by approximately 4 feet, that you can see that little jog in right there. the the east elevation right here is not prominently visible from hillside road. It's set back about 55 feet, I think. I measured it from about here to here. From from that public right-of-way. The proposal includes some new walkways between the proposed new building and the existing historic house, and a patio. Right here at the west elevation

[34:01] there are some existing stone pillars and retaining wall and a stone wall around here, and they would remain unaltered, and there are no mature trees proposed to be removed removed. So this is the east elevation. The request is for a one-story frame accessory building with a front gable roof. There are 2 single overhead garage doors proposed this. This carriage door design has it has a wood trim in between, but they are individual. 2 individual single doors. The front part of the building is proposed to be stucco. and there's this offset gable at the the rear. The ridge height here is the maximum allowable height of 18 feet and 5 inches, and this part of the building is proposed to be painted shingle.

[35:04] There's also a low pitch shed roof supported by shingle battered, battered columns, towards the rear of the house. Right there the the proposed accessory building includes some architectural details that are reflective of the primary structure, including the 7 12 pitch of the roof, form the use of stucco and the battered porch columns which are reflected of the historic porch and the stucco and roof color are proposed to match the the historic house, and the shingle will be painted grey black. all right. So moving around. This is the north elevation. So this faces the historic house. You can see this is the the garage end of the building, clad in stucco and then the west end. That's that painted wood shingle. The doors are proposed to be wood with

[36:06] divided lights, and the windows are 6 over one double hung. There's a shed roof right here which we saw from the east elevation, and we'll see it in the west elevation, too, and and then these 2 windows in the the residential portion of the of the building are Proposed to be slightly smaller than the other than the other windows in the stucco side. This is the west elevation. This shows the the main gable offsets here, and also an additional nested gable on the north side. This is an approximately 2 foot deep cable roof projection. We'll see that on the on the south elevation. and it's reflective, reflective of the rectangular projecting bay at the east elevation of the historic house, and also acts as a transition between the shingle

[37:09] cladding and the stucco portion of the wall right here. This elevation also includes some vertically oriented 6 over one double-hung windows, and also there's a full, light French door here. And the patio, which is right here that we saw on the site plan on. Here's that shed roof porch right here. Okay, this is the South elevation. This is visible across university property from Grand view, and fifteenth this elevation is predominantly stucco, with with the transition between the shingle and the stucco right here. This is that that gable roof projection that we saw on the west elevation the west end of the building includes this trio of fixed pane, clear story windows, but other than that, it continues the pattern of the vertically oriented 6 over one double hung.

[38:12] and this this elevation is also proposed to include solar panels on the roof. So here are some additional details on the materials proposed. The stucco proposed would match the color of the of the historic house existing color, which is an off-white color. You can see right here. The windows would have a black sash and gray, blue, gray, trim, and detailing, that is proposed to match the historic house. and I know it's sometimes helpful for you to get a sense of the mass and scale of the building with with 3D. Models. So here they are there from a bird's eye view. Obviously nobody's that tall. This is without trees. There's pretty high tree coverage on the site, too, and this is looking southwest onto the property.

[39:17] So this is the historic house right here. and this is the university over here. This is looking southeast. So this is a if you're hovering above Andrew's Arboretum. I believe this is the historic house. This is the proposed new building, and there's a large university building that's right here. and this is looking northeast onto the property. So somewhat from above, fewer above Grand View Avenue. The university building is here. This is the historic house and the proposed new building, and this is the large drop off steep

[40:02] slope down to the creek. Okay? So the the staff analysis. Even though we thought that this was a large for an accessory building. It is subordinate to and set back from the existing house due to the large size of the lot. It doesn't obscure any historic resources within the historic district. We also thought that the proposed new building would not damage the historic character of the property. The images here are looking west towards the location of the proposed new building from the existing driveway and the end of hillside road right here, and none of the existing landscape would be removed.

[41:06] We also thought that, providing the stated conditions were met, we considered the proposed new building would not adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural and value of the property. As the changes are generally consistent with general design guidelines. and we also thought that the proposed new structure is subordinate to and compatible with, the the designated property. The architectural style of the proposed new building is compatible with the historic building, but is generally more simple in design. So information specific to economic feasibility of alternatives and and enhanced access for the disabled wasn't submitted with the application. The proposed placement of of the solar panels we considered was appropriate, as they are on the south, facing roof of an accessory building. We don't have details of the panels. Is it still somewhat conceptual? But we could see that they're in a location with no visibility from the historic district or from hillside road.

[42:23] So, to summarize all that we thought the proposed building appropriate as it's set back from hillside road. The original design of the subdivision took advantage of the natural landscape and views above Boulder Creek by employing elaborate terracing, and these terraces and the careful sighting of houses are important to the character of the neighborhood, and we thought that the location of the proposed accessory building was not detrimental to this pattern. It also doesn't obscure the view of any building from within the historic district.

[43:03] The design of the new accessory building is generally simpler than the main house, and reflective, but not replicative, and also due to the large size of the lot. The backyard space is retained. We thought that the windows may warrant additional discussion by the board to ensure. They are consistent with the guidelines. The guidelines, 7 to 10 in accessory buildings say that elements of accessory structures should be simpler in detailing and smaller in scale than similar elements on primary structures. The current proposal shows divided lights and window trim details, that is, that are reflective of the historic house. and we thought that simpler windows, without divided lights and simple punched openings, may be more appropriate generally to distinguish this as an accessory building. While still reflecting the window proportions of the existing structure, and using a scale proportion, finishing character to those used traditionally, which is also in our guidelines.

[44:13] The staff's recommended motion is to approve the application with conditions that can be reviewed at the Landmark's Design Review Committee, as we found it generally consistent with the guidelines and our recommendation for conditions are that we see materiality of the proposed walkways and patio window and door details, including the garage door, to confirm. They are simpler in detailing than similar elements on the primary structure, trimmed with material similar in scale, proportion, finish in character to those used traditionally. and details of the stucotight proposed to show compatibility with the primary structure, and that would be traditional stucco rather than synthetic and color matched.

[45:02] and details of any exterior mechanical systems lighting, guttering that kind of thing that is not currently shown on the plants. So, to summarize our findings, if the stated conditions are met, the proposal is generally consistent with the general design guidelines, and will generally comply with sections 2.0 and 3.3 of the general design guidelines. In section 9, 1118 b. 3 of the Boulder Revised code in that proposed work will not damage the historic character of the landmark. Property will preserve and not damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the property and the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, and arrangement of color and materials used will be compatible with the character of the existing building and its site. The proposed work will not adversely affect the special character or special historic architectural value of the landmark property.

[46:02] when we when we get to your deliberation? Generally the question is whether the project meets the standards for issuance of an lac. But here are some additional prompts to help the discussion which we can bring back up when when you're deliberating, if it's helpful, and those are whether the mass scale location of the proposed. New building is appropriate. If the reforms and general solid to void ratios, the windows and door openings are appropriate. and do the door and window openings meet the design guidelines and are the proposed materials appropriate? Okay, that's the end of the staff presentation. This is a reminder of the next steps in the process. The applicant has, up to 10 min to present to the board, and the Board may ask questions, will then 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.

[47:06] and then the Board will ask everyone to mute their computers, and we will deliberate any questions for staff before we hand it over to the applicant. Oh, boy, there's hands! The 2 architects. I just hopefully, my question is, is is an easy one. Just cause maybe I missed it or something. Claire, can you tell me what the height of the existing like main floor is compared to the height of this new structure, I mean, like the level of the proposed structure and the level of the existing one. And then what's the height? Differentiation is that there's a lot in that, I guess. But I thought maybe if it was just on the an elevation. It could be pulled up quite a little easier. Yeah, the I believe. Kim. Yes, Kim is here. She's the Arctic architect, and I'm going to punt that one to her.

[48:11] Okay, I'll give her a couple of minutes to to figure that out. Well, I mean, we can wait after the applicant presentation. I just thought maybe I had missed it in the like in one of the architectural pieces, so we'll give her the option like. Well, she well, Ronnie's asking some questions. She can look through that stuff and then have it at the end. Great, thank you. And then, Claire. I was wondering if you could just flip back to the existing historic structures photos. And just I just wanted to go around the building one time. So I could just clarify my thoughts. Okay. and this is page 19, okay, I'm just gonna write that down in case we need to come back. Page 19.

[49:01] this is great. Got it? Thank you. And and Claire just to Orient, because it's on here. We see that drive on the top left. That's the that's hillside drive right? Yeah. So that's what I see. If I drive the road. Yes, it kind of it curves it, curves up and around, and then it keeps going, and then there's a turnaround just past the the driveway that's proposed, which is up up here and then turnaround is where it's proposed correct. Yes, if I go back to here. So this is Hillside. and then it. This is the turnaround, and then there's a little driveway that goes off from here show you the site plan, too. that probably would be more useful. This is hillside. Yeah. So where that arrow where the where your little pointer is. Oh, I could use that thing that Ronnie showed me. Say, but right where your pointer pointer is, that's the that's that that view I just asked about. So that's what we see. Right? This is the these, the garage doors right here.

[50:15] Thank you. Any other questions I don't see any, so shall we move on to the applicant presentation. And, Claire, I don't know if Kim is going to be speaking to this or both. Kim and the owner are. But there's a total of 10 min for the applicant's presentation. Alright. Do I just jump in here? Well, actually, Kim, if you would be kind enough, because this is quasi-judicial. I do need to ask you to raise your hand and swear to tell the Board the full truth, and then your 10 min will begin

[51:06] alright. That I can do. I swear to tell the full truth. Thank you. Alright. So I am, Kim Kato. I am with slope architecture. And I'm working with Kirsten Leaf, who is the homeowner here? And thank you, Marci, for all that detail of going through all this from Marci and Claire and all the time that you guys spent with us as we were developing this design as well. So we appreciate all that. So we'll just kinda start through and try not to overlap too much with Claire's notes already. So the pro main project intent includes conf 2 items, which is garage parking for vehicles for the main house, because what was previously garage, and the original use of this house is now living space, because it's a fairly small structure. And then also just increasing living space on the site. An adu felt like a good flexible way to add living space to the site.

[52:02] But also we did have some conversations with Staff early on about whether it might make more sense to do. In addition to the existing structure versus a new separate accessory structure, and it was determined that a separate accessory structure would just be more respectful to the existing house that's on site that's already been well preserved and restored. And so we could just kind of let let that remain intact and have the new structure have its own kind of character that relates, but doesn't actually have to damage anything in the existing structure. the proposal does. It's at about 800 square feet for the Eightyu, which is within the city's current. Adu standards from a zoning perspective. So we're also kind of having that piece in mind. I guess the next slide. I don't know. If can I click the slides or do have to ask, I guess. So. Yeah, the Site plan. So we looked at this before. Our reasoning for placing the structure here had kind of a number of factors.

[53:06] First of all, would it be in a garage. We wanted to be able to use the existing driveway. Currently, there's a driveway that just kinda ends in a in a gravel pad for parking, and we wanted to be able to use that so that we wouldn't have to do major grading or move where the driveway hits the road or also, as was mentioned, there's quite a bit of vegetation and some old stone walls and things like that on site. So we wanted to be able to keep all those intact. So, pushing the structure up against these side setbacks on 2 sides really allowed us to maintain some some separation between the 2 structures, but also using that existing driveway. And I guess to answer the question on the height of the new structure, because it kinda ties into that so we were setting it, based on starting with the garage and again trying to use that existing driveway to access the garage. So matching grade there and then the adu main floor height is set about 14 inches above that, just for kind of framing purposes, and to allow proper drainage away from the structure and whatnot. So it's about a foot higher to the kind of interior finish space from where the existing main house main level is. And that's just based on grade.

[54:16] which climbs a little bit towards that corner of the site. Primarily. So. Let's see. Sorry checking my notes here. Oh, and I guess. Another interesting piece is that this this part of the site our understanding, is that used to be part of the railroad grade. So I think, by putting the structure here, as you saw, there's a really steep slope elsewhere on the site, which would be much more difficult to build on. So just kind of trying to have a light footprint by putting the building in this corner here. So and it's also then, because it's an accessory structure, partly kinda has to be for zoning, but it's 55 feet back from the hillside road. It's an odd shape, properties, but they the setback is indicated on. There is that kind of round line. So it just just barely touches that 55 foot, but it also allows it to sit quite a bit further back from the existing house, which is what you would see really coming up hillside

[55:07] the next slide. So the new structure is a single story which we were taking from the historic guidelines. In order to help it stay less prominent than the main house. The main house has primarily a 2 story view to it, because that's when you come up Hillside road. You see the 2 story. However, when you're viewing it from the south and the west, it looks more like a one story. But we didn't want to really even consider a 2 story accessory structure, because it felt like that would be kind of overwhelming to the existing house the next one and these are some images you've seen before. I'll just kind of give my own narrative here, I guess so. We felt the 2 car garage is consistent with sizes suggested by the historic guidelines as maximum. But it we have the carriage house style, single car garage doors. For the consistency of the scale and materials with the historic language of the neighborhood. We didn't put as much detail in the modeling there of the existing house. But the the old kind of garage entrance still has an kind of old historic looking

[56:15] carriage, house style door there. So that's where the intent is to have them be similar in language and scale, but yet modern enough to be kind of functional for the scratch next one. The proposed roof slope matches the existing house and kind of kept that that simple overall gable form with some smaller gables to break down the mass. The front porch is similar in language to the main house, but it's significantly smaller. The main house has 3 of those battered columns to it, and there's a low wall, and it's much longer in length. So we left this as secondary, so that it reads as a secondary structure, but still indicates where the entrances to the adu

[57:01] and the next one. So the exterior materials were selected primarily to match with the existing house for the consistency of the character. And so that you know these structures kind of belong together. So that includes the textured stucco asphalt shingles, the black 1 million windows and the blue grey trim to match the existing house. The proposed would shake, sighting also the type of sighting matches. The existing house, it says, kind of an accent on the existing house. It's a little more of a primary material on the new structure, and then we've also proposed for that to be a dark color to contrast with the existing house and differentiate the 2 structures. The main house also does have that beautiful stone on the base, but we kind of deliberately left that off, because it felt like it also helped with this hierarchy of the main house, having the stone and kind of the more kind of expensive type materials on there and then, the accessory structure just being a little bit simpler, fewer materials. And just keeping it, keeping it simple, I guess.

[58:05] And then the last slide, I think, is there one more? Yeah. So I think the existing house on this site is a little less grand. It's a little less big than a lot of the other houses in the historic district, but it still has a lot of really unique character that's been really well preserved. So we really wanted to keep the same simple language on this new accessory structure. In a way that was taking design queues from the primary structure on this site. While complementing the historic district, and and not overwhelming or kind of taking over the the character of this particular site. I think that's what I have. Thank you so much, Kim. Any other questions, for Kim had a question. hey, Kim. Thanks for the great presentation I just wanted to confirm. So is the proposal currently to have 2 garage doors.

[59:04] Yes, it's 2 separate single car garage doors. Okay? And then I don't know if you dug into the historic structure. But if you could, someone could flip back to an image of that do you know what the primary mass of the historic structure that sits again above the stone? Do you know what those walls are made of inside. Is it masonry? Is it basically? Is it masonry, or is it woodframe? I believe it's wood frame? I do. I think we do have some information from when the the previous restoration was done on the house. But I wasn't involved in that project, so I don't know those details without taking a little time to dig through those plans. I can confirm. Okay. wow! I'm hearing an echo. But

[60:00] when you say masonry, you say you mean brick right anything other than wood, as really. What I'm interested in is it would wall that we, you know, had to tear most of that out. and then framed it in and drywalled it. Okay, that's super helpful. Thank you. I promise. Tell the truth the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Thank you and your full name once again, just for our recording this evening. It's Kirsten Lee. Thank you. Ronnie. Any other questions, or Renee or Chelsea. I'm good. Thank you. So, Kim. What I would like to know is

[61:04] what the the ridge height of the existing historic house is to the ridge height of the proposed. I should be able to find that here 1 s trying to get some rivet things up here. The new ridge is approximately one and a half feet higher than the the highest ridge on the existing house. Okay. Pretty similar. Height from main level to to top ridge.

[62:02] Okay, so like, if you walk out. If you're walking out the accessory building, you're you can walk straight into the into the main house. Yeah, yeah, there'd just be those pathways. But there wouldn't be a need for steps or anything. That's pretty minimal change. Okay? Second. II had a couple more questions. Can we flip to the 3D model one that's in like aerial bird's eye. Okay, in in these images, what are the Topoline differences? What are those gray changes between the stepping topography. Sorry I'm not following the question like, what did we change from the existing Nope, those Topo lines? What are the differences in one foot lines. Yeah. those are all afoot between. Yeah, yeah, Umhm. it's a steep site. They look so much smaller. That's why I was asking, because I know one foot would have been typical. But I just wanted to confirm that that is a foot. Yeah, yeah, we created that straight from the surveyors file. So.

[63:12] Okay? And then, Claire, can you pull up a historic, the oldest. earliest image that we have of the historic structure? And I'm not sure who to ask this to. I just kinda wanna see this. So. Kirsten, you might be the best person, just because of your knowledge of the brick. But so just to confirm while Claire is digging this up. there was a brick wall system that sat on top of the stone wall. or that does sit, but there have been modifications made to it.

[64:02] Oh, you're muted so. The the stucco was always on the exterior. The interior wells were brick. and I suppose it was like plaster and most of that needed to be torn out, because I think, because of insulation passively. so there is some exposed brick on the inside, if that's what you're asking just mostly about the wall systems. And I'll explain a little bit when we get into the deliberation piece there. But your your point. 1 point that you're making here is that it's the building has always been stuck out. even originally the brick was stuccoed. Oh, as far as I know.

[65:01] I've never seen any photos of anything else. Yeah, I was able to just pull up the photos from the Lac in 2020 before that Restoration work was done, and it was definitely stucco at that point. I know that's not very far back in the history. But there was stuck on there that definitely had some significant damage, but has been repaired and clear your earliest image. This is it. Okay? So is that stucco? This is 1929 to 1949. It the texture on that, I mean, I'm I'm just curious like. did this. It's hard for me to see, you know I'm looking at my ipad. Here is, is it? We've confirmed that, and and I'll explain. But that's why I say, that looks so much like what it is. Now

[66:00] you see that ridge that goes under the windows. I still have that Yup, you do. Yeah, I wanna talk. Okay. Well, when we get time to for deliberation I'll bring up the things that I'm seeing, and I'll I don't know how it lands. And, Kim, I'd love to hear your thoughts on these topics. But I do think that the building technology is pretty important. And so we'll we'll come to that in in a second here. I think so. You know, if we have more questions, I know that there's a procedural piece here which we're following. But if we have more questions. I'm sure we'll be able to open this back up to you guys. Okay, any more questions from board members before we go to public participation. I would just say, Claire, can you have that picture on easily accessible? I will say the so. Page 4 of the memo. I'm sorry not my video on page 4 of the memo has the picture side by side.

[67:11] so one was 1929, and then the on the right is 1992. So this is the 1929 to 49 photo, and they do look a little different. It could just be the lighting. But you can kind of. See, the differences between. It looks like the original may have been brick and then stuck out over like you can see the change, anyway, if you look on page 4 of the memo. It's hard to tell if there's a difference, but you can see that's Super Chelsea. I don't know if we can pull that up, Claire. Is that possible to drop that other image in? Because I'm hearing from Chelsea is this may not be the earliest image. There's another one that's in this side by side. You can see the differences a little bit better.

[68:04] Yeah. And and she's got it on page 4 of the memo, and they're they're all 4 of them are together. So there's like a the existing one. And then there's this one, and then she has the current pictures as well. So it's kind of easy to see. One question I have for Kirsten. Are the windows original to the house that you live in? Yes. okay. Single pain. Okay. yeah. So some of them have the dividing lights like above this. Vw, they're divided. And then the ones over the garage door looking things they have. They don't have divided lights. They don't have the provided lights. If you go to the right side of the house. Both of those windows there have divided lights.

[69:01] I think one of them is 6 over one and the other one has divided lights on both the top and the bottom. Okay, thanks. Thank you. And Chelsea, thanks for pointing that out because it it is I don't think it's conclusive, but I don't know. So it's interesting to kind of try to figure out what's what's going on. Any other questions before public participation? And Kim and Kirsten, you will have an opportunity for up to 3 min. Rebuttal to anything of the public, as well as you know, potential question or 2 from us, although we try to get them answered, Now, But I think I will turn to Amanda. This is the time for anyone from the public who would like to speak to this Lac, you would have 3 min. We will swear in anyone wishing to speak to this, and you can raise your hand if you're on the zoom call or press star 9. If you'd like to speak to it

[70:13] so far. Oh, let's see, we do have one hand raised at the moment. Lynn Siegel. Okay, we'll go ahead and start with her and then see if anyone else indicate that they'd like to speak to this. And, Lynn, I will need to swear you in for this, as it's quasi-judicial. Yeah, I swore, to tell the truth, to the best of my knowledge, not the truth, a truth. the one that I know. I don't speak for other people. So yeah, it looks to me like this is pretty much good to go. I think. you know, from Grand View and fifteenth to natural hazard Center. You're not gonna really see much to my understanding, although it's kind of unclear, because hillside curves around and stuff there. But,

[71:06] you're not going to really prominently see the additional building? and I'm actually appreciative of the fact that they didn't attach it to the house. and and the house keeps the integrity that it had. And I think, Kim Kim, you you sounded like you were on landmark's board. Maybe you should rent for it. Because, like all your comments were so obviously well fit to the guidelines and that's sincerely I thought you were someone from landmarks board at first. But you probably have better things to do. You sound like a good architect, if that's what you are, or builder. so yeah, I say. looks good to me.

[72:01] Thanks. Thank you, Lynn and Amanda. I'll let you have a few more seconds to see if any one else would like to speak to this item. Am not seeing anybody else. Okay, we'll officially. Oh, okay, we'll officially go ahead and close public participation for item 5 a. And Kim or Kirsten. There is an additional 3 min, if you would like. I don't know that I have anything else, Kirsten, if you I don't have anything else, I appreciate your time, all of you. Oh, thank you, thank you so much. So with that being said, we will move on to board discussion. We do ask that everyone mute your Ca, mute your computer or phone for their duration of this discussion and we will try to do this within a specific timeframe. But, Claire, I believe your slides said 20 min and

[73:09] That might be a little ambitious, but we'll see what we can do, and I will be keeping track of time as we begin. That being said, I don't know if any of my colleagues would like to jump right in. I feel like I can if that's good with people. Would you like that, please? Yes. okay. alright. II just thought maybe doing a little like building diagnostics piece could be helpful to frame just what I see for a second and so I'm just gonna oops. If you could remove that thing that just showed up. Okay, I think the base of this building that's the historic building is stone. Think we're all in agreement there. I think what's said on top of stone was another material. It sounds like it's brick.

[74:01] and it seems oh, sorry. I was just gonna add that they in the looks like they've pulled the information that it was stuck up right. If if let me get through the whole thing and then stop code today. But like the point that I'm trying to make here is. you know. okay, let me undo that. So those are the parts right? Those are 2 parts that are historic parts. also, there's an appendage on this building which was framed out of wood because you can't susp you. They wouldn't have suspended brick or masonry flo like floating out over space. Okay? And now, what are the details? Okay? And then the other thing is the roof form, which I'll get back to in a second. Okay? So now, I'm pretty confident that those are the parts. I think people have said that. So

[75:06] in a wooden wall you get windows that sit in a wood frame that get trimmed like you see here in a brick wall. they put a brick rollock around the base of the building, and I'm just going to hop over to the other image. I think at some point we should look at those windows. I bet these windows are trimmed differently because they're actually in a cavity in the wall cavity. So they don't have the trim. That is the trim that's detailed on the left. They're actually recessed in the wall. And so you could go look at that. And so the detailing of the window tells a story about the material that's set behind it. And the so so just to save the recessed windows. sit in brick walls. and the

[76:05] brick sits on top of masonry, because that's how heavy things work. You can do that. The appendages on the primary structure, which is basically a rectangle, are these telescoping things, and those are likely wood. And they've got the wood detailing. And so I think that in general that is kind of the architectural language of walls and windows, and then the detailing of those you know come about because the building technology. And so I recognize that the image in the lower right and the go out there today, the buildings are stuck out and perhaps they even stuck with the building right after they put the brick up, which I would find highly unlikely. But let's just say that they did. One other thing I want to point out is, you build this masonry box, which I'm just gonna draw the full box. And and then you add the wooden addition. But you also, you see this form in the background.

[77:04] That is the primary roof form. There's a break line that's right here. That brake line denotes where the Wood Trust said on top of the brick home. And so all of those little things just add up to give the the building some detail. And so that's one piece of the thing I wanted to talk about, which is like the diagnostic of the building. And then I wanted to talk about the proposal. If you guys are up for it. If we could look at any of the proposed images, I just wanna kind of tie those together, and what we're talking about. And then brainstorm with everybody on some of things that we just mentioned. because the so clear. If you could bring up any of the images, one of the images from above, looking back, I think, would probably be the best. But

[78:02] That looks back across the historic structure to the proposal. I think maybe a good starting point. But I think that that's the language, right? So if we're looking for compatibility. That's that's like one of the levels of of conversation. So, Claire, if you bring that up, I'll do a little drawing here. cause I kinda wanna take a step back. Now, this is kind of Renee. I'm sure you're interested in this, too. So cause I've already heard you talk about it. So I'm just gonna take a step back. Now talk about the building form. because the things I just mentioned are kind of the details. But the building form. So I will just say, I know that this checks a lot of options in terms of criteria, but I think that the building looks very suburban in nature. And obviously you put a garage as the front of a house, and you're automatically going to get that characteristic but one of the things that

[79:05] makes it particularly, I think, more garage. which I think is part of the suburban quality of it is that There's a section of this building, which is roughly this area to the right, that is actually house that is made to look like it is part of what looks like garage. And so oftentimes. you know, I think if we're trying to diminish the this is the biggest thing that I kinda wanna point out. So if we're trying to diminish the presence of garage, which I think is atypical of the historic character of this site. I mean, it was underneath the historic building. But let's just say you want to diminish the historic or diminish the quality of a garage. What you would do is kind of the opposite of what is done here, you would try to dress more of the garage like its house.

[80:05] In this case more of the house is dressed like garage. and so just to point out like the house. Interior space stops where that red line is. If you look at it and plan. and the garage form goes all the way back to there. So it almost looks like a really long double card tandem garage. And so I think that that is one of the things that, I would say, makes this less conforming to the historic characteristics of the site and the desire in general to diminish garage. and so the simplest would be, try to incorporate it. So it is literally describing where the break line occurs programmatically inside. And I would say, that's a minimum bar. The second bar would be you know. Try to make the house

[81:02] look like it's bigger than the garage, and the way that you do that is the way in which the applicant has already done it in certain locations, which is jog the building form to create coroners and change the material. So that is one comment that I what's one thing that I would like to discuss. But before we finish that Clara, if you could go to the elevation that just looks at the garage from that direction. Okay, the other things that are happening here primarily relate to the building height. But it's the plate that I want to talk about you know, I recognize that the garage's roof is lower than the living quarters roof. It is definitely doing that. It is minimally different. But the thing I just want to point out there's a couple of things on this elevation. First of all, you do. I think the applicant is proposing a pretty modest garage plate height.

[82:06] It's 8 feet. Sorry. Give me one sec. My computer's freaking out. So it's 8 feet. But, as you can see here, that's measured from top of foundation. Give me one sec. Guys, my computer just went nuts. Okay? So it's measured from top of foundation. Top of foundation is here, and then the garage door is down there. That's normal, right? Cause the slab is sloping so that 8 feet you're adding another something to it. I don't know 8 inches or something. So now you got 8 inches more, and then over here you get an extra foot and change. which is the heel height of the trust. Now that all makes sense. If you're trying to get the primary building space, which is the living space under the garage roof form, which is what the applicants done. And that's kind of what I was saying. You might wanna change that. The. So I think that there are ways to change that, and I would encourage that. The other thing is, how do you make this garage more subordinate? Well, you bring this roof down

[83:11] significantly. and then it will look less like you're trying to pull a really large vehicle into a really long garage that's almost like hanger quality. And so I would propose that we encourage or discuss, possibly requiring is one of the conditions. 2 of the conditions is to diminish the overall presence of the garage by changing the break, location and material and form. that I talked about a minute ago, and then the second thing would be reduce the height of the roof of the garage to make the garage less of a presence.

[84:00] and to make the other building or the other part of the building more of a presence. Tho, those are the big things. And I have a couple of other little things, and they're important. There's here on the page. So I'm gonna Sam like if if we're going to go for the approach that makes it look like masonry or 2 doors, then the thing between the doors needs to be like the field of material that it is in. So it looks like a hole. 2 small poles, not one big pole. So I think we have a mirror, 2 thing material change, and then there's more to talk about. But Claire's first thing she says, this is a building with wide over hangs, etc., etc., etc. This building does not have wide over hangs. and so II think that if the building had overhangs that were in similar dimensions and scale of the historic structure. That would go a tremendous way in making this building more compatible with the historic structure.

[85:03] and while I have a handful of other details to talk about. Those are kind of my major talking points. Thank you for kicking off the discussion with all of that, Ronnie. Chelsea or Renee. I don't know if I don't want to follow that. No Chelsea or Renee. I don't know if you'd like to go next. I wanna kind of II don't know what it is. I guess II when Ronnie, you're talking about this like being a suburban feel, and it for not to be like, you know, the garage is the house sort of thing, and the only thing I wanna like kind of, maybe it's a discussion for something else. But like it is the garage. So like we don't wanna really make it look like this was the primary house with the garage, and then the other house. As I like your details that you're like the style that you're talking about. And so I just when I was hearing you, I was like, but

[86:10] I want the other house to shine like I don't want someone like 50 years from now to come in and be like, Oh, look at! What's that little thing over there like? We don't really want that thing so I think that the the, the garage beam. I like the other details you did. I like the style, what you're talking about. I like that you're lowering the roof structure, because that was one of my like. One of my comments was just that it is in mass and scale on the 2D. Looking down. It, of course, is bigger than the main house and footprint. and then you know, the thing is is that one is super tall, 2 story structure. And this is a one story structure. But even if it could be a little bit more petite. and then it would be subordinate to the bigger house. So I was looking more about the the mass and the scale. and I really like your comments.

[87:10] for all this, the size, the style, and all those things, and I think that that would achieve the the scaling like to bring down the the ridge of the roof to be less. Then the main house, and that would follow within the guidelines and and then my other comments were just to talk about the the windows. But Ronnie, but in the whole other things which I appreciate like I do love the idea of putting that stucco, the field of material in between the 2 doors. Then it actually does feel like a carriage door. You could even widen them a little bit and make it feel that way. And lowering. I do love the idea of lowering the the garage height so that it feels more like a little carriage house.

[88:02] Then then the garage in the suburban area. But so that was my only comments to say, Thank you, Rene. I'm sure we'll hear from you again. I don't really think I have any comments to add. I mean. I think there were good some good suggestions in the memo about meeting the criteria I'm always. I always live on the edge of as long as it meets the criteria. I don't know how much like we should overlay our subjective ideas of how to make this a better project that's out of the purview of the landmarks board, just because, you know, we're adding time money process to this, and I think we should be. Try to be very clear about like what we have purview over. And yeah, II mean, I do.

[89:07] I do. I do like Renee's comment about like the garage looking like a garage, so that it does feel more subsidiary to the home. Other than that. I don't have any issues with it. I'm really excited that they're adding an adu. We need more housing, and this is a great way to do it. This is a really like thoughtful addition to the house that could potentially create more housing for folks. So I'm really excited about that, and it looks like it'll be a decent enough size of an adu. where, you know, maybe a like a a couple could live there, or some very small family. So yeah. thi, thank you, Chelsea, and again, thank you for reminding us that on anything we vote, on, whether we vote yea or nay, it really has to be based on the criteria in the code and design guidelines. And so I wanna be mindful of that. I wanna thank you, Kim, for these drawings and renderings because it helps me as a non architect, really see what's proposed. And, Kirsten, thank you for your stewardship.

[90:19] This just delightful charming, I mean, it's almost a story Book house. So so we really appreciate that my initial reaction to this. And I thought, so. Claire, I would like to you to bring up the slide that talks about kind of to how to guide our discussion and decision making this evening. You know how to look at this. I think one reason I thought that there was definitely a path forward, for this, with its size and everything. is the size of the lot, and also sort of where it's being proposed. I know that that it's not gonna be as visible

[91:00] as it would maybe on other properties in other locations. So I think that the direction it's going is is really good. I think I do tend to agree with Ronnie and Renee. that I could see where, if the garage roof, height, roof height was reduced that that might make it just appear just that it it's the math, and skills sometimes can stay the same. But it's more how it looks. And I think that might just visually redo it would reduce it. I think that one of the things because you've done such a beautiful job with the design, Claire, you helped me with this in your presentation, when you said it was reflective, not replicating it, because we also want things to be of their time, and we want somebody, whether it's in 2 years or 20 years to be able to know what's the historic resource, and that this was a newer build at a different time. So II did think that you did such a great job. It was really so compatible that that you know, I wanna be sure we're a little bit mindful of making sure that the final end result is can be easily distinguished from from the wonderful cottage. So

[92:20] and Ronnie and Renee, we always welcome your comments, and I know, but I do think it might be easier if if my colleagues agree. If we do go with the with question. Number one first about is the mass scale and location of the proposed building appropriate. and I think it is personally, although I could see a little reduction in the garage portion, especially in the Rift farm. I think it is as well. Thank you. So II agree. I love the location on the site.

[93:01] I love that. It's a accessory dwelling unit. It's in a great location. It gives a buffer from the see you building. That's huge, and your house, Kirsten, so that will be really lovely. So and I think that Kim has located on the site in a really great location. And I do think it's far enough away. That it meets the mass and scale. I just I would like to make just the comment of making it just a tad bit shorter and sweeter of a building than so massive. Yeah, I think that this is a larger accessory structure, then what may get approved on other properties in relation to the historic footprint.

[94:01] I think the square footage, including the garage square footage is approvable. I think the characterization of the building. in terms of its mass and scale could be improved by reducing the presence of the program of the garage, and what appears to be the program of the garage through reducing the plate height in the garage which is bringing the roof form down, which is what Rene, I think, was interested in, and that I spoke about. and through reducing the linear nature of the area that looks like garage through a change in articulation and or a change in materiality that at a minimum matches the program behind it. Well, go ahead. I just, I recognize this question about what's in our purview.

[95:05] And I also want to say, like, there is subjectivity in the interpretation of the criteria which is our purpose. and we could go back into the criteria and talk in greater detail about mascot location, accessory structure garage. I mean, we're really kind of tying this thing into an accessory use when, in fact, it is, it has a larger floor area than the historic structure. So it just happens to fall in this like accessory designation, but like the things that I'm sharing about the presence of the garage and the dominance of it in this form. I think, are the challenge that, bringing it into a more diminutive presence, in height and length, not through changing its floor, not to change square footage through, but through the characterization of its height and material would allow this to be in compliance. And then the last thing I just want to say is.

[96:09] I don't think anybody's gonna misinterpret this as the non historic structure. If you do every little trick. I don't think creating a higher Ella, like a a more elevated building. is going to diminish the historic character of the historic structure. I think. making sure that we are still being honest to the history and the the story. and not being con confuse. Confusing information is part of the role. But I don't think what we need to do is I and I know that this isn't what you're saying, but and I know. So the applicant hasn't done this. But just in general, for as as a group here, we don't have to make a worse building in order to make a landmark

[97:04] structure or historic structure like. Be better. And thank you for saying that. And I think Renee said it. And perfectly, we want to make sure the historic building. The original house shines. and this proposal is is far along in doing that. Yeah. And I think Ronnie was maybe accounting to my point about the garage reading as the main house and things like that, but I also think a good point in talking about the guidelines and mass and scale, and how Ronnie's going into more of the minutia of the building. There is this gray area, but within these grey area details. You actually get the mass and the scale down to a point where it is reading not to be like. Just with these little details, like we can have the square footage and Chelsea like. Can you know, I know Chelsea loves that, you know it's a ad you and things like this, so we're not reducing the actual mass and scale. But with these little details and tweaks it will actually look less

[98:10] like that. So I think that is I don't think Ronnie's actually speaking to changing and increasing the cost, but just tweaking little parts of it. As lowering the roof structure, you know, less materials will actually save a little bit of money. So I think that I think that that's speaking to the areas of this gray area where it's the guidelines, and we're gonna follow the guidelines, and it's black and white. But within this black and white is the gray area, and we can make it read even better so. And this is the most unique ad use. But I think the property totally allows for. And I also know we're not going to get all those details decided tonight. You know we all foresee that happening with conditions placed on this that would come back to L Drc. Review. Ronnie, are you willing to kind of segment? Segue your comments about the roof, and all of that into question, too, about the reform and general solid to void ratio.

[99:12] Yeah, yeah, that's about. I mean, I can definitely do that. So the general roof form, I think. is reflective and you know, it is referencing the historic structure. Ii think it is appropriate and approvable the overhangs of the roof form, I think, do not reference the historic structure, and with such a simple structure I think, should match dimensionally the the overhang dimensions

[100:01] that you know the bit, both the lookouts and the tails. So both directions gable ends and you know, use. And so it's just in terms of the root form. I think that the the pitch of this. These roofs are appropriate. The overall lengths, I think. should be reconsidered, and be similar to the historic structure. And then, just to go again to the reduction of height. reducing the height of the garages. Areas, roof form will also bring this building into greater compliance because it'll reduce the volume of what looks like. It's the head above the garage. And it will make the roof form look like it's sitting on the room below in a way in which the historic structures roof form, and rooms. Behave.

[101:07] And Kevin Kirsten, I don't know if you've ever been through the Ldrc process, but what I value about that is, there's much more of a dialogue and conversation that really isn't something that's part of this public hearing tonight with you guys as much as we'd love it to be. It's really through that process, for those things get discussed. Renee or Chelsea. Anything more on a question, too. That's in front of us this evening. I don't have anything to add. Yeah, I don't at this point, and and thank you to to the architects that can always articulate it in such a way. What about the window and door opening and their adherence to the general design? Guidelines? So I think that I think that what I'm hearing everybody say is that it is approvable with some conditions to go to the Ldrc. So a lot of my comments about the windows are just going back to the original

[102:14] his historical photos and talking about. I think I mentioned where the sidelights are, and then where they aren't so I don't know. Abby, if you want to talk in that detail, or if we just make a note well, I think where that would become important is articulating that in a condition on emotion. Okay. But but you know, we'd need to know what you're thinking. And I'm just gonna point out, guys, we're just. We're almost to 30 min for this discussion. But II know this is a very important hearing. And, Kirsten, this is your house, and Kim, and you wanna move forward. So let's keep going a little bit longer. And but I don't know, Renee, if you're to appoint what you could say. You'd like to be considered as a condition, or if you want

[103:09] yes, I think that. My! What I would like to see is the condition is. I mean, you can see where Ronnie did point out quite well that the house was the main structure, and then there was a little bump out. That was obviously a wood, and it looks like maybe that was if if that was added on later, or if it was added on, I mean, we don't know. But the house on the the right side in the picture has the grid. Had the gritted windows above, she said. It's like 6 to 2, and so I think the guidelines show that we need something simpler. So even just having them be playing glass with no grid in it, I think works well. I think the double hung is a fine

[104:00] I think that's fine to keep, if that's what she likes the double homes to match, because I think it gives it a cottage. Feel but just having it not be got the divided lights. I think meets the guidelines. II and I agree. It makes it read more like the accessory building that they're trying to achieve. Ronnie. Anything on that. Yeah, I mean, just in general. you know, this building that's that's proposed is very simple. It's very, very simple. And so I think if the other details of the building are brought up to greater articulation. That would be great, and also counterbalance this design, guideline point about the simplicity of the windows. and so in general. Yes, I think that's that's recommendation. On the simplification of windows through the removal of divided lights. Is consistent with the guidelines, and it will help tell the correct story about the buildings and the era of time. And then I do think that the other details need to be brought up a little bit in order to counterbalance that, because right now the building is very simple.

[105:20] and you know at least the garage portion of it. and then How do board members feel about the appropriateness of the proposed materials? And I don't know if anyone would like Claire to bring up a slide that address it. Claire. I can't remember, too. I'm going to look up what the suggested motion language was as well. II can jump in here. I think that the Re proposed material palette is consistent with the design guidelines. And this slide is a really great representation of that. It's like, where are these things coming from? Where are they on the historic structure?

[106:02] Some of the things that we that I was saying is part of the building diagnostic piece just like, what? What are those details? Where do these things occur? Why are there break lines? Why is there a continuous band of sill underneath the windows, you know. Again, it had to do with the building technology. But I do think that some of that language, if extracted a little bit, and it doesn't need to be used one to one in the same way. That it was because of the building technology, in the new proposal. But I think if some of those things are looked at more closely and brought into the historic structure, it could help to create greater division of kind of the overall volumes and massing of this building. So yeah. II agree with that as well. I don't know Chelsea or Renee. If you want to add anything about the materials in this sheet really helps Kim. Thank you so much.

[107:04] So one thing that would be consistent with the guidelines and with the windows is the detail of it being like a little darker. I think it's a cute little detail, so I like it on there, and some I more or less wanna ask the following board members, do you think that making it the same color as the trim would help with the simplicity or II when I look at it on the, on, the picture on the far left. I like it that it's like a darker color. And it follows in. So I like. I think it's a sweet detail, and I would like to keep it. But I'm just wondering if anyone else reads it as you could keep it as a simplistic detail. and that would fall more with the guidelines. Oh, sorry! Go ahead, Chelsea.

[108:05] I you know, Chelsea, that's sort of my reaction when I was thinking, I don't have a really strong feeling. And I also know just because Ldr. See is so much more collaborative. And sometimes we see even more details if it's at one or 2 different meetings that I think that could be. But that's a really good comment. I don't have a yeah. And maybe it's just just an a note rather than anything that needs to be written up today. So I guess I was just making a note to the materials. I think overall materials are great and consistent, and they can be built, and we can move forward and we'll deal with that comment later. Thank you, Ronnie. Anything. No, I agree with Renee. so I think we're to a point, and I don't ever wanna stifle conversation. I mindful. We have another public hearing, and II don't I. What I'm hopeful for Kim and Kirsten is that this is helpful and that you're getting back feedback that you can discuss how it works with what you really want to achieve here, based on our feedback. But, Claire, I think we're ready to see a proposed motion

[109:17] in the where. and I know we always put you on the spot when we add a few conditions in. So I was taking some notes, and the conditions, I added, are the ones that are highlighted in yellow. These ones were the ones that were already in the recommended motion. So if you want me to make any changes to those. let me know. I mean I'll give everybody a moment to read this. and let Claire know if you want changes, or if any one is ready

[110:06] at some point to put forth a motion. So I'm just gonna talk logistics just for a second on number 8. Does this mean that when they come back, that the they have to reduce the plate height? Or is this just mean like. I would rather you mean, like, consider reducing? Yeah? Yeah. Cause I mean, maybe there's another way of proposing that if they really want to get. you know, a semi truck in there then. Just kidding, but I don't wanna I don't wanna for us to, you know. And then we come back in the reduced height, and it just kind of boxes them into something. So I guess that's what I was just asking. Okay, are you more comfortable with that? Yeah. I mean, I was more or less asking Claire and you know. And, Marcy, if we say that, then they have to come back with that. So

[111:03] yeah, I do know. There are times we've said, explore. Consider, you know. as part of the conditions as a Gotcha instead of like mandating it. I think what Renee is asking is if it doesn't say that, then it is part of the conditions of approval, and yes, it if it has to. If it doesn't say if it says explicitly, has to do something, then it has to do it in order to achieve approval. If that if my other board members feel that that's works. I also I think it's much better. Ronnie. Anything you would like to see changed in the motion, or added. I feel like this sounds good. I think these capture all the ideas. Letter E seems like it's 2 thoughts. I mean, I know that they both relate to the garage, but it does seem like one thought should be reducing the plate height in the garage.

[112:04] and the second one should be making a material change or a building articulation like a exterior wall. Articulation. occur. either with a program changes in the garage. The program changes to garage or deeper into the garage to reduce the garage's presence. That was a dog. No, I agree. I agree with that, Ronnie and Claire. Thank you so much, because we? I know we put you on the spot to amend. Mo. Suggested motions on the fly. So thank you. You can see how bad my typing is. Okay. Did I capture it, Ronnie?

[113:00] He had to deal with the dog. II have to. That was it. For a minute I was afraid it was my husband. Okay? So for me, this looks like a good motion. I don't know if there's anyone interested in making one, or has any last minute change before we proceed. II think this captures it. I I'd be willing to make a motion. please, Ronnie. Claire, do you mind pulling that up? And then I'm assuming that we can come back to this, and I could read the conditions. I move that the landmarks board adopt the staff memorandum, dated March sixth, 2024, as the findings of the board and conditionally approved landmark alteration certificate to construct new accessory building at 1590 Hillside road, a contributing property in the hillside historic district, as shown on the plans dated December 20, ninth, 2023.

[114:05] Finding that the proposal meets the standards for issuing to the landmark alteration certificate in chapter 9, 1118 brc. 1981, and is generally consistent with the general design. Guidelines provided that the stated conditions are met. One, the applicant shall be responsible for completing the work in compliance with the approved plans, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. Prior to submitting a building permit application of final issuance of the landmark, alteration certificate, the applicant shall submit the following, which will be subject to final review and approval by the Landmarks. Design Review Committee to ensure that the final design of the addition is consistent with the general design guidelines, and the intent of this approval. Conditions revise Revised Architectural Plan, showing a materiality of proposed walkways and patio B window and door, including garage door details to confirm. They are simpler in detail than similar elements on primary structure trimmed with material similar in scale, proportion, finish, and character. To those used traditionally. See details of stucco type proposed to show compatibility with primary structure

[115:19] parentheses, traditional stucco rather than synthetic color, matched, etc., and parentheses, d. Details of any exterior mechanical systems lighting guttering etc., not currently shown on plans E. Consider reducing plate, height, and garage portion F. Consider making material change or wall articulation parentheses, either with a program either at the program changed to the garage. or deeper into the garage and parentheses to reduce God, garage presence. G. Modify the divider between the garage doors to match material of wall in General H. Increase overhang of eaves and lookouts at gable ends

[116:05] to match historic structure. I eliminate divided lights and windows. Do we have a second for this motion. Sorry on a motion by Ronnie. Second, to buy, Renee will take a roll call. Vote chat, Chelsea. Hi. Renee. Ronnie, and I vote I. So the motion passes unanimously, and Claire will take a few minutes to explain next steps. But I think we're all excited to see how this evolves and transpires. Yup. I'm already unmuted. Thank you, Abby. Yes, next steps are that. Oh, hang on! I have a slide. Let me find that really quick.

[117:01] Sure I show you the right one. Okay. alright. So next steps City Council has up to 16 days to decide whether they will review or call up the decision. If they don't call it up the conditions of the lac will be reviewed by the Landmark's design Review. Commit committee and those conditions, once they're satisfied the Lac will be issued. So in the unlikely case, that city council wants to review the decision. We will schedule a hearing, but we'll let you know. Currently we have the and on the agenda for council to call up by March twenty-first. So that that will be the deadline. so we will be in touch before then to just fill you in and give you all the the next steps. In writing, cause it's much easier than doing it at a meeting at at 80'clock. Alright, so thank you very much.

[118:07] Thank you. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Everyone. Yeah. thanks. Again. you, you know, one note about the these ads that we're gonna be getting in the historic district is that like they're the code is allowing for a bigger unit. So this will be a discussion further in other if the site allows. But I think it's exciting. And this site certainly allows something of that size. So we are ready to move on to Item 5 B, our final public hearing tonight. But do. Does anyone staff or or board members need to take a few minute break? I see Ronnie's hand up so it's 80'clock. Let's reconvene at 805 pm.

[119:04] okay. so back to 805, and okay. And I just was hoping whoever is managing the allowing us to be panelists if you could allow me back in cause. This laptop's about to die. But I'm gonna come in as somebody else. I'm already in in the other room here as my wife, who probably isn't so. Amanda can help you. Yes, so if you could, if you could allow her as a panelist or presenter, that'd be great. I'll be right back as I'm gonna leave. Her name's Erin. Yes, Amanda. Yeah.

[120:33] Claire, I think you're still there. Can you hear me? Okay, awesome. I can hear you, too. Oh, great! You changed my name. Thank you. I'll see you in a second. Maybe that was you, Amanda. Thank you.

[126:11] I see Marcy's back. Who will be doing agenda? Item 5 B. Let me make sure. And Chelsea, I think we're ready to begin. Marcy, if you are on agenda. Item 5 B. Which is a public hearing and consideration of a motion to adopt a resolution to initiate the process for landmark designation pursuant to section 9, 11, 3 of the Boulder Revised Code. or to issue a demolition approval. Pursuant to section 9, 1123. Boulder Revised Code for 1015, Juniper Avenue. Alright, thank you, Abby. This initiation hearing is legislative in nature, so the procedure is slightly different than our typical quasi judicial hearings. So the main difference is that the board does not need to reveal any ex parte contacts, but the rest of the hearing is similar. We'll start with the staff presentation, followed by board questions.

[127:18] The owner will then have 10 min to present, followed by board questions. The public hearing is then opened for 3 min, each followed by board questions, and then, after the last person has spoken, the the public hearing is closed and the board discusses, and if appropriate adopts a resolution to initiate the landmark designation process, or to vote to approve the demolition. So this application started back in September when we accepted a demolition application. September nineteenth. The following day the Ldrc reviewed the application and referred it to the Landmarks Board for reviewing a public hearing.

[128:07] and that was held on November first, and at that meeting the Board voted to place a stay of demolition on the application. Finding the building was there was probable cause to believe the building was eligible for landmark designation and to provide time to consider alternatives. During this day of demolition, staff and representatives of the landmarks board met with the applicant to discuss alternatives, and then at the Board's last meeting on February seventh the board voted to schedule a hearing to initiate landmark designation prior to the expiration of the stay or in the alternative. Approve the demolition. So that brings us to today. March sixth, 2024 tonight is the hearing to either initiate the the designation process or issue a demolition approval.

[129:02] So the Board has 3 options in front of you this evening. The first is to not initiate landmark designation, and the stay of demolition would continue until March 20 fifth. If the Board allows the State to expire, then we will approve the demolition application after March 20 fifth. Your second option is to initiate the designation of the property as an individual landmark. and you would do so by adopting a resolution that's included in your packet as attachment. A. The hearing would then be held between 60 and 120 days, which would be between May and July. and your third option is to approve the demolition application. That approval is valid for a hundred days. The criteria for your review. For the first part, which is the initiation, is found in Section 9, 11, 3 of the Boulder revised Code.

[130:01] and the first items in 9 11, 3D. Refer back to 9, 11, one, and 9, 11, 2, to outline the purposes and standards used to determine if the Board has probable cause to believe the building may be eligible for designation as an individual landmark. In addition, 9, 11 3D. Directs the Board to review the application based on, and whether there are currently resources available to complete outreach and analysis. If there is community and neighborhood support, if the building needs protection provided through designation. If the proposed designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. or if the proposed designation would generally be in the public interest. This hearing is legislative, so the Board can consider any information heard the property is located at 1015 juniper, which is on the north side of Juniper Avenue, just west of Broadway, in the front of the building to Juniper.

[131:12] The one story house was constructed in 25, and it's an example of the bungalow form incorporating elements from the craftsman style. The bungalow form shows up in its one and a half story house, with a front gable roof overhanging eaves, and simple horizontal lines. The secondary gable covers a porch that was originally opened and supported by a battered porch column. The elements of the castle style are seen on all elevations, with overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails, triangular, grimy braces, narrow laps sighting and divided lights in upper windows. The house retains a very high degree of architectural integrity, since its construction alterations include enclosure of the front porch in 1991 addition of a glass bay windows within the existing openings on the east and north elevations, painting the concrete block foundation and replacing the wood shingle roof with asphalt. After 1995

[132:15] turning to the history of the property by 1915 the property was part of Tract 3 70, which was purchased and split many times over the years. Jacob Simon and his wife Eva owned the land from 1921, and were likely the ones to have built the house. They sold it to Lynn and Frida Mcintosh. In 1941. Lynn died in 52, but the Mackintosh family continued to own the house for 37 years and free to live there until 60. The property was most recently subdivided in 1989 to split off 1025 juniper, which you can see in the dashed line in the image on the right. Turning to the staff, analysis of the criteria found in the code staff, found that the building does have historic significance for its association with Lin and Fred Mac and Freedom Macintosh

[133:11] Lynn lived in the house, as I mentioned, from 1941. Until his death in 1952 he served as the deputy sheriff, clerk of the county court and county treasurer. His wife Frieda, lived at the House from 1941 until 1960. She was the second woman to hold the office of Boulder County treasurer, and did so from her husband's death. For 18 years the family owned the property until 1978. In addition, Staff found the building to be significant for its architecture as the bungalow incorporating elements of the craftsman's style. including that porch posts, triangular knee braces, and divided up the window length. The next criteria asked about whether there are currently resources available that would allow the city manager to complete the community. Outreach and historic analysis

[134:06] and initiation of designation over an owner's objection requires additional staff resources, including that outreach and analysis. And there are limited staff resources available to process applications for designation when the owner is not in support, diverting resources away from other board and program priorities is not recommended. Next looks at whether there has been a community or neighborhood support. and there has been some over the course of the process. At the November first hearing, 3 members of the public spoke, and 2 members of the public wrote in support of preservation. One member of the public, spoken, 4 members of the public wrote in support of demolition. and during the state of demolition one community member has attended meetings and written to reiterate their support for preserving the building.

[135:03] Next we look at whether the buildings or features need the protection provided through designation. There is an active demolition application for the house and accessory buildings. The Ldrc. In September determined that the accessory buildings were not potentially eligible for designation, and approved for demolition. and if the Board does not take action on the demolition application prior to the March 20, fifth expiration of the say of demolition. The demolition of the House and Accessor buildings will be approved for section 9, 1123 of the Boulder Revised Code. Next we looked at the reasonable balance. So that's the Landmarks board may consider whether in balance the proposed designation is is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. The Comp plan does not speak specifically to designation over an owner's objection.

[136:00] Staff and members of the Landmark Board met with the owner to discuss possible. Alternatives throughout the stay. But no alternatives were found due to the location of the existing house within the regulatory fema 100 Year Flood claim and the conveyance Zone staff considers that designating the property or initiating the designation process over the owner's objection would not represent a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public's interest during the stay staff in the landmark explored representatives discussed alternatives, including preservation in place within the 100 year flood plain on site relocation within the flood plain and or conveyance zone off site, relocation and salvage of materials. Conversations included the benefits and incentives for designation, including using the existing building on as an onsite accessory building.

[137:00] However, the building is within the regulatory theme, month 100 year flood zone and is 7.2 inches below the required flood protection, elevation it would. The building must be elevated if rehabilitation or improvements exceed thresholds of about $105,000, or 801 square feet. So Staff does not consider incorporation of the existing house into the redevelopment of plans of the site to be economically feasible and given the cost of relocation of the house and the location within the flood, plain and conveyance zone staff does not consider on site relocation to be feasible. The northern portion of the lot is in the conveyance zone and the area regulated by Section 9 3, 4 of the boulder revised Code. That's what really students applicants consider that there is limited room to. To relocate the home to the north

[138:00] and the staff. considers that it would be cost, prohibitive or infeasible, to relocate the existing building within the zone or elsewhere on the property. and although there is potential for relocating the building off site. It's likely economically infeasible. And most often the biggest constraint is finding a lot that that can take house applicants did not provide specific cost estimates, but noted that the cost to relocate the property offsite proved to be extremely cost prohibitive. We included this in the memo and on the screen. If it's helpful to reference back to with the blue shows the 100 year flood plain, and the green is the conveyance which crosses the rear of the phone. So to remind the board of your options this evening, you can either take no action, and do not initiate landmark designation. You may initiate designation of the property as an individual landmark by adopting the resolution, or you may vote to approve the demolition.

[139:14] So that concludes Staff's presentation, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have as a reminder of the process. The applicant will then have 10 min to present, followed by public participation. And then board deliberation. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. I'm not really seeing any for you, Marcy, at this point. and if no one has any, we will move on, then to African presentation. Marcy, do you know who will be speaking to this tonight. I believe it's Zachary. But please correct me if I'm wrong.

[140:05] click! And I won't need to swear, Zachary in, or whoever is speaking. That's right. This is legislative. Oh, Zach, zachary has his hand raised made. I think you could promote him. But it's a we'll ask if anyone else from applicant team is planning to to speak. I see a couple of others from there a team.

[141:01] Alright, Zachary, you should have the ability to turn on your camera and unmute your microphone. There you go. I think that worked. There we go. Is there anyone else from your team that's planning to speak under the applicant's presentation? Or and who might that be? We do have, Don ash with site works who performed the floodplain and structural analysis of the building. So he's available, maybe during the QA. To highlight some of the more technical questions, and Adam to see us from our design side is also available as well. Okay, wonderful. Thank you. Yeah. And when I think Amanda is on on it. But you'll have 10 min to present. I have your slides ready. Just tell me when to advance. And your 10 min will bring us to about 8 33

[142:03] great, thank you. Yeah. So first and foremost, I just like to thank Staff and the board just for the open communication and discussion. And understanding through this 6 month process. You know, we we looked at quite a bit, and just appreciate the the communication and dialogue and the understanding of some of the challenges regarding the current home and the property itself. I so a lot of this Marcy you already touched on. But this was just a quick background. you know, we went through the 6 months day of demolition. We had 2 meetings workshop on November 20, eighth, and an on-site on January eighth and really those discussions were centered around the difficulties of this particular location in terms of preservation.

[143:09] Mostly due to the 2 flood plains that intersect on the slot. I think the Onsite meeting was very helpful as well to a see the home in person and just observe kind of the overall neighborhood context of of juniper and you know, we had several discussions of just the financial hardship of renovating. And and really, the key. Here is the renovation kind of triggers, this flood plain compliance. Which we can touch on in a bit. So during the initial workshop meeting. There were several several several kind of prominent questions. The first of which was, were there any exceptions or exemptions in the flood? Plain regulations?

[144:01] That would essentially allow the house to be in its current state and not be raised, and from our analysis no, there was no femur city of boulder exceptions for flood plain compliance. Once you trigger? The yeah, the the financial improvement level? Which is on the next slide? The second question was, is it possible to raise the house? And you know the short answer is, yes, anything is is possible. You know, to an extent. But the act of raising this house and then moving it. and then rebuilding a foundation and replacing it, proved to be extremely. financially implausible. And then we explore just the different building envelopes with on within the site. As I mentioned Prior, the home and the property sits within 2 flood plains. It's a hundred year flood plain, and the conveyance zone that runs through.

[145:08] you know, a good part of the the Northern property line. So it really is limiting on where this home can move on property. And then the discussion on relocation as Marcy touched on Fe finding a vacant lot in boulder is very difficult. And then the cost to relocate it. It just exceeds the cost to build, you know, for new construction. And we did not have any real viable solutions for that during our time looking at it. This is the site plan. The main takeaways. Here is the home cannot be located the home or any structure, for that matter, cannot be located within the 6 within the rear, 60 feet of the lot. The current home does not even comply with the front 25

[146:01] foot front yard setback, meaning the home, if it were to be moved, would have to be moved back even closer to that conveyance zone. The zoning of this lot requires a total of 25 feet side yard setbacks. So it's just a very constrained site which you can kind of see on the next slide. We tried to outline this a bit better visually. So these red areas are essentially the unbuildable portions of the lot the the top of the page. Here Were that thicker black line comes across that indicates the conveyance zone. Which fema and city of boulder. Do not allow any structures in that area. The side yard setbacks are also highlighted in red as well as the front yard. 15 foot setback. The blue area is buildable, but still lies within the 100 year flood floodplain.

[147:06] which requires certain first floor elevations and does not allow for any basements. and from our prior presentation. And you guys may know that this home currently does have a basement that does not comply. so under Fema and Boulder county, like, or city of boulder land use regulations. Any improvement of the home over a hundred $4,000, which is based on the assessed value of the home would require full compliance with the flood protection elevation which is moving the home or sorry re raising the home to a higher elevation and removing the basement which has proved obviously to be a financial hardship on the owner.

[148:08] Just a bit of background on the owners. The owners did purchase this property property specifically because it was outside of a historical district. Knowing, you know, the constraints of a historical district. It was marketed on the Mls as essentially a new build opportunity. And I think it's also worth noting that the current owners, the lilies you know, are not purchasing this property, for you know a strict investment purpose. This is to be their family home. They have quite a large family. The current home on site does not meet those needs. So you know, I know it's more of a qualitative analysis, but it it is, you know, a desire to have a home that can facilitate their family, that they didn't feel was met by the current structure.

[149:07] So through the process it was our understanding that, you know, we were to look at cost, condition, and relation to the surrounding area. obviously there were a lot of floodplain constraints which we touch touched on, and you know, are highlighted in depth in the site works engineering report, and Don is on the zoom here, too. If you have any more specific questions on that you know it is located in the 2 flood plains. And the conveyance zone. The foundation is also showing high signs of hydrostatic pressure, and is in poor condition. So just raising the home on its existing foundation didn't seem like a reasonable solution. That foundation also included a basement that wouldn't comply, so that would have to be filled in as well.

[150:02] And then, finally, I think we. you know, really saw this on the site visit. But. the surrounding area of juniper is surrounded by a majority of homes that are either new build or significantly, significantly improved. Or enlarged, you know, over the years. So I don't think this would have a significant impact on the existing neighborhood of juniper there has been quite a bit of support from the immediate residents. Multiple letters have been written in in support of the demolition there have been some neighbors who express their discontent in the condition of the current house. It is our opinion that it's not truly liveable. And has been vacant for I believe, almost 2 years now. and

[151:01] and it would just require significant improvements even to be habitable. Those improvements would exceed that $104,000 threshold, which would then trigger the the moving and lifting of the house. We. I just took a note from our our Initial Board meeting that I, one of the Board members said, it's a perfect example of a charming but mediocre home. It's perfectly not special, which I think you know it is a indicative comment of the home it is, you know, old and hasn't changed much over the years, but we just didn't see the the the level of scrutiny. To take this to an individual historic landmark met from an architectural perspective. So we we did want to provide some alternatives. You know, we we really took the process seriously, and although saving the home didn't seem like a viable option, we wanted to pay homage to the lot and the site.

[152:09] So, seeing that a lot of the significance of the resonance stemmed from the Macintosh family and primarily freedom, Macintosh being the second woman to serve a boulder county treasurer the owners did offer to put a plaque or monument of sorts. You can kinda see it in the bottom left hand corner. You see it a lot in some of the older Denver neighborhoods, but it's a quick little verbage of. You know the history of the home to pay homage to the the Macintosh family. And also sponsor documentation and pictures to be provided to the Carne library at their cost. Zachary, I'm sorry to interrupt it. The 10 min I if you could wrap up in another few minutes the 10 min has elapsed. But I know you. Okay, perfect.

[153:05] Yep, that that that was basically the end. I don't need to summarize it for you. But it is our hope that you recommend the approval demolition with the proposed preservation alternatives. Thank you so much, and I also want to thank you. Having done the site. Visit for your willingness and the candid conversations we could have with you. You and the design team really went above and beyond to be available and have a fulsome conversation about your challenges. And also I thought you represented the owners really? Well. so thank you. Thank you. So I guess this is the moment when any board members who have any questions of Zachary or members of his team. Hey, Zachary? Thanks for the excellent presentation, and I don't know if you could pull the presentation back up again.

[154:04] But I was hoping to just hear from you for a second on the slide before the summary slide. if you could go to the end of this? Okay? And actually go to the one before this for a second. Could you just recap. What is this image that I'm seeing in the right hand side? So this is a rendering of a home that we designed on the site. This is some preliminary imagery of it. Does it relate to any of the points on the left? it does to the the the plaque? You can kind of see. It was superimposed on on the corner, just showing. you know, placement of something I see. Mayor. Okay.

[155:00] we we do show the exposed rafter tails on the front elevation and the gable those can potentially be extended on the Eve side as well as the gable side. Okay? And then the next image? I know that we were. We needed to get through your presentation. But could you just speak to this? Because I do feel like this could be a couple of important points. Could you speak to the slide? Yeah. So you know the the the image of the rafter tail. There, I think, is a hallmark of. you know, craftsmen and bungalow styling it's a style we use actually a lot in our architecture. In the homes we designed so incorporating. The exposed rafter tail look especially on the front elevations of the house, was something that we thought would be important and could be incorporated

[156:00] and then the other architectural style that came up was the you know, the battered craftsman column and potentially a play on that for the front columns of the home. That's great. And then, just to for clarification, you're using the word, reclaim and reuse. Are you referencing the rep, the style? Or is there actual material that you're proposing to reuse you? You know? It was we. We reclaim and reuse a lot of materials in our in our buildings. You know, elsewhere in the county. It. It was a thought of reusing some of these tails. On the new structure. If the the massing seemed correct. You know these older roofs were framed out of, you know, 2 by 4 rafter tails. I'm not sure, in a 2 story element that they

[157:00] would seem appropriate. But you know, when we were deconstruct, if we were allowed to deconstruct the building, you know, we would save the original pieces, and You know it. If the design allowed, we would hope to reuse the actual materials from the building. Gotcha. Thank you appreciate it. Ronnie. Anything else at this point, and thank you so much, because, Zachary, it's always so. It it it frustrating to have to kind of, you know, try to keep within our guidelines for the presentation time, link. So, Ronnie, that was the really great way to make sure. We all heard this Chelsea or Renee any questions for Zachary. Nope? I don't believe so. The only question I had. Well, I guess I do have a question, cause I was looking at

[158:06] and this is more of a process question. Because it said in the memo that in at the hearing we had in November. We didn't have sufficient information to say whether actually let me just get the language out because I don't wanna mess this up there was in the memo. It said that basically the proof of it being too much of a burden to move the house or to put bring it up to code wasn't provided, but I guess I was looking at the original memo from November, and I see information in there that it w like that. There was information provided that showed that it would have been a great financial expense to deal with the

[159:02] either moving the house or bringing it up to code because it was in the flood plain. What additional information did you provide since November that elaborated on that financial hardship? III think we explored, you know some of the alternatives that were brought up by board and staff. Of you know the possible exemptions, and such II know in the last I guess it wasn't a hearing. We we were an agenda item, but II know a few of the Board members wanted some greater clarification on the on. You know the floodplain and what that actually meant. In, in terms of. you know, keeping the home and what that would entail. You know it. It truly is picking up a home. moving it, placing it down, rebuilding a foundation, and then moving it back.

[160:05] We we reached out to a couple of of companies. There's not. There's hardly any companies that you know. Do this type of work. You know, a lot of them are kind of in the business of, you know, relocating homes and moving them but just to create a steel system to support the home and lift it. You know we we have a steel shop in our company, and just the materials, too. you know. Provide a steel chassis to lift this was just astronomical, and we we weren't even, you know. as as a general contractor we weren't super confident that we could keep the building even standing, you know, through 2 moves and replacement on a new foundation. So I guess that's a little more qualitative. But you know the the process, nonetheless, is is moving the building twice.

[161:04] Yeah, I really appreciate that. And I think that we knew that back in November, right like that was we. We had that information. So I guess that was really my point, that I think I think we did have a good amount of information in November. And yeah. So I no more questions for you. But I'll add more in my commentary. But thank you so much. Thank you, Chelsea. So now we can move on to public participation for this hearing. And then, Zachary, you will be invited, if for another additional 3 min, or to rebut anything potentially, and I will ask Amanda's assistance to see if anyone has raised their hand on the zoom call, or if they have press Star 9, if you're attending through a cell phone. Yes, thank you.

[162:00] let's see. Give everybody just a second here. It looks like we have one hand raised so far. I'm Lynne Siegel. Okay, well, go ahead and Let Lynn speak for 3 min, and we'll see if anyone else cares to speak to this. You may go ahead. Lynn. this is a can you hear me? I haven't gotten the mute. We can hear you. You're unmuted. Okay, this is a classic example of the disaster that's going on with housing in boulder of up valuing. You know the the customer has to be cautious when they listen to a realtor that tells them that they have basically a scrape. They've gotten no, the A. Free lot in Boulder. Yes, there aren't lots in Boulder. I get it, you know. I live in a place

[163:01] that you know. Ought this what this does to me is it up? Values me, my property, tax my expenses. I'm 70 years old. I haven't got the means for this kind of up valuing of this neighborhood. There are so few people in Boulder in the middle, in the lower income that can afford to live here, and the fact that you would even contemplate demolishing this place, which has a great basement, and is a good sized house for a family, not a giant family, and not in a giant neighborhood of big houses like it is. It's the only thing left. It's like the little house in this in the story, the little house in the in the country that becomes surrounded and gobbled up by all the houses around it. It's just a travesty to even consider, to demolish this place

[164:02] and stick a plaque up. or read about it at Carnegie. or travel to it 10 miles away. to look at it. This is part of the place of Boulder. our history. our people. the treasure ironically that lived in there. It was good enough for them, wasn't it? Well, you know, sell the house. Zachary can build something somewhere else. There's plenty of places all over town that are building like mad. This is people that need this kind of housing. put it on the market and sell it honestly to some one who can afford it, knowing it's on the fled plain and knowing it's not gin to be developed into a big Gargantuan place like all the others in this on Juniper.

[165:02] it's the only thing left scanning, and it's beautiful, and it's in good shape. My brother bought a house in Martin Acres found out it was on the Bear Creek flood plain. He'd already checked out the other planes. He walked out. You know we lost a lot of money. but that's what happens when you aren't careful. Thank you, Lynn and Amanda. I don't know if you see any additional raised hands or any one who might have called in on the phone. Yeah, looks like we have another hand raised. Pardon me. Gordon. Gold. Okay, there we go. Okay, II think you can hear me now. Yes, and just state your full name once more for the record, and your 3 min will commence. Sure. This is Gordon Gould, and I am a resident on Juniper Avenue.

[166:08] I live 2 houses to the west, on the same side of the street as the Lily property. and, in fact, I've been inside that property a few times in the past. We didn't know the prior owners but we did know the ones before that. Peter and Larry II don't recall their last name. We are completely fine with the lilies proceeding with their project. This house is honestly a bit of an eyesore. The property has multiple other improvements on it, none of which are of any historical significance at all, as far as I can tell. and I think that it's just not a place that is

[167:02] seemingly all that historically attractive and or otherwise, of that kind of nature. And I think it's been pointed out that Juniper is by and large, not a historic kind of place, anyway, they almost all. The houses are very large. Number of the houses on the street are very large and recent new rebuild remodel. What have you? And so the character of the street, I think, is, certainly changed a lot, and I would have no issue whatsoever with them. Going ahead with their plans and improving that property. So I just thought, as a perspective of somebody who literally lives 2 houses down from there, that that would be just that helpful additional set of information that that's all the time that I need. Thank you.

[168:01] Thank you. Thank you for taking the time to speak to this tonight. and I'm gonna look at Amanda again to see if anyone else has raise your hand, or yes, we have one other person with our raised hand, with just a first name displayed as anie. So, Ani, if you could please let us know your full name. We can all. When I allow you to speak. But can you hear me? We we can we do for the record? Thank you. Sure. Sure. My full name is Anie Meyer. Thank you, and you may go ahead. Okay, thank you for all of your presentations. II do live on juniper app as well. Just a short walk down the edge of the road in the juniper townhomes. I spoke at the last hearing in support of of landmark designation.

[169:02] I do still feel, despite all the structural pro problems and the issues with the foundation that it does merit landmark designation. And I just completely disagree with any characterization of it as being just, not habitable, not livable. Yes. it hasn't been taken care of in the way it should be, but I don't know. Every time I walk by. It's still behind the you know. The reason, Ivy, that are there in all work grown is a really great beauty. It's a shame. The foundation isn't what it is, and I think it is also a shame that so I don't know if the the Willie family felt at all like Miss Letter, deceived by it, just assuming it would be an easy to just have it to set for demolition and rebuild in the way they wanted to to for their larger family. That is unfortunate. This has been a process. Obviously. yeah, I don't know what the clear solution is, but II think it would be a shame still to have this building be demolished. It is an exceptional model of architecture that

[170:07] I think doesn't bankit stand out still on this street, and I don't know it'd be a shame to see it go. And again I also just say, I appreciate your presentation, Zachary. I just don't know again, with the same issue as the last meeting. I don't appreciate the the lack of exactitude and exact or exactly so I should say, with not offering exact estimates for all the different alternatives for the moving offered. II just again here lots of qualitative terms like you, you. and it's kind of distracting how you do. You have a lot of your speech? And you knows I don't know if you're aware of that or not. Your speech style is a little distracting. yeah, I don't know. I think that's complete, and what I would like to say. I think it would just be a shame to have this building demolished to this unique. and there is nothing else like it on the street, and

[171:06] I'd say, that's my piece. Thank you, and thank you again for taking the time and effort to be with us this evening. We appreciate your comments. And, Amanda, have you seen any additional hands raised or anyone indicate over the phone? Don't see anybody else at this time. Okay, we'll go ahead and officially close public participation for this hearing. Item, Zachary, you are welcome to a 3 min additional comments or rebuttal if you would like. I don't think I have anything else unless there were any specific questions. Yeah, I and II know we asked board members if they did have additional questions. I don't know if anyone does now before we move to deliberations, or if we're ready to go ahead and do that.

[172:11] I just wanted to. Can I say something real quick? Absolutely. I just I. You know, we have applicants who come through this process. And it's very challenging and difficult when we're dealing with people's homes. And it's a very sensitive topic. So I think when we have people from the community who provide, you know, disparaging comments about our applicants, it's really inappropriate. And Anie like II appreciate that you're, you know, maybe trying to help improve people by giving commentary. and I think but I don't think it's it's really appropriate in this context. And I just I just wanted to appreciate that our applicants are going through a challenging process already. And I just want to acknowledge that that happened. So

[173:06] at least. you know we're we're aware that that was difficult, and we're sorry. Appreciate that. Thank you, Chelsea. So we will bring it to board. Deliberations. And there I'm starting with it. But yeah, I agree, Chelsea, it is hard to be on camera and to do this in front of others. I also like. On the one hand, III applaud. are citizens for attending these meetings and for speaking up, and you know that you're taking time out of your personal lives. And then that's something that makes this a more robust and valuable experience. Also, Zachary, I've just said twice. I just don't want you to take that home as your thing.

[174:02] because that would not be a great representation of the quality of your presentation. I have one last thing, Zachary. Is there any value that you can see right now in us hearing from Dash? I know he. I'm sorry from Don ash. I know that he is in attendance. I just want to make sure that we're not missing one final resource in the conversation. Yeah, II think so. Dash is been working in Boulder for decades. Has done projects all over the city, the county. He's worked with us on multiple projects for the last at least 10 years or so. And is intimately involved in this process. Juniper. So if you had anything in particular, and and technical on the floodplain and structural analysis. Dash would be your guy. and I don't have any specific questions. But, dash, if you had anything that you'd like to share. I think we'd be open to hearing it.

[175:09] Yeah, Don ash with site works. We're the civil engineer on the project. I'll say that elevating, moving the houses has become really challenging over the last 5 or 10 years. There's only really one company that really does it. You know. Unfortunately, insurance companies won't ensure them, because a lot of damages happens to the buildings. So then it becomes the onus on the general contractor to float that insurance for them. it just gets really costly and and sort of spiraling from there. We had a project with Boulder County a few years ago to elevate a few houses in Jamestown and lions and in Boulder County. it was part of a community development Block Grant disaster relief funding project. Fema gave us $125,000 to raise these houses, build a new foundation and drop them back down. We bid this out multiple times.

[176:09] The bits were coming back half 1 billion dollars per house. and that wasn't even moving them. That was just a lift and hold. doing an easy foundation and dropping them back down. So I'll agree with Zack. It's becoming quite cost prohibitive to do stuff like that. On this particular project. It's a single family house. There's not a big developer behind this who's making billions of dollars on townhomes on Pearl Street? I think that in this situation. It would be very cost prohibitive to do anything with the existing structure. Thank you and dash for the records. Ii believe, Zachary said it. But say, your full name, just for since this meeting's being recorded, yeah, it's Don ash with site works. Thank you. Actually, maybe Ronnie had said that. Thank you.

[177:03] Anything else, Ronnie. No, thank you. Appreciate it. So we will now move to deliberations. And we do ask that everyone mute your computer or phone for their duration of our conversation. Oh, goodness! I've already forgotten. I believe we were. Gonna allow about 40 min for this discussion. But deliberations, and I don't know if there's a board member who would like to kick it off. I'll say something in regarding to this lovely home. you know. There were notions of the home not having character and not fitting in on that street. I think the beauty lies within. I mean. how can we say that I have the beholder. But this old home has such great character, and

[178:01] I think it is beautiful, and I think that it is somewhat. I mean. I think that you could restore it back to the inhabitable and saying that I think that the fact that we have the floodplain involved really puts a a heavy, heavy take on this really really adorable historic house which has historical character. And so I think it is a really hard decision cause. When Claire and Marcy brought it forth in November, they brought good information that gave us wanting us to put the stay on it because of the information that Marcian Claire had brought to us about, who live there. And all these things bring forth that it is, has historical significance now, because it has these historical significances. We there's also the money aspect, right like what it would take to move this site, what it would take for these. So those things have to come and play, and I just think that, you know, if we had a perfect world I would pick it up, and I would bring it to my house, and I would put it on my lot. So, Zachary, if you would like to do that.

[179:17] I am more than happy to scrape my house, and you put it here. but the cost of of doing that, and then having the flood plain, I think these are, and they brought it to us several times. These are the little caveat things that really damper this historical significance of this building. Now, I also wanna ask Claire oh, and Marcy Marcie, cause she's presenting, I guess. So. Marcy, the the the 3 state, the 3 things that we're supposed to be talking about in. This is one. We don't do anything right. So if they hadn't brought it today, does that mean that demolition would have happened?

[180:06] And then no, okay? So then, and then 2 is we propose it to be a landmark site. And then or 3, we say yes to the demo. So there's like 3 options. We don't do anything. 2. We make it historic and 3. But when was it originally going to be? When was it up? I guess I that slide came up and I didn't write it down. No, no, no, happy to pull up this slide. If it's helpful to kind of frame your decisions. You do have 3 options. I think I've misspoke in my staff presentation. It's not that you don't take action. You would vote to not initiate landmark designation. That stay within. Continue until March 20 fifth. Your second option is to initiate the designation process, which then means we would schedule a designation hearing within 60 to 120 days, and then your third option is vote to approve the demolition application.

[181:14] So we're still looking for a vote or action from the Board tonight. But the 3 are to vote to not initiate, vote, to initiate the designation process, or 3 vote to approve the demolition. And then the if we, if you, if the first one, we just say we're don't basically not to it. Initiate the process. They just have to wait for the stay to go out. So it and that date is again, what? March 25. Okay? So so somebody if we don't do anything today. Some could the board bring it up in? No, no, it doesn't do anything. Okay, you you could. I mean, it's it's unlikely. But prior to March 20 fifth the Board could

[182:06] vote to full the special hearing to take action that requires 10 days of public notice. So it's a small window. But it's it's an option. Okay. okay, so that was my kick off. I just think that it is a really special building, and that but I think that the floodplain issues are huge, and even though we might not have exact numbers, and it is hard to do those exact numbers, and I, am on that side of things because you don't really know the exact number until you start doing it, and then things fall apart, and it gets to be so I'm sure there was some numbers thrown around in there. But the flood plain you have to lift it up and get rid of the basement in general, so to be to add any additions to the house. So

[183:02] and I'm sad that somebody sold the site, thinking that it was a scrape. So thanks, Fredine, of course. Well. come back to you. If you want Chelsea or Ronnie. or I'm happy to jump in. Okay, alright. I think we can make this quicker than 40 min hopefully. It's already pretty late. Maybe we can end, and a little earlier than we usually do. Yeah, I agree with the staff recommendation to approve the demolition. I think it just for me. It makes sense to just approve the demolition. Now, instead of letting more time go by. You know I when I saw this

[184:01] I base, I don't see much of a change in the application that we saw in November to what we see now. I think the issues that we knew about in November are the issues that still made it basically impossible for this house to be modified in a way that made it habitable for the family. And and so my position is the same. II didn't think we needed this extra time. It sounds like it was good to, you know. It's always, you know, the the time that these stays offer give us the opportunity to fully vet things, but sometimes I do feel like we have enough information upfront to make a decision sooner rather than later. And this was one of those times that I felt like we had the information sooner. And so yeah, I'm happy to just approve the demolition. and knowing that this was a lovely house for a long time, and it served its purpose, and in order for it to be safe.

[185:10] and not to be exuberantly like, inexpensive to, or expensive to make it accommodate the for the family that wants to live there. That it's time to let it go. So thank you, Chelsea Ronnie, or do you want me to? I get to go? Yeah, go for it. So And and I was one of the ones that went to the site visit. So one of the things serving on the land market I know we're a champion of of preservation. I know we do look at sort of the balancing act on properties like this. I think that one of the misconceptions occasionally I run across in preservation is that we're only here to save the grand or noble, or maybe Washington slept here, and I think it's a covenant upon us to also save the modest, charming houses like this, because it is a part of boulders historic fabric, and it tells important chapters, especially the woman who live there who

[186:22] was the second treasure, I mean. So so I don't think the fact it's modest or bungalow did. Means it's not worthy of preservation at all. So then the question becomes the owner's wishes. I lament that it was marketed as a scrape off, but you know the owners bought it with an expectation that they could do what they wanted with this property. I personally, I might be alone sometimes in this. I'm grateful that boulders ordinance allows for the landmarking over the owners objection because we would not have some very historic buildings, including hotel boulder, auto. Hannah Barker House, Hazel Barnes. I could name those houses. However, you guys the reality when something has started

[187:10] the process of landmarking over the owner's objection. Only 2 properties, to my knowledge, have ever been that because during a stay or an an initiation process, or throughout that things happen. Maybe a group comes forward. Maybe they offer to move it off, or whatever. So I mean, I still think a stay can be valuable, because, you know, something might have happened that that would have saved what I think is a house that adds a really grace. Note the fact that all the other homes like that are juniper are are gone, and the context is missing. It almost tells me this one's still here. Let's do what we can to save it. However, what I learned through this process because there was this day, and because of the site, visit the restraints on this property greatly concerning with the conveyance zone and the 100

[188:06] your flood plain. And so tonight what I would be supporting is a vote to not initiate individual designation of this House and Abby just for clarification. that is you you wouldn't support demo approval. Well, I mean, you know, there, there are preservation programs across the country because we are the ones who are here to, you know, stand up for preservation, whatever. It sometimes simply semantics. But I know there are other boards in other communities where an individual member on that board may not wanna say, Yeah, go ahead. And and and the outcome becomes the same with a couple of more weeks on it. But I think it would be harder for me to say I support demolition rather that right now I do not support initiation because of all the aspects that we have learned about this property.

[189:09] Does that make any sense? I mean, like like Chelsea said. It's getting late. So I'm like, am I, you know. Does that make any sense to you, Ronnie? Very clear, very clear? So I agree with everything that my colleagues have said. I think that this is a very charming building. I would love to see it move to Rene's property. I think Staff did an excellent job with their staff report. I think that you know we spent some time looking at this property, although I wasn't somebody that attended the Onsite meetings. I think it would be valuable for us to unpack that to address some of the questions that Chelsea has raised about process, and you know, adequate material that we may have had earlier.

[190:03] Outside of this meeting. If we talk about that I think in this particular case, it, as Renee has already spoken to the floodplain component. I think, really is the key factor here, because I think that the building itself. May rate may meet the criteria, but I think the financial hardship component. In this particular property. I would support, not landmarking it, and in the spirit of an expeditious process. I would support approval of a demolition request tonight. Although while I would love us to somehow save this home. I just feel that this one, you know, has. We've adequate information to

[191:00] justify that it can't be saved. And so I think that I would support the demolition approval. Are there any other comments before? Maybe a marcy brings up the options on motions? Do we want to? Can can we condition the approval on. I know that the applicant offered some sort of acknowledgement of the historic nature of the property. I don't know folk. I don't know how to incorporate that, but I think they offered it, and so it'd be. I don't know if it's possible to put that into writing but if it is possible, then it'd be great to have that as a feature of the new home.

[192:07] So by code. Oh, it looks like I'm not. It's not my code. We can require documentation of the property and so that's what we would propose is a site plan showing all the improvements. Measured elevations, and then high resolution images. Anything above that that the applicant is offered is a wonderful idea, but I don't believe we can hold them to it as a condition of the approval. However, the board could encourage and encourage that idea. But in terms of what we can require. It's the the documentation archival documentation that then goes to the Carnegie. Okay.

[193:01] thanks. And I'll pull up those slides. But the good news is Chelsea. They heard that we would love for them to pursue them outside of the preservation program. So I think we'll leave it in their hands. That would be cool. Okay? So I have a number of motions up here ready for you. All right. when you're ready. I'm happy to make a motion to approve the demolition before I read it. Is it possible to get a straw if this one would pass? Yeah, I would support that right. I would more support, not does not initiating designation. So I would. But that's you only need 3 votes so and great. Now it goes on my renaissance. You're doing it right. No, you're doing it great.

[194:03] So, Marcy, is there any different between the I mean? Everyone knows I love this little house. but the approval of demolition versus the number one, it really isn't just gives 3 weeks of a little bit of like do not initiate the landmark designation. and I guess my, my thought process for Chelsea and Ronnie on this is. you know, Chelsea, II always love your side. Because if we all agreed on the same things, then we're not. One of us is not needed. So I love people with just different ideas. But one of the things about this is that, like you actually like your last statement. Actually, there was a reason why we had to stay cause. Now, there's a possibility of there being this little history notation as you walk down Juniper, and then you get to know who live there, which none of us really knew. So I think the stays are actually really quite

[195:03] good in this whole preservation and historic landmarking and all and everything that we're doing is actually like preserving, you know, folder so I'm kind of in different. II don't. I love Abby's statement about that. She does not want to demo the building so she doesn't want to put a demolition in there. So I love that she's standing up for that in the in the realm of getting to the same place. I'm willing to approve number 3. I just don't see a difference in the long run between one and 3, so I would. I would feel better with one, but I will move forward with number 3. Can I ask the applicant if these 3 weeks are like critical to the process? That's a no, that's a fair question.

[196:04] You know we we have waited th the 6 months. If it II guess I wouldn't say it's, you know, absolutely critical. It would be preferred. Rene, if you would like the building, we're happy to donate it to you. If you can find a way to get it to your property. But yeah, and number 3 would be prefer preferred. Sign of a healthy board when not everything is unanimous. That's okay. So, Chelsea, it sounds like you want to make a motion. I do. And I think ultimately I understand the reasons for people not wanting to approve the demolition, but number one is ultimately leading to a demolition. So I think, just for the sake of the applicant who has gone through a long process, I will move forward with number 3.

[197:03] So I move that the landmarks board approve the application for demolition. Finding that the house at 1015 juniper Ab. Does not meet the criteria for initiation. Pursuant to section 9, 11, 3. Initiation of designation for individual landmarks and historic districts of the Boulder Revised Code 1981, and in balance is not consistent with the goals and policies of section 2 point 2 7 of the Boulder Valley. Comprehensive plan as a condition of approval prior to approval of the demolition application. The applicant shall submit to Staffer review approval, and recording with the Carnegie Library for local history, one, a Site plan showing the location of all existing improvements on the subject property, 2. Measured of elevation drawings of all exterior elevations of the house, depicting existing conditions fully annotated with architectural details and materials indicated on the plans, and 3 high resolution and professional quality digital color images of all exterior elevations.

[198:02] Do we have a second. I second. Thank you, Ronnie. On a motion by Chelsea, seconded by Ronnie. We'll make a roll call. Vote Chelsea. Hi. Renee! I Hi! And I vote no. So the motion carries 3 to one. and then, Marcy, you will let Zachary know the next steps. Yes, okay. So the landmarks board. Just approve the demolition of the House, that 10 to 15 Jenipher, that approval is valid for 180 days, and cannot be extended, so we will follow up with more details about the archival documentation that's needed. But that 180 days starts from today. So if the demolition application is not finalized within the 6 months. Then a new historic preservation demolition, application will be required.

[199:10] So with that, thank you. Sorry, don't we sometimes ex provide extensions or demolition? Approval can't be extended. Which was the point I was gonna make earlier is that sometimes it's not a gift to expedite expedite it. But it depends on the applicant landmark. Alteration certificates can be extended. But demolition approvals cannot. But that's on our code change list. Okay? Great. Okay. Thank you again, Zachary, for all your effort during this day. Thank all of you guys for the for the process and opportunity. Appreciate it.

[200:07] So, Marcy, we're moving on to matters we sure are. We have 3 things to cover under matters. The City Council annual letter will be the of the discussions. But I want to start by welcoming our new historic preservation Intern, who joins us. She has a degree in architecture. Background. Also in planning. And we're very impressed by her interview. This is day 3. We've been giving her a ton of information the this week, and I don't know, Mered, if you are on and want to turn on your camera to say Hello, but we just wanna give you a warm welcome and really excited for you to be part of the program for this next year. Another big announcement, big news is that we got funding approved. So Marin is going to be full time for an entire year which is huge, because the internship is typically 20 HA week for during the school year and 40 h just over the summer. But huge. Thank you to the Department for

[201:25] increasing those the funding, because that is a huge increase to our resourcing. For this next year. So, Marin, you're online just a warm welcome from from all of us, and one of my goals with Maron's internship is to help make connections. The historic preservation is a small field and people come to it for so many different reasons, and so I would love to connect marron with each one of the landmarks, board members, if you all would be interested in getting coffee or lunch one day. I think that would be a wonderful kind of exposure to the many, many different perspectives and facets of preservation.

[202:11] That'd be great. Thank you. Yeah. And welcome. Maron. Yeah, I would love to do that. let me know if you guys would like to try to make that happen. And again, thanks, Marin, and we look forward to working with you. Thank you. I look forward to working with you as well. Wonderful. All right. okay. I'm gonna take off these other 2. The council appointments for Renee's position. Is March fourteenth. So we are all very hopeful that Council will reappoint Renee for a 5 year term, and then the saving Places conference ended just the week before.

[203:02] When we met last time. It's my hope that we will have some sort of lessons learned or or debrief. I was really blown away by the quality of the sessions and the content of the Saving Places Conference. And it's so easy just to move on to the next thing and and not take the time to share lessons or perspectives. So I would still like to do that. But it's always really tough. At the end of these meetings. So I'd say, let's focus on the council letter. and not talk about the conference tonight. But I do think the sessions are online. And you can ask Aubrey for some help to access those. There was a keynote about this thing called the Relevancy Project, and it is just like blows my mind in terms of the future of the preservation field and kind of new ideas to to refresh and rethink it. So I thought of many of you on the board as I was listening to that, and would highly recommend it if you if you hadn't thought it.

[204:12] Okay. let me tell you about the letter to counsel. The letter is due March 20, s. So it's just in a couple of weeks, and it's in in advance of the Council retreat on April third and fourth. They've asked for a specific prompt this year, which is as a whole board. Commissioner Panel City Council invites you to share the top. 2 or 3 community issues or opportunities on your mind and or the top. 2 or 3 items on your group's existing work plan for Council awareness ahead of their annual retreat. Some guardrails they put around. This is that it must be in the written format, a letter or a memo.

[205:00] They're most interested in hearing from the group as a whole. But note that you know, minority opinions can can still be included. Writing a letter is totally optional, based on your interest, availability, etc. We have the person that you email it to, and the information you provide will inform individual council members of your perspective as they develop proposals for council priority actions in the 2024 to 2025 term So when we spoke with Abby at the agenda meeting for for this meeting we. I've talked about this framework to help you kind of focus the discussion. Nobody is proposing that you write a letter on the spot. Crowd sourced at 9 30 pm. So maybe the first question is, do you want to write a letter this year? Second, what might the theme or content be?

[206:03] What's the scope? And then nominate one or 2 board members, but no more than 2, otherwise it's a that. We ran into the open meetings piece that you're welcome to do it. Just logistically takes more steps to write the letter on behalf of the board. So just a note is that one member can't write it and then circulate it to the board. That's a that's a meeting. And so it would be recommended that one or 2 people are delegated, and write the letter and submit it on on the Board's behalf. I nominate John. No, I'm kidding sounds good. So maybe the first question so, knowing that Councils retreat is coming up, and they've requested an optional letter about community issues or opportunities or work

[207:02] plan items. Does the landmarks board want to write a letter to council this year. I was gonna say, I was. Gonna say, I don't know if we want to. But I think that we should. I yeah, to add on to Rene, like, I think, maybe starting with a different question of Do we all agree on a top? 2 to 3 things that we want to submit. Like. yeah. Cause if if we're if we're, you know. a solution looking for a problem or whatever the saying is like, look, if we have things that we really want them to know about. Then I think we should write the letter. If we don't, then I don't think we should or cause. It's we're just, you know. wasting time.

[208:02] No, I hear what you're saying. Marcy, if we have things that a obviously like. I mean, there's a quorum here. But we are missing, John. So his opinion should count. But is, can we have emails about the issues we want to talk about. No. we can't even do that. Okay, I think we need to kind of like, decide on some issues that we would want to talk about here and then and then we can have somebody write a draft. So, Chelsea, I kinda have something is like, what about the issues that we talk? Remember, we do our. We did our little get together. I don't know. Retreat. And we talked about the issues of how the process of is that something that we could discuss or talk to council about like

[209:04] I mean, that came to my mind. That's the one that's like my main issue. Oh. I mean, is that it, Marcy? Is that something to discuss with council? Or is that more or less like our minutia in the landmarks board? And how we change things? Anything anything in in the letter, and I think, you know their their prompt is 2 or 3 community issues or opportunities on your mind, or 2 or 3 items on your group's existing work plan? so I think it would fall more under the second category. But it is, I think, relevant when do they? They redo march twenty-twond and it and it goes to the Council retreat. So I'll I like the idea that what Chelsea and I are like kind of moving forward. But you just wrote that, and I almost think that we should write a letter about the historic designation of

[210:12] that site. And all that goods like, like the naming of the site. Is that anything we can write and talk to counsel about? Yeah, the proposed historic district. Yeah, yeah, I would say that would be one to avoid, because they are in the quasi judicial portion, because their their retreat is about a week before their public hearing on the historic district. So you could talk, I think, generally about it. But a yeah, there's plenty to say about it. I just wouldn't advocate for a specific outcomes cause you've already done that through both. Okay. okay. what is so? We Marcy, you were saying that our the Strategic Plan. First, direct preservation is coming up. Is that next year?

[211:07] Yeah, the 10 year update to the Historic Preservation Plan is was going to be on our work plan for 2024. But with the historic district and then potential guidelines, we anticipate it to be next year. Okay. so then, so does the strategic plan thing effort does that like? At what does that? we've in opportunities to update the historic preservation ordinances and codes and like, like, where? Where does that dive? Into all that? Yeah. So it sets the policies. And then recommendations. So there's already an existing policy that says Streamline, our process and make it more efficient. And we've made incremental process progress towards that goal. But there is already one in there about kind of overhauling the demolition

[212:05] Coach. So that's what sets the overall program policies and and vision and then helps prioritize the work plan each year. Okay. well, with that looming and sort of I imagine that a lot of the issues that have been brought up, at least on the time I've been on this board would sort of be funneled into that. Is that correct? Or there? So with. So I guess kind of the one thing, or one of the smaller things that we could do in between now and then is fix this Ldrc issue. Is that like, II guess, in addition to that, I don't. Are there any opportunities because that has to be approved by council right? It would have to be an ordinance that goes through the council process to fix Ldrc. Depending on it depends what the proposal is, because there are some things that we can do administratively. There's something adopt as a rule, like what goes to Drc. And what goes to staff.

[213:09] And then there's like coordinates, changes that go to council. So The answer is, it depends on what the changes, because some things can be done at a small level and some at a very big level. and I don't remember exactly the list of like which things fell into which of those categories? But if I am remembering, I mean it was a while ago. I remember that if it was, if we were to really like make it so that it was substantially changed. There would have to be some. Some piece of it would have to go to council. I think there there were, there were things that would go to council. II do think that Council would also be interested in the general process improvements or program function sort of thing. And we can circulate that retreat list.

[214:08] and that might help. That might help kind of gender numbers. Yeah. could I throw up some ideas cause. I think there are themes in the Board's interest. That I've heard come up in in various ways, and I think one is about process. How can we, streamline, be more efficient? Improve it, etc. Another one is about the value of historic preservation. It's it's kind of correcting the misconceptions, or like showing showing the value of of a 50 year old program. Another one is environmental sustainability that comes up quite a bit in terms of the connection between historic preservation, and sustainability. And then, I think, one that is emerging is

[215:10] is racial equity and and historic preservation, and that that's really where a lot of the conference sessions were, and and I think where the field as a whole is heading And so I think there might like those. If I think about this board and the the topics that come up. 80 us is always 1, 2 of like preservation and and housing the nexus typically through ad use, I think those would be the most frequent themes I've heard from this board. I think that makes sense. I guess my question is because I mean, I've I've worked with councils in the past and like gotten, you know, I understand their work flow pretty well. I feel like we should try to only put things in the letter that

[216:03] are actionable, or things that we want them to consider taking action on our like kind of like a a prelude to something. We're gonna ask them to take action on them in the future. Because otherwise it's just sort of nice to know, but it like the things that you want them to actually do something about, then get lost in the kind of like the flowery language of things we care about. I don't know. That's just my almost 100'clock direct opinion about it. you know. I started off in in this thing that the Board could nominate one or 2 members to write a letter on behalf of the Board. That's not your only option. Like you. You can have a meeting with at least 24 h notice. And so we just have to put it on the website. So if if you all wanna continue

[217:02] the conversation. When you're a little fresher, and have like some time to dedicate to it. You don't have to narrow it down to just 2 people to to take this on knowing that you all don't also have unlimited time for more meetings. So I am. II like Marcy's idea so there could be one or 2 members to write a letter. That doesn't mean they end up writing the letter is what I'm hearing. So how about if I nominate by self to take on the opportunity to a write a letter or speak with Marcy about getting a a meeting, together with the landmarks board on the calendar with a 24 h notice. Does that work to like? Because I think there's I think we could go down one way. And I mean, if you nominate, if you nominate.

[218:01] I nominate myself. Can I talk to Chelsea and I'm allowed to talk to each board member, or I can only talk to myself. Chris, I think. If you're you pop back on. Yeah, we just wanna avoid the continuation of a non noticed public meeting through electronic means. So, so yeah, so we could do what Marcy's laid out is are basically the options. But but one option that does not exist is collaborating, you know, behind the behind the scenes on this letter, without a publicly noticed meeting. can 2 people can 2 people work together to write a letter or no. Okay, yeah. So okay. if we had a lighter Lcr agenda in the next 2 weeks, that is the time

[219:00] you guys could take half an hour or an hour, whoever could make it could. We could do anytime that works for you all. But that's a time that that we have anticipated. I feel like with the if the content is gonna well, I think before we end this meeting we should decide on the like to one to well, one, if we're agreeing on what should be included, the one to 3 things that we want them to do something about. and and then some, and then 2 of us can work on getting a draft together. and so I think it just in this meeting we just need to decide what those things are. I'll I would like if we are going to do it. I think, having the Ldrc. Since that would be an upcoming thing that we would ask them

[220:00] likely be asking them to weigh in on. And, Marcy, maybe we can get together and like just recap. or I don't know if we could do that now. Like, look at the list of what were the things that would need to go to council. I just don't remember at all some interest on both Chelsea and Renee's part, being willing to help craft a letter. But maybe you want more input on some topics or ideas from other board members right? And then kind of narrow, those down that. And Chris, what I know, Chris, for what I don't know is can board members email, one staff person with some possible themes or ideas. or like Chelsea's asking, Do we have to leave this meeting to night with that? Yeah, it's an interesting idea.

[221:02] so board members can communicate with Staff individually. The problem is, what happened if there's more communication, and if those communications then go back to other board members. We we just wanna avoid you want to comply both with the letter and the spirit of the law. And so that that makes me a bit nervous. Right? Okay, that. Okay, thank you. That clarifies that. And that makes perfect sense. I do appreciate Chelsea and Renee sort of willingness and kind of the way you're you. You sound really willing to help make this happen. Ldr. See off my schedule. I'm mo self motivated. So Chris, when we talk about what we want for dinner at these meetings. And they ask us these. oh, what the heck's happening.

[222:02] That's different. Okay, so we just need agreement from the group on what the issues are. Cause. This is our opportunity. Where we have quorum to get as a whole board. We could also, you and I, Chelsea, could talk to marcy offline and discuss those things, and I was more or less just willing to help. No, I know, but we need the boards agreement of what the things are. Well, our Abby and Abby and Ronnie able to appoint us, and figuring that out, or do they have? Do they have some opinions right now? Well, I think Marcy came up with a few things that over like now almost decades have come up as sort of the connecting the sustainability piece

[223:02] to historic preservation. Which is one that's been frequent. You guys, yesterday, when I heard about this at a 11 Am. Agenda meeting, and being very cognizant of kind of the compressed time scheduled March twenty-twond, and I know especially, you know, all the everybody's busy and has full lives is, you know. II thought. because it's kind of when you really read what they're asking for, like, what's your perspective, for, like Chelsea, do they really want us to ask for assist? Specific action items? The first thing off the top of my head is the preservation ordinance which does need some looking at and some revisions which isn't gonna happen overnight. This is the fiftieth anniversary of that, and the only thing that is gone to my through my mind is. we have some newer Council members, you know, do we? And and it can be part of an introductory paragraph versus the focus of a whole letter is just explaining

[224:03] kind of the value of the preservation program. Do you know what I mean? I mean? I don't know how much certain Council members know. Really, you know what we do? Why, we're here some of the not only the successes, but Chelsea, like, you know, some of the things that are challenging for us. You know what I mean. So, but that could be just a portion of it. But I right now what I can't see is what a specific ask would be other than some things that we've always propped up over the years as issues we would love to address in our copious spare time and well, maybe not the board, but preservation. But I don't know that that was just my initial thought. Do you know what I mean. Cause there, there's definitely media more tangible things. But

[225:03] and it was more that I just know it's the fiftieth anniversary. And what does that mean? And you know I don't know. That was just my! I'm totally not wedded to that. Marcy does. Every year they people write a letter every year. They ignore them. Ask for one last year because the work plans are 2 year cycles. And so yeah, this year they're asking, I think, for kind of a lighter letter than I think sometimes in the past. so we say it's annual letter. I think it's sometimes every other year. Chelsea. you know you you you said that they ignore us and you're kidding. But I feel similar. Yeah, II feel similarly, and that's disheartening to me, cause I've spent time on these things.

[226:08] And so so I just would say, like. one thing is what Marcy the list that Marcy made. That's a really great list for us just to reflect on who we are and what we're doing and what we want to do like city Council. How's it gonna affect them? I don't know. Maybe not. But it's kind of helpful for us to just state some of the things that we're thinking, and it always feels good as a refresher. Whether or not we write the letter or not. I do like it, and Marcy rattled them off. It's helpful for us to think about your approach, which I think is a great one, which is, let's give them an action. Let's give them a real thing, and then let's make the request, I also think, is a very reasonable request, but I think we would have to make it like my request would be

[227:00] come to one of our meetings, and tell us what your position, or what your current thoughts are. The discourses on historic preservation like, I would like to see city council instead of us doing this educational role, that Abby, suggesting, which I think is very generous, I'd rather hear somebody finally come to me and say something to me. It's like we're talking about this and your important people doing the groundwork. I would love for that to happen, because I've had one interaction with City Council in this role, and it was when I got appointed. and then the second time I went through a very long belabor process that Renee is going to get a short version on, but I sat around for over a year, and I was the only candidate, and I just kept serving. It was rude. My, so my experience in general is like I'm putting this effort in. II made a video with Bill Jellic and John that I thought was pretty dynamite like that. We spent time on this, no response.

[228:04] so like my energy to do something like. If I had a request it would be show up. Just and say something to me that gives me a little bit of insight into your appreciation, not of who I am as an individual, but like a perspective, a position, a direction that would be the that would be my request. Like I'd go talk to Aaron Brock about that. You know what I mean, like I actually had to go to him and be like dude. Why aren't you cleaning up this appointment stuff like I've been sitting around so anyway, I'm just telling you like I feel very squarely on the position that you just said, which is like, you know, do they look at it? And so my request is kind of the opposite, and that's kind of why I'm sitting here quietly is just cause I'm a little frustrated. And so one I feel like it would be really good for us to just go through the assessment of the stuff we wanna do, and that's mostly for us. It would be good for us to figure out what aspects of that require city council to interact with, and I don't necessarily think it needs to be a request in the letter, but my request to them would be a little different than that which would be like.

[229:15] you know. Why do I get a different question every year. We gotta write a letter. It makes me feel like a child. Why isn't it the same question where we're a business? And they're asking us about something specific and operational and fundamental and visionary. And every year it's a little bit slightly different moving target. It makes me feel like a homework assignment. It makes me feel like a child. So anyway, that's how I feel about this for the record. Well, and Chelsea, I agree with your comment and the diplomatic way I've tried to take it as, oh, they have so much, many higher priorities than what we do or what we care about, or whatever. But this program also has a 50 year history, and I know it's held up certainly throughout the State, and with people I've met from other parts of the country. The boulder preservation program is held up as very successful and

[230:08] standard. And yes, there are things to be changed, and you know it's it's not perfect, but it's considered one of the most successful ones. And and because of people like Maron, and because of Staff and the the internship program is one of the launching grounds, for I think that launching pads for the success of the program. So this is hard. And you notice that neither Ronnie and I said, we'll do. It will do it. But my knee jerk reaction is, it would be nice for us to send counsel something, you know, because we aren't. you know, we aren't dealing with life and death issues. You know, but we are dealing with the vitality, and I think some of the most beloved aspects of boulder I mean, this is a little off topic. But what's a real question that I have for them what is city council

[231:02] seeing as the relationship between this newly formed historic district and the homelessness, and this and the civic uses in the area. Not that I necessarily want to say, here's my position on it. But I'd like for them to say, Yeah, we hear you, you're talking about these 3 things. This is something that we're gonna respond to cause we're gonna think about. And I know that they are. But like I would love for that. That's like, Hey, we're gonna package that together and talk to the landmarks board, you know. That's obvious. Everybody that attends our meeting that's like the civic center, and I don't feel safe down there. you know. and I don't necessarily think, Chelsea, that I think we need to take a position on it. But I'd love for somebody to say something to me about it, you know. anyway, that's how I feel.

[232:00] Sorry, Marcy. What do you think? Or Chelsea? Sorry you're gonna say something? Oh, no, no, I wanna hear it, Marcy. I wanna hear what Marcy thanks. III I think this is a really good conversation, because II can hear the the voice of the like optimist, and I can hear the voice of the seasoned board members. And I think that I fall somewhere, you know, in the middle, which is. yeah, I think council is not gonna read a 2 page letter. Can you make it a one page letter? But I do think that that it's an opportunity to tell the new Council what we do, what you all do and what's important to you. And so I think my unsolicited advice would be to write a letter. but balance the amount of time and effort that you put into it to to know that, like

[233:05] it doesn't have to be the end all, and be all, and your only your only message to counsel ever. So I think if if you could put like a one pager together that acknowledges that there's 50 years of a preservation program in Boulder that's notable, especially in the West. Here, some of the things that having a preservation program in Boulder has done. And then here's when we're looking forward like, here's what's important to us. That we'd like you to be aware of, and and not expect a whole lot on the other end other than to say, Here's some awareness of what we do. Here's what we want you to know, we think is important. and make it concise. I like that. I think I think the thing that I'm looking for is if we're is some level of just like, let's just decide on the things we want to include as

[234:11] the pieces that we want to in incorporate, as like what we're looking forward with to include, you know, I think keeping it. The things that are vague, like, I think part of the problem. And II like was being a little facetious when I said that they don't listen. I think part of the problem in the past has been that the letters end up being somewhat vague, and they don't ask like from the boards. They typically don't ask for something very specific. And so you don't. When you don't ask for something specific. You don't get anything specific. And so I think. like we should, you know, give those high level goals like things we're thinking about like finding those brighter connections between historic preservation and sustainability. And how do we? You know? How do we better incorporate those values? And then also racial equity. Like, how do we? How do we incorporate? How do we incorporate racial equity into a program that is basically like memorializing

[235:11] colonialism? If you take the time to watch some of the conference sessions. That is exactly what the preservation movement is moving away from and towards something, and there's a foundation in the preservation field to be inclusive and have racial equity at the center. And it it there. There's a lot of work going on right now. It's a pretty exciting time to be part of the preservation field, but I would disagree with the fact that it is like holding onto colonial like ideals. I think there's so much opportunity for preservation is about the future. What future do we want it to be?

[236:00] Agree? Yeah, I would love to like, yeah, if you. if we're writing this I'd love to get from you like a blurb about, I mean and II meant that, you know, as not to say that that's what our future. I want that to be our future. I think today, currently, in its current form, we don't incorporate. We don't have. You know, racial equity isn't a criteria that we have in our policies or like there's not. I think there's a lot of room for growth. So if environmental sustainability and racial equity are sort of like where we're heading. And then the Lrdc sort of an immediate action item to help make our board more equitable, so that people of all ages and stages of life can be a part of it. I mean, that's me feels good. But if there are other pieces that people want to incorporate. I feel like you know. Let's

[237:00] agree on those things now. Sorry I was just talking to myself. Marcy, you you mentioned keynote speaker. Did they talk about racial equities, this kind of one of the inspirational pieces of that? Can you? Can somebody on S with, you know, and the planning department here. Send us the link to that. Yes. the other thing that I'm gonna send to you is this it's called the Relevancy Guidebook, and it has like. There's an executive summary that's really short, but it is about like ideas for the future of preservation that I think are pretty exciting. And you might crip from that.

[238:00] Okay, that's great. So this is on topic, but also just like I feel like this is even more important under the Council. Chelsea. I think you have done an excellent job bringing up some really challenging topics to the board. and I think that this racial equity piece that has shown up a couple of times or not racial. It's just equity that has shown up a couple of times, either. you know, in the makeup of our board, or most recently in the Civic center. Discussion is really valuable. like, I compliment you for taking it on. I feel like. It's such a challenging body of I don't know information, or I don't even know like, and this is part of it, like I don't even have the words to describe that we

[239:00] I don't love how we handled all of our meet, our hearing for the the designation of the district I just like in retrospect. There are aspects of that where I was just like man. This is your hard topics. You know your community members that are standing up and like it, it felt I think it should be hard, but it felt more confrontational than I would like it to be today. Ani said something, and you spoke up on behalf of the applicant. and that would to me was like spot on. I was like, Yes, Chelsea, like I'm so glad you said that that felt so good to me. II feel like I need an education on how to navigate this.

[240:00] and I feel like we all would really benefit by learning a little bit more on this topic as a group. And if Marci has a resource here like this thing like you're willing to say, colonialism like you have no idea how I applaud you for just using a word. Here it is. I said it, and now we can talk about it and critique it. It's hard to be the person to say it like whatever it is. But like, I guess I guess I'm just posing this to the group like a I applaud Chelsea for talking about some really big picture stuff. And I think that those are forefront conversations that we can be talking about that are part of, like our next year's manifesto. And then B, like what would be really valuable for us is to go and learn about this as a group in a more detailed and focused way, so that when we are attending these meetings that we can kind of bridge that link that's our civic duty, and that some of it is like strangely embedded in our like. How do you run a meeting, you know, like, how do we treat each other in a meeting like these things to me are really just starting to like overlap in a way that I would just offer to everybody. I would

[241:11] really think it would be valuable for us to spend a little bit of time learning specifically about how that relates to preservation, and so that we have a more. a little. We're just a little bit more ahead of it, you know. And then we can speak to it in a way that maybe is more consistent with, I think, what we all are trying to do. So well, we'll thank you for. and I want to echo that. And I think sometimes there are votes I would like to take or not take. but I'm bound by sort of the guidelines for the ordinance. Do you know what I mean, and I think what Chelsea brings really to the table is. Well, maybe we need to see if that's still the way the ordinance should read. And I know that's a longer process, a huge conversation. But it's like we're we've been reacting not only in the way we've

[242:09] it. It's sort of like you keep perpetuating things as you see other people do them and whatever. And then also, you know it. It's a matter to me. Is does it meet the criteria, doesn't it? These are guidelines, these. This is our ordinance, but that can be changed, you know. And, Ronnie, I don't know if this is the right phrase for. But what you're sort of saying to me is preservation is always. People have always complained that it's reactive and not proactive. And I think what you're asking for is that we'd be more proactive and find more tools and more ways to do it better. You know. Yeah. And I just feel specifically about this equity piece. and Diversity piece, which is becoming, is become. There are boards for this. Now.

[243:00] you know, like II feel like we are working in the realm in which we would all I would. I'm saying this for me, but just like for all of us, cause I care about us all, and I think we are a team here when we go to these meetings, and it's not to say we can't have the same opinion like we don't need to have same opinion, but like I think we'd all benefit just by a little bit of education like I know I would. I love it, you know, Marcy's at the forefront. I love it when Marci steps, and she's like, well, actually, and this and like, I learned so much just from that. And it comes from us kind of having the the dialogue. But I would think that it'd be very educational, and I would love to spend some time doing that with all of you, and if there's a way to do that, and then to have a discussion about it like, if we all listened to this keynote presentation, and then we had a discussion as a board like that to me would be a very valuable thing, much better than writing a letter to City Council. Not that I don't want to write the letter to city Council. We can write the thing and have the one pager, but, like that is time super well spent.

[244:03] Ronnie and Chelsea bring up really good points. What if it and Marcy and Abby but like the idea is that maybe it's not a letter about. You're talking about action items. But within this action item it is bringing racial equity. It is bringing monetary equity to the forefront of something as simple as when they don't even see us as the landmarks board. And we're putting time and effort. And we bring this letter. That's being like, Hey, we're thinking of these things. These things are important to us in the in, you know, in the Landmark Board, and we just think that they're important to us. They should be important to you. And I mean, maybe it's not even about like what the Landmark Board is doing. But maybe just about writing a letter of of bringing racial equity in, in weaving it into every aspect within the city, and and maybe it is the fact that the the city of Boulder has that woven into everything right, even the historic.

[245:11] In the Historic Board. The landmarks board the Preservation Board, like like this, racial equity is important. I mean, Chelsea does bring it up a lot and like. So let's talk about it. Let's write a letter to counsel that says we're we want to bring this to the forefront, even in in the preservation aspect. And we want to bring equality to everything. So maybe it's more of like a statement piece, which is, they might read. They might not, but at least will be a discussion point. And, Ronnie, it sounds like we wanna have like a little meeting after. So that we get this and this thing right? I mean, I don't know with this really big thing be racial equity, which is on the forefront of so many people's minds. Not just. you know, but I think it's really great that we're talking about this, because even if we write

[246:06] writing a letter allows us to. You know, digest what we really are trying to progress, and at the same time it might plan to see within the council that actually grows into something else, you know, like. So I think that maybe we've totally switched from where we started to the letter to where we're going with the letter. I just don't know how to do it without every board member being in it. So it sounds like, I feel like, maybe we need a a meeting that is posted 24 h in advance cause. This is, it really is important. And that's okay. And if there is. you know, I could see also where, if you and Chelsea wanted to work on a draft prior, or if you wanna use.

[247:02] you know, if you have enough information now to do that, or if you need a meeting, and I you know I'm cognizant of the time now to kind of drill down to what those the essence of the letter would be. I? Yeah, I think I think I have a sense for what we're getting at. So I'd be happy to do an initial draft, and then I can send it to Rene, and then well, Renee and I can work on this together, and then we can come together. or what would be the other way if we made the draft cause, I mean, between now and March twenty-twond like there's not that many days. I don't know when we're all gonna be free. But what would be the process if we if we worked on the letter and then send it to you, Marcy. And then how would you get agreement from everybody? Hmm! I think if if everybody wants to be part of, or even review it before it goes to council, we would have a meeting that publicly noticed at least 24 h in advance, either in person or virtual, or or hybrid. We can pick that meeting like we can like, go away and vote on a date for this meeting. Right? So yeah.

[248:22] we can do the logistics by email. But you and Renee could draft a letter that you sent me that then I sent to all 5 members. That that's meeting technically. or if to not have it be another meeting. could it be? You send it to each member individually, and they provide any comments back to you, is it? I thought. That's how other people did it. Other groups that if it's one individual, if each person is providing comments to justice, staff member individually, then that's not considered a meeting. I mean, if it's comments based off of work that other board members are doing, then it's it's still a meeting with just extra steps. Okay, so we can't avoid it.

[249:21] These roles. What? What if I I think there's a couple of options. What I'm hearing is that the board there's a discussion here that the Board wants to have that feels very timely and very important. I also feel like I hear the majority of you saying writing a letter is worthwhile. So maybe we start there. A proposal would be that there's the there's this 5 page executive summary for the relevancy project, but I think will really resonate with all of you in terms of like these topics that bubble up, not just for us, but across the country, and maybe my proposal would be that

[250:08] we read it as a group. If somebody has time, if you all have time to also listen to the keynote. It's very inspiring. I think it's about an hour, and then we meet. and like as a group and write a letter there. there's a proposal. I like the proposal. I would make a friendly amendment that we have a draft written already because I feel like Co. Writing something from scratch feels like torture. But I think if we have a draft that we could send to everybody in advance and then have the meeting. yeah, so that would mean that you like you could write it. I will look at it, and then and then we watch the like. What Marcy is referring to

[251:09] it. That was that it was the second day. Right? Mercy. And it was during the the yeah. It was amazing. So no matter if we write this letter or not. Everybody has to watch this woman like she is. I first of all, woman, hear me roar, and the fact that it was about racial equity is just again really awesome. So putting that out there, everybody should watch it and Chelsea and I can watch it over the weekend, and then we can start doing something next week, and maybe Barcy could put out a couple of times to where we can meet. Now, if people can't meet. it just has to be Chelsea and I. Well, it doesn't have to be Chelsea right. It could be one of us if if there's 3 people that go to the meeting. Then then there's 3 people that talk about the letter right? So if the other 2 people can't go, then they don't go. But at least we have a letter to move forward with. So I think that's the course of action. And I think, Marcy said the meeting could be virtual or a hybrid, so you know. But but Chelsea, the I, the the thing I like about you saying

[252:20] of a draft, especially after these things Marcy will share with the full board. If, then, it gives other board members something to respond to, and not just like piece of paper, and you know, sometimes it's hard to get a committee to really write something, but it's great. It's much easier for me to respond to something, you know. Yeah. So how do we from a legal perspective hack, can we? How do we send something out to the full board? If if no one has, if no one is responding to the email like Marcy could send out an email that says.

[253:00] here's like, it's sort of like the, you know, sending out a packet before the email or before the meeting, like, here's the here's the draft letter. Don't respond. Now, like we'll be, we'll be talking about this at this meeting. That's allowed. Yes. okay. okay. sounds like, we have a plan. Yeah, that seems like, every board meeting goes into this really big thing. And we're just preservation. I'm just kidding. Solve all the world's problems, and then we'll be like, Wait. Why didn't the city Council follow our plan to solve the world's problems, to be willing to do this into jump right on it. I think I should have thought about it.

[254:02] I ate chips and cookies for dinner tonight. I don't know if you guys watch me do that. So it's a little weird. But that's what I did online cookies. But here's the thing. I think it would be really great if we had a debrief together in person, if possible, and really had a a talk. Now, just had the educational talk about this. I think we'd all learn a lot. And I Marcy, I think that educational piece for our board members and staff could be a really wonderful thing. That's like a way for us to grow as individuals, to grow as a team to have a dialogue. II think that would be really wonderful meaning cause what I would appreciate is like, I'm thinking of someone who could do a little training. I mean. you mean some expert coming in and kind of

[255:00] not necessarily facilitating, but sharing what it all means and understand cause. I don't know if I could tell someone else what it means. Yeah, I don't. I agree. And I'm kind of thinking that this keynote speech sounds pretty. Marcy, I think, probably knows quite a bit. If we need to bring another person in, we could at the tip of her tongue. Here. I just the city has some staff that can speak to this eloquently. But you're right. Let's see what resources you send us the thing to that. I just want to step in and say, that's unique is, I think we could go talk to somebody about equity and diversity. Talking about equity and diversity and preservation is different. I mean, it's the same. But it's so. It's unique that they're not talking about that in the same way, and I feel like that would be wonderful. And then to tie it to to actual things that we're like buildings and projects that we're reviewing and be like, Hey, this is how it applies. I feel like could be a little more free form, or perhaps Staff could put something together. That's like.

[256:11] you know. Let's talk about this in terms of the historic districts. I don't know. I mean, I don't even know how prepared we need to be, but it would be great to do that. Marcy, what are you thinking? I am. The best session from the conference was one from this woman. It was called building a more inclusive preservation field in Colorado, and she was just awesome. And we stood up. We walked around. She posed these questions. You like shuffled around, and the music stopped mirror next to a stranger, and she posed a question, and you answered it, and it was about equity and preservation which to your point, Ronnie just made it resonate so much more because it takes these big, important ideas and said, But what's our role in it? How can we move this field forward? I would love to see if she could be

[257:09] on the consultant team for the historic preservation plan update, because I think a lot of these conversations. That would be an incredible foundation to then look forward and chart the course for the next 5 or 10 years of the program. Are we gonna do that before the March 20 s deadline for this letter? Probably not. But I do think that what I'm hearing is is a desire for some trainings. We have a lot of great city staff. We have. We have the role of government racial equity training that, I think. is offered to board and commission members. So let us pull together some resources. But in the short term, and knowing that it's 1020 pm. Right now. Why don't we say? For the next 2 weeks

[258:02] we have a plan. I'll share the relevancy guidebook. I'll share a link to the to the session. Chelsea and Renee will draft something for the rest of the board to respond to, and then we'll work with a doodle poll to find some time. maybe the next week. that we can all come together and and put something on paper to send a counsel by the twenty-second. That sounds great. alright sounds really good. I'm excited by this. I feel like this is super productive. It makes me excited to be on the board. I feel like this is the kind of thing that you know we rarely get to do. But this debrief has been the best. So we're changing things. We're changing the world. That's the kind of thing that becomes a catalyst. Do you know what I mean to make that happen? Because you have to identify at first, you know.

[259:02] Cool. Marcy. Did you have anything else? I did not have anything else. Any board members have anything else otherwise the meeting is adjourned at 1020 pm. Thank you, everybody, and thanks again for taking this on. Thank you. Goodnight.