April 3, 2024 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] The chance of getting it. Right? Okay. It's on the cloud right now, at least. Then it it'll be backed up somewhere. Alright. So we are. Thank you. Thank thank you so much, Lauren. The April Landmarks board meeting is called to order. Welcome to the April third, 2024. Board meeting. It is 601 pm. And the first order of business tonight is, Marcy will review the decorum for this virtual meeting, setting. Thank you, Claire. Would you go to the next slide? Perfect? Thank you. All right. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board and commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives. More about this vision and the project's community engagement process can be found online through the link on the page

[1:02] next slide. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder revised Code, and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld. During this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other form of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. and participants may raise their hand to speak during open comment and public comment periods. During the hearings. individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently only audio testimony is permitted online. And then the next slide is a good reminder of when the time comes for public comment, the host will ask if anyone's interested in speaking to use the raise hand function, you can find that under the reactions menu at the bottom of the screen. If you're on

[2:06] a computer and then the raise hand function, there's a shortcut Alt light. If you're on a PC option y. If you're on a Mac, or if you're calling in, it's a star. 9. And then Abby, one more announcement at the beginning of the meeting is that Lindsay, welling with the certified local government program at history. Colorado is joining to observe our meeting. This evening. It doesn't mean anything for the Board members in terms of changing your behavior or acting any differently, but know that we welcome you, Lindsey. Thank you for being with us tonight. Thank you, Marcy, and I wanna echo your welcome to Lindsey. I do wanna acknowledge that we have a quorum this evening. A recording of this meeting will be available in the record archives and on Youtube within 28 days of the meeting. We'll do a roll call by quickly introducing ourselves. I'm Abby Daniels, chair of the Board.

[3:08] Chelsea. Hello, Chelsea! Castellano Landmarks board member. Hi John Decker, Landmarks board member. Ronnie Peluccio Landmarks Board, member. Thank you. And even though we have a form, we do have one board member who is traveling and will not be joining us this evening. Before we begin. We know that there are people here to participate that may have some strong emotions about particular projects. We want to hear from you, and have found it is more productive, if you are speaking to persuade us, rather than berating us, staff or the applicant. as with regular landmarks, board meetings. You may only speak at the appropriate time during the public hearing request to speak outside of those times will be denied as board chair. I will call for a roll call vote for any motions made this evening.

[4:08] The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from the March sixth, 2024 meeting. Do any board members have any changes or alterations to those meeting minutes? Seeing or hearing none? I move that we approve those minutes. Is there a second. I'll second. Thank you, John, on a motion by myself, seconded by John, will do a roll call, roll, call, vote Chelsea. Aye. John. I. Rami. Aye. And I vote I so the minutes from last month's meeting are approved. So next we will have public participation for any items not on tonight's agenda.

[5:00] and this is where you can raise your hand if you're joining us by zoom or press Star 9. If you're calling into this, and I will give Lauren a few minutes to see if there's any members of this public wishing to speak to us at this point. Yes, so first we have Gavin Mcmillan. Thank you. And then, Lauren, I'll ask you if anyone else has indicated an interest to speak. So, Gavin, please go ahead and speak. You'll have 3 min and state your full name when you begin. Yeah, can everyone hear me? You know. Great 1 s, please. My name is Gavin Mcmillan, and one of my partners, Brady, Burke and Bow Burris. We own the building at 2260, baseline road we were in front of you in January to discuss the demolition of the building at 2260 baseline.

[6:00] and then in February we met on site with landmark staff and Abby and John from the landmarks board. We sat down at that meeting and rolled out the plans that we had been developing and working on for the last year and a half. and I think I had a really good discussion about the just the real challenges and difficulties associated with with keeping the existing building and retrofitting it for housing, which is what we intend to do. We appreciated hearing everyone's questions. And and hopefully, we were able to illustrate just how it's. It's just not possible to keep this building and build any significant amount of housing. I'm here tonight, I guess, to tell you that our position just has not changed since since that meeting. It's it's just not possible to develop the amount of housing that the the site is zoned for and and calls for, and our community needs. while simultaneously keeping the existing building on site. It's been a little while since that onsite meeting. So just to quickly summarize the constraints and challenges first is is building height. We are unable to expand the existing building to the west, due to the high restrictions on the way. The height is measured in the city, and since expanding the building is not an option. We're unable to retrofit the building with a significant amount of housing, and actually force it about 2 separate buildings. Which is a very significant change

[7:18] and challenge. There are significant accessibility and energy efficiency challenges with keeping the building. Providing 80 80 accessibility between 2 separate buildings that do not share our parking structure would be very costly. And actually, today, we just have not figured out a way to do that additionally providing efficient mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems to 2 separate buildings is very inefficient and costly. Parking, keeping. The existing building prevents us from building structure, parking under the building, due to the number of structural peers that I think we all saw during that that site visit that are underground and underpinning this building. We'd have to work around. This severely limits the amount of space available to meet parking requirements, and in turn it prevents us, you know, from building, housing.

[8:06] and lastly, costs, and probably the biggest one. There are just significant construction costs associated with retrofitting the existing building to meet modern energy and building codes. But the primary cost implication associated with keeping the billing is the limits and the restrictions that places on the amount of housing that we can build to summarize. At this time we've determined that demolition of the building is the only economically viable path for us to move forward and build new housing on the site, and we're asking for approval to remove the building from the site. Wanna thank you all for your time and service on the board, and we look forward to hearing your discussion. Thank you. Thank you so much, Gavin, for joining us this evening. And Lauren, I don't know if any additional members of the public have indicated they'd like to speak. Yes, we have. Lindsey Llewellyn.

[9:03] Okay. And Lindsay, when you again for the record, just state your full name, and your 3 min will commence. Sure it's Lindsay fluing. I'm the certified local government coordinator from history, Colorado, as Marcy said. Thanks for the welcome. I just wanted to jump on and say, you know Boulder has is one of our oldest Clgs. You've been Selg since 1985. And we currently have 67 across the State, and they're about 2,100 nationwide as you may know, one of the big benefits of the Clg pro program is our Clg Grants program, which provides no match grants for preservation, planning design. Guidelines survey education, outreach projects, and then also your locally landmark properties and contributing properties and local historic districts. Are able to access the state, commercial and residential tax credits. Which are worth currently 25% and those are reviewed

[10:09] in Boulder, with Claire and Marcy. Whenever those applications come up for residential and then commercial properties are reviewed at history, Colorado for those and then one of the responsibilities of the Clg program is a evaluation every 4 years. So that is. basically, I attend a meeting for the landmarks board, and then I'll have a meeting with Staff, and then I go through all of your records at history, Colorado, from the past 4 years, like your annual reports. Meeting minutes. Which I read throughout the year, anyway. And anything else we might have on file. So that's what the evaluation entails but should be pretty straightforward, since you guys meet regularly, and you know, carry out your regular public hearings and things like that. Yeah, just wanted to to pop on and say, Hi, and and thanks for having me working.

[11:01] Thank you so much. And, Lauren, I'm gonna look to you again, or or speak to you again to see if anyone else has raised a hand. So it looks like if we have Lynn's people. I don't know how anyone is so disinterested in the landmarks board as to like. Have no one speaking every time after time. People should be 50 people should be coming to these things. I do not get it. Something's going on. Something's really going on, because 1015 should never have been demoed like circle. like there's a big problem here. There's something going on behind the scenes. Money. I'm putting my money hands up because you can't see my image on the screen. There's other things going on. 1015, probably had a good 1,500 feet. I still don't know. Marcy. Tell me how many square feet is it? But it was a good size for a family, and it would have been fine left there. But you wanted to just hand over

[12:09] a few 1 million bucks to the developer. Basically, that's what it is. They'll put a 10 million dollar house on there 5,000 square feet, and we could have had some affordable housing. What needs to happen with these kind of projects is that they need to go through planning board and Eab. because this is a disgrace to the carbon footprint and the landfill and and the hab. It's a disgrace for affordable housing in boulder, because each time you put in a, you know, 10 million dollar house. You spread the wealth equity, and you get more people homeless and more people evicted. And then at the City Council retreat they're talking about, you know just how to take care of the basics, the homelessness. Let's see, Western resource advocates.

[13:03] So the point is. It's a bigger problem than just landmarks. And and I think that that creates who's here and the new history that's going to be here. So these these things can't just be dumped like this, the last house on Juniper. It's it's a travesty. It's unbelievable to me. It's not a landmarks. Board. It's a planning board in disguise. Western resource advocates. How is it that they got this permit that I understand from John? If correct me, if I'm wrong to do to give them 16,000 more square feet if they're going residential, because the the the other word for God in boulder is housing.

[14:00] Well, housing is also the curse in that the more housing, the more services, the more services, the more need for housing, the more wealthy, and equity, the more homelessness, etc. There is a sister house next, or building just north of WRA. Do not demo that. Thank you, Lynn and Lauren. Any additional members of the public. I think we yep. So we just had a hand go down. I think we're done for that portion portion of the public comment. Okay, thank you so much, Lauren. We will now officially close public participation for anything. Not on the agenda this evening, and we'll move on to a discussion of landmark, alteration and demolition. Applications issued, and pending.

[15:02] Alright, so I'll go ahead and pull up my slides here. and alright. So we have one stay of demolition pending currently. And that's the one that gavin spoke to under open comment, which is 2, 2, 6, 0 baseline right on the southwest corner of Baseline and Broadway and this Mid Century Office building came in for historic Preservation Review late last year, and then on January tenth, the landmarks board places day of demolition to explore alternatives. and on February fifteenth we had a site visit with the applicants with which Gavin kind of recapped the main takeaways of that. And so this evening, April third. A scheduling decision is in front of the board this evening, not on the outcome of the application, but it. The May first meeting is your last regularly scheduled meeting before the stay of demolition expires on June first.

[16:14] and so your decision tonight is whether you wish to hold a hearing to either. Approve the demolition or initiate the landmark designation process for the property. So we have motion language prepared if the board wishes to make that motion. But again, it's it's more. Does the Board wish to hold a hearing to take action on this application before the State expires at a regularly skipped opening. Thank you, Marcy John. I knew you weren't able to attend last month's meeting, but you were one of the Board members at the site visit. So I think we'd all really value hearing your thoughts.

[17:05] my thoughts. The problem with this particular situation is the fact that it's going to be very difficult to save the building and to do what the land given to be able to do, which is to deliver a certain amount of housing based on density. and the one thing that was not discussed at that site meeting, and that hasn't been discussed in any forum is the idea of preserving an L shape of the building. That is the. I guess, landmark or monumental portion of it from Baseline and Broadway. and to incorporate it into the corner of the building that is developed. If Gavin is still there. I would love to hear him speak to that, because it was never discussed.

[18:08] Partial preservation would be. I think, in the current economic environment of the city. The best we could hope for. Gavin is. Is Gavin still there? I think he mentioned looking forward to this conversation. It looks like he. He's there knocked in here. I, Gavin? Could you speak to what I just discussed or threw out there. potentially. I I don't know if my architect is here who can maybe help. I'm and maybe you can rephrase. I'm not exactly sure what you're proposing. What what I'm proposing is is that and this is kind of a I don't know. Post. Modern

[19:01] idea is the notion of the wall that faces that faces Broadway, and the wall that faces baseline. The the glass walls tend to be the most, I guess, visible and recognizable portion of this building. And the idea would be to incorporate those walls only into the new building that is on that corner. Well, gosh! I hate to re respond just off the cuff on. I you know we did look at preserving the building, and in different portions, and like, kind of a expanded version of what you're talking about. I can tell you it doesn't. Yeah. It's what kind of what we're in for permit, for if you know we have, we had designed a building that we're only

[20:06] able to get to a certain amount of size. We we don't eliminate the problem of the height restrictions and expanding the building it. It still leaves us with that problem. And also the problem with it is that that that building is sitting in in the setback so on that on the one side. So this is the area that we need to come under and park under. I don't. I don't think we could do that. I mean. my initial reaction to your comment is that I I really feel like we've studied this extensively, and I'm hesitant to even think that that's possible what you're mentioning. If I'm understanding it correctly because of the same restraints that I outlined in the public comment. we need to kind of come come under the building into the setback areas. And that building is sitting just in the wrong spot on a lot to do that. So, saving any portion of it, I I just don't know how we could do it.

[21:06] Okay, that's the answer. Thank you, Gavin, for that, John. Was there anything else? Additionally, you wanted to share. This is. This is the type of building that we would want to preserve the sense that it is a representative of a particular historical period in Boulder. It has a somewhat unique design character. There is a twin of it, not a perfect twin, but there is a twin of it elsewhere. I'll which may end up being threatened for the same reasons. And John, sorry to introduct. Interject. I know that. It gets a little fuzzy with talking about the pending demolition case, but the board should try and not state a position about the outcome of the demolition application. The decision in front of you tonight, and you don't have to make a decision. Is whether to hold a hearing, to take action, to either initiate the designation

[22:19] process or to approve the demolition. The Board's opportunity tonight is to schedule that for the May first meeting to have that conversation. An alternative, if you don't want to do that this evening is that the Board could vote at the May meeting to hold a special hearing before June first. So this isn't your last opportunity, but it's your last opportunity at a regularly scheduled meeting. But this really should just be a scheduling decision, and not on the merits of the. Okay. Alright! Can I just ask? So our our question is, do we wanna have this? We have to have a hearing.

[23:01] Don't have to. Can. Okay. Stay expire, and if the board doesn't take action before June first, the demolition would automatically approve. But what. or have a hearing on May first, or schedule another meeting between May first and June? Why would we do that just. That would be a special meeting. But why would we do that? Just curious! Yeah, if you didn't feel like you, knew whether or not you wanted to schedule a meeting tonight, you would still have enough time to make that decision on May first. It would just have to be a special meeting that we would have to convene before June first. and. Chelsea. I agree that in a perfect world we would avoid a second special meeting in May. I mean, I feel like we have the facts tonight to make a decision like there's there's no additional information that we're gonna have

[24:04] in on May first, that we don't have tonight in terms of if we want to schedule a hearing. So I feel like we should just decide if we either want to schedule a hearing for may first or or not schedule a hearing, and and let the stay of demolition expire. And Marcy. Thank you for bringing us back to the crux of what's in front of us tonight. I was one of the board members who was at the site, visited the applicants, I think you know, really, went out of their way and gave us a lot of great information and walked us around the building. I personally think I mean, this is just such a cool building, and the way the landscaping was integrated in it, including some built walls and everything. I mean. It's just such a cool building. I think that when I supported a stay of demolition on this building

[25:00] it was to explore creative alternatives, and I think what I found at the site visit for me, and I know Marcy and John and Claire were there as well is that things I would have wanted the applicants to explore. They had, in fact, explored, and they had tried to come up with a way to do it and build another building, you know, to the West, and whatever but it wasn't going to meet various city parameters is is the best way I can phrase it. So I think what I wanted to see out of this day was actually already accomplished, you know. And I I agree with so with with Chelsea, that we should make a decision if we want to schedule an initiation hearing for May or not. And, Abby, what do you think it's? I know you've been very involved. What is your position on that.

[26:00] I I would love so badly for this building to be preserved. It does pay homage to the Hobie Wagner Green Shield Building. That is already a landmark, and what would be cool is sort of these sisters or cousin-like buildings. I think my position tonight is that everything that should have been discussed during this day, I really think was discussed, and that because of what the the applicants were trying to do with the existing building, and were told they couldn't. I don't see a path forward to designating this building, and I you know I appreciate what John's trying to say. Could a portion of it be saved. And of course, what first comes to my mind is that that west facade of the Casey Middle School, where everything else was torn down, and then you just sort of which in and of itself sort of also gives a little bit of a

[27:04] you know it's not the best practice in the universe to to save just a portion of a historic building like Casey Middle School. But but I think that did turn out successful. I just I I I don't want to support demolition of this building, but I also cannot support initiating landmark designation. And Marcy can you speak to your thoughts on this. Hmm! Well again, it's just a scheduling decision. So it's so it's hard to steer away from stating a final outcome. I yes. agree with what Abby has said, which there are kind of different types of applicants that come through this process. Some are more in the exploratory phase. What could we do with this property? I think the applicants for this particular project went as far as you can in terms of

[28:09] how do you incorporate this building into the redevelopment, and they got very far into the building. Permit review before realizing that that it wouldn't, it wouldn't work out. So I agree with Abby that we have more information through this stay of demolition, and and at this point than we do with with typical ones. And so I I don't know, like, on the spot, of whether I would advise the Board to hold a hearing or not. I think I think I'm going to leave it up to you all again. You're not making a decision on it tonight. True. Don't take action you would have to hold a special meeting to take action before the State expires. So I think that's why these decisions, these scheduling decisions can feel so weighted? But again, it's really.

[29:01] do you want to have a hearing to discuss this in the open forum on May first or not. Okay. Well, Marcy brings up a good Po point. That also makes it a public hearing. I would. I would prefer, based on what the applicant has brought forward, and the robust nature of the attempts that they have made to incorporate this building into the future use of it, which is so important that it's housing and what I've heard from those who have been to the site visits no. or I think that letting the stay of demolition expire is the approach that would

[30:04] that would best meet like that would best address what we've seen up until this point. And I don't think we're going to learn anything new that's going to change that. Yeah, I just. I don't think we need to go through that whole process based on the information we have now. So I would vote to just let the state of demolition expire. I'll I'll jump in and complete what I was saying at the beginning. I concur with that. I think we should take no action. Okay, I I also would support that, I trust in John and Abby's and Marcy's description, and what you have explored and experienced on site, and you know I would agree to that as well, John.

[31:02] I. I think I would. I can also. I mean, you know, I lament that this this wonderful mid Century jewel is, you know. will not probably be saved. But I I I just You know I lament that, but I do think that I would support taking no action this evening. Okay. And so, Marcy, do you? I mean taking no action. There's no vote we take so. Yes, so we would then move on, because we don't have any other pending stays of demolition. We would then move on to the first public hearing. Item. Okay, the first public hearing is 5 a.

[32:02] It's a public hearing and consideration of an application to demolish a house constructed in 1,910. At 6 13, Walnut Street, a non-landmarked building over 50 years old, pursuant to Section 9, 1123 of the Boulder revised Code. Okay. Can you see my screen? We can. Excellent. Okay, you can't see me alright. Thank you, Abby. this is a a quasi judicial hearing, so I will go over the procedures. All speaking will be sworn in, and board members will note any ex parte contacts. I'm gonna be giving the staff presentation tonight. After that the Board may ask questions. and the applicant will have 10 min to present to the board. The Board may ask questions that the applicant will then open the public hearing, and, after all, members of the public have made comments. The applicant may respond to anything that was said. Will then ask everyone to mute their computers, and the Board will deliberate.

[33:15] A motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 board members to pass, and motions must state findings, conclusions, and recommendation. A record of this hearing is available in a couple of days as a video recording, and the official record will be added to the Records archive within 28 days, usually sooner. So the Board has requested that if we reviewed this previously at the landmarks Design Review Committee, we note who were members of the committee, and it was reviewed on February twenty-first by Chelsea, Abby and Marcy as a staff member. So back to you, Abby, for expert contacts. Thank you so much, Claire. I have no ex parte contacts Chelsea.

[34:02] Men. John. None. Ronnie. None. Okay, Claire, back to you. Great. Thank you. So the criteria for review is outlined in the boulder Revised Code under 9, 1123. This is a demolition application. So the purpose of reviewing this application is to prevent the loss of buildings that have historic or architectural significance. By providing some time to consider alternatives to demolition. And there has been some confusion about why this application doesn't include a proposal for new construction. So I wanted to to be clear of the criteria for review under section 9, 1123. And that's the the eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark. So if it has historic or architectural significance.

[35:01] and their relationship with the building to the character of the neighborhood as an established and definable area. So that's the the what we call the environmental significance. So the board may also con consider the reasonable condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or repair. although not deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect. and the options for the board tonight are to approve the full demolition, or to place a hundred 80 days stay of demolition to find alternatives so the application process so far we received the application in February due to the age of the building it was reviewed by the landmarks design Review Committee, first which referred the application to the Landmarks Board for review in a public hearing, finding there was probable cause to believe that the building may be eligible for a designation as an individual landmark.

[36:09] So let me find my pointer. Okay, the the property is located north of Canyon Boulevard between Sixth, which is here and Seventh Streets the the house faces south towards Canyon Point Park, which is which is this park right here? This, historically, was Walnut Street. This is Walnut Street here, and it used to go through before Canyon Boulevard was extended to. To complete this loop originally, Walnut went through and continued along this line. Here. the adjacent properties include multifamily buildings at 601 Canyon Boulevard right here. and 6 24 Pole Street.

[37:01] Right here. Notice the address changes. This one is Kenya Boulevard. This one's Pearl Street just to confuse you. But this one is actually still 6 13 Walnut Street. So there's an alley along the back of the property. the property is also within the boundaries of an identified potential historic district. shown in green. Here. This is the property here. The this green box is the potential historic district. It is also surrounded by existing historic districts, including Mapleton Hill historic district, the downtown historic district, the West Pearl Historic District And there also are some individual landmarked buildings that that are here in orange. There are actually 6 within that proposed historic district.

[38:00] So this is a one story vernacular frame house. It has an l shaped gable form with overhanging eaves, wood shingles, and and front porch, which you can see right here. This is the south elevation, so originally facing Walnut Street, but currently facing the park. It includes a project projecting front gable right here. The hipped roof porch which spans the front. There are actually 2 entry doors within the porch which are not original. and A low balustrade on the the porch with some turned porch supports. There's also wooden filigree ornamentation in each of the the gable ends that you can see here and decorative wood trim around many of the wood double hung windows. And the building is clad in painted wood shingles.

[39:07] The house itself retains a moderate degree of architectural integrity, since it's construction in the 18 nineties. this these are. This is the footprint. It's kind of faint, but you can just about see it. This is from the 1934 to 1949 tax assessor Card. and it has not changed from then until now. the the the one story gable roof form, and the front porch and door and window openings are largely intact. However, they've been incremental alterations, the impact, the integrity, the original arched window you can just about see. Behind the tree. in. The facade was was removed sometime after 1,988, and replaced with this rectangular double hong window.

[40:04] The the original narrow lap siting has been replaced with the shingle. The decorative would trim that you see on the exterior was actually removed from the interior and and put on the exterior at some point, and the the filigree ornamentation and the gable ends was added after 1988 and also the actually, the balustrades at the the front porch were also a later addition. this is an image from around 1960 before gives us Canyon Boulevard right here before it was paved and extended. So this is is Walnut Street back here. not great pictures. I apologize, but you kind of get the idea of of how much this has changed. You can see the the Multi

[41:01] story, buildings on either side and the the road. The building's ability to convey its association with its original use as a working class, residential building has been diminished by the construction of of all of these aspects, the multifamily buildings on the adjacent property, and although it's in its original location the setting. But the house on the property has substantially changed both with the adjacent construction, and also that it that it now faces this park rather than the historic context of Walnut Street and and the addition of Canyon Boulevard which is a State highway, has also impacted its historic context. So, as I mentioned, the criteria for review are outlined in 9, 1123 F. Of the Boulder Revised Code Which includes the eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark outlined in 9, 11, one, and 9, 11, 2.

[42:10] The relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood. Also. We use significance criteria that was adopted by the Board in 1975 to evaluate in a consistent manner to be eligible. The property only needs to meet one of these adopted criteria. But commonly accepted practice is that a building should also retain the physical features that allow it to convey that significance. So this is the historic significance that we found. It is likely, although we couldn't confirm it, that Jonas Anderson, Jr. Who is a Swedish immigrant, and his son, Fred Anderson built the house. this is Jonas, and younger Fred right here. based on ownership records and area photographs. We think the house was likely built sometime between

[43:05] 1,885, and 1,889. The first residents were recorded in 1,900, and they were Sophia and Andrew Bernstein, who were also Swedish immigrants. And they lived at the property for 2 decades. Rosina and William Crow lived in the house for 3 decades. It was back. Then in the town of West Boulder, which was incorporated in 1874 by some landowners who lived in the neighborhood, including Jonas Anderson and his father, Jonas Anderson, Sr. So this was an area of small farms, orchards, and residences that was located along the main wagon road which led towards Boulder Canyon. And as those wagons were replaced with trains and then cars the area redeveloped with industrial and commercial interests.

[44:02] The building was recognized in 1988 in the in a historic building inventory which said at the time the building retained a high degree of integrity, including its original porch and semi circular arched window. and that it was representative of the vernacular frame houses being constructed by the working class of boulder in the 1890 S. So most most of the architectural significance of the building has been lost it. It retains that the vernacular word frame and the gable l form. but any skilled or artistic carpentry that might have been added originally. including the curved facade, window and trim and porch detail has been removed. and the decorative filigree and current window and door trim was added to the exterior of the house after 1988,

[45:01] the environmental significance is is diminished through the construction of large multifamily buildings on adjacent properties. And also through the loss of the historic context. It is located in an identified potential historic district. However, we think it's unlikely that the house would still provide historic and environmental importance or significance as a representative example of the character of this area of Boulder. So the house as I mentioned, originally faced Walnut Street, which would have been about here until 1958. Canyon Boulevard which was also called Water Street, ended at Tenth Street. And then Walnut Street terminated at Third Street, so further west. and Pole Street continued westward to become a Boulder Canyon Highway. So that was that wagon route, and during the 19 sixties the streets were realigned

[46:06] to, so that Canyon Boulevard became the main West East Thoroughfare This realignment and the construction of of these large multifamily buildings on adjacent properties. Plus the the replacing of of Walnut Street with Canyon Point Park has resulted in the loss of the character of this neighborhood. so the the applicant didn't submit information related to the condition of the building or the cost of restoration or repair, but I believe they have included some information in their presentation. So Staff's findings are that a stay of demolition for the property at 6 30 Walnut Street is not appropriate, based on the criteria set forth in Section 9, 1123, F. Of the Boulder revised Code

[47:02] while the building meets criteria outlined in the significance criteria for individual landmarks. It doesn't retain the physical features that allow it to convey that significance, including the relationship to the character of the neighborhood. Stuff's recommendation is that the landmarks Board approve the demolition application for the building. At 6 13 Walnut Street. Finding that the building does not have significance under the criteria, set forth in 9, 1123 f. If the the board chose to issue the demolition approval stuff would require that prior to any demolition, the following measured drawings of the exterior elevations, the site plan and high quality digital photographs of the interior and exterior of the building would be recorded with the the Carnegie Library for in their archive.

[48:02] So that's the end of the staff presentation. This is a reminder of the next steps in the process. The applicant has, up to 10 min to present to the board, followed by public participation. An opportunity for the applicant to respond to anything that said, and then board deliberation. And the the question today for the board is, if the building has historic significance. And if yes, the Board will place the stay of demolition on the application to provide time to consider alternatives, and if no, the Board will approve the demolition request. so, are there any questions from the Board before we continue with the applicant's presentation? John! Yeah, I have one question. Claire can Is this in the flood plain? I know that the path on Point Park actually

[49:02] is raised to create a kind of a flood barrier from the canyon side to Walnut But the possibility of secondary flood coming down walnut is probably unchanged. So. How. I actually don't know if the applicant can't answer that, then I can look that up while the applicant gives that presentation. If that's okay. Okay, that I think that would be an important piece of information. Ronnie Chelsea any questions for Claire. None for me. I don't have any as either. And thank you guys. And, Claire, I have a quick question because I I had to resist trying to do any research on my own. This is the Jonas Anderson that was like the Anderson ditch is named for south of Boulder Creek. Correct. That I also don't know. There are a lot of Anderson's in Boulder, so that would also be something I'd have to research jonas Anderson, senior, who was the father of Jonas Anderson, Jr. And Fred Anderson was one of the founders of West of West Boulder, but I'm not sure.

[50:18] Just that, that it's the same Jonas Anderson that the ditch is named after, and who was real instrumental in in early boulders. So thank you. If there's no more questions for Claire, we'll move on to the applicant's presentation. I will need to swear whoever's speaking in and you will have 10 min. Great. So I see the owners, Joan and Ernest Sofa here. So I'm going to send invitation to join as a panelist. Here we go, so you'll see a pop up on your screen. And then from Coburn partners just a reminder to change your name, your commonly known name. There

[51:07] you should see that pop up here in a few minutes. and then Lauren will get the timer going. The applicant will have 10 min to present. Right, even if there's multiple speakers that'd be great and. Everybody. Geeks will need to raise their hand and swear to tell the Board the full truth. Lauren, would you mind posing the the timer for a minute? I need to. I have lost my zoom control, so I need to reshare you. Bear with me a second. I apologize. There we go, and I see Ernest and Coburn have joined as panelists and Joan will be joining shortly.

[52:12] And I don't know who's going to kick it off on the applicant team. Are you ready for us. We? If, Claire, you have what you need to do. The the slides. Yeah. Do you see them? Is that your first slide? Peep. Yes. Okay, just let me know when you need me to proceed. Thank you, though. And do raise your hand to sort of tell us the whole truth, and then your full name, and proceed. Hey? My name is Peter Weber, and I swear to tell the whole truth. And my name is Bruce. So first, and I swear, does that work. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so we can dive in here. I think we maybe want to start with with Ernie. Ernie and his wife Joan are the owners of the property, and they've been there for many years.

[53:09] So, Ernie, maybe just you could help tell everybody you know, kind of why we're all here today. Sure. So so be before I start. Yeah. I Bob. Sorry could you pause the timer, Lauren? And we're just getting a big echo with Ernie's comments. And, Joan, it might be with your microphone as well. And, Joan, one thing you can try is lowering your speaker cause. Sometimes the speaker gives feedback to the microphone, and that could be what's happening. Yeah. And, Joan, I'm sorry I muted your computer, so if you wouldn't mind unmuting it, we'll pause the timer and give you all time to get the audio dialed in.

[54:08] And now click on that click on that. Okay, We can hear you. Well, right now. Okay, start video. So in terms of the question about the floodplain that that you had, John? one of our neighbors, who was the Cu professor and an expert on floods. Gilbert White? He actually lived at 6, 24 when I bought the property, and he definitely said that

[55:01] 6 13 walnut was in the flood plain. and he highly recommended flood insurance. Okay. Okay. So I bought the building in the 80 s. and did extensive renovation primarily inside, but also outside. And I bought the building to use as a business office and as an investment. and I'm not. I apologize. This is Chris Reynolds, the city attorney's office, Mr. Soap. Would you mind swearing yourself in and just hitting your name for the record. Oh. I thought I did that, Ernest Soper. I swear to tell the truth.

[56:00] Thank you so much. Okay. and my wonderful wife, Joan and I. have served the community for many years as psychologists working out of this building. We're now retired. and would like to be able to obtain. you know the full and and fairer value of this investment, and to do that, apparently potential buyers would need to have the option of being able to demo.

[57:03] So I can answer John, and I can answer questions later. But, Pete, do you want to start your presentation. Sure I can take it from here. Thanks, Ernie. And, Pete, you already swore yours. To tell the truth, correct. I did. I can do it again. No, go ahead. You're good. Okay, Claire, if you want to go to the next slide. So the first thing we did when we realized we needed to come talk to the larger board was to review the criteria. and I think, the important thing that I wanted to mention is is these words important, significant and special and I think, in our opinion, this building, while it has been kept up fairly well, doesn't really quite rise to the level of those words. Things to consider other relationship to the neighborhood character. Claire touched on that along with the condition of the property and the cost of repair, and I'm gonna go into each one of those a little bit

[58:02] if you go forward, Claire. So the the 1922 sandborn map is on the left. I'm sure you're all familiar with the Sanborn maps, and that, you know, indicates the character of the neighborhood as it once was when it was sort of originally built in its first few decades, and you can see there's a series of small buildings with large yards, single family, single family homes, a couple of small triplexes. These buildings were largely single story in some cases 2 story and you can see in the 2 photographs there, 6, 13. The house in question, along with its neighbor, which is now a large kind of Mini building to our east. You can just see some hints of it in that greeny picture. and the 601 walnut was our former neighbor, or the building that was where our neighbor is at 601 601 walnut, which was torn down sometime, I think, 2011, 2012, something like that. But you can see just from the Samba map that the character. This neighborhood was very different. In 1922, and up until the much more recent decades.

[59:15] If you go forward, Claire. this is what we have today. This is from Google Earth, and you can see them. Just the sheer footprint of the buildings that live around us is significantly different than when it was originally built, and as it evolved. The green is the is our site here, and you can see the size of some of the buildings, some of them from the Pd era of the eighties. Some of the larger ones keep going. And this is what it looks like today or a couple of days ago. 601 walnut you can see there. In the picture on the left is our immediate neighbor. It is now a 2 and 3 story Townhome Building, and then the large kind of Indian building is 6 24. Pearl Street is the brick building, so both the kind of a front and a rear view of that. And I think these do a nice job of showing. The building in that context. And how diminutive it is in in comparison to our neighbors

[60:16] next. and then see, these are some of the surrounding buildings again, a large condominium building. That's just a couple of doors away. On the left. The building across the alley is the building on the right. Keep going. And then again. View of this property, this kind of from the alley you can barely see a hint of of 6 13 amongst the 2 larger buildings next. and then here it is again from the rear. and then one more about the surrounding. I guess there's 2 more. This is the shot from across canyon. and then the next one is a an aerial view which I think really does a nice job of showing how the context

[61:08] that this building was built in has been almost entirely erased. And now it's a bit of a an anomaly. With regard to its neighbors in the rest of the neighborhood. So we think the neighbor has significantly changed. And this this small small building has really lost its original context. By virtue of what's happened around it in a next so clear, pointed out some of the alterations, and I'll just go. Won't belabor this but since you've already talked about it, but I did want to note that the gable on the rear here was added, I think some sounds like sometime in the thirties. The gable in the back was added. All of the windows have been replaced. The siding is not the original sighting? The original siding was a collaborative siding, and now you can see it's a shingle siding. Not sure when that was done.

[62:02] All the windows have been replaced, including the arch windows that Claire mentioned. The window trim has been replaced. The porch roof has been altered. A doors been added and added, opening on the front. There you can see just 2 of those wood doors. All the doors have been replaced. And then the added porch trail and all the scrollwork has also been added. and then next? So what we need, what needs to happen to this building, if it is to remain is a lot is not in really in moving condition. There are many things that really need to be addressed. The purchase settling the roof. If you look closely at the upper image there. It needs to be entirely replaced. The shingles. There's many shingles missing. They're thin needs to be entirely replaced. The plumbing is in pretty rough shape. I was done on the crawl space, as you see in a minute.

[63:01] It really needs a full gut and remodel for somebody to really re inhabit this. The kitchen has been removed. There's no kitchen currently in the building. The siding needs to be repaired and or replaced in several places. One of the egregious spots is at the Crawl space access in the lower image. and then the ceiling and the interior has unfortunately been lowered about 18 inches, and so we have a very low ceiling, and what could otherwise be a fairly decent ceiling? Height? So I think we would. You would want to change that. And by the time you do all of that. and you look at the next pictures. Which is the existing foundation in the crawl space. It's hard to justify doing all that work and leaving this building on the existing foundation. It's a rubble foundation. That has been messed with. In many locations you can see the amount of rock and brick that's actually on the ground, and not where it's supposed to be. As part of the wall.

[64:03] Some of it is grouted mortars you can see, particularly in the image on the left, but some is not. It's in pretty rough shape down there, and then you can also get a sense of what's going on with the plumbing. It's a mess. So we did not, you know, do a firm cost estimate of what it would take to rehabilitate this building. But it's in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is a, you know, 1,000 square foot building. That's a lot of money for a thousand square feet. So again, if we go back to that criteria significant. And, Pete. I I'm sorry to interrupt you, but the 10 min has expired, but because of a couple of technical glitches we'll give you another few moments to wrap up. I'm I'm basically done. I just wanted to reiterate those 3 words, important, significant and special. And bring that to your attention. We think the neighborhood has changed significantly. The building has been changed, and it's gonna be really expensive to try to put this thing back together

[65:05] as it once was. That's it. Thank you so much, and we will see if any board members has questions for you or the owners right now and then, after public comment. You will have an opportunity to address the board for an additional 3 min, so do any of my colleagues have questions for Pete or Ernie and Joan. That'd be if I could. I could. I did take a look at the flood information. While we were offline there. Here. And here you are. Yeah, it's in the 500 year flood zone. I think the improvements to that. We're done with the park there. Took it out of the 100 year, but it is in the 500 year, and you can see just just touching 601 is the is the 100 year.

[66:04] Thank you. That's helpful, John. Does that answer your question? Yeah, it does. Okay, before we move on to public comment. Any questions from the board at this point. None for me. Thank you. And then, this is the time for any members of the public. If you would like to speak to this item, to raise your hand on the zoom. Call or press Star 9. If you want to speak over a phone and Lauren, I'll give you a a moment or so to see if anybody from the public would like to address this. And, Abby, I'm gonna take over the Mc. Laura can run the the timer in the background. So again, yes, this is your chance. If you'd like to speak to 6, 13 walnut use the raise hand function found at the bottom of your screen. And, Abby, we have 2 people so far who wish to speak. I believe it is. Tim. With 6 24 Pearl Residents Association, followed by Dylan Williams.

[67:10] Thank you, and both Tim and Dylan. When it's your time to speak, you will need to raise your hand and swear to tell the board the full truth, and then your 3 min will commence. So, Tim, go ahead. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: Yes. Hello. Hi! Can you hear us? I will need you to raise your hand and swear to tell the Board the full truth. State your full name for the recording, and then your 3 min will commence. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: I swear to tell the full truth, my name is Tim Mahoney. I'm the president of the 6 24 per Residence Association. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: This is the building that's referred to 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: in the description just east of 6 13 walnut. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: And 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: we're here tonight to bring a little more context

[68:00] 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: to the the building and its relationship to the neighborhood. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: In 1,982, 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: Gilbert White, Larry Sennish, Kenneth Boulding, and others. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: purchased 3. All these properties, including 6, 13 walnut 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: hmm. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: with the idea of building 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: a development where it is now. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: and the the 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: building of it and the completion of it was taken over by West Pearl Development 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: as part of 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: West peril developments 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: promised to the 6 24 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: residences 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: and easement was given 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: on the same day that we took possession of the building 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: for the property on which 6 13 walnut is 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: currently sitting. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: So we still have an easement on the entire piece of property, not including the building site.

[69:03] 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: that was part of the development agreement. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: So 3 years after this the building was sold. The building 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: with the easement still in place 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: as it is today. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: 6, 24 residences have 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: maintain that property sprinklers. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: Mowing 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: tree trimming things like that for the last 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: well, 30, 38 years. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: Something about the context of 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: there are several other properties in the block that this 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: house and 6, 24 are in 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: that are historic buildings. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: and we remove, we feel, removing. More of them wouldn't necessarily be in the interest of the neighborhood. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: particularly Arnett Fullen House. And there's a 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: historic 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: blacksmith shop just about 50 feet from the back of this property.

[70:01] 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: It's also his historic 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: But we also 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: would feel like we needed to point out that 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: the 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: the house is sitting 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: directly on the property line at 1 point 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: to the property to the west, so 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: I would assume there would be some 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: kind of easement issue or setback issue that would have to be dealt with. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: We also have no plans for 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: what the future development is. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: And so we would ask that 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: the consideration of the historic 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: nature of this property to 6, 24 into the neighborhood, be taken into consideration. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: hit. Thank you, Tim, and your time did just expire. But thank you so much for joining us this evening. Dylan Williams, I believe, is next, and Dylan if you would raise your hand and swear to tell the board the full truth, your 3 min will begin.

[71:06] We're gonna tell the full truth. My name is Dylan Williams, and I was wondering if you could show the map that we sent in our comment. I would just like to. Can somebody put that up on the screen, please. Hello, Laura butcher! Would you? Would you mind posing the timer for a second while? I while I find that? And I get it up? It's gonna take me a couple of minutes. I could share my screen, if you prefer. I think it'll be easiest if if Claire pulled it up, and if in the meantime, if anyone else is planning to speak, you could use this time to find the raised hand function and and be in the line.

[72:27] And, Claire, I have it available if if that's easier. I am right. There, hang on a second. Okay, there you go. Perfect. Thank thank you very much. So so this is a map of the neighborhood. I think that one of the things that I noticed in the previous presentation. Was they really focused on this house being sandwiched between 2 new developments? I think that that

[73:00] that really does miss all of the other historic buildings around the neighborhood. just previously there is mention of the blacksmith shop just sort of Kitty corner. that's landmarked and a really unique building. You are not full in house, landmarked, and on the National historic Register just on the other side. The 2 houses from the 19 eighties, which are really in very, very good shape. Just down on Seventh Street there is the building right across from there built in 1,900. But even more interesting is the old stage house that was constructed in the 18 nineties. And that's really a marvelous house there and then the racket meet market. also landmark from 1901. So I think that there really is a lot of historic buildings around here, and I think it's really too bad that one would try to use sort of as a justification

[74:11] for demolishing a house that's actually I think looks would be very recognizable to people who who had lived there in the past. to to to use the exist. You know the new building to to justify demolishing that there was also mention of the state of the house. I think that. You know people sometimes call that demolition by neglect. I'm not sure that's exactly what happened here. But It's it's up to the owners to deal with that that's not supposed to be a justification or overall demolishing something. And the other thing I'd like to point out is that you know Walnut Street did used to extend through this Kenyan Point Park

[75:02] and in some ways it. It. It hasn't really diminished that house in particular. There's a very nice path that goes right in front of it, where people can walk by and look at it. You can also walk through the behind the house and see it from the alley in quite a nice way. And yeah, we love it. If if the other, if all of the buildings could have been preserved in in this neighborhood, but, as you can see, quite a number of them have been preserved. So we would really like to see this house maintain and and thank you very much. If you have any questions that'd be great. Thanks. Thank you so much. Dylan. Marcy! Are there additional members of the public. Yes, we have one one more person. From Public Lynn Siegel up next, and then if anyone else is interested in speaking, go ahead and use that, raise hand function.

[76:04] Thank you and, Lynn. I will need you to raise your hand and sort of tell the board the full truth in your 3 min will start. I'm sorry. Give me just a second can you restart the timer if you've not started it already? Here we go. I swear to tell the truth, the best that I know it not the truth, the best. I know the fact that this is an environmental character issue. Not that it's a systematic takings of this property and a lot of the arguments. I agree with Dylan that oh, the rest of the neighborhood is grown, you know. Ha! Have you ever read the book, my my mom read me this book when I was 3 and 4 years old, the little house

[77:00] by Virginia Lee Burton. You know I'm not in this field. My son's an architect. I'm an ultrasound technologist. but you know I am body historic preservation. and it matters to me. and all I see in Boulder is more and more takings like this. Now I appreciate Ernest and Joan. but I don't think that they can bet on making the big buck from multi-story apartment buildings on their property that I value that many people that drive by on canyon can see that is beautiful from the frontage and and the back. and the and the other historic properties around it. you know.

[78:00] I so wish that I could be here to convince you of something. you know. But I'm not a big condenser. I just think people should do their job. and I really think the landmarks board is just a fraction of what it should be like, I said. It's really the planning board in disguise. and I think a lot of people in the stark community agree with me. But I'm just speaking for myself. you know. The little house precedent took it over. and yeah, it was the last one down. and that's the reason to leave it. If it was the last one down, as Dylan showed it was not. It is not diminutive. That's a good thing. not a bad thing.

[79:02] These issues of how it's been changed, how you have to fix it up deferred maintenance. I know that I've got a place with a lot of deferred maintenance. Yeah, I know it's costly. but I'm trying to preserve my thing here. You know. I can't even see my grandkids because they're in another state. I'm anchored to my house. but it matters to me. Lynn, I'm sorry, but your time has expired. and Marcy, just checking to see if anyone else has expressed an interest in speaking to this item. I'm not seeing any other hand raised at this point. So this is a final call. If you'd like to speak to this application for 6 13 Walnut Street. and it it looks like Tim. You may have raised your hand again, though it's a policy of of just one public comment per evening

[80:02] for per agenda. Item. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: Mean 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: we have another speaker. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: Is that okay on the same line? Or do we need to call in again. Oh, oh, no, sorry I didn't. I didn't realize there were multiple people there. So you can go ahead and introduce yourself and swear. To tell the truth. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: Okay, this is Mark Mcmillan. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: and I swear to tell the entire truth. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: also a resident of 6, 24, Pearl 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: just wanted to ask we we put some 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: put some slides together, as well for the 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: for the board to review, and 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: as as Tim alluded to. We have a 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: perpetual easement 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: on all of the non-developed portion of 6 13, and I was hoping. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: as you did for Dylan, you'd be able to pull up the map. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: It shows that easement for the Board members to look. Take a look at, please.

[81:00] I can do that, Lauren, would you please pause the the timer for a second while I those together. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: I wanna see our presentation 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: baby blank. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: I got it. I got 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: we go 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: Middleware. Okay. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: Right.

[82:00] Can you see this? Okay. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: Yes, absolutely. If you could move to the the page, I think it's a third page that will show the 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: the map with the easement, because I think that helps establish the context 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: that we're discussing here. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: So you can see the the footprint of the building is excluded from the easement, as is the parking lot for for parking spaces, was really intended. As Tim mentioned. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: the professors that put this 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: plan together owned both parcels 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: and their vision, which was agreed to by the city at that time 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: was to provide open space and and basically a landscape. Perpetual, non-exclusive landscape and access easement is what our our easement says 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: we'll run free pedestrian access over and across the easement. No permanent structures or improvements shall be placed on set easement. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: said Easement, being over under across the following described property, which basically gives us that. So we wanted to make sure that

[83:01] 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: everybody understood the context of the footprint of the building as it 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: as it exists, and basically the 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: the the building. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: as as it might be in the future. And you can see the the setback issue that might be encountered, or would be an issue. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: I believe, for the type of zoning it would be a 10, 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: 1040, isn't it? There 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: on the side, so the footprint of any 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: future building would would be quite diminished. And it just seems a building 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: that 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: is. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: you know, a hundred 25 plus years old. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: you know, Colorado being 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: maybe 25 years along in the process at this stage. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: Taking it away, you can't! You can't go backwards, and without understanding what the future 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: part of this picture really might be.

[84:00] 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: it seems. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: kind of unwise to 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: allow it to turn into a hole in the ground because it may be a challenge to fill that hole properly. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: So we just wanted to provide the I guess the context there 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: and 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: and and ask that 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: rather than just, I'd say, blanketly, approving 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: this, that you do a little more investigation into the into the property in the easement, because we felt that the 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: the memo, the 24 page memo that staff put together, while I included lots of great detail on previous 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: residents. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: did not really give good context to the 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: to the easement that's in place, and how that would have bearing on any future development that might go there. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: Thanks very much for your time, and we appreciate your efforts. Thank you, Mark, and I don't know Tim. Was there anyone else from your hoa that was planning to speak, that we might not see.

[85:08] 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: No, we no, that was that was. That was it. Okay. 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: Points, I would say, is still well heard, I would say. As long as the board has taken a look at the package we sent, we'd feel that you could 624 Pearl Residences Association - Tim Mahony: make a fair decision. Okay, thank you so much, Marcy. Before we close public participation, I'm going to give you another chance to see if anyone else has expressed an interest. Great. I have not seen anyone else with their hand raised for this item. Okay, we will officially close public participation for item 5, a. And Pete and Ernie. This is the additional 3 min that you have to rebut or respond to anything said during public participation. Go ahead, Pete!

[86:00] I I think that I just wanna address the the question of the easement. My understanding is that what you have before you should be judged on its merits of the the building itself, and whether or not it it could be eligible, and that the the easement should have nothing to do with that decision is entirely a separate subject which which we'll have to deal with at some point. So I don't know if the city attorney's office wants to weigh in on that. But it's my understanding that that has no bearing on this discussion. And, Ernie, I don't know if you have anything else to add. not really. I'm glad to answer any questions. Okay. Thank thank you. Gentlemen. Thank you. So now we will turn it back to board. Deliberation. I believe we thought we could deliberate for about 25 min or so as needed for the question in front of us tonight. I don't know what my colleagues questions and may have

[87:06] at this point. or if someone is willing to jump in and start off the discussion. I can start I'll just be short and sweet and I just. I support the recommendation by staff. I think they've outlined solid justifications for how they came to their conclusion, and I will be voting in support of that recommendation. Thank you. Chelsea. John, or Ronnie. I I was wondering if Staff could maybe comment on the conversation about the easement.

[88:01] You know. I think Peter was asking kind of a direct question about the review, and also the applicability of that content and the case. Tonight. I I can speak to that a bit. so the easement issue isn't really germane to the discussion of whether or not the Board wishes to follow staff recommendation or do or do something else. so I I do kind of agree with Pete's assessment that it is a bit of a for potential discussion down the road, but isn't really something that the landmarks board needs to sort out because it is outside of the building. Thank you. Yeah, I have some things to throw in on the

[89:00] the issues that are really at hand. The issue of of possible I guess sufficient quality to consider designating. or at least to consider exploring it. It. I think that the thing that I'm not gonna necessarily challenge, but the thing that I think needs to be discussed is the environmental issue. That was one of the arguments for not designating or or not exploring. And the fact that the environment around the house has been changed as significantly as it has renders the House no longer, I guess, valid as a as a historic candidate. I have to take issue with that, not in this specific case, but in general.

[90:05] in the sense that it's not uncommon to see a remnant piece of architecture that has been surrounded by a heavily altered context, and the value of that piece isn't diminished necessarily by that. In fact, it's also arguable, and probably this is the reason for the easement that. preserving that building, at least the scale and mass of that building in that space helps preserve the environmental quality of the 2 adjacent larger properties and does not make them pent him. Then by. if somebody put a sliver, 3 story building in there up to the absolute limit, assuming they could.

[91:02] think those are. I think that's something that we need to consider a little further. As as for whether the house is is. I guess. quality that we should consider preserving it. I think there are a lot of issues with this house and what was presented. shows that it is going to need a new foundation. If if a decision was taken to preserve it. it would need to be lifted and refounded on a better foundation than a rubble foundation. It probably would need to be pretty thoroughly gutted and rebuilt from the inside out. All the systems and those are all considerations.

[92:01] the sense of what the expense of those things would be, and so on. but I'm kind of leaning towards wanting to know more about this building in this environment. Ronnie, do you mind if I jump in after because of what John just said? It kind of helps me with my thoughts, while I always appreciate Staff's expertise. So the the rationale for everything I actually would be in support of a stay for this. One of the things most intriguing to me is that if, in fact, it's the Jonas Anderson that was, you know, very pivotal in the creation, and really helped shape the boulder that we have today. Early on. I would be interested in knowing more about that, and I feel like the only way to do that is through a stay. I do understand where the easement is another issue for

[93:02] for others, and not something we should look at tonight. But I also, I'm so aware of the other wonderful historic buildings around here. And, John. I wanted to jump in after you because I agree that that yes, some context is lost. Yes, there's been some modifications to the building. But it's still standing. It's an it's an older building here in Boulder, and I I just think a stay would give us a chance to really explore more about it. Yeah, Abby. I agree with you. I think that if you look at the immediate context, the buildings to the east and the west. Clearly, this small house is engulfed. And the environmental significance criteria, I think when you look at it, just on those 3 buildings, seems to have significantly diminished.

[94:05] This particular criteria item for this this home. But I do agree that a further evaluation needs to be made on this particular property, and I think it is compelling to see the broader image of the neighboring buildings in the overall block. And what other historic structures are there. And I agree with Abby and John in this case, that this, in this particular case, I think stay would benefit us. Now, I don't know if there's any more discussion. I want to take the time we need to do this and I don't know if anyone's ready to make a motion. Chelsea, do you have anything you'd like to add.

[95:00] Well. I thought earlier Claire had mentioned that in the presentation they would be talking about any like costs associated. or the conditions of the House of Costs associated with re furnishing or redevelop. I don't know. I I thought I heard that that was going to be talked about, but I wasn't sure that I heard that set. Chelsea. My understanding was that no information other than the provided imagery was provided in terms of cost. Maybe I'm incorrect. That's what ye yeah, Claire said that in the but that in the presentation there would be something. So I don't know, Claire, if maybe you want to clarify. So John is correct. Just there was just the additional imagery from Pete. Why and the the issue of the flood plain so like the house, would have to be lifted, and a new foundation would have to be

[96:03] put in if if this were to be landmarked and and modified, correct. I don't believe that. We have that information yet, Pete. Is that something. Oh, somebody said that. Yeah, if I can. the we are in the 500 year flood plain, not the 100 year flood plain and my understanding is that there would not be the need to raise the building for purposes of the flood plain. The condition of the foundation is such that our search is to put it all the money into the rest of the work that needs to be done, that you would want to fix the foundation as well, which could be certainly at least a bunch of repair, but could be a full replacement. And I think that's what John's referring to when he mentioned lift and place. and and. And Pete did, did you not?

[97:03] kind of mention a ballpark figure of the cost of full renovation. Yeah, you know, we did not do a line item cost estimate. So don't have a a firm number. It's certainly in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. But I don't have a I don't have a number for you. Okay and would it be possible to ask the applicants if they would. how they feel about having to have a stay of demolition, and like working with staff to try to see what can be done with the structure without demolishing it.

[98:04] Well, Ernie, maybe you could speak to that. I think that the time would be extremely unfortunate. to wait 180 days to wait half a year. The soapers are trying to sell this property and move on with their life. and that time is significant. In this case. These are 2 individuals who have been in that building for a long time, and right now it's an albatross for them. It is not. It is not an asset until no one wants to buy this building. No one wants it in its current condition, and and being being allowed to tear it down makes it much more attractive. I'm sorry, but that's the fact. I know why you're all here, and I appreciate the work that you do, but that's the reality of this is a thousand square feet. on a nice piece of property, and it is. It requires way, too much money to fix it up, and

[99:04] 180 days would be significant for Ernie and his wife, and we really would urge you not to do that. Agree. Thank you for expressing that. I just wanna follow up just because I mean, I understand the rest of the board. It seems like, do want to or I've heard from the majority of the rest of the board that they want to put the stay of demolition on. It does seem like the applicants have looked at other potential options and the cost associated with redeveloping. I I just often question, and this is sort of not specific to this project. But the amount of time and money and pressure and resources that that we put like these people's like livelihoods are in our hands because we want to like. Oh, let's just like, see if we can do something when the like, we, we basically have the information that says that we can't. And so I would just urge us to make these hard decisions

[100:13] sooner rather than later, so that people can. People can move on with their lives. And and you know this, this property, even in its current form, it's not the highest use of what can be done in this area. Clearly, it's an area that could use more housing. And if it had. you know the density that surrounds it, if if this property could have even a fraction of that density for this property would serve much more than being an homage to a time that you know this is close. There's a lot of historic

[101:01] landmarks like in this area I don't think that this serves the community. and it's it's not the highest use for the property. So I would urge us to take the staff recommendation and and just make this decision. Now. instead of making the applicant go through this onerous long process. Thank you, Chelsea, and and of course I don't know if, the ease met, how much density it would even permit on that until that that's looked at on a separate track. I also want to remind my colleagues that a stay is not to exceed 180 days. So I'm just going to put that out there. I'm still going to support placing a stay. I don't know what Ronnie and John, your thoughts. I we we did an abbreviated stay on a very well. It wasn't similar. It was a similar kind of a building

[102:04] over on. I think it was bluebell or. Oh, really! What's getting that. Area, and we did another one over there, and the site visit convinced us to let that property go. So that happened fairly quickly. I the the unfortunate thing, the unfortunate position we're in on these types of of projects is we get We get presented with them the night of a meeting without prior knowledge of them, because we're not really supposed to be having prior knowledge of these and have to make a decision. and we generally rely on Staff's expertise on this.

[103:02] I think that the I think that the thing that is, that is guess bending the decision is the adjacent historic properties on the pearl side. and the fact that it is a fragment of something that kind of was cohesive at a different point in history. and something that we need more time than one meeting to look at. I don't know how else to put it. Yeah. And if I could jump in Chelsea, I think I agree with you about expedited process. I think you've articulated that really. Well, and I don't want to, you know, burden the applicants by putting them through something that's unnecessary. I also recognize that the topic of the easement is outside of our purview. But the easement is actually such an important piece of this

[104:04] outside of the development right component. What I understand is that there's a pedestrian circulation that occurs around this building and is linked to the park system in front of the home. The way that people might interact with this building is very different than just the disposition of driving down canyon. and similar to having a historic structure on a corner, which all of the other historic structures, I believe that were presented in that map. That the neighbors put up were on the corners in a similar way. That they are. you know, on display in the public realm. In a unique way. This building may be doing that as well because of the easement implication on use around the structure. So, if if initially, it seems to me based on Staff's presentation that this building was hidden.

[105:06] and that it was experienced via driving on Canyon, and that it was engulfed between 2 large buildings, and that was the general. That was, that was the description of the context. And now that I have heard tonight from the public and kind of seen other graphics. Personally, I think it would be valuable to look at this house again. And I don't know if I've crossed the line with bringing the topic of the easement back up. But I think outside of the development potential and the highest and best use piece. The ability to interact with this structure and for it to be, you know, part of the public realm in a different way than I think it was initially perceived, at least I initially perceived it. Has changed my perspective on it.

[106:01] and so I feel like it would be beneficial for us. to evaluate this in that context, to get a better understanding of the more diminutive historic structures that are nearby. And how this building actually is what you know to what degree it is part of the public realm. Thank you, Ronnie, and of course I welcome any other dialogue from my colleagues, but I also did want to see if there was a board member who wanted to put a motion forward as well. Oops. Yeah, I mean. Motion. Go ahead, Chelsea. Oh, I was just gonna ask if in the

[107:03] with the goal of potentially an expedited stay, could we shorten it to 60 days? I would support a short and stay. I would also. And and so I guess, before we go to the motion in light of the way that I've described the characteristic of the easement. I'm wondering if the attorney, can speak to our ability to understand. The implications of the easement to. you know, over the course of the stay. Sure to. It's not part of the criteria, you know, worrying about what will happen like what will be the if the if if the Board decided to, you know, let this property get demolished. It's not part of their criteria in that decision.

[108:02] You know what's gonna come next. That's not. That's not part of the criteria, and that's kind of how I view the the issue of the easement is starting to worry about. You know, once once this, if and once this property gets redeveloped, what happens? What does that redevelopment look like? And that's just not part of the criteria. And it is kind of getting into a bit of dangerous legal a area using that and basing any decisions off of off of that. Yeah, I think I understand that piece of it. It the if the house was. I know this isn't the case, but if the house was next to a pocket park. Let's just say it was just written as that. I think our understanding and perception of

[109:02] the publics engagement with the property would be different than what I think I've initially understood through just having read the staff report. And so that's why I'm wondering what the easement is, and what the consequence of the easement might be. I. I do think that without getting into the legal weeds. I think it is something in this case to consider is the the fact that the easement and the intrusion into the property line at some point somebody is going to be a potential buyer is going to be doing due diligence. and is going to try to look at what the entitlements on that property are going to be, and the envelope, the buildable envelope is going to at that point get redrawn, even if the house isn't there.

[110:01] and if the house is there. the property line issue is kind of mood. as we've seen in other cases. I think that we're not supposed to consider it, but it is a consideration, because I think that the best and highest use of this property may already be visible. And best and highest use is not part of the criteria as to whether or not to do a stay or issue a permit for demolition. So it's not really landmarks for scope to consider. You know, what is the absolute best use of this property. It's it's it's to apply the historic preservation criteria and deciding whether or not this particular property meets the criteria or doesn't meet the criteria. And and and if we start.

[111:01] You know, we're all we're all human, and we and we bring our our our full selves into everything that we do. And so it's normal to want to think about things like best use. But it could it again, it could be problematic legal grounds. On a potential appeal. If somebody doesn't like the decision that you make. If if we start basing decisions off of things that are outside the criteria thick, right? Yeah. So I think, for bringing that. And and I understand that. Christopher, I I think my perspective on the easement is more about it. the impact of the public's ability to be near and the ways in which they experience the building. So it's not about the development potential of it. It is the difference between like I was saying, the building being

[112:00] in on a corner lot. or the building being next to a park, or the building being sandwich between multifamily buildings in which you know it is, you know, all privatized land that doesn't get public activity up against it. Ronnie, if I could just point out one thing. The the easement is for the benefit of 6 24 pearl. I believe the way it's I believe that's the way that it's written is not a public access easily. So while there's no fences here. My understanding is that is not a public easement, it is for the benefit of 6, 24. Okay. Okay, well, that's helpful. And and I, Chris, I so appreciate your comments about this, since I know we aren't really supposed to look at best and highest use as well as

[113:00] I know. Not. Consider these. But my point for me tonight is that I still. without even knowing there was an easement, or without that that I think this historic resource deserves a stay of demolition, and that there's probable cause to believe it's eligible for individual landmark designation, especially to explore the Jonas Anderson and. Hearing the boards discussion about putting a shorter stay of demolition. Could I, suggest that rather than a a 60 day the board picks the next regularly scheduled landmarks board meeting close to 60 days, otherwise your hands will be pretty tied with only having one meeting between now and the end of this day. so that would be June sixth. June fifth.

[114:00] June sixth. Is it. Us. Yeah, that's the that's approximately 60 days hence. Yeah, that that makes sense. And that would be the day after your June fifth meeting. Yeah. Got it, Marcy. I hear what you're saying, because otherwise you'd have to have it before got it. Thank you. So, Ronnie, were you entertaining making. Yeah, yeah, I I still feel like the 60 day stay to get greater clarity, if possible, is an appropriate route. And so if someone could pull up the language, I can make that motion. Is at the left. March. Board. yeah. Hope. That's okay. I move that the Landmarks board adopt the findings of the staff memoranda, dated April third, 2024, and issue a stay of demolition for the building located at 6 13 Walnut Street, expiring on

[115:08] June sixth. Let me keep going in order to explore alternatives, to demonstrate to them of to demolishing the building. Thank you. Do we have a second. I I'll second. Thank you, John. on a motion by Ronnie, seconded by John, will take a roll call. Vote Chelsea. 5. John. Aye. Ronnie. Aye. And I vote I. So the motion passes unanimously, and then, Claire, if you will just take a few minutes to explain to the applicants next steps.

[116:05] Yes, so the the board is placed to stay of demolition until June sixth on the property. And this will allow the the board to have some discussions about any options that are available to help preserve the building? We will be in touch to schedule some meetings and we'll do that pretty quickly. Since we have a compressed timeline here. Are there? 2 board members who would like to be representatives during this day. I will volunteer. I'll volunteer. Alright! Thank you, so we will. We will be in touch. Oh, my. And I'll just say, like, if you guys, obviously, this happens. But when and if there's a site visit, you know, I think it'd be great if we could all go do that.

[117:03] I think so. Good point. Now we're on to our next public hearing. I don't know if the Board or anyone else from the city, if you'd like to take a 5 min break before we begin. The next public hearing. Meeting. Yes. Okay. Okay. Okay, thank you. Okay, so we'll we'll be back at at 803 pm. Thank you. Guys.

[122:57] Abby, I am gonna just keep my camera off for a minute and get some dinner while we go through this case.

[123:18] Hey? Are we all back? See! Marcy's queued up and ready for the next public hearing. I am ready, and I think we're just confirming Chelsea. Are you back online. Sorry. Yes. Back. Thanks, Chelsea, so we'll we'll move on to a agenda. Item 5 B. This is public hearing and consideration of a landmark, alteration certificate, application to demolish the existing building and construct a new 2,800 square foot house and a thousand square foot accessory building at 5 20 Pearl Street, a non contributing property in the West. Pearl Historic District.

[124:22] Pursue it to section 9, 1118 of the bolder revise code, and under the procedures prescribed by Chapter one through 3 quasi judicial hearings. and thank you to the owners who have agreed to this virtual format. And, Marcy, I know you will be doing this presentation. Wonderful. So I will start with the quasi judicial hearing process which begins with all speaking to the item will be sworn in if you're speaking under open comment or public comment, you'll do that at the time that you speak board members will denote any exparti contacts, and then I'll give a staff presentation, followed by board questions.

[125:07] The applicant will then have 10 min to present, followed by questions from the board. The public hearing is then opened for public comment for 3 min, each, followed by board questions, and then, after the last public comment. Speaker has finished, the applicant will have a chance to respond to anything that was said. The public hearing is then closed, and the board discusses, and a motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass motions must state findings, conclusions, and a recommendation, and finally, a record of the hearing will be available. So I'll turn it back to you, Abby, for ex parte contact. Thank you, I have none. Chelsea. None. John John any ex parte. None. Thank you. And Ronnie.

[126:01] Nuns. Thank you back to you, Marcy. Alright. Thank you. So this is a different case type than the one we just reviewed. Which was a non-designated demolition. This is a landmark alteration certificate for the demolition of an existing building and construction in the West Pearl Historic District. The criteria for the Board's Review is found in section 9, 1118 of the Boulder revised Vote. and that is, that the proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores, and does not damage exterior architectural features of the property. that the work does not adversely affect. The historic architectural value of the property and the architecture, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement, color, and materials are character of the property and the historic district. and that the Landmarks board consider the economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of energy, efficient design, and enhanced access for disabled indoor

[127:02] of decisions. Your options tonight are to either approve the landmark, alteration, certificate, application, or approve it with conditions. That is subject to a city council call up. or you could deny the application. And that decision is subject to authority. Follow up through the Advisory Council. You could also provide the applicant the opportunity to withdraw the application, which is generally towards practice. If the landmarks board members are heading towards towards these people. and I might pause here, Don, I think there might be some background noise from your microphone. That, would you mind trying to use your computer? Wonderful? Thank you. All right. So because demolition and new freestanding construction over 340 square feet is required by code to be reviewed in a public hearing. None of you. Landmarks, board members have seen this application previously, so we've met with the architects and the owners a few times as they were developing plans, but the landmark alteration certificate was submitted on March ninth, and here we are in April, for the Landmarks board meeting.

[128:27] The property is located, as I mentioned in the West Pearl historic district. It's on the south side of Pearl Street, between Fifth and Sixth Streets, and, as you can see, the West Pearl historic district is just 3 blocks along Pearl Street, and then one block along Canyon Boulevard, and there's actually 2 small parks within its boundaries, the Fullen Park and Fortune Park. the property here in just a moment.

[129:05] Okay. Here's some photographs of the existing property, as you can see. It's a one-story cross cable frame building that was constructed in the 18 nineties and then significantly altered in the 19 seventies. Here's a photograph of the tax assessor card from between 1934 and 1949. So you can see, while the overall form is still intact, the form and massing of the house remains. The design of the building has been significantly altered with new siding and window and door openings, and a small addition has been added beneath the front porch, and 4 bay windows have been added as well. Let's see. excuse me. So the

[130:00] West Pearl historic district was designated in 1994, and the following year there was a proposal for a second story addition, and a second story, addition and addition and garage proposed here. So going back and looking at what past landmarks, boards have determined in terms of whether this is a contributing or non-contributing building. The 1987 historic building inventory form found that this L-shaped building, which has retained its basic shape and form, but which has been entirely remodeled with new siding windows and doors. The building originally had cloppered siding and narrow, double-hung windows built around 1883 this building has been remodeled beyond its historic integrity. and at each of the reviews in the 1994 creation of the West Pearl historic district. the 1995 Landmarks Board Review, and then again a review in 2,006 and 2,007. The landmarks board at that time did determine this building to be non-contributed to the historic character of the West Pearl Historic district.

[131:16] We don't have plans for the 1995 Review. It ultimately wasn't approved, but the proposal included adding a second story, and in addition to the existing house construction of a detached three-car garage, and that application was withdrawn in 2,006. There was another proposal, this time it included preserving the original building and restoring it back, based on the tax assessor photograph and then adding a 2,800 square foot edition and attached garage. and the application was withdrawn to allow time for redesign.

[132:01] And here's the east elevation of that proposal there that you can see goes from the small house, and then kind of 2 similar shapes, and then connects to the attached garage at the back in 2,007. So really, just a month later, after that previous review, the owners returned with revised design, which was a two-story 2,100 square foot addition and 500 square foot detached garage. The height at its maximum was 25 feet tall, and included the restoration of the original house. The application was conditionally approved by the Landmarks board, and that included a condition to reduce the garage to 400 square feet in size. The landmark alteration certificate was issued, but the project was not built. and I give you all. This context, not as precedent or like the only solution for what can be done on this property, but more as context for what the volunteer members in your position have determined in the past. And so this approval has long since expired. But going into the history of the case, it has been through the landmarks board process a few times.

[133:24] so now, coming into the twenty-first century. We'll go to the current proposal which you can see on the site plan here on the left includes the construction of the main house here, and then a 2 car garage at the rear, with a unit above the proposed house, is just under 2,800 square feet, with a maximum of 35 feet in height, 34 feet wide, and then the construction of an approximately 1,000 square foot garage.

[134:02] The North elevation is the one that faces West Pearl Street. and you can see it is a traditional gable form, with a front-facing gable with a secondary nestled gable on the west side. It incorporates traditional elements, including the shed roof, porch, and gable roofs with shed dormers. The building is located in the 500 Year flood plain, and so the building is raised up on a stone foundation. Here. moving around to the west elevation, you can see that the building has 3 shed roof doors continuing back, and then an irregular pattern of horizontal and vertically proportioned casement windows, and then the footprint of the house insets at the southwest corner of the property, providing a covered outdoor space, with the second floor cantilevered above.

[135:07] and then moving around to the rear of the property, which has some visibility from the alleyway, which is a public right of way, but is generally considered a tertiary elevation. You can see the predominate gable form continues to the back with a trellis, with a projecting balcony, and then a window pattern with sliding glass doors, as shown in the drawing. and then moving around to the east, elevations similar to the west elevation, with a series of shed roof dormers who's start below the ridge. The porch extends towards the front of the house, and then there are not many windows on the front of, or on the first floor of this elevation, with just the 3 as shown there, with the chimney towards the back that bisects the dormer.

[136:05] The proposed materials would be wood, state wood siding that is either stained or painted. That's a vertical wood siding, and then a stone at the chimney and the foundation a standing seam metal roof, and then the transom windows, as shown in the drawings. and this elevation shows the relationship between the proposed house and the proposed accessory building. and then going through understanding kind of the mass and form of the buildings through the 3D. Modeling. This also helps illustrate the material palette that is proposed moving to the proposed garage. It is a gable form, with flat roof dormers on both slopes of the roof, with a projecting balcony towards the west.

[137:07] looking at the south elevation which faces the alleyway. There's a single garage door opening facing the alleyway, with a rectangular window in the flat roof dormer and in the balcony, as you can see to the west. and then moving around to the west elevation. There are 2 doors, one accessing the garage, one accessing the unit with sliding glass doors and windows in the dormer. and then moving around. This is the elevation that faces the interior of the lot, and it has 2 kind of stepped windows on this elevation and one in the dormer. and then moving around to the east elevation. There's a single opening in the dormer there that's a small rectangular window. The material palette for the proposed garage is similar to that of the house, with vertical painted or stained wood siding, a standing seam metal roof, and a stone foundation

[138:14] moving into the staff analysis of the code criteria and the design guidelines. I've already gone through the standards for the issuance of the landmark alteration certificate which talks about whether the work preserves, enhances, or restores and does not damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the historic district? Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the property. and then the next one is about materials, colors, and textures, and then, with respect to the proposal to demolish a building in a historic district that the proposed new construction to replace the building meets the requirements in 2 and 3 above.

[139:06] So the first kind of component is the demolition of the existing building and staff agree with the past determination that the existing house is non-contributing, due to the extent of alterations and the West Pearl historic district design. Guidelines are unique in that it encourages preservations of what they call supporting features of non-contributing buildings. Staff considers that we need to look at the building and its merits on its own, and due to the extent of alterations we feel this is a non-contributing building, therefore its demolition would be appropriate. Second, while the proposed house includes architectural details that are reflective of contributing buildings within the historic district. The overall mass and scale window pattern and metal roof are out of character with the historic district.

[140:02] In the proposed two-story height garage door, opening dormer-sized balcony and window pattern of the garage staff considers are inconsistent with the design guidelines in terms of the materials and colors. Staff find that the style, arrangement, texture, color, and arrangement of color may be appropriate and compatible with the site. However, the use of metal roofing is not consistent with the design guidelines, or generally the character of the West pearl historic district. Metal roofs were found historically in Boulder. To our knowledge there aren't any existing metal roofs in the West Pearl historic district. and then staff considers that the new construction proposed to replace the existing building does not meet the requirements of 2 and 3 as described above. So going into the key design guidelines for the house, and our full analysis is in the memo and in the attachment of the design guidelines. But these were really the key design guidelines to highlight. In this presentation

[141:14] one key component is the height, mass, and scale of the proposed house. The general design. Guidelines. Section 6. Say that the new construction should be compatible with surrounding buildings in terms of height, size, scale, massing, and proportions, and the Westparl historic district is really characterized by smaller buildings. one and one and a half stories tall. There are 2 contributing two-story buildings. However, the scale of those two-story buildings is a bit smaller in terms not solely in height, but in terms of massing the mass and scale of the new construction, should respect neighboring buildings in the streetscape, and the historic heights and widths, as well as their ratios, should be maintained, especially the proportions of the facade.

[142:05] new construction to respect the historic character of the district, and incorporate the elements which contribute to the characters, such as mass roof, lines, windows, doors, bays, and porches. Modern expressions of traditional elements are encouraged, and I credit the architect for going that direction with the style of the building. I think the guidelines that we found it was inconsistent with mainly are the mass and scale and height of the building in terms of the site plan. There's the guideline, 2.7 in site design that talks about preserving a backyard area between the house and garage, maintaining the general proportion of built mass to open space found in the area. So while there are, I think, a larger proportion of built mass to open space than found in other districts this one seems to be on the higher end in terms of built mass

[143:05] in terms of the windows and doors. Some key design guidelines include design, the spacing, placement, scale, orientation, proportion, the size of window and door openings in new structures to be compatible with the surrounding buildings that contribute to the historic district. While reflecting the underlying design of the new building. Select windows and doors that are compatible in material subdivision, proportion, pattern, and detail of the windows, endors, surrounding buildings that contribute to the historic district. and that windows in a new building, or, in addition, should reflect the fenestration pattern in the district. Then picture windows, large walls of glass, snap, and mullions and prefabricated bay windows are generally inappropriate. and looking at the contributing buildings in the West Pearl historic district. Well, there is, I think, eclectic character generally. It's a regular pattern of vertically proportioned double hung windows, or you know that vertical proportion

[144:05] So in terms of referencing, contributing buildings that seems to be the general pattern in the West pearl district. and then in terms of materials and porches. Materials should be similar in scale, proportion, texture, finish, and color to those found on nearby historic structures and new porches should incorporate traditional massing and uptaking details in the design. So the porch actually meets the design guidelines. We had a very minor comment about how the base of the porch or the foundation should align with the railing rather than protruding beyond it in terms of the materials. I think that is something for the Board's discussion about the appropriateness of Stainedwood in the metal roof itself. In our analysis we found that it wasn't consistent with the character of the contributing buildings. But I do think that is something we're we're interested in hearing the Board's discussion on.

[145:12] As with all of these points. so in our design, guideline summary, we identified key points that were inconsistent with the design guidelines. So to summarize, it's the mass in scale, the proportion of built mass to open space. the window-and-door size, proportion, and pattern the roof material, and then the porch slab depth on the front of the house. moving next to the proposed new accessory building. The key design guidelines include section 7 in the general design. Guidelines. New garages for single-family residences should generally be one story tall, and shelter no more than 2 cars. In some cases 2 car garages may be inappropriate.

[146:05] The root form and pitch should be complementary to the primary structure. a new garages, and this is in the West pearl historic district that states new garages should generally be one-story tall in shelter, no more than 2 cars. They should be simpler in design and detailed in the main building. and if dormers are to be added to an accessory structure, they should be placed in an unobtrusive location and kept. Small dormer styles should be appropriate to the style of the building incompatible to the main roof form and dormer ridge lines should be lower than the main roof fridge. Continuing, the garage doors should be consistent with the historic scale and materials of traditional accessory structures. Wood is the most appropriate material, and 2 smaller doors may be more appropriate than one large door. The use of 2 smaller garage stores rather than one large door is also encouraged in the West pearl historic district, it states, because it is in keeping with the existing small scale of the neighborhood.

[147:06] and then for the balcony key design guidelines include, because decks are not traditionally found on historic structures. They should be avoided, or their appearance should be minimized. Decks should be subordinate to the house in terms of scale and detailing. Avoid cantilever projections from the building and use appropriately scaled brackets or supports. So to summarize the design guidelines around the garage. significantly reducing the size of the dormer. So the primary roof form is gabled in no more than one and a half stories. revising the design of the window, endors to reflect the revised penistration of the house. revising the design to have 2 garage doors openings rather than a single opening, and then revising the design to eliminate the balcony from the accessory building. These would have all been conditions had our recommendation been for approval. But in going through our design, guideline analysis, we felt that there were

[148:07] a number of key design guidelines, that the design was inconsistent with that we ultimately are recommending that the Landmarks Board deny this application, but would look forward to the Board's discussion to provide feedback for the applicant and the owners in a redesign. And so with that, our staff recommendation of just concluded. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions from the board that you may have. I don't have any. and I don't see John Ronnie or Chelsea. Ronnie, do you have any questions of staff.

[149:02] Nope, none for me, thank you. And Chelsea and John. I don't see that you have any. Martha, you did such an amazing job. We don't have any questions for you at this point. So so with that, it's time to move on to the applicant presentation. The applicant will have 10 min, and several different people can speak for a total of the 10 min, and we will need to swear all speakers in. Let me switch over to my facilitating window here. Let's see. Aaron. Let me. Steve. Okay. alright. So think we'll promote Jeff as well.

[150:03] all right, Jeff. You should see a pop-up to be promoted to a panelist. And, Michael, I believe you already have one. Can you let us know if there is anyone else in attendance that we need to promote for either your applicant presentation or answering questions from the Board. Okay. Now I can unmute myself. I think it's just myself and Jeff responding to questions. So I swear to tell the truth. Thank you. And did you want to swear in Jeff now as well. Yeah, Jeff, I'll go ahead and swear you in. And then when you both start speaking, when the clock starts, I do say your full name again for the record. So, Jeff, if you would be kind enough to say you'll swear to tell the Board the full truth. Sure my name is Jeff and Sandra, and I I swear to tell the truth.

[151:02] Okay, thank you so much. And, Michael, are you starting off. Yes, I will be doing the presentation. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Alright, thank you. So I'm Michael stole, and one of the owners, along with Long Tran that will be presenting along with our architects, Jeff, and Matt. So the next slide, please. So just to give you some background. So we have been living in this house now for 15 plus years we're both sort of residents of boulder for 20 plus years and the project motivations really are the current physical state of the home. As well as importantly, recent floodplain changes. Marcy, you said 500 year flood plain. It's actually the 100 year flood plain that. This property is in, as well as the fact that the what recent wildfire concerns in this house is basically a a tinder box and in addition to that is, we want to put in a home that's gonna be energy efficient and sustainable taking into all those factors and obviously increase the livable space for us. In boulder. And another important factor is to provide an adu. So there's some additional living space

[152:18] to increase the living space density in boulder next slide, please. And so from the design criteria, we wanted to include features of the original home. Not as not, not just as it exists now, but the the older home as well and include elements of this historic district, obviously, and massing that's similar to adjacent contributing structures. So all of those criteria that were alluded to earlier by marcy. Next slide, please. And so there are some obvious design constraints here that we're dealing with. And one of the major ones is the recent flood plain changes. Which means we're in the 100 Year Flood plain. And so we have to basically lift the building about 3 feet off of grade

[153:07] and that's one of the aspects of the height of the building, perhaps, being a bit higher because of that flood plain issue. And of course, the one and a half story Max building. So we're not putting in a 2 story building. It is one and a half story building, but increasing those dormer sizes and things is necessary to provide livable space on this on the second floor next slide, please. So this is just reiterating that this is the flood plain map showing the subject property there where the pro, all the prior reviews were not in that 100 year plane. They were in the 500 years. So that's why they were thinking they could just sort of maintain that structure. But now that's not really a viable option. The next slide, please. So what I wanted to walk through is a couple of design comparisons, because one of the concerns, of course, was the massing of the structure. And I think it's important to recognize there's there's a couple of ways to consider the massing in regards to the perspective of somebody on Pearl Street, walking down Pearl Street in relationship to the other structures.

[154:13] And so I've just put together a few slides where I've scaled them in accordance with their distance from Pearl Street. So the next slide, please. So this shows the proposed non-contributing structure next to the existing structure at the scale, that you would see it sort of standing right in front of the home on the sidewalk at that distance both of these structures would be at the 25 foot setback, according to code. And you'll see that sort of we had to raise things up. It's probably gonna be a little bit higher than that. These are not perfect scales, but they're pretty close. The next slide, please. This shows 508 perl, which is only one house down from the the actual subject property.

[155:04] That's a substantially larger contributing home. It's 3,200 plus square foot property. and it's roughly about the same distance from the sidewalk. It's a little bit closer, so it looks about the same massing in scale. And then the next slide, please. This is 3 20 per, which is also a contributing structure in the area. Smaller home, 2,300 square feet. Somewhat comparable in size. Both have a 25 foot setback. The next slide, please. This is a comparison to 406 per, which is a recently built structure non contributing. But in the historic district this structure is actually at 15 feet. And so that's why it's actually, even though it's roughly the same size as the proposed structure. It looks substantially larger when you're basically standing

[156:06] right there on Pearl Street. And then the next slide is the adu design. So while looking at the code, of course, that's in relationship to a garage primarily and not in relationship to putting in an adu. So we were. We did have some criteria and constraints in regards to the the adu. One is the height restrictions, because we did want to have some living space above the garage, not just simply a garage. and, of course, the same floodplain restrictions that we were dealing with, and we wanted it to to be concordant with the main home in regards to design, but, of course, a key criteria. And why those sort of larger dormers, apparently larger dormers is to make sure that it's a livable space for somebody, a one bedroom, livable space

[157:00] and then the next slide is showing the the adu in relationship to that, and just showing that height, restriction, and why those dormers are sort of all the way up there to give that livable space above the garage. and the next slide is to talk about some of the proposed exterior materials which Marcy mentioned and the wood siding, and then the stone, the metal roof. So if you go to the next slide, I just took a couple of examples. So in regards to the wood siding and the stained similar to the current home. with that vertical wood paneling. And it's also very similar to a contributing structure. At 4 39 Canyon, which has this dark brown, or it did at 1 point. I'm not sure if it still does. This is a picture from from? Not sure. I think I got it from you, Marcy. Perhaps I'm not sure. That shows that same. So that's why we're choosing that it's related to that

[158:03] on the next slide. The reason we're choosing the scene. Metal roofing it was not necessarily common in Boulder, but there are a number of homes around. In fact, 2 29 Fifth Street is less than a block away from the subject party property. That's sort of where we got that inspiration, and that was kind of driven out of a couple of things we didn't. We don't see that a lot in Boulder, but there are some historic homes with the sea metal roofing, and it is a unique feature that we felt would be nice to bring back into that property. And then the next slide is just showing the stone aspect, and where the inspiration kind of came for that stone skirting 308 pearl, which is just up up the street from us would be stone, and that's a landmark building, of course, and then 4 38. That's not very far away has sort of a stone porch feature to it.

[159:00] And those are both contributing homes, and and went into the design feature of that. And then, I think on the next slide was just sort of a project summary. Importantly, it's a non contributing structure if you heard, as you heard, and the goal is to remove the house but rebuild it with historical features that are similar to contributing homes in the area. and also using some of the design elements of the prior home and to mass and scale it comparable to nearby contributing structures. However, with that caveat that we're sort of stuck with this change in the flood plain, and we have to raise the whole property up. and we're certainly amenable to work with staff to modify things. And I think I have one more slide, which is just some specific responses and comments And so in regards to the primary house

[160:00] the mass and scale, in our opinion, reflects, contributing buildings. In fact, the closest contributing building is is actually larger than what's being proposed for the main home the sea. Metal roofing is observed on contributing buildings nearby. Of course, that's a Mapleton historic district. and then certainly fenestration. We can put all sorts of different windows in there, I think. And the deck and trellis alterable porch alterable in regards to the adu we certainly think we can alter the dormer size. But we really need to take into account how much liveable spaces in there, and some of the other things certainly revising to a 2 door garage, is certainly alterable. The main focus on having that balcony is. There is an ad right next door which has a similar structure. And it provides some outdoor space for somebody living up there and matches that that non contributing structure. And then there the general comments. We certainly agree with all of that. So I'll leave my last 9 s to Jeff. He wants to add.

[161:10] I I appreciate that. yeah, no, I guess I I mostly here to answer questions, anyway. But I I did want to to. I guess. Reiterate that. I I have a lot of familiarity with the zoning requirements, the flip plane requirements, all that stuff. So if there are specific questions about those, and why we chose to make the choices we did. I'm happy to address those. Thank you, Jeff, and both Michael and Jeff. You will be invited back for an additional 3 min after public comment. Do any of my colleagues have questions for Michael or Jeff at this point. None for me, Abby. Thank you, Ronnie. and I don't see John or Chelsea raising it. Oh, John, please.

[162:01] I don't have any questions. It's all pretty clear. Thank you and Chelsea. If you don't have any at this point, we'll move on to public participation. Alright. So here is your opportunity. If you'd like to speak to this item, go ahead and find the raised hand function. And, Abby, we have 2 speakers so far. The first Dylan Williams, followed by Lynn Siegel. Thank you and Dylan. I am going to ask you to swear to tell the truth once again, and state your full name, and then your 3 min will commence. So I swear. To tell the truth, my full name is Dylan Williams. Just wanted to say that I do walk by this property very, very often. And I think it's important to note that because it's part of an historic district

[163:00] that the all of the people in the district agreed. when that district was created, that this was that they wanted the district to look in in a certain way. And I think that that's really important here. When I look at the when I think back to all of the houses that I've passed along Pearl Street, including this house. I have to say that I really disagree with the architects and the owner as to as to their statements, that that this house fits into the existing sort of feeling of of the neighborhood, and I think that I kind of agree with what what the staff said about the massing and and the architectural features really not being consistent with with the neighborhood. I was really kind of taken, I have to say, by

[164:02] the application That that was approved, but but never acted on. I think that the idea of of our renovating, not not renovating, but I would say. restoring the original house, and then adding something to that that that that could be adapted to. Address the flood plain and the fire, considerations that that are. That that were mentioned by the owner and the architect. and I think that that might actually provide a very nice template for how you might proceed at least starting off with sort of in that in that direction. So I think that that would do much more justice to the neighborhood, and

[165:00] and the notion that that people were trying to capture when they created the historic district. Thank you very much. Thank you, Dylan and Lynn. and you know I'm gonna ask you to swear to tell the truth and state your full name once again. And seagalize were, to tell the truth, to the best of my knowledge, my truth. not someone else's. I'm not very religious, and I don't believe in a truth. So this is really a perfect example of what? How I see the Landmarks Board having a complete overhaul to involve the Environmental Advisory Board. the Planning Board and the Housing Advisory Board. this this house I know, this house. I really like this house.

[166:02] I love Woodhouses. In spite of their fire capability. I also love 7 70 circle flagstone. fireproof house that you demoed. Okay, so you can't change things here. The point is. This has carbon footprint that's costly. In spite of Chelsea, Castellano and the Belgians are for people, and Build it, build it, build it more for the developers push, push, push for housing, housing everywhere. North boulder last night at at I forget. After a while the planning board. Approved. Wide industrial tip, housing everything. The other word for God is housing, and it's it's just not true.

[167:02] It's not happening. So what we need is to preserve for our carbon footprint these houses as much as we can. Now, if there's undue expenses on the part of the developer, then what needs to be done between Eab and planning board and hab. Is there need to be a full lifecycle analysis and embodied energy tradeoffs between what's used to build the new. completely new house versus debt. and you know, and maybe you lift up, since all the houses in Boulder are on the 100 year flood plain, maybe you lift up and augment the the lower part of the house, the junction with the land. So I agree with Dylan. That that you know much, as this is a nice house, and it fits in with the guidelines of the other aspects of generally of the West Pearl district. Historic district. It really should. The first consideration should be retaining what we have just like at 1015 juniper.

[168:15] which was a giveaway, complete giveaway. and was very harmful to affordable housing. Oh, and that's the other thing. There needs to be a new housing, affordable board, because Hab doesn't really do that. But that's that's my thoughts on the place. Use it. Get it. do it, add, add to it, you know the way it is. It's it. Thank you, Lynn. Your time has expired. Marcy. Any other members of the public wish to address this item. I am not seeing any others, participants with their hands raised. So I think Abby is fair to close the public

[169:01] comment period. turn it back to the owner and applicant to respond. Okay, thank you. The public hearing portion of this hearing is close or public comment portion. This hearing is closed, and Jeff and Michael, you have an additional 3 min. Michael, I'm happy to to speak unless you. Go ahead, Jack. I I heard myself for 10 min already. Fair enough so I yeah, I I guess one thing I did want to bring up is is essentially the the overall design. I mean what we, what we have been trying to do with this design is is really lean into the idea of sort of a modern interpretation of the historic district that we're sitting in. So that. you know, we're not trying to be rip replicative of existing houses in that district. We're not trying to to build something that looks like it's always been there. We wanna we wanted to really be.

[170:00] you know, appropriate for the district of scale with the other houses in the district, but of its time you know of today, not of a hundred years ago. You know. So to that end I think the mass and form leans leans in that direction very strongly. I think the materials that we're proposing are very much of today, but still reflective of materials that were used in the district and in boulder, you know, overall. I think even the window patterns that I know there's a concern about the the proportions or the size of the windows that we're proposing. But you know, to be to be honest, I I think what we're trying to do. There is is create a modern interpretation of the double hong windows that would have been seen in a the original house. I feel like just putting double Hong windows back in would be replicative as opposed to being a modern interpretation of those original styles. The same with the metal roof. The same with you know the the I don't know the scale of the house. I think one of the challenges we've been facing on the garage that has been difficult is really just the the number of restrictions that are placed on on this property with the the zoning limitations.

[171:08] And I think it'd be very interesting to me to hear from the board. You know what what the importance of an adu is, whether or not that's something that should be encouraged in a historic district or discouraged in a historic district cause. If we're gonna try to do that and provide that that opportunity for, you know, affordable housing in boulder in the in the historic districts. But that's one avenue to get there, and I I think it would be interesting to get that feedback from the board. And then so to that end, you know, to to provide that. Adu. We have We have, some pretty strong zoning restrictions on what that accessory structure can be. The mass, the scale. all of that that are pretty much. can, you know, contradictory to the the historic district guidelines. So I think some discussion from the Board on on how to prioritize that, or

[172:03] or what what opportunities there might be for the historic district to to be leveraged to allow for more opportunities relative to what the zoning limits would be interesting to hear. Thank you. Jeff. Thank you. So we are now going to move on to board discussion. I ask that everyone else mute your computer phone for the duration of this discussion. We've allotted approximately an hour for this discussion and Marcy, I know you may have a slide that will help kind of guide our discussion. I it seems like there's a threshold question about whether the existing House is is eligible for demolition. and I don't know if you want us to discuss that first or separately, but I think I see it's number one on your.

[173:04] You're still. This is a a proposed framework for your discussion, because there really are 2. There are like 3 major components. One is the demolition of the existing building is that appropriate or not? Second is about the house, and you could break that down in terms of mass scale location of the proposed building. and then the roof forms, and then the scale placement, location of windows and doors. and then the proposed material, and do a similar structure. Then for the garage, of course you're welcome to structure the discussion, however, you'd like, but this is a proposal to keep it within a general timeframe. Thank you, Marcy. I, personally would like to suggest we deal with question number one, first, because then I think it. It makes the rest of the questions, either very pertinent or not so pertinent. So

[174:05] That being said I don't know if anyone would like to start, but I. I do agree with the current assessment and previous assessments that this is a non-contributing building in this historic district. and while I appreciate embodied energy and trying to rehabilitate or reuse whatever. I do think that this property could be demolished, and re, and this this lot redeveloped Ronnie. Gabby, I'll I'll jump in. Yeah, I agree with you. I think you stated that. Well, and I basically, I agree with Staff's position on the demolition component of the historic building. And I also agree with Ronnie, Abby and Staff.

[175:02] Thank you. Chelsea and John. Okay? Well, I I agree. But I could argue that any demolition in a historic district of a building that's been there for a long period of it is going to have some effect. as discussed by the members of the public, who apparently walked by it fairly frequently. But I think that in this case I also looking at the condition of the building. just I I don't think it's a major loss, so I can agree with staff that the site can be redeveloped. However, the whole issue of of the embodied energy obviously, and it is now a matter of policy that if this building is properly deconstructed, and there's some reuse found for the materials in it

[176:02] that's gonna be of benefit to the overall environment of Boulder. Thank you tonight. And just before we get too much further. Marcy, can you? Could you, I guess. talk about what the implication, if if we accept Staff's recommendation and act accordingly. What are the implications of this for the applicant. Are you, speaking specifically about the determination whether this is contributing or non-contributing, or you're speaking more generally, about an approval of the approval or denial of the landmark alteration certificate. And your microphone is, muted.

[177:01] John. We didn't catch that. You're muted. It. I'm I'm speaking specifically about approval or or disapproval. Of the demolition specifically, or the full proposal. The full proposal. Okay? So if the if the landmarks board approves it most commonly with conditions that decision is subject to city council. Call up. If Council doesn't call it up, then the conditions would be worked out. Typically at the landmarks design review committee meetings. They would get a landmark alteration certificate, and and then apply for building permit. If the landmarks board voted to deny the application, that decision is subject to a 30 day call-up period by city council, and if they chose not to call it up, or if they agreed with the denial, then the a substantially similar application couldn't be

[178:00] submitted for one calendar year, and then the third option is that if the Board is heading towards a denial after speaking about the design Review criteria. the Board's practice has been to provide the owners of the applicant a chance to withdraw the application, at which case the case is closed out. The owners and the applicant would have your feedback to go, make design revisions, and then return to the full board with a new proposal. Thank you, Marcy. John, does that help. That does that helps. So, Marcy, I'm going to ask you again to go. Thank you. So I do think the next question is, is.

[179:01] these are perfectly, I think, in a great order to look at. So I do think the next major question is, is the mass scale and location of the proposed building appropriate. and I don't know if there's anyone who would like to kick off the deliberations with about that. Hi ken if you'd like Abby. Please. Okay? So first of all, Jeff and Michael, I think that this is a beautiful building like, without a doubt, I think that you have a very good looking building. I'm I'm gonna tell you some pieces about it that I think are the parts that I think Staff is pointing to that are the aspects about about the overall, like scale and geometry of the building. That might be in conflict with the design guidelines. But I just wanted to start by saying, like, I compliment you. I think that there's some really really great stuff here.

[180:03] And I know I that you've been talking to Staff about this. I know that you've worked on it, and it's evident but I I think maybe the major things that I see here have to do with the overall proportions of what is. I think, a building that is meant to reference? Like a folk Victorian home. And again, I think it is exceptional in a lot of ways, but I think some of the shapes of this building are sized in ways that I think are less traditional. And so I'm just gonna point to them a little bit. If you guys are willing, everybody's willing to tolerate this. And so you know, one thing, and I've got a tool right? Like I know I use my pen here. One thing is you know, this forward facing element, I think, is a larger than typical telescoped

[181:00] versions of gables. and not that it's bad. But I think that in composition with the overall width of the building, the traditional relationships that I see are being drawn from I think, are more abstract than the more diminutive one and a half story buildings that are commonly found in these historic districts, which I think is what Staff is communicating in their staff report. I think there are solutions to this that I can make some generalized suggestions to. But let me take one other step back. I think the overall square footage of your building and the the amenities, and you know, number of bedrooms and square footages of each of the components are possible to have on this site.

[182:01] So I don't think it's an overall. you know, it's not an issue of how much poundage you're trying to put on the property cause. I think that that's okay. I think it's just some some things about the massing that you know, make it seem like it is bigger because of the shapes and the overall size. And so I'm just gonna draw a thing here. I looked at your plan in your building plan. You you kinda have a left and a right at the front of the house, which are 2 bedrooms, and then I also think you have a bathroom, and then you have some unusable areas under half roof, or in some cases picked up in dormers and in the typical historic home. It would be really challenging to get a bathroom, a bedroom, a hallway, another bedroom, and let's just say the extra 4 or 5 feet at the other end, across the width of the house. So you have a wider than

[183:03] I would just say normal house. Oftentimes you'll get a pair of bedrooms, and they happen right in the middle of the house, and they only happen underneath dormers. But we've kind of got the full width of all of those characteristics at the front of the house. And so when I look at this, what I see is. you know we could pick any point. I'm gonna pick this one. I don't know if you could see that, but what I see is the kind of vestage of what is a traditional. scaled, historic home? That is inherent in your plan. It's about that big that's about the size, I think, of a building that you would see. That's a one and a half story structure debatably. It might. It might actually be a little bit taller. There's some confusing things here I I am a little confused about the still height of this window in relationship to still heights of windows on the side. But I'm just gonna pause on that for a second. We can take a look at it. You can respond to it. But overall, I think that.

[184:07] let me just go forward. A couple of clicks, if possible. overall. I think that in your proposal the geometries of those historic, that historic building form is here. Yeah, I just put it there. It doesn't have to be there. It could be anywhere in your building but it it's there. And and then I would also say, you know, it would be more typical to see a lower. And I'm not saying this is a requirement in any way. I'm just trying to have a collabor, ultimately a collaborative talk with you. I know I'm doing the like narrating right now, but like typically the porch roof would come down a little as well. And so I think that the large gable with a towered gable at the side is the thing that's making this a larger building than I think

[185:03] the guidelines and traditional dimensions of of these folk Victorian homes would normally have. I'm just gonna draw one other version of this quickly, and it's it's not better necessarily, but like you know, another version of it would be You know that that form is over here. but I think 1 one important thing to say is. the symmetrical window that sits up in the gable. You know that was a very purposeful thing that happened, because that was where you got the head height in order to put the full window in in the large window underneath the center of that gable. You know, the structural forces were coming down on the ends of this bill, these corners. And so, you know, there's a lot of stuff that you know the lay person may not know but those things were happening in internal to the building.

[186:02] and so I think and I shouldn't have erased that, because there's one other thing I wanna just point out, I think, that if you were to just look at the height of this build, this more historic building, and it could be there, or it could be a little taller, you know, could be here versus the height of your major gable or your forward facing gable. I think that you have an element that's at the front of the house. That is this piece here that is taller than what your normal, narrowed, gabled form might be. And then I think you've got a secondary form that sits behind it. That is wide, much wider than the typical secondary form. That is much taller. And so I think that there are. I think that there are ways to get the

[187:02] proposal and the square footage to work. And Jeff, I mean, I I see that you guys are very talented. You know, this is a very thought out building, but I really think that the thing that Staff is pointing to is something that resonated with me as well. And it's just about the more diminutive nature of some of the major forward facing forms. Okay, and I know I have to draw this like 5 times now, but I'll draw it one more time. That could be the center. Oh, shoot! My line. Work is terrible. That could be the center, or that could be the center of this form, or like the center, could be way over here. The center could be way over here of the I would say, like the dominant historical reference. I'm just gonna put it here for a second, and it could be taller, too, I think, if you needed it to be the other thing I just wanted to say is. I also believe that if the proposal took that historic form, or if you wanted that form, I mean you could, you could pick a different shape of it, but it feels like this is what you were going for.

[188:10] and you took this shape in that historic building and brought it to the front of the property. It I believe you would have much, much more flexibility behind this. I'm just gonna draw a gable that runs the other way. I I don't know. I'm just making that up, but I would think you'd have much, much more flexibility to do a variety of things that are. you know, less to that scale back of building. And so my suggestion is. first of all, I agree with Staff about the the scale and form. I think it's a beautiful building. But I think the scale of it in the context of these design guidelines make it larger than what the current guidelines call for but I do feel like there's a path that you could pursue. If you and when one way to do it would be to do what I'm saying, here is, take the traditional form, one and a half stories of a width that's a typical one and a half width.

[189:21] Bring it to the front and then behind it. Make the major changes that might deviate that. Get you the roof forms and shape that get all of the stuff you need to fit in there volumetrically. I have a couple of other things, but I feel like that's my major contribution to this and so maybe I'll pass it on to my colleagues here. And you know, I hope that you also, you know, I'm gonna make a point for you guys to be able to respond to that before the end of this, but maybe my colleagues can jump in if they have anything to say. Thank you, Ronnie John, or Chelsea.

[190:02] Yeah, I can jump in there unless Chelsea is I think that you're onto something which in in the series of images that you showed that were comparative. I you were trying to. Well, you were showing your relative scale the the frontal scale of of your proposal to adjacent and and other projects in the in the district. and the one that kind of jumped out at me was the one that had a bungalow type roof, where the gable was parallel to the street, face the major gable of the house so that a slope roof was coming towards you, and the street scale prospect of the building looked smaller or in perspective would have looked smaller.

[191:06] than this particular. I guess prospect of the of all of the roofs kind of coming to the major face on the on the street side. And I think that's part of Ronnie jumped on the on the story and a half issue which does seem to be the the larger characteristic of this district. But what? What? What happens in this? And of course, an elevation? It's it's it's nice that you show a perspective adjacent to the elevation, because perspective changes things. I think that the one thing the one thing that seems, I guess over, pronounced in perspective, is the gable to the right that thrusts out in front.

[192:08] The tower gable. as as Ronnie called it. And I think that somehow that element could be shortened and some break with the gable behind it could happen in a way that made kind of that looks smaller to view, and a lot of a lot of the issue with with massing in proportion is a matter of perception relative to the adjacent properties. but I also have to compliment the design that you're presenting. because I think that it's it is in terms of terms of all the other things we haven't discussed yet such as materiality and so on, is a very appropriate response.

[193:04] I think that the the issue of the the present, the mass presence of the building is the biggest tripping issue right now. I don't have an answer fit. Thank you. John Chelsea. Sorry just trying to eat dinner 9, 15. I I think there's a reason why on this board we're meant to have several architects and several non architects, because I don't see any of the issues John Ry just pointed out. Like to me. I think like when I look at new houses that are built across boulder. And it's specifically within historic districts, like, I think.

[194:02] that this looks really good. And I think it's an it's a nod to what was there in the past. But it's clearly not a old building, which is the point. We don't want it to be confused with a historic building. So I, yeah. I I like the direction that it's going. And I think it's important because I've been on several Ldrcs. Now, where a lot of like different people have different direction, and then they, like applicants, come back and try to meet the like, address. The issues that were previously that they were directed to address. And and so I think it's important to like clarify when we're giving feedback, like, what is the feedback that is, just gonna make this a better project. And what is the feedback that is specific to meeting the guidelines? Because

[195:06] I feel like sometimes those things get a little blurred, at least for me. They do so, I imagine, for the applicant they do, too. So yeah, I don't. I don't. I? Truly I don't have anything to add, I I think this is going in a good direction, and any like minor changes could be addressed at Ldrc. Thank you, Chelsea, and I wanna start out by saying that I I think this is a very, very attractive building, and to me it's one of those like modern modern versions of of a stately building. And I think it's really cool. I think you live in one of the greatest neighborhoods and blocks and streets in Boulder, so I can see why you want to invest in something of this in its current. in the current proposal

[196:00] as much as I think. It's an awesome design and a lot a lot of great thought and creativity has gone into it. I think, as it's currently proposed. It's just not appropriate in the West pearl historic district like that. And I think it's a combination of things. I do think Matt maths and scale is is 1 one issue, but then also combining mass and scale with some of the materials proposed, you know, like this might read different to me if there was like brick on it, which you do find dotted throughout the West pearl historic district and throughout Boulder in general. So I I think that I think there's definitely a wonderful home you can get on this property. I do think that I agree with Staff's recommendation, and I I don't like using the world denial because rather that, depending on how this conversation transpires it. It, you know, you might want to consider withdrawing, depending on where we land on this, but I think the reason

[197:07] I agree with staff thing. We have other la se's in front of us where the tweaking can be done, and very clear conditions can be set during one of the monthly board meetings. I don't think we're quite there with this one, and I I also think I've I've witness over the year sort of designing from the dais and and dais and and and council chambers, and also trying to design it here tonight. on a zoom call, and I think that for me I do agree with Staff's recommendation that we provide valuable and some pretty specific feedback, and then maybe come back with revisions. Because I just don't think in this historic district as drawn tonight, and with the materials that the whole of it is appropriate in this historic district. Jeff, I wanted to give a shout out to the ad Use that that I

[198:05] I think an adu is totally appropriate. There's there's many throughout historic districts in Boulder. It does come down to the details, and how that that adu is actually designed. So it's it's not a matter whether there could be one there or not. It really is more in the details about that. So I don't know. you know, Ronnie and and and Chelsea. I so hear you about their reasons why we have community members on the board as well as architects on the board. But I you know I'm trying to figure out what's the most efficient way with, with, I think, what staff is identifying to make it more consistent with the guidelines. But in my mind just more overall, compatible in this historic district. You know how to. Maybe we go back to the questions you propose you. You propose, Marcy to frame our discussion, because I definitely think there's something wonderful that could be built here. And you can have the home that you want. I just think some. It's it's just not there in my eyes.

[199:16] We can. We could begin to give specific, I guess, comments in the sense that I think jumping back in here looking at it, I think that if if the bulk plane was broken between the first and second floor, especially from the street side elevation, so that the second floor face set back some, or visually set back, some from the the plane of the of the porch and the front face of the tower gable. I think that would that would accomplish some of the mass

[200:02] mass reduction in terms of perception of the size of the building. So that would be an example of a specific comment that could be taken to redesign. But then I think what the reason that the first thing I asked Marcy was what it was is in in the spirit of all the things that Chelsea's been talking about, about a more expedited process. what would be the most expeditious process to give useful and salient kind of input into this without cutting off their their process with a denial and. John, I'm not sure if it if it didn't. Yeah, I I I think the

[201:03] intention would be to give feedback. If we can't bring it to Ldrc. To then allow the applicant to withdraw so that they could take that feedback and then reapply. I I that I think that those are the 2 paths. but I mean, obviously the third one is a denial. But. Yeah. So, but that was kind of what I was getting at is is that that we advise because because we need. we need to go beyond just cursory comments, and be ironed out, as it were. with a with a conditional approval. We probably should recommend denial. Well, why wouldn't we. And I recommend withdrawal. and have a little more extended process.

[202:00] Why wouldn't we be able to like we've done in the past? Approve with modifications and like. I think some of the ones that are on the screen are ones that Staff has put forward like high level, like. We don't need to get into the nitty, gritty details, but just addressing certain elements to meet the guidelines and then have that come back at Ldrc. Well, I mean just something. I guess. So to me. Let me get Marcy's. Yeah. March. See Scary. Yeah. So I wanna convey how much thought we put into the staff recommendation because we do prefer to recommend approval, knowing that conditions can be worked out at the Ldrc. But looking back at the statistics for last year, and then just experience in the past.

[203:05] most Ldrc cases are reviewed in one or 2 Ldrc. Meetings, and the cases that took 3, 4, 5 Ldrc. Meetings were the ones to work out conditions of the more complicated landmarks, board approvals. And so Chelsea, to your point about the Ldrc. Is a rotating board. Members. not having clear conditions to then review, I think, is going to actually be a harder and process than providing clear guidance tonight. And then the applicants can come back, probably likely in probably not in the next meeting since the deadline's today, but in the following meeting in in June, which would then hopefully be a landmark's board approval, and then review of conditions in one no more than 2 meetings.

[204:05] One of your meetings in a month like so one or 2 meeting, I mean, that's it sounds. It's basically the same time it's it could be shorter to go to Ldrc. I don't think it would be in this case. Okay. I think what what I've heard the Board talk about is some pretty significant changes to the mass in scale. So then, having subsequent conditions about the fenestration. I would have a harder time. Falling through on those conditions, because I think there are going to be some significant changes to the overall design of the building. That that's an important point is is that if you do like, like, for instance, an a comment such as offsetting the alignment of walls

[205:01] has significant plan implications that would have to be worked out for that to be worked. You don't just simply slip the building apart and not have to reconfirm everything, back together. I feel like the best thing we could do now is remain focused on mass and scale. Give the applicant direct feedback on that specific item. I agree with the other list of items here which I I think are more digestible. They're easier. and I'd like to hear from Jeff and Michael, before we like wrap up our conclusion. And I have some other stuff I wanna talk about but I feel like if we look back at mass and scale talk to Jeff and Michael. that we might be able to give them the direction that they need to go through an expeditious process. But I think what Marcy is describing is probably the accurate route, because Chelsea, I think it would be hard for us to give great clarity on mass and scale without it being prescriptive.

[206:12] And so I knew I drew it. I knew, I know I drew a thing, but, like John is saying the implications of what I'm saying, or what any of us might say about what the mass and scale should do, I think, are too great for us to navigate at Ld. Rc. Without the applicant coming back with like a revised proposal. sound. With the isn't there a cost associated with bringing back a new applications. Marcy, are you talking about an application fee? It's free for landmark alteration certificates. It's $1,500. If it's non-designated. Demo Review.

[207:01] The Lec's are free. Of course there's the the time and design fees that would apply, whether it's at the Ldrc. Or Landmarks board level. So there'd be another fee. No there. Sorry there's no fee for this. Okay. Poultry. Okay. Good. View. Okay. The other thing I think we can accomplish is if we're in agreement for the demo application, we could approve that tight. So it is. Part of the proposal as a whole is demolition and new construction. So I think it's clear in terms of where the board sits on that. So that's probably not a point that would be rediscussed at the next hearing. But I wouldn't split them off into different pieces. It's one application. That's helpful. Marcy, can you roll back just one image, and then, if everybody's okay with us, I just like to ask some questions

[208:04] to Jeff and Michael. Sure go for. Okay, Jeff and Michael, I'm sure you got a lot to say. So I'm gonna ask a specific question, but also like, feel free to comment on other things that we've said. So when I look at this image, the still height of this window is. And let's just say that head height of this window is so dramatically different than that head heights on the windows on the side which I know you have some subordinate things over there like windows, about beds, perhaps, and bathrooms and stuff like that. Is the window at the front of the house? Does it have a 2 foot sill, and it are those like 3 5 windows, or what are they. Yeah. The so that the window at the front of the house is is a lower, still and lower head than the ones on the sides, and primarily, that is because the side facing windows well, they have the opportunity to be higher, because we're not trying to keep the roof down as much

[209:07] because that steep, slow proof we're trying to keep it down for the mass and proportions. but the also the site facing windows are all in sort of tertiary spaces. Their bathroom windows like you said closet windows, places where privacy is more important than view. and then the front facing window there is, as you mentioned, the bedroom window, so we're able to But keep the sill down. Yeah. In that. Do? Do you know what the head height of that window window is there. I would guess it was that we set it at 7, and the side facing ones are more like 8. Okay, so that could be a 5 foot tall window. The 2 foot. Like we is. Yes. Okay. okay, yeah. I mean, I guess I'd like to talk about that in a second. But I think maybe the big thing is, what do you think about what we were saying? And you know, in in particular, I was drawing something that I was just trying to give a little bit clearer direction about one way to reduce the scale of the building, which is to like, take the traditional form

[210:14] and bring it to the front, and then to take the non traditional forms and let them retreat. And one day, one way that John, I think, was saying you could also do that is. and and maybe I'm just mashing them together is like, take the traditional form, which is a forward facing gable, and then, if you needed to do something else like. Turn the gable to get the rest of the stuff on the side hidden behind another form. You could but I just am curious what your thoughts are on that. And then it's just the general scale topic that I think. You know, we were really trying to give you feedback on. Yeah. And and I appreciate the feedback the we actually did explore. One of the first versions of this house had a side facing gable, sitting that nesting into a front facing gable very similar to the sketch that you put together where you were sketching.

[211:05] I the We. We moved away from that cause. It wasn't the simple form that the owners are looking for in this house. They want the, the the design that's here is the design that they want for their home. and it's as opposed to side facing Gable as opposed to, you know, a number of different things we could look at. So I get that that we're in a historic district. We have specific guidelines. We need to work around. So I totally understand that. But we're also, you know, obviously working with the homeowner to try to achieve. you know their dream for their home on their property. So we can. We can explore some other things. But I I I do. Wanna let you know that we have checks, and where we have tried some of those other options. And honestly like this. This solution with this simple form. I felt more in keeping with the district. Then complicating it with side facing vehicles and that kind of stuff.

[212:00] And the this particular view, probably is, is less convincing of that statement, because we have all these side facing dormers. Which, honestly, I'd rather not have that many side facing dormers. I'd rather just combine them all into one but we can't do that with the bulk plane. So we have to split it up into multiple dormers, and they can't be more than Ap. Wide. And they can't be this. And they can't be that. And if we could get around some of the zoning rules we might be able to simplify this house further. But as it is, we're just trying to strike that balance between the mass and form, keeping it as low and tight as we can standard the ball plane and still have a usable upper level in a simple looking house. Gotcha I just to go back to one of the things I was saying earlier. I think that if you are, if you were to take a smaller form. I'm just gonna draw it like it's there. I have no idea where that other lines actually supposed to be. And you brought it to the forefront.

[213:03] And then did something else behind it. Whatever I feel like, you have more ways to abstract it after you get the primary form. That's the more historic form forward. That you would get something that is in much greater compliance with the scale piece and massing piece of the guidelines, and the other thing I would just say is, Jeff, I could be wrong, but I I also think that once you do that you might actually be able to you know. in a small. not not significantly. But you might be able to raise the knee wall a little bit which I know is almost contradictory, because I'm like, Hey, bring this building down. But I think if it gets a little narrower you might be able to bring that up just a little bit, and it might help you get this some of this head height stuff. Which I know we didn't talk about, but what I wanted to say is

[214:06] one of the things that also makes it look less compliant, although it's very much secondary to what it is that, I think, are the primary things to work on. Is that the dormers. as you said you like, broke them up, which is great. They still behave much larger than a typical dormer, and I think it's because of how high the plate is at the dormer in relation to W. The the knee walls at the front, and the sill and the head heights at the front, so that discrepancy that I was pointing at makes it look actually like bigger and and and and I know that you know a lot of times. What we would do is, we would, you know, go and point to the Dormer regulation. And the dormer regulation actually says that the typical dormers

[215:03] wall shouldn't align with the wall below it typically backs up into the house. And sometimes we have leniency for that. I think there could be some leniency for that in this proposal. But I would just say like, I I think, if those dormer scale came more into proportion with the gabled scale, and you got the primary form to be the dominant form stepping forward. That if those 2 things like one gets a little smaller, one gets a little bigger but narrower. I think that this would be great. I mean, I know that you're capable of all of those things, cause. I see the talent and the design here, and I know that I'm also messing up everything Michael wants, which is simplicity, and he wants an office slash bedroom at the front of the house. And how are you gonna deal with this? What did Ronnie just say? But I don't know what the solutions are to those things, and I recognize this program and conversations I haven't been a part of, but I do feel like getting a simple form that is more traditional in width and scale forward.

[216:07] will get you much further down the road to be able to make abstractions behind. If if you make a meaningful setback, and perhaps even hide it with some other shape, that's what I would recommend. Yeah, no, I I get that. I mean, because my, my. my bigger concern with that is is, if it looks too much like like we're trying to create the old house with the addition behind it, instead of just one new house. Yep. And so that would be another challenge to try to overcome if it's helpful. The the first image that has the front elevation shows all of the ball, plane and and height, restriction. Right. Requirements. I saw that that that does make it a challenge. I do think that gable ends can like. If you had a gable end that went, you know, left and right on this it can protrude into it. They can. 8 feet for 40 for some weird mathematical system. So there, you know you know it. You know it better than I do, but so like you could do something.

[217:07] You can. You can do a site facing gable. And and in some ways it helps because, yeah, you only measure up to the eve height, and the roof can go higher, and it's all kinds of like, hey, welcome to Boulder! We got another rule. Yeah, it's, it's a. so so those. What we're fighting with. So the idea like, if we make it narrower, could you raise the new wall? I mean? Yes, you could if you brought it further away from the property line and shrunk the main floor also. So but right now we're we're basically, I guess we're about a foot below our bulk plane limitation there for our new wall. So there is some room to move. But we're. Ray. right? So we're gonna yeah, I see what you're saying. So you're specifically saying, like, you know, right there you have a foot that you might be able to bring that up at most. Maybe. Yeah, and I don't know how it'll play out right like you have to do a different thing, because your your top of roof at the current form is almost close to the height restriction, so that would require you to do some other shape on the side. So I know there's a lot of things that play. I just thought I would try to give you that description. And hopefully, it's

[218:15] a form of feedback that you can take, that, I think, does what I believe Staff is saying. And maybe Staff can actually talk about that, too, if they think that what I'm saying is similar to what they were thinking. But that those are my thoughts. Thank you. John Chelsea any additional thoughts. Well, we didn't really hear from Michael or

[219:01] Sorry, Jeff, about the potential of having to submit a new application. and I was just curious what they thought about that. Well, nobody wants to submit another. Ask. Well, I wanna hear from them. I mean I I I certainly think that we could work with staff to make these changes. As I put in my summary, there's obvious things that we're in agreement with. and we can. We can work to change the the height to the building and and various things, and just like the issues with the adu. I think that adu. I don't think the design that we submitted was in its final form, as we expect it to be, but it's something close. So I understand Marcy's concern that maybe will go down a rabbit hole. But

[220:06] I I think we're amenable to that? Not working? Yeah, but. Yeah. And I guess I might add to that also that my understanding is the reason that this project started at the full board, instead of starting at Ldrc is because we were proposing demolition of a structure. So if if that's the case, if the full board is supportive of the demolition of the structure. Then us going to Ldrc now is no different than if we were starting with the vacant lot in the district. Unless I'm misunderstanding how this process works. I think any new construction, over 340 square foot feet has to come directly to the board. Thank you. So I I so I I don't know what the the more like streamlined path is, if it's if it's pulling the the proposal, and then coming back in with the new one. Or if it's going through Ldrc, like I, I can imagine a

[221:00] fairly nightmare scenario of having a different Ldrc every week. Opinions. Yeah. Well, you're probably gonna get that, anyway. So your next project will go to Ld, Rc, probably. We do try and keep continuity on Ldrcs. At least, when we're aware that we've got an ongoing thing. okay. I mean it. Yeah, I don't. I don't think we. It's, you know, 9 45, I think if if Marcy is like, I trust, Marcy, when she says that pulling the application and then submitting a new one would be the best and most streamlined approach. So I think if that's where the board is going like, it would just be ideal for anything that is critical that the Board thinks needs that they need to see

[222:08] from the next application in order for it to get approved, like I would just make. They all want to make sure that folks do give that direction. Now. I agree. Chelsea Marcy there! Where was oh. Yeah, I might offer this design. Guideline summary. There's one for the house, there's one for the garage, and then there's the general one. And it's in the design guideline summary in your packet. But I might suggest, as a way to expedite kind of this discussion is, if the Board could go through and do a general. Yes, we agree with that or no, we. We disagree with that. Or here's another thing. Staff didn't identify that, we think is important for the applicant and owner to consider in their redesign.

[223:05] I think in our staff analysis these are the main points that we found. But I'd be very curious for your feedback of. Is there general agreement? Is there any points you disagree with? And then, is there anything that we didn't identified. That would be important to relay for the redesign. So for me personally, your summary for the desired guidelines on the House. I agree with the the points you've raised and your recommendations. I I agree with your your summary, Marcy. Although I don't completely buy the issue of the roof material. But I think that's more of a detail issue. I think that metal could be argued for.

[224:05] Marcy, could you go back into the elevation image? I am also in agreement with your summary. The that last you could. It just needs to be actually the slide right before. That's the threed. That was right before your list. I just wanted to point one thing out. And I know, you guys had precedent for this. Keep going one more, the one that's at the perspective. The one thing, guys, is that like this is pretty atypical. I know that you can go find. you know, stone foundations to buildings, but the stone foundation that then turns into the stone porch. I know that you showed a picture of one, and it may have turned into like a brick railing system, which I think is more typical like, for there to be masonry on top of masonry, and that would be the reason why you'd put the stone, but for the stone to show up under what is a historically lightweight element, I think, is non traditional.

[225:03] I I don't think it's not approvable cause. It could be an abstraction. And, like, you know, you could do a thing that's a little different. But I think it is a thing that you're doing that is a choice that is deviating from the typical historic pattern of like the ways in which materials were typically in relation to one another. So I would say, you might consider you know, letting the foundation stonework transition to a porch that is lightweight and wood. and I think you might find that it'll we just be a little bit more delicate and look more like traditional porch. And I'm not recommending that you put masonry on this because I don't think that's a requirement at all. You know. But you know the masonry version of a home would in some cases have stone underneath it at the porch. But the version that you're doing is kind of like a hybrid.

[226:07] Sorry, I know that's a little bit of a detail, but I just see that. And I know that Staff was kind of talking about the porch and some aspects of materiality. But I see that, Jeff, and just wanted to give you that little bit of feedback. So outside of that, I think the Staff's list is A is a really good one. and I would agree with them. Do you want me to jump in about the garage? Sure I I'm still. I'm finishing reading of it. Please go ahead. Okay.

[227:00] Jeff. I haven't done in Edu and boulder and all, wherever. So I don't know if your bulk plane you feel super confident about that bulk plane. It just looks so short. And this is basically what I think you're saying is like, Hey, if you guys want ad use period like we need some room to do them. And so like, is there a bulk plane problem, cause I've seen a bunch of ads come through landmarks and like they have different shapes. But I feel like you're saying, Hey, we're at our maximum here like I don't know how else to get head height in this. I don't know if that's what you're saying, but I see that as part of your design, it's like you're doing the traditional form. And then you're just basically saying, I need to get head height. So I'm gonna put what looks like a flat roof in the background. Yeah. So as an accessory structure, it's got a 20 foot. I think it is height restriction. So we have to stay underneath that which is what's driving that flat roof? Because by the time you do a 9 foot ceiling in your garage, and you know an 8 foot ceiling plus a floor structure plus a roof structure. You're there at 20.

[228:02] Can you get the? Can you get the floor structure down a little bit? You're like way up here. Is there a way to get that down, because I think the big thing. That's the house floor. That's the house war. Okay. Yeah. So the garage floors at the bottom of the garage door. Okay. So you're basically you've maximized. or I don't know how to say it minimized. Yeah. I brought down the the top of the floor for the adu as low as possible. so that you can maximize the head height in the living space. Yeah, I mean, there's probably ways that we could steal a foot out of the height of the garage in the garage door, and then you just can't drive it, you know, an suv but I'm not sure we want to go there, and I'm not sure that extra foot is going to make it any difference to the overall mass and character of that flat roof. Yeah, I mean, th, this is super hard. Marcy. Are there other sides to this that we could take a look at.

[229:01] You know. I I hesitate. Oh, sorry I hesitated. Tread out of chapter 9, 11 of the Boulder Revised Code. But I I do think that there's a 25 foot height limit if you have a gable roof versus an accessory dwelling unit that has a a different roof form is 20 feet. But I don't want to say that until I found the code section. But to Ronnie's point we see 80 use all the time in historic districts. And I wonder if there is this other piece of code that may benefit the design? But I will look for that. In in the goal. There, Jeff would be all the stuff that you wanna do that we also want to do, which is to get you the right amount of head height in those rooms, and for it to not have a flat roof, and for it to look more like dormers built into a gable, and then the last thing would be, you know the balcony, you know the the balconies we often see and approve when they face into the rear yards of homes on the side yards. They're just visible, visible from the public realm. So

[230:11] you know the code. The guidelines talk pretty clearly about that, and then the other one that's just is like an always one is the number, the garage door, single garage door versus double garage door. And you know I know that you've heard this from staff in there. Memo. And and so I agree with that, and I'm hopeful cause, I think what Marcy saying is true is that there actually is some other route that gets you a little bit more headroom, so that you can start to do all of the wonderful things that you are already doing in the primary house that you know how to do. You know what I mean? That's just like, how do you make it nicer? And I found it, and I'll I'll forward it to you. But it says the maximum height of a detached accessory dwelling unit shall not be greater than 20 feet.

[231:03] But it can go up to 25 feet if the roof pitch is at 8, 12, or greater. so I'll send this to you. Yeah. And the the more space you can get within the roof trust form the better like the the less of this flat roof and flat dormer thing, and the more room you can get under the pitched roof. you know, I think the nicer these things, and the more compliant they are with the guidelines. Yeah, I mean, that would fit better with what we want to try to achieve. So. Yeah, I think I think so, too. So Marcy and team, that's kind of my summary of this. But I could if you pull up the staffs. Analysis the last page of the summary. yeah. Ridge. yeah. Reduce the size of Doris. So primary with his gabled

[232:03] you know that that, more or less is what we were just saying. I think if they have that tool now, you're gonna be able to really modify that you're gonna have 5 more feet. and then the windows and doors, I think, is similar to what we just talked about. And then there's the 2 garage door thing, and then the balcony. Yeah, again, I feel like if the balcony is not facing the sides, if could face through. I don't know what the plan. I don't know what's happening with the site, really. I looked at it when in the submission, but I don't have top ahead, but I think you can put balconies more successfully facing the interior of the backyard if if you want it. I don't know if that creates a conflict for users. But that is how we see most people comply with that. So I also agree that staff summary here pretty much summarizes the points that we would give you as takeaways.

[233:01] And I agree, Ronnie. Marcia. So. A third summary. Yes, general. thank you. So me, I'm just gonna go out on a limb here Jeff and Michael. I I feel like hopefully, we're giving you enough information. I feel like you're hearing. I think that we're leaning toward. You know what would be a denial. But we would, for everything is better for everybody to for you guys to withdraw so that you can. you know, get back at it and then reapply and not have to wait. And then hopefully, we can get to an expeditious approval. And perhaps there's more review that happens with you and staff. Now that we've kind of talked in greater detail about

[234:04] some of the principles about the scale. Yep. In recognizing that it's almost 10 o'clock, but also knowing that taking 5 min can save 5 h later, when when we go and Remember this conversation. Could I summarize what I've heard? Not in totality? This is a recorded meeting, but and then have the Board members correct me if I've missed anything large or anything like that. So in just a few minutes so I generally heard, is that the Board members agree with this summary of revisions on the design guideline summary for the house around the mass and scale proportion of built mass to open space, window, indoor size, proportion, and pattern

[235:05] roof material. The John pointed out that metal roof may be appropriate for the district, and then a conversation about the reducing the depth of the porch slab, and Ronnie making the point that it's unusual to have a a stone or masonry under a lighter element of a porch. And a little more detail towards the mass and scale. It seems like the conversation was about having a a smaller scale of the predominant gable facing Pearl Street, and then having the mask kind of broken up, or kind of shaped in in different forms, to to bring down that scale. pause there. How does that sound so far in terms of recapping the conversation and name points about the house.

[236:00] Sounds accurate to me. Yeah. Sounds great, Marcy. Thank you. Wonderful. The garage general agreement from the board about the direction of Of these revisions, including reducing the size of the dormers, revise the design of the windows and doors to reflect the revised configuration. 2 garage doors rather than one. and revised, designed to eliminate the balcony or of suggestion to move it. So that's less visually prominent. And then, with this EU regulation about a greater height for a pitched roof, perhaps that will change and address some of the concerns about the size of the dormer and the overall form of it. And I don't think there's anything extra on the garage. Have I missed.

[237:01] Is it in the guidelines that you're not allowed to have a balcony from It's rebuilding. Guidelines. yeah, they. They do discourage balconies and talk about the visibility of of the balconies. Like, Ronnie said. Usually when they have been approved. It's either facing towards the lot or not. So think you could. depends more on the visibility or integrated into the roof form versus projecting. and then the final piece. These are more kind of standard conditions about the details, but noting the location of any removal of butcher trees, and then details about mechanical systems, lighting and gutters. These are typically conditions to be worked out after an approval, but showing any hardscaping on the site plan as well.

[238:06] So with that I think that summarizes the direction, I think, for Jeff and Michael, and I will also echo. I look forward to working with you all in this next revision. Thank you for doing that, Marcy. So, Marcy, do we need to hear from the applicant request for withdrawal. Yes. So at this point. That you, Abby, as the Terry, do, usually offer the opportunity to withdraw before any info were to be taken. Okay, thank you. So I'm going to give you the opportunity to withdraw the application. Yes, we would like to withdraw.

[239:00] Okay, thank you. And then, Marcy, the next steps. You'll follow up. Yes. Thank you. I don't. I don't know if we put a slide together, so we'll follow up Michael and Jeff. To go over. a revised design. You're welcome to reach out to me, and in the meantime, or come back once you have a revision prepared, and then we will bring back to a future landmarks board meeting. So. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And while you're in. So much. Seated. Yeah, thank, you. Bye, now.

[240:02] Okay, that. Matters. Yeah. Okay. So recognizing it's it's 10 o'clock. I'm gonna go through these relatively quickly. Great news that Renee was reappointed. We will have her swearing in at the next Landmarks board meeting. The annual square nails. Award ceremony is a really nice event held up in Chautauqua. Typically the first Monday after mother's day, but because of the community house booking. It is on Wednesday, May eighth. And in this moment I'm realizing I promised Abby I would send a list of potential projects. because usually a the landmarks board will choose some projects to give project awards to, and I am totally unprepared to have those nominations. So I will.

[241:00] But yeah, go ahead. Well, that's fine, but if is it something you can send in the next few days or early next week. Yeah, let me let me figure out how we can do this like, virtually, and it doesn't have to come from staff. Usually it's just hard to remember all of the projects we've reviewed. So if there's any that raised to the top of mind, the general criteria we use is that it's usually a project that we have reviewed. It's usually one that has been completed rather than just reviewed. And there's a lag time in that and there's always kind of a message in what projects the Landmarks Board chooses to acknowledge. So in the past some have been exemplary energy efficiency and historic preservation projects. Other ones have been like really labors of love in terms of restoration.

[242:02] Others have been like careful stewardship of relatively small projects, but really demonstrating how committed the owners are, and then others are like innovative designs in in historic districts. So I will circulate some nominations in the next week, and then figure out how to choose those, and then, if you are available to attend, please do come on Wednesday, May eighth, at 6 o'clock. that they should talk with the house. and we'll recognize the 2 landmarks that were designated this year. And if we think of a project, we could send it directly to you, too, as well. Yes, yeah. Please, do. Okay. Thanks. Yeah. and as of last year we have started tracking them through the year with our Drc, so you know, so that we don't have to like. Go through the whole year.

[243:00] okay, that's coming up in May. There will be a a flurry of other historic preservation events across Boulder County. So look for a brochure advertising those events. And it's also on history. Colorado website also has a consolidated calendar of events happening across the State. A cool event that is happening next Tuesday, up at Chautauqua is a panel discussion hosted by history. Colorado, I think, in partnership with the Colorado Chautauqua Association, called what's in a name, a State historians roundtable on controversial Monuments place. And so that's on Tuesday, April ninth, that Chautauqua and seems very relevant and pretty interesting, and I will hope to see you there. Okay. And then a reminder that the City Council public, hearing for the proposed historic district is a week from tomorrow, Thursday, April eleventh.

[244:06] and John is going to be in attendance and available to a answer any questions from council. If they wanna hear directly from the different boards about their deliberations. and Abby will be traveling. I think you'll be tuning in, too, but everyone is welcome to tune in. was originally scheduled as a study session because of the land. Because of Council's retreat. And so typically public hearings start after about 45 min of open comment. There's no open comment on April eleventh. So if you're planning to tune in, it's going to be pretty close to 6 Pm. Rather than the traditional 7 o'clock estimated. Start for public hearings. and then I'm rolling through these. But then we can discuss the last piece is that the relevancy project is still front of mind and kind of depending on the outcome of next Thursday.

[245:12] That will have an impact on our work plan in terms of what the next project is that we work on. So I'd like to plant a seed for a summer retreat to talk about the relevancy project and how that might influence a historic preservation plan. Update? you don't need to throw out any dates or anything like that. But it is something that I hope that there's interest in doing so. I'd be very interested in that. Thank you. Any questions or discussion on any of these. Any of these items. I don't see any raised hands or any anyone turning off their mics. So if there's nothing else this evening, and Marcy thanks for bringing those all up.

[246:08] tonight. I don't see anything else, so I think the meetings adjourned at 1007 pm. Thank you. Everybody. Well. great discussion. And yeah, thank you. Everyone. Thank you. Thanks. Alright, take care! Goodnight. Thanks, guys, good night. I.