June 5, 2024 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:07] Recording has started. Thank you. The June landmarks board meeting is called to order. Welcome to the June 5, th 2,024 landmarks board leaving. It is 6, 0 3 PM. Before we begin the meeting, Marcy will review the virtual meeting decorum. Quick, or do you go to the next slide? Thank you. Hmm. 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. In the next slide.

[1:06] The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder revise code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld during this meeting. All remarks and testimonies 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, or other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. And participants may raise their hands to speak during open comment if you're virtual. And as well as public comment periods during the hearings. Individuals joining online must display their whole name before being allowed to speak. Currently only audio testimony is permitted online. And then the next slide, we'll have a reminder of where to find the raise hand function if you're joining virtually on Zoom. You can find it under the reactions menu or a shortcut, why if you're on a PC, option Y for a Mac or dialing star 9 if you're joining by phone.

[2:09] Back to you, Abby. Thank you, Marci. I want to acknowledge that we have a quorum this evening with 4 of the 5 board members attending in one of our landmarks board members is joining us virtually. So thanks again Chelsea for signing in virtually. A recording of this meeting will be available in the record archives and on YouTube within 28 days of this meeting. We'll do a very quick roll call and introductions. I'm going to start with Renee. Renee, Gelobic, Lambarks, board member. I'm Abby Daniels, the current chair of the Landmarks Board. I'm John Decker, landmarks board member. And I'm Kurt Nordbek liaison from the planning board to landmark sport. And Chelsea.

[3:00] Oh, hi, Chelsea, Castleano, Landmarks board member. Thank you. We know that there are people attending tonight who want to participate and may have strong emotions about some of the projects presented this evening. We want to hear from you and we have found it more productive if you are speaking to persuade us rather than berating us staff or the applicant. As with regular landmark board meetings, you may only speak at the appropriate time during the public hearing. Request to speak outside of those times will be denied. We request that members of the public who wish to speak in person sign up using the sheet that Aubrey has over at that counter there. Virtual participants will then follow speaking after anyone who is here with us in person tonight and they will indicate their desire to speak this evening by raising their virtual hand. Board chair I will make a roll call vote on any motions brought forth this evening. So our first.st Action item is to approve the mid meeting minutes of the May 1, st 2,024.

[4:16] Meeting. I don't know if there's any changes or alterations that anyone has in Chelsea, you can just raise a hand or let us know if you have any. And not hearing or seeing any I move that we approve the May meeting minutes. Do we have a second? I second. Thank you, Renee. So, we will vote Renee. To prove them? Aye. Hi. I vote I, John. Aye. And Chelsea. So the main minute meeting minutes are approved. The next item on our agenda tonight is public participation for anything not on tonight's agenda. We do have 3 public hearings this evening and those wishing to speak to that will speak at the time during those particular hearings.

[5:06] So I don't know if there's anyone here that has asked Aubrey to speak in general to anything. This evening. And if not, if you see anyone indicating virtually that they would like to speak to us. If any virtual participants would like to speak, please raise your hand now. All right, we have one person who would like to speak. That is Lynn Siegel. Lynn, I will unmute you and start the timer momentarily. Okay. Can I speak to 6 13 walnut which is on the on the agenda but not a public hearing item?

[6:04] Yes, you may. Thank you. Okay, that's my priority. Because 6 13 goes off the stay of demolition tomorrow. And it's my feeling from what I know. Of Gilbert White that he had every intent to keep that land as free as possible of building mass. Because of the threat of that. When the big flood jumps goes down Canyon Water Street and breaches the berm. It will go through his apartment building that he built. He got 3 lots when he built the apartment building. Our condo building, whatever it is, threadbare building. He saw that there were spaces in between the bricks on the lower level on both sides of the garage at the lower level so that the water would perforate the building rather than being Borst around it and and more deadly to humans he always said, you know, people don't die from.

[7:21] Grounding in a flood, they drive from being hit by debris. When he bought the 3. Lots, the city would only allow him 17 units in the apartment building, not 20. So we had an extra wad. So he solved the lot. But with a. Lean on it so that you can't build anything except and within the building footprint, which is only 1,020 square feet. So. There's also another issue and that is that it's on the building lot line. And built in the late 18 hundreds or Yeah.

[8:10] I'm mixing up my hand millennia. And so, 120 some years old. And the, they probably didn't have surveying gear. That's the same these days. So it's on the lot line as a result if it's moved or it's demolished. Or it's changed in any way. Like added onto or anything. It will have to meet guidelines, which means it has to go 10 feet in. You have to cut 10 feet off of the whole building, which is only 1,000 square feet to start. So it's not very practical. To suggest to the developer to do something like that when they might not realize that they're going to lose. 10 feet of their building. And. It's just. Really important to memorize what Gilbert White had to say to the world and he's an internationally renowned flood expert, National Hazard Center up at CEO.

[9:12] And that is to that the worst problem with flooding is the built environment. That's why. Lynn, I apologize your time has expired. But I finished my sentence. That's why Boulder is the the highest flood risk in the state of Colorado, not because it's particularly got a lot of drainages, but because it has the built environment a lot most of the built environment here. Lynn, I'm sorry. Thank you so much. Aubrey, I don't know if there's other members of the public who'd like to address this during. Open comment. That is it for virtual participation. And I don't know, did we have someone join us this evening who would still like to speak before we close public participation?

[10:02] If you'll see, worth this desk. And this is for items that aren't on the agenda as a public hearing. Hmm. Hmm. So welcome and if you'll state your full name then your 3 min will commit Sorry, you will have to unmute that microphone. There's a button. And it'll turn red. There you go. Thank you. My name is Irwin New like. I live at 1045 Spruce Street, Unit C. And our patio is just across or Levin Street from the area where this addition is supposed to be. Taking place. So I apologize. I think you're here maybe to speak to our second public hearing. Oh, is But what we do at the very beginning of the meeting is members of the spread public addresses with any other issues.

[11:09] New business. Yeah. Oh, okay. Thank you. And at least you got our microphone on for us. So thank you for that. So Aubrey, before we officially close public comment, any other hands raised? Virtually No, we have no one else virtually. We do need to mute the microphone again though. I'm sorry. Thanks. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. So the next item on the agenda is a discussion of landmark alteration and demolition applications issued and pending and I'll turn to Marcy for that part.

[12:00] Alright, so we just have one stay of demolition pending right now and it is the building at 6 13 walnut street and As a quick recap, the landmark sport place to stay of demolition on April 3, rd but shortened it to a date, the day after tonight's meeting. And that gave kind of a focus time to explore alternatives for demolition and so we met on-site on April, the 29th for a meeting to discuss all alternatives. We covered a summary of that meeting last month and the board chose not to schedule a hearing for tonight prior to the stay ending and so there's really not much more to say tonight since this day does expire tomorrow. Thank you, Marci. And I just wanted to make a quick comment about this and When staff arranged the site visit, I really appreciated that the 3 architects on our board were all able to attend.

[13:05] We were more informed and at our last meeting when we had the last chance to schedule something for this evening. I had been interested in in favor of scheduling an Asian hearing tonight. I was a long voice, but you know, this is such a unique site. It is a historic building. There are wonderful historic gems nearby it and so forth. And in this case, I just kind of want to say on the record that what the owners did was reach out and see if demolition of it was even possible as they were proceeding to put it on the market a lot of times a property sold and then comes test for demolitions. I felt like they kind of did their homework and came to us and we did hear from members of the public especially the neighbors who live in the condo building. I do think that it's very possible. We don't know yet, but is this all transpires, there might be an owner who buys it at some point who does want to bring it back to the preservation program at some point.

[14:07] And I do think that even though it had, we have absolutely nothing under our purview over an existing easement on the property. That in and of itself sort of limits what could be done. So I think it's possible we could see this again in some form and fashion and I just appreciate what staff did and board members did too to really fully engage with this and see I we did do the short and stay on it which I think was great for the owners to know how to proceed but as Marcy indicated at our main meeting and I do agree with this. There is a reason why I think the ordnance says a stay not to exceed 180 days because sometimes it's not quite enough to go from an April meeting to a June 6th deadline. But I think in this case that was okay and I think it worked out and all the parties were able to meet on site.

[15:01] So thank you. For making that happen and you know there is a slight chance as this remains on the market. What might happen to it. So we're now ready to begin our 1st public hearing. Agenda item 5 A. This is a public hearing and consideration of an application to demolish a house constructed in 1,925 at 37 76 orange lane a non-landmarked building more than 50 years old pursuit to section 9 1123 of the Boulder revised code. And Claire I know you're going to be doing this presentation this evening. Yes, thank you, Abi. The, This is a quasi-judicial hearing, so I'll just run through the procedures really quickly. Everyone speaking in, speaking to the item will be sworn in. And board members will note any ex parte contacts.

[16:00] I'll then give the staff presentation. The board may ask me questions. The applicant will then have 10 min to present to the board and the board may ask them questions. We'll then open the public hearing after all members of the public have made their comments, the applicant may respond to anything that was said. The board will then deliberate. And emotion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass. Motions will state findings, conclusions, and a recommendation. And then 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 we we note who reviewed this previously at the LDRC and that was on April, the 10th and John Renee and I were present. So back to you, Abby, for ex parte. Okay, so rede in the ex parte contacts.

[17:06] No. I have none. And Chelsea. Hmm, none. Thank you. Back to you, Claire. Great, thank you, Abby. So the criteria for review tonight is outlined in the Boulder revise code under 9 1123. This is a demolition application and the purpose of reviewing demolition applications is to prevent the loss of buildings that may have historic or architectural significance by providing time to consider alternatives to demolition. So the criteria that can be considered are the eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark. If it has historic or architectural significance. The relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood as an established and definable area. And the reasonable condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or repair. Although not deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect.

[18:07] The options for the board tonight are to approve the full demolition or replace a stay of demolition to find alternatives to demolition. A stay would not exceed 180 days and would expire on October 18.th So history about this project, we received the application in April and due to the age of the building it was reviewed by the Lmarks Design Review Committee. And they referred the application to the landmarks board for review in a public hearing. Finding that there was probable cause to believe that the building may be eligible for designation as an individual landmark. The property is located west of Broadway and the east of Orange Lane in North Boulder. The house faces south towards a private driveway and we find my pointer.

[19:03] Okay, I think this will work. Yes, it does. Yeah. So the health space is south towards our private driveway, which is down here. And the driveway is accessed via Orange Lane at the end of Orange Lane. Right here. But as you can see from the image, the property is not highly visible from Orange Lane. That's the top image here. The property is in North Boulder and was only annexed into the city sometime after 1,975 it was addressed 37 17 Broadway from 1,960 until 1,984. And it is not within the boundaries of an identified potential historic district. So this is the house. It is a 1 and a half story house constructed around 1,925. You can see the the driveway here. So this is the south elevation. Not visible from Orange Lane.

[20:05] It has a steeply pitched side gable roof and a gable entrance and is reflected of the Norman English cottage style of architecture with influences of the Cape Cod form, which you can see in the symmetrical gable dormers, the very minimal eaves. Pretty much no exterior ornamentation other than the shingle and shed roof wings on each side. This was a very economical and simple design that builders could copy without the benefit of an architect. In addition to the original main form of the house, which is within the yellow box that you see on the image, there are also later additions to the facade to the west and east, which are somewhat hidden behind the trees, but I have. Outlined them with the dashed orange line.

[21:01] The North Elevation is interior to the lot and it mirrors the south elevation with a pair of gable wall dormers that you can just about see behind the trees. You can see the top of one right here. Again, I've circled the original form and from this side you can see parts of the additions to the east and west. This is also from the rear and a better image of the original house with the the gable. Dormas and a chimney and the one story shed roof wing that we believe is original plus the addition to the to the east that was probably added in the in the 1960 s or 19 seventys but certainly after 1,958. And this is the West elevation with the original wing and the additions to the West that were also added after 1,958. The relevance of it being annexed into the city. Often, 1,975 is that we don't have any permit records.

[22:04] Okay. So this is the earliest image we have of the house. It's from 1,950. You can see the the original house with wood shingle and the symmetrical dormas, the central gable entrance and the wings that were either original or a very early addition. The current footprint shows the pre 1950 house, indicated with the, the dashed blue line. With additions to the East and West added after 1,958. The building does retain some of its historic materials, notably the unpainted wood shingle and some of the windows. So as I mentioned, the criteria for review are outlined in 9 1123 F of the Boulder revise code. Which includes the eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark outlined in 9 11 one and 9 11 2. The relationship of the building to the character of the neighbourhood. We use significance criteria adopted in 1,975 to evaluate.

[23:09] In a consistent manner. And to be eligible the property only needs to be to meet one of these adopted significance criteria but commonly accepted practice is that a building should retain the physical features that allow it to convey that significance. So we'll start with historic significance. This is whether the building shows character as part of the characteristics of the community. Be the site of an event that had an effect upon society or exemplify the cultural political, economic or social heritage of the community. Staff found that while the property has a very interesting history, changes to the building and especially the setting, means that it does not have integrity to convey that significance.

[24:03] The history is that James P. Maxwell sold 5 acres to Frank and Florence Dodge in 1,905 this area was called Meadow Park Ranch and it included orchards, part of the Silver Lake ditch. And a house that is now addressed as 3,765 orange lane. And is across the private driveway to the south. Frank Dodge died in 19 0 8 but Florence held onto the property with the help of her older sister Louise Griffin who became a co-owner. Florence was a teacher in the Boulder Public Schools for nearly 30 years until 1,941 when she retired. She was assistant principal at Mapleton Elementary School and directed the annual grade school summer school. For many years. Louise Griffin, her sister, was an osteopathic doctor. She borrowed some money in 1,922 to construct a second house on the property opposite her sister's house and that's the house that we are looking at today.

[25:08] When Louise died in 1,935 Florence rented out the house which is how the Antrim family came to live there in the early 18 forties. They eventually purchase the entire 5 acre property. They sold it in 1,960 which was when the property was subdivided into 2 houses one on either side of the private drive. And the orchards and the orchards were sold to Wrexland Development Corporation. Suzanne and Leon Lee Lacey purchased the the portion of the property. That included this house at 37 76 orange lane. Lee, who you see on the second picture here, this one. Was on the design team to develop the New Kirk White Light Coronal camera. With astrophysicist Gordon Newkirk.

[26:02] And this camera allowed the coroner of the sun to be photographed for the 1st time and is on display at the Encar Museum. So there you go. So the Lacy's eventually sold the house to the current owners. The guidelines Also say that a place should embody the distinguishing characteristic of an architectural type. Or be a good example of the common contain elements that represent a significant innovation or be a fine example of the uncommon. We considered that this house is representative of vernacular residential construction using elements of both the Cape Cod and the English cottage architectural styles. The additions to the building diminish the architectural interest and value. So staff thought that It is not a significant example of an architectural style of the past.

[27:01] And does not include innovative use of material or exemplary craftsmanship to be considered significant under this criteria. And then the significance criteria for environmental significance are whether the building represents a unique natural or man-made environment. The setting of the house on its property has been substantially changed and the historic context of the farmland and orchard has been lost. Additionally, the house is not visible within the neighborhood, so we considered that it did not meet the environmental significance criteria. In addition, the building's ability to convey a feeling of its original construction has been diminished by the development of the original site. The solid yellow line here represents the original 5 acre property called Meadow Park Ranch. When the property was subdivided and the ranch developed, the historic context was lost, including the relationship to the surrounding neighborhood.

[28:02] The applicant didn't submit any information on the condition of the building or the projected cost of repair. But Charlotte and you are here to answer any questions you may have. So staff's findings are that a stay of demolition for the property at 3 7 7 6 orange lane is not appropriate based on the criteria. Set forth in section 9 1123 F of the Boulder device code. While the building is associated with the Griffin Dodge and Lacey families, staff considers that the 1920, 25 house and its setting does not have the integrity needed to convey that significance and is therefore not for a landmark designation. The additions to the building have diminished the architectural value and the changes to the property including development of the original acreage, has diminished a connection to the site and the character of the neighborhood to an extent that the loss of the buildings would not constitute a significant impact on Boulder's historic resources.

[29:07] Staff's recommendation is that the landmarks board approve the demolition application, finding that the building does not have significance under the criteria set forth in 9 1123 F. So that's the end of the staff presentation. This is a reminder of the next steps in the process. The applicant will have up to 10 min to present to the board. Followed by public participation, an opportunity for the applicant to respond to anything that said and then bored deliberation. The question today for the board is if the building has historic significance if yes the board will place a 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 for a staff before we move on to the applicant's presentation? I have a quick question.

[30:03] Under historical significance on number 4, you had quotation marks around. Some source it said talked about it's it's vernacular whatever was that like from Jane Valentine Barker's book or do you know what that source was off the top of your head? It was from Front Range Research. So they was from a 7. Okay, thank you. Cause I didn't know like, you know how they're, when it says authorities, there are some books that have been published that include some properties like this. So thank you. Does anyone else have any questions of staff? And Chelsea, it doesn't sound like you do at this point. So now we're delighted to welcome up the applicants. You'll have the total of 10 min. I don't know if only one of you will be speaking, I do need to suggest you, okay, I will need to swear you in if you're, and say you'll tell the board the full truth, and then state your full name.

[31:03] I would tell the board the fold my full truth and my full name is Charlotte Obermeyer Wanjow. Thank you and you will have 10 min to speak if you need that and as Claire alluded you'll be invited back up if you'd like to after public participation. Thank you for considering our application for a demolition permit. My husband and I have raised our family in this house. My dad built the backyard cottage in 2,005 and we have all lived together since. Our kids are now grown up and we are selling the house to fund my dad's nursing home expenses. I've lived in the home on and off since my parents bought it in 1,977. When I was growing up. Our home was surrounded by pastures and apple orchards. Driveway was a long dirt road that meandered through the fields from Broadway.

[32:03] Since then, those fields have been filled with houses and the old driveway no longer exists. Because it is now part of a subdivision. Our house no longer has the historical feeling of a rural farmhouse. My parents added additions to the house on the east and west side in the 1980. Those additions are not in character with the original house. These modern editions have changed the house and it no longer has the same appearance. From some angles, the house even looks slightly modern. Also, the house cannot be seen from any public street or sidewalk. The general public does not have any access to view this property. So it's historical. Impact is very limited. The house has been on the market for 4 months. We haven't found a buyer yet. We are getting consistent feedback that the house needs more work than buyers are willing to do.

[33:07] But potential buyers say that the amount of work that would be needed to renovate is just too costly. The end result of renovation would be a small house with low ceilings and an awkward floor plan. Because of this, some buyers have been asking if the house can be torn down. Another factor that limits the rent limits renovating is that the silver like ditch runs alongside the house through the property. In some locations, it's only 4 feet from the house. And in other locations it's about 9 feet. This makes it very difficult to renovate and impassable to build in addition to the current home. The best solution would be to build a new house on the north side of the lot set back from the ditch. This is why we have applied for a demolition permit. We feel like the house has no historical significance since there is nothing historical that we know about the house.

[34:10] Also, the information at the Carnegie Library shows there's nothing significant about the construction or historical background. It's not the work of a master. It does not possess high artistic value. There are no significant people or events associated with the property. We ask that you approve the demolition permit, which will help us sell the home and afford to give my dad the care he needs. Thank you kindly for your consideration. So do I stand here now? Thank you, Charlotte. You're welcome. Do any board members have any questions? For the applicant. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much.

[35:04] We'll now move on to public participation for this agenda item. Aubrey, I don't know if you've received any. Sign ups here, I don't believe you have for anyone a person. So we'll look to see if any member of the public virtually would like to address this. All right, we have one virtual participant who would like to speak, Lynn Siegel. I will allow you permission to talk and turn on the timer momentarily. And Lynn, as you well know, because this is quasi-judicial, you will need to swear to tell the board your truth. Okay, you should be good to go. Sorry. I do. It took my dad 5 years to die. And my brother took care of him along with other folks.

[36:07] There are cheaper ways than nursing homes and the ones in Boulder very expensive. So I recommend you look further. There are ways to do this gracefully. But not at the cost. Of a beautiful house. And the the deprivation of the landfill for a perfectly good house. Now I wasn't able to enter the house because I wasn't gonna buy it. But I looked at this Zillow imagery and it looks great inside. It's a very cool house. There is no reason to demo this. Landmarks has got a change. That's it. This is got to change. We've got to have things going through environmental advisory board. Because this is just not okay. There's gonna be nothing. I don't care if anyone can't look at this house. It exists. It's there.

[37:01] Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there as part of the history and the laces. We, with the Corona graph. That's great background. And the the people obviously love this house. And you should not. Demo this house. This is really not The Landmarks board, it's the demolitions board. That's really what this board is. One after the other. It was a sin for you to take out. 2260. Baseline WR. How did you? How dare you? There will be nothing left to landmark in the future in this town. Four-level apartment buildings. That's the future. Your land marking process, if you want to call it that. This is a giveaway. For developers. With big money, you know, bright edge 30th and Pearl, there was just a big acquisition where the The value went from 425,000 a unit.

[38:13] For like 300 units. 425,000 to 500,000 in one year. Nobody is going to be able to afford anything if you hand it over to the developers at the landmarks. Bored. It's just combined with the inflation of everything else. We can't afford this anymore. No one will be here, but Elon Musk and his brother Kimball. That's who's gonna live in Boulder in the future. Don't hand these places over. But to to the people that need to get money for the nursing home or whatever they're go out and compete and find a better nursing home. There's, you know, my family went through it too.

[39:00] Lin, your time has expired. Thank you. And Aubrey, I'll give you a moment to see if anyone else's interested in speaking to this item. We don't have anyone else. Okay, thank you. And then just so the applicants know at this point we do offer you an additional 3 min if there's anything you'd like to add or if we had more members of the public sometimes or something you like to clarify or rebet so you're welcome to come back up. But you're not required to. I don't have OK, but thank you. So we now will bring this back to the board for deliberations. And I don't know if any one of my colleagues would like to kick off this discussion.

[40:01] And start. This one. This is an interesting one. Because It. It kind of is an interesting house. It does have a history. The the situation. I think with a lot of these properties. It's it's it's kind of a recurrent situation that we're seeing. Where people have owned the property. And this is without discussing the merits. The architectural merits of the house yet. People have owned the property. It's a big part of the resources that they have that their life. Accumulation was involved in. And This is these are resources that they need access to.

[41:07] Part of the problem with the program And this is maybe getting into the weeds. Is the fact that we don't have supplemental resources of any kind. To support this program. In terms of architectural or historic merit, we pretty much have to operate with owners who are. Willingly engaging in this process. It's a good process. It's a process that if you own a property and you Go through it increases. I would like to thank the value of the property and certainly the value of the property to the community. But in these instances. I have a hard time. With the issue of private property. And property owners being forced to the wall on these things.

[42:13] It is a vernacular piece of architecture. It's somewhat unique. The context that it lived in is probably gone. That I can argue. Is not necessarily fatal, but. It, it's value to the community. I think is diminished by the fact that It's going to stand in the way of something the community at this point seems to feel like they need more. Which is housing. So I'm. I'm kind of at a loss. We could put a stay on it. We could investigate it further. I don't know if it's going to

[43:01] Provide the value that we're trying to provide to the community to do that. Hmm. I just want to make your point. So whether or not this demolition Any demolition provides more housing for the community. It's just not a criteria. I don't understand. You know, being focused on what the criteria is for approving or not approving, a, an, an application is key. Thank you. I think that, staff did a good job of doing a little layer of this house because we We were at the LDRC with this one. And, I mean, even if. I mean, we look at the pictures and it holds some. Context to what it used to look like. Right, if this building was downtown Pearl Street, would we have a different?

[44:00] Opinion of it, and it would had different value, it would be in the context that it would be built. This view that you're looking at would have been view from a public. Place, maybe there I think that the people that lived in it are quite interesting. So the historic value on that part. Is quite, for me that's like I love the digging of. What the soul of the house, who lived there and what was it and things like that. So for me, that holds a big historic part. Of it. I fight with the fact of being on the landmarks board and you know, preservation and keeping it at the same time. This is an investment in a family. And I know that he's gonna tell me that's not we're not talking about that. So I get it. We're getting there. We're not talking about that. So I get it. We're getting there.

[45:01] But I just want to. I get it. We're getting there. But I just want to appreciate her emotion and I want to honor that because it, you know, her emotion and I want to honor that, her emotion and I want to honor that because you know your family you grew up in it and you're not taking it lightly by asking it to be demoed. So I want to honor that and her is what I'm was getting to. And I think that if we put it, I think she would have a different you know, tone if it, if it would increase the value and it could. You know, allow her to keep the house and at the same time. Provide for her family, which is, you know, it's their investment. So because we saw this before and we had a little bit of discussion before and the way that this house faces and and the way that this house faces and you face you don't even face a public right away. There's so much built up around it. I would be in favor of. Approving. The demolition. So.

[46:01] Thank you. Renee and Chelsea, I want to give you an opportunity. To join the deliberations. Thanks. I agree with Renee and others and I think staff did a good job of articulating their position so I'll just keep it short and say I agree. With staff's recommendation. Thanks Chelsea and Kurt I want to give you I know you're a nonvoting member but you're welcome if you'd like to share any thoughts. Sure, just quickly, I think staff did an excellent work on the memo and I would agree with Death's conclusions. Boulder is full of interesting people and every parcel in this city has a history, almost by definition, but that doesn't mean that it has historic significance, right?

[47:01] There has to be a certain threshold. And so I love the fact that we learn the history of places when staff does this research and I really appreciate the depth that they go into but that doesn't. The fact that there is a history doesn't mean that it rises to historic significance. And I think that, you know, the architecture was interesting at one time. It becomes certainly significantly less interesting with the additions. And so I would not conclude that it has architectural significance and I think the environmental significance pretty clearly has been destroyed by the development around there. So I would agree with staff conclusions. Thank you, Kurt. And Charlotte, I want to thank you for your remarks because I think you conveyed. What was going on with this property and the potential sale of it, but just like Renee said your emotion and I think you really spoke from the heart and that's always meaningful to us to hear.

[48:06] Unique one because I do think what I see in this picture now and granted I'm looking at a photo from a PowerPoint and if you were to drive over there, you can't really see it. Is the fact that it is similar in shape and form in massing. Excluding the additions from the 1950 photo that that Claire shared in the PowerPoint and I think what's most been lost is its context and you know this is an important chapter in Boulder's history kind of that rural agricultural know not that far from where Lawns Gardens still stands and so I lament that that's been lost but that has been lost. And I do feel, for example, where the situation different, or someone in your family or a potential owner, if they came forward just and said, you know what? We love this vernacular. We love the story it tells. There were some interesting people like many interesting people throughout Boulder.

[49:06] I loved learning about that camera and John helped explain it to me a little bit more, but you know, if someone came forward and said, you know what, we would like this to be landmarked, I could see that happening. I think it meets some of the criteria. It doesn't have to meet every bit of criteria that we have in our ordinance to save a property that we have in our ordinance to save a property. But I think that And it is possible. A demolition permit is issued. And a buyer comes forward. That keeps the house. I mean, there's unknowns throughout this whole thing. We don't know, but it sounds like you've gotten enough meaningful feedback that you have to explore this option. Just so you know what's next for you and your family. And so. It's, I would have definitely supported a stay of demolition.

[50:03] But I am, I am struggling with this one. And I think primarily just because of the whole loss of context of what that neighborhood. How it was established, what it meant to the community, what role it played, and that around you and around this house. It's just sort of evaporated. And that makes me sad, but that's. What's happened? So that's where I am. I do think staff did a great job and I know staff when this gets called up at an LDRC, and I know, I do think staff did a great job and I know staff when this gets called up at an LDRC, that's because they think or someone on the he thinks there's probable cause, but then it triggers this review and I think what I hear from staff is once they've done that. Digging and that diligence that they've come up with. And analysis and a recommendation that. Will be supporting tonight. It's kind of hard for me to do that, but their research and their effort.

[51:06] Bring me to that conclusion. I don't know if there's other questions if there is anyone who would like to make a motion. I'm looking at Okay. I moved the landmarks board to adopt the findings of the staff memorandum dated June 5, th June 5, th 2,024 and approved the application to demolition. The building at 3 7 7 6 orange lane. Finding that the building does not have significance under the criteria set forth in section 9. 1123 FBRC, 1,981. Do we have a second? I'll second. On a motion, by Renee seconded by John, is there anyone who wants to?

[52:01] Make any changes or add anything before we take a roll call vote. I don't hear anything from Chelsea on that either, so we'll do a roll call vote, Chelsea. Hi. John. Renee. I and I vote I so the motion passes unanimously and Claire is going to be kind enough to explain next steps. Yes, so the Lamex board has approved the demolition request. And we'll issue an approval letter it does expire in 180 days. And a deconstruction permit must be obtained within those 180 days or it expires. And an applicant would need to resubmit. A demolition request, however. Unless there is a dramatic change, our policy is to be consistent with recent decisions. And please give my phone number to any potential buyers. And thank you for coming. Thank you. And thank you again for your remarks tonight.

[53:13] So we will now move on to agenda item 5 B. This is a public hearing in consideration of a landmark alteration application to construct a new two-story building construct a rear addition to the primary building and modify an existing accessory building at 11 0 5 Spruce Street, a contributing property in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, a contributing property in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, pursued to section 9 1118 of the Boulder revise code, 1,981. And Claire will also be doing this staff presentation before the applicants speak in any members of the public. Alright, thank you, Abby. I'll just run through the quasi-judicial hearing procedures again.

[54:01] All speaking to the item will be sworn in and board members will note any ex parte contacts. I'll give the stuff presentation after that the board may ask questions. The applicant may have 10 min to present to the board and the board may ask questions again. Will then open the public hearing after all members of the public have made comments the applicant may respond to anything that was said The board will then deliberate and emotion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass and a record of the hearing is available in a couple of days as a video recording and an official record will be added to the archive within. 28 days. So back to you, Abby, for ex parte. Thank you. I have no ex parte contacts, Renee? I do not. John? I do not. And Chelsea.

[55:03] Yeah, thank you. Sorry, I lost the tab. No, I do not. Okay, the this is a landmark alteration certificate review the criteria for review are outlined in the Boulder revise code under 9 1118 beat NC. The review is to ensure that proposed work preserves enhances or restores and does not damage exterior architectural features of the property. Does not adversely affect the historic architectural value of the property. Architecture, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color and materials are compatible with the character of the property. And that the landmark sport considers the economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of energy efficient design and enhance access for the disabled. The options today are for the landmark sport to approve the application. This is subject to a sixteen-day city council call-up period.

[56:02] Where City Council can choose to review the application. The Limox board may also deny the application, which would be subject to a 30 day period in which City Council could review the decision. This is the applicant's appeals process. However, a denial would mean that the applicant could not submit a substantially similar application within 12 months. So if the board is headed in that direction they will give the applicant an opportunity to withdraw the application. So this application includes a new building, demolition and construction larger than 340 square foot is required to come directly to the full board for review in a quasi-judicial public hearing. And I missed spoke, there's actually no demolition on this one. It's just construction larger than 340 square feet. So we are looking at 11 0 5 Spruce Street. It's right here. It's located on the northwest corner of Spruce Street and which is down here and 11th Street.

[57:07] The front of the house faces south on to Spruce Street. The carriage house is at the rear of the lot right back here and it faces west on to 11th Street. The property is within the Mapleton Hill Historic District and is also one block north of the downtown historic district in a transitional area between the commercial downtown and residential neighbourhood to the north. Both the house and the accessory building the carriage house are considered contributing to the Mapleton Hill Historic District. They were constructed by Valentine Butch around 1894. The 2 and a half story house was constructed with a stone foundation and red pressed brick with stone string coursing. It has a hip roof with exposed fluted roof rafters. Say that 5 times really fast at the soffit.

[58:05] The the facade features a semicircular stained glass window. The the facade features a semicircular stained glass window. It's right here. Other windows are one over one, double hung with stone cells and lentils and some pretty unusual trans. This is the carriage house. It was likely built at the same time. The building also has a hip roof and it has horizontal wood siding. It has a carriage house opening facing 11th Street. And you can't really see them behind the tree here but asymmetrical hipped roof wall dormers on the north and south elevations. Some multi light windows which we believe are original and an entry door on the south elevation. From the sample maps we know that the footprint of the carriage house including a 1-story frame projection which you can just about see here. Are unchanged.

[59:05] From site plans dating back to 1,895 and images we can see that there have been a few changes to the primary house the front dormer was originally very small. It was inlarged 1st in the, we think the 19 fiftys or 19 sixtys and then again in the 19 seventys to what we see today. Also sometime between 1961 and 1,974, sleeping porch at the rear. Was replaced with a frame addition that includes a roof deck. And the proposal at the primary house is to remove that rare addition and roof deck and replace it with a semicircular tower. The proposal also includes the construction of a new two-story. 1,144 square foot detached building with an approximate 30 foot by 25 foot footprint.

[60:08] Plus the carriage house at the rear is proposed to be lifted. And placed on a new foundation. And slab in the same location with no changes to the footprint. I'm going to run through the proposed changes to each building and mention the key guidelines and the staff analysis for each because there's a lot. So here we go, we'll start with the. The primary house, the proposal is to replace the existing Dormer Windows with new windows. This is the Dorma here and replace the existing siding on the on this dormer. The proposal also includes repair of historic windows, masonry, siding roofing, and foundation at the front porch. Moving around to the West elevation, this is the side facing 11th Street. The the existing addition at the rear is proposed to be removed and replaced with a the two-story tower with a ridge that is lower than the main ridge height of the house that you can see circled.

[61:22] Right here. This is the proposed tower from the North Elevation, which is visible from the alley. You can see the, the existing addition and roof deck that is proposed to be removed right here. An existing dormer and skylight at the rear will also be removed. We believe that at least the dormer is original to the house, but we don't know about the skylight. The new tower includes fixed pane vertically oriented windows and it will be clad in full thickness brick veneer to match the existing brick and growout.

[62:08] And we'll have a precost concrete cap to create a transition. To the critical tongue and groove siding above. So you can see that transition right here. This is the east elevation which is not really visible because of the proximity of the adjacent building. This is probably the best picture you can get of that side. But you can see the proposed rear tower on the elevation. So, key guidelines for additions are that they should be designed and constructed so that the character defining features of the historic building are not radically changed. Obscured damaged or destroyed. Addition should also be differentiated from older portions of the building but respect the historic context, existing reforms and building scale and massing.

[63:05] They should be sensitive to the form pitch and symmetry of the existing roof. The existing roof form pitch and material should be used for any additions. And addition should generally be lower than and secondary to the roof line of the original house. Also a key guideline for the primary house is to retain and preserve existing historic windows including there. Functional and decorative features. Such as frames, glass, sash, mutton's, sills heads, molding, surrounds, and hardware. Stuff considered that the proposal for the primary house is generally appropriate in that the character defining features of the historic house are not proposed to be changed obscured damaged or destroyed. Through the addition of the tower at the rear. As the addition is proposed for the rear of the historic house and includes removal of that post 1950 edition.

[64:02] The proposal is subordinate to the historic existing roof form and respects the building scale amassing We also considered that the addition is differentiated from older portions of the building. It's not replicative of the historic building. We noticed that the form of the tower is reflective of the curved front porch and the window proportions. That are proposed reflect the proportions of the historic windows. We did think that the details of repairs at the Windows masonry, etc. Should be reviewed at LDRC for appropriateness and method. And recommend that the materiality of the siding and windows proposed at the new edition are also reviewed. For compatibility and scale, proportion, texture, finish and color. Okay, so moving on, let's look at the existing carriage house. The request is for the building to be lifted, the area graded and the building placed on a new foundation and slab.

[65:08] This will increase the height of the building. The proposal at the south elevation that's the side facing the Spruce Street. Includes modifying the existing roof dormer to enlarge it and add a pair of vertically oriented double hung windows. The entry door and existing fixed multi-light windows. That we considered to be probably original at the west end of the building are proposed to be removed. And the openings closed. A fixed a single light window will be added to this location. At the east end of the building, the existing multi-pane windows and doors will would be proposed to be removed. We are not entirely sure of these original, but they certainly look like they might be. The openings infilled and replaced with anew.

[66:03] A square double hung window and new entry door. This is the West Elevation, this is from 11th Street. This shows the building raised onto the new foundation. The carriage door at this elevation is proposed to be removed and replaced with an in swing. Full light double door with overhead transom. New door panels. Right. Replicating the existing historic doors would be hinged to match and fixed to the wall to appear open. This is moving around to the north elevation. This is facing the alley and it includes removing the existing 6 over one double-hung window and installing a new fixed pain window and in the wall dormer. The infilled windows you can see at this elevation, I don't know if you can see them, but they are here. And here would be enlarged and 2 new windows added in. Approximately the same location.

[67:09] And this is the east elevation. This is interior to the lot. A new opening is proposed with wide double hung window. In addition to 3 new skylights. And there is an inoperable door. That is right here. And also on the elevations and that is proposed to be retained. As an inoperable door. So key guidelines. For the carriage house for mass scale and the location. They say that the that the accessory building should be preserved in its original form. That window openings should be carefully preserved and not be made larger or smaller or accommodate a different size window.

[68:04] That every effort should be made to preserve existing windows by repairing deteriorated sash and frames. If repair is not feasible and the window must be replaced, to match the existing windows as closely as possible including size, frame material, method or operation. Glazing or divided, s, glazing and divided or single pains. When adding new windows to the existing building, a vertical. Proportion double hung window which matches the existing window should be used. And existing dormers are important character defining features of a building and should be preserved, particularly those that are most visible from the street. Additionally, existing walls, windows and exterior features should be repaired wherever possible rather than removed and replaced. So stuff considered that the proposal is generally appropriate in that it will stabilize the building and retain the historic form and mass and its alignment along the alley and 11th street.

[69:08] However, the plans should be revised to reduce the proposed changes to the building. Of the exterior features the sighting, windows, doors, dormers are character defining features and should be repaired wherever possible. The asymmetry of the building is notable and unique. The existing dormers should be retained and not enlarged or made symmetrical. The original windows and window openings should be retained. It's not feasible to repair the windows. The existing windows should be matched as closely as possible. Sorry, the new window should be matched. As closely as possible to existing windows in the existing window opening. And this includes matching the frame material operation mechanism and divided lights. And any new window openings proposed should be reflective of the historic openings.

[70:01] Okay, and lastly, the new construction. The request includes a new approximately just over 1,000 square foot new building to be low-quate located between the contributing house and the accessory building. The building is shown clad in full thickness brick veneer with a hipped roof. The west elevation is the front of the proposed building and faces 11th street. This elevation has a central wall gable hipped porch roof below with wide overhangs and no supports. There are 2 gable entry porches with square wood supports set on stone veneer walls. The cable ends are clad in shingled composite siding. The windows throughout are proposed to be fi glass or aluminum clad.

[71:01] On the upper level, the windows include a transom above precast, concrete, sill and header. And on the lower level the central windows are fixed and arched. With a precast concrete surround. The entrances beneath the porches have an arch surround and half light doors and transom above. These 2 elevations are generally a mirror image of each other, the south and north elevation of the proposed new building shows that hipped roof with the porch roofs at the front. There are 3 windows proposed on the upper level. The windows to the front of the building are toll and narrow, double-hung windows. Further to the back of the building the window is wider and proportion. This is replicated on the lower level with the window towards the front of the house being tall and narrow. And the window towards the rear wider. A little larger than the upper window. The windows are generally symmetrically spaced.

[72:06] All of the windows include a precast concrete sill and header. And there's a precost. Concrete water table band that extends around each side of the building. And full light entry doors towards the rear of. Both elevations. So this is the east elevation of the proposed and it faces the interior of the lot. This elevation includes the continuation of the precast. Concrete water table band. The the upper level includes 2 large inset foe windows. Right here. With cells and headers, replicating filled windows. There are mechanical vents, proposed for below those panels. And the lower level includes 2 large window openings that are trimmed. And include a trio of fixed pain windows and a stucco panel below.

[73:06] So this is the 11th street view of the proposed building between the carriage house on the left and the primary house on the right. And the building behind is actually the existing building on the adjacent property. And a model of the proposed also from 11th Street. So the key guidelines for new construction include compatibility with surrounding buildings in terms of height, size, scale, and massing and proportions and respect for neighboring buildings and streetscape. To maintain historic heights and width as well as their ratios. Especially proportions at the facade. New construction should incorporate the elements which contribute to the character of the district such as mass, roof lines, windows, doors, bays and porches.

[74:02] Modern expression of traditional elements are encouraged. But new construction should be compatible with the traditional elements. Preserve a backyard area maintaining the general proportion of built mass to open space found within the area. And getting a little deeper into the details. Design the spacing placement, scale orientation. Proportion and size of window and door openings to be compatible with the surrounding buildings while reflecting the underlying design of the new building. Select windows and doors for the new structure that are compatible in material subdivision. Proportion pattern and detail with the windows and doors of surrounding buildings. Windows in new buildings or in addition should always reflect the fenestration patterns of the district. Picture windows large walls of glass snap in mullions and prefabricated bay windows are generally inappropriate. Materials should be similar in scale, proportion, texture finish and color to those found on nearby historic structures.

[75:05] And new porches should incorporate traditional massing and updated. Details in the design. So staff considered that the new building is generally appropriate in that the new building addresses the street in a traditional through its setbacks, porches and building approach. It references the primary building and it's hipped reform, gable porches, arched and double-hung windows, but is subordinate in terms of eyes and massing. We thought that the design needed to be refined to make the new building simpler in design and detail than the primary building. And we thought that eliminating the trans and windows and stone lentils and simplifying the porch on the facade would help. With that simplification. And also integrating the gables into the hip roof of the porch for a more traditional form.

[76:00] And detailing would give better compatibility. Okay, in addition to compliance with the guidelines which I just went over the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate are outlined in 900, and 1118 B of the Balder revised code. The issuance must meet the conditions of whether the proposed application preserves enhances or restores and not damages. Destroys the exterior architectural features of the landmark. Or the subject property within the historic district. Whether the proposed application adversely affects this special character or special historic architectural or aesthetic interest or value the landmark property. And if the architectural style arrangement texture color arrangement of color and materials used on existing and proposed structures is compatible with the of landmark property. So stuff considered that the proposed changes to the primary building. And the new construction would not damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the landmark.

[77:07] Do not obscure historic features and generally will not damage the historic character of the property. Staff also considered that the proposed restoration of the historic carriage house will preserve a significant building, however the current proposal changes character defining features. With the modification of the dormers the replacement of historic windows and introduction of new window and door openings. We thought each of those would damage and or destroy the exterior architectural features of the landmark property and are not appropriate without changes to the proposal. Staff found that if stated conditions are met, the proposed work at the primary building and the construction of a new two-story building would not aversely affect the historic character of the contributing site within the historic district.

[78:02] However, we considered that the proposed work to the carriage house including modifications to the dormers, replacement of historic windows and introduction of new window and door openings. Would affect. Adversely the historic character of the contributing building, the property and the historic district. Stated conditions include limiting these changes and if these conditions are met, staff consider the work will preserve the historic character of the building. So staff also considered that if stated conditions are met to use wood shingle rather than a composite material at the primary house. Modify the proposal related to the window openings and materiality at the new construction and modify the proposal at the carriage house. Then the architectural style arrangement texture colour arrangement of color and materials used will be compatible with the character of the landmark property and the historic district.

[79:01] So with that, stuff's recommendation is to approve the application with conditions, finding that the proposal meets the standards of issuance of a landmark alteration certificate and is generally consistent with the general design guidelines and the Mapleton Hill design guidelines provided the stated conditions are met. And these are the conditions. I am going to read them. On the primary building, submit details on the removal of existing rear addition to primary building, the historic house, and the construction of the new two-story rear edition including details of materials that demonstrate combatability with the character of the existing historic structure. Submit details of the proposed rehabilitation of the primary building including catalog and location and condition of existing windows at the primary building including the frames, glass, sash, mountain, sills, heads, welllding surrounds and hardware and proposed treatment for each the repair rehabilitation restoration or replacement.

[80:07] Provide details of new window size type and detailing proposed at the dormer. Provide details of the proposed repair of exterior features of the primary building including masonry siding, roofing, and foundation. At the carriage house revised the proposed modification of the historic carriage house to show, retain both north and south elevation dormers as existing retain existing window openings including the position size proportion at south elevation. Used historic images and or physical evidence to restore window openings at the north elevation. To reflect historic size and proportion. Retain existing historic person door at east elevation fixed in place to the exterior of the building. Catalog location and condition of existing windows at the carriage house including the frames, glass, sash, mountain, s, had molding surrounds and hardware.

[81:01] And proposed treatment for each repair. Rehabilitation, restore or replacement. Revise new window opening on the east elevation to reflect traditional proportions and size of windows found on building, provide details of new double carriage doors including design and materiality. Provide details of the proposed sighting and roof repair, provide details of materiality function. Or new windows and doors proposed. Provide details of skylights. And then for the new construction revised the proposed new construction of the new two-story building to demonstrate a simplification of the design of the new building including elimination of transoms, concrete lentils, and simplification of porch roof. Plans showing the construction of the new two-story building will not require modification to the historic carriage house to meet fire separation requirements. If during building permit review changes are required, revised design of new building, including the size and location, rather than modifying the character defining features of the historic carriage house, including citing Eve's dormer window, and doors.

[82:11] And provide details of materials proposed for the courtyard at the interior of the lot, the 2 parking spaces and hardscaping between buildings and demonstrate permeability. Provide details of any exterior mechanical systems, lighting and guttering not currently shown on plans. And identify mature trees proposed for removal on the plans. So with that, Staff recommends the landmarks board adopt the findings that provided the stated conditions are met, the project will meet the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate. Specifically that the proposed work will not damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the historic district. The proposed work will not adversely affect the special character or special historic architectural or aesthetic interest of the landmark property as it is generally consistent with the Mapleton Hill.

[83:07] Historic district design guidelines and the general guidelines for Balders historic districts and individual landmarks and section 91118 B. 3, Boulder revised code. And that the architectural style arrangement, texture, color and arrangement of color and materials proposed are compatible with the character of the historic district. We've allocated the board about 90 min for discussion. And, and generally the question is, whether the project meets the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate, but here are some additional prompts to help the the discussion. Other proposed changes to the contributing primary building appropriate are the proposed changes to the contributing accessory building appropriate. Is the new construction appropriate is the mass scale location and height of the proposed new building appropriate. Do the scale placement and location of the windows and door openings meet the design guidelines?

[84:09] And other proposed materials appropriate. So that is the end of the staff presentation. This is a reminder of the next steps in the process. The applicant will have up to 10 min to present to the board. The board may ask some questions, then we'll hear comments from any member of the public who wishes to speak. The applicant may have additional time to address anything said during public comment The board will then deliberate. And any questions? For staff before we handed over to the applicant. Thank you, Claire, for that incredible presentation. That may have been one of the lengthiest and most thorough that's come across in recent years and congratulations on keeping your voice. You still have a voice, so thank you for that. Any board members have questions for staff at this point?

[85:04] I have one question just for clarification. So the main house. And then the new build. Is separated by. 4 and a half feet, is that correct? That's actually a great question for the applicant. OK, so keep those questions with that. Okay. Anything else? So now we'll invite the applicant up. I don't know if there's 1 person speaking for the entire 10 min or several of you. We will need, okay, 3 of you. That's perfect. 2 of you. Sorry. I took off my glasses. So what we'll do is we will swear you both in. Raising your hands to tell the board the full truth then you'll state your full names and then as you know we'll invite you back you'll have an additional names and then as you know we'll invite you back you'll have an additional 3 min after public comment.

[86:00] Okay. And you get. And I may just before the timer starts, have you both, when you're ready. It's where they tell the board the full truth. I swear, so thank you. Okay. And it looks like Kerry, you're gonna begin. So go ahead. I think I'll go second. And it looks like Kerry, you're going to begin to go ahead. I think I'll go second. OK, great. And state your full name again for the record. My name is Jeffrey Van Sambi. I'm a architect with Lots on Design Group. Yeah, so I'm actually probably the newest one in our group to this project. Kerry's been working on it longer than I have and obviously we've got. Shane Tebow here also as a representative of the owner. I've actually only been working on this project for about 2 and a half years, so. Relatively new. We put a lot of work into it. We put a lot of thought into how we might do the adaptive reuse on this property. It's actually one of the things that was most exciting to me to become a part of this project was the opportunity to do.

[87:02] Urban, well, I guess downtown adaptive reuse. Find new ways to use properties that, that maybe don't work the way they did in the original construction anymore, given the context that they live in. It's actually part of a larger project with the adjacent building. That's sort of the cover art here, the adjacent building. Is also part of an adaptive reuse. Minimal if any changes to the exterior of that building. Not a part of the scope, but it is a part of the context of the project that we're working on. So. I don't need to go back through everything that Clare went through. I think she did an excellent job of kind of explaining everything that we're trying to achieve. But I thought we might just run through a few things and I could clarify if you conditions. The site plan is as clear described, minor changes to the existing structures we think taking off the late addition to the back of the 11, point 5 primary structure, which is really not contributing to the historic character of that structure and replacing it with the new stair tower actually allows us to create a little bit more openness within that structure and

[88:12] allows us to, I, minetize it for the overall development. Carriage house we are trying to protect maintain its existing location but restore it structurally from. It's current degraded state. So I've got a couple of pictures in here of that. I don't know if anybody's had a chance to go out and look at it, The depredation is pretty obvious. And then the new structure fitting in between the 2. To answer your question on separation, it is relatively close to the existing historic structure. I believe it's 4 and a half feet. The separation is actually close enough that we're not considering it a separate structure from a code analysis standpoint. We're actually treating it as one structure with the existing. Building. So the fire separation distance kind of disappears in that condition.

[89:00] However, the separation between our new building and the carriage house is required by zoning to be 6 feet or more. So we are maintaining that distance and we are providing the fire rating. At the new structure, not the carriage house. Just the only other things on the site plan, we are providing some new parking along the alley. Those will be the handicap spaces for the alley. Those will be the handicap spaces for the new use here. Those will be the handicap spaces for the new use here. The building also has access to, the new use here. The building also has access to, I believe, 50 parking spaces in the garage across the street. So all of the new use will be parked in that parking garage. Actually should decrease the overall amount of demand on street parking. Are you new use is more of a hotel use, boutique hotel. And as such, less daytime traffic of people coming and going, the current use on on both 1111 and 11 0 5 is office space so you get a lot of people coming and go and a lot of action throughout the day with the hotel, so you get a lot of people coming and going a lot of action throughout the day with a hotel. People come, they leave, they come once a day. So should be a lot less impactful in the neighborhood and we think.

[90:04] Better overall for the neighborhood. So, the, primary structure, well this is overhead view just to give you a sense of how all those structures stack together. So blow up with the site plan and then the threed messing model, the space between our new structure and the existing 1111 building becomes a courtyard for the use of the hotel functions. It gives it good privacy, separation from the street, so any kind of activity is going on there doesn't impact the street and vice versa. Few 3 views of the structure in its context with 1111 next door. Obviously our goal is to provide the amenities that we need programmatically but make sure that we're not overriding the amenities that we need programmatically but make sure that we're not overriding the existing scale and character of 5 and 1111. And for that matter even the carriage house which is seen in comparison to the new building actually a fairly significant structure. Front, threed model of the proposed and new I include only because there is no difference. Oh no, we got rid of the air conditioner on the dormer.

[91:07] Otherwise the goal there is is literally to try to make it just a repaired version of the existing house. The corner view and the side view is where you can start to see the changes. So obviously the new building is evident and then the new stair tower only really becomes visible once you get about halfway back on 11th where you can see beyond the single story piece of the existing historic house. And then the changes to the carriage house. The goal for the street frontage is to just make it look like somebody opened the doors. So behind the wood doors are our energy rated glass doors secure, comfortable. A gun sort of 3 views to give you a sense of scale of what's there now and what we're proposing even with the lifted height on the carriage house, it's not a significant change to the overall massing. Of the property. 11 0 5, obviously the corner structure. This, it was one of the more exciting things for me, the adaptive reuse component of this.

[92:10] We can just kind of blow through the floor plans, but the idea here is to monetize this building for the hotel use. Exactly what that program is is still up in the air. But overall the intent is to provide hotel rooms and 1111 11 and aities in this building. Which it actually works great for. Well, and I guess the stair tower in the back corner, you can see the arc shape of that stair tower just to add interest and also differentiate from the existing historic structure. Matching the style, but making sure that it doesn't look like it was part of the original building. Front facade again, no significant changes. The rear facade is really just the stair tower that's been added and then the loss of the dormers, primarily to solve some drainage issues off that roof once the stair tower gets added.

[93:01] There's probably ways to maintain the dormer if we want to or if it's important but it seemed like a cleaner solution to eliminate it at this point. Side elevations in this Clare went through, pretty minor changes other than where you can see the stair tower. And then the back view of that house with the view of that piece that we're tearing off, obviously not. Original to the structure and not particularly contributing to it either. And in fact not an excellent condition. I don't have a picture of it but the sidewall of that between the 2 structures is actually starting to well has moved over the years, so it's not in great shape. Extended state structure in the middle. This is our new building. Yeah, so, so are you building the primary that kind of agree with every, well, we don't have any concerns about comments from staff. In terms of working with staff or working with LDRC to. To adjust some of the design.

[94:00] I guess the only thing I did want to point out with this The intent is to extended stay suites. So bedrooms on the upper level and living area on the ground floor, not apartments, just sort of a week long, 2 week long stay sort of thing. The design on the front of this building is intended to pull pieces from 11, point, 0, 5. So the pieces that. It's concerned about with the. The. The front porches, the gables, the trans and windows, those are all pulled directly from the 11 0 5 building in order to provide context between these 2 structures. We don't mind working through LDRC to revise this if that's needed. But they were put in there with consideration of the existing. Context. And I guess the other thing I'd point out on that building. Is that we did go through a preap. Process with the city through planning and permit review and asked a bunch of questions about separation requirements, use types, and asked a bunch of questions about separation requirements, use types, parking, all those kind of things.

[95:05] Got no significant comments back. Off that pre application review. Reasonably confident that should that this design be approved, we could get it through planning and permitting without any significant changes. Carey chaos change. Obviously it's the top corner structure. The intent here is essentially a single suite. We are hoping to put sleeping areas on the upper level of that structure. There's currently a second floor in there. But to do that, we're gonna have to change the windows. So that's the reason for some of the changes to. The window types. We need an operable window for egress, not on this side obviously, but on the south side, the new operable dormers. The dormer itself is not intended to be made larger, but we are connecting it to the wall down below. So in that sense it is becoming larger and then the changes to the ground level windows are primarily just to accommodate uses within the building, but we're willing to work through LDRC to adjust those window locations as needed.

[96:02] And adjust the interior as needed. Pictures of the existing structure just for reference. You can see the condition of the the alley side face with those windows that We're taken out at some point in field and then the Brick Foundation that's failing on the structure and the reason why we're trying to lift it and preserve it. So, I have to get it all your time. 10 seconds. 10 seconds. You can do the thing that, yeah, this is a really cool Boutique hotel. All indigenous to Boulder, born and raised in Boulder. Everything is going to be amazing in here. But the one thing I want to say is the, the carriage house, it'll go back to its original. So I've spoken to Stephen about that. We are not changing all of those windows. I sent it over to Claire earlier today, but I don't know if you got it or though we did, right? So there is some changes there, so I apologize for that. But yeah, it's going to be in a cool project, super cool project.

[97:00] I didn't have more than 10 seconds. Well, there will be a chance for 3 min after if there is anyone. Well, there will be a chance for 3 min after, if there is anyone. The other thing is I just want to So any questions of the applicant before we move to members of the public who may want to address this? Kurt? I just have a couple of quick questions. One is about the North elevation of the existing, the main building, 11 0 5. In the renderings, it looks like there is for going there. It looks like there's some sort of a vertical, I can't tell if it's a chimney or what that it looks like the top of it would still be visible beyond.

[98:13] The new circular element, but I'm not actually seeing it there. So it's just to the left of the Shedrift dormer and then down. Can you tell me what that element is and then down. Can you tell me what that element is and is that being removed It appears to be an old stove flu for like a kitchen stove. And it is being removed. OK, sounds good. And then one other quick question about the new building. So it looks like the floor plate is different for the 2 units, is that correct? Yeah, there's there's about a foot of fall across as you go down 11th street. So in order to keep both units accessible, we needed to step the floor heights to accommodate that.

[99:00] Okay. So, but we kept the second floor equal between the 2 sides. It's in order to keep a simplified refine. But that's why that porch roof is sort of broken and stepped and the porches themselves are stepped at the floor level. So they're going to be. ADA accessible on the 1st floor, obviously not on the second. Yeah, they would be a type B unit, so they type be visible units. Thank you, Curt. And Chelsea, any questions from you for the applicants? No, thank you. Okay, thanks. We'll now move on to public comment. And I believe this gentleman wants to speak to this item and then Aubrey, you can let me know after he speaks if there are any. Additional speakers here or definitely virtually. And sir, as earlier when we were just public comment in general, we didn't swear people in for this.

[100:04] We will need you to raise your hand and promise to tell the board the whole truth. State your full name and your 3 min will begin. I promise to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth. My name is Irwin Newlite. I live at 1045 Spruce Street unit C. And, Our patio is on 11 Street. Just across from the west side of this structure that we're as under discussion. And one thing I noticed in the applicant review. They talk about the removal of trees. And that's a concern to me in so far as Right now, I mean, I use the patio obviously in the warmer weather. It's the warmer weather when the trees are for full with Lee leaves and it blocks out. A good part of the structure overall.

[101:09] And so My request is that trees not be removed. And only be trimmed back, perhaps. If that's possible. Again, I don't know. And I, I took a picture before I walked over here so that you could see what I was speaking about if you care to look at it. Good. It's okay for them to talk that should have or not. Your code. That's up to inverse. I know in the past if it's handed up is to council or boards and I mean if there is a way to make the photo part of the record, that would be. Can we put it out to camera? Can we have a room that one? I mean, I could email the photo if that's preferred.

[102:06] It is. Yeah, if you could email it to me, that would be great. Okay, I'll get your information. Yeah, she'll show it to us this evening while we're still in. Oh, I bet. Yes, as long as the board, as long as we retain a record of the photo. OK, so he can show it to us now and then. We get a record of it too. Yeah, okay, got it. Sorry. And it's okay that our Zoom participants can't see it. Tricky. He stops the board. Yeah. Well, yeah, I guess, I guess, Chelsea can't see it So maybe, my recommendation.

[103:01] Just describe what it is in the photo verbally that you want them to see and then that'll Have to surprise. Thank you for coming prepared. We just have to follow specific rules. The photo will show when you do see it that there are Some, I'm not sure, maybe they're. 40 or 50 foot tall trees, several of them. And one of them appears 2 of them I believe are outside the property. Between the sidewalk. And the street and I would assume that those can't be touched. Maybe that's not a good assumption. It's dangerous to assume anything. But I would hope that they are not. Touched. There's 1 that looks like it is inside the property line. And I was hoping again, as I say, that it be trimmed back, if necessary, rather than removed.

[104:03] Because it actually it blocks you know They create a beautiful. Shield of what's now going to be a hotel. With you know people looking out their windows etc. etc. So to the extent that those trees can be maintained. It would be our request. And that the structure themselves, I have no comment about. No, thank you so much. That's valuable. In put for us to consider. And I appreciate your time and effort to come this night. Sure. To speak to us. Okay, thank you. Thank you so much. And then when Aubrey is will give her a moment and then she can see if there's

[105:01] Anyone who'd like to address this virtually. Just one moment, sorry. Yeah, we'll give you a moment. And I don't know if staff or the applicant is aware of any trees being removed. We're not removing any trees. And I know often the renderings don't show the existing trees. Yeah. There's on the property, we're not, they're living in any case. Thank you, Kerry. Achieve this.

[106:01] All right. Did we wanna take a short recess or are we okay to keep going with? MICHELLE LEE, Let's see if there's anyone virtually. Great. And we're good to go now. Even though, yeah. Oh, yeah. All right, if anyone would like to speak virtually, please raise your hand now. And I'll just give it a couple seconds. So far we have one, so we'll go with our 1st hand raised. And that is Lynn Sequel. Lynn, just give me a moment to get everything reset for you. And Lynn, since this is quasi judicial like the last hearing, we will need to swear you in. For I do. Sorry, Lynn, just a moment. I'm struggling. Yeah, wait a minute. Please, sorry. Okay, ready, set, go.

[107:00] It's interesting the contrast between this and the last one orange cord because This is, orange cord is a much more appropriate place to put a whole hotel on the north side of the property but keep the existing house. And you know, wishing does not make it so to keep that somebody will walk along and want to buy the house. Not demolished. It is a giveaway. It is a hand out to the developer. It drives up housing costs in Boulder. Hmm. So, Lynn, if you could please keep your remarks to 11 0 5 Spruce Street. This is a comparison direct comparison because the developer advertised adaptive reuse, which should have been used on orange court. Adaptive reuse. They want to add something. Let the planning board decide if it can fit in. Look at right here downtown. There's a huge. Density here. Why not up there?

[108:02] And their price is just too high. 22.1 5 million. They're asking too much. You know, everybody has cost. I'm gonna age. I'm gonna have to pay for it. So are you, so is everybody. We're all gonna die eventually, but you can't use that to extract money from the city of Boulder. Now, as far as this place goes. Back building back addition to the to the frontage of 11 0 5. I think that dormer should remain and Probably the. The hip that the dormer that was added on should be a hip roof. To phase in better with that hip dormer. The trees are not an issue. It appears. But the And as far as the. Intensity of. The simplification of the hotel part of it.

[109:09] In the middle. I don't know how that was didn't seem to be really addressed. I guess it is a little. More complicated than the front appearance of this building. So I don't know what you have to. Thank you. Specifically. Suggest that it would. You know, make it subservient to the main building on 11 0 5. Those are things that you should be doing on landmarks board. Not demolishing things like you seem to be doing lately every single place that gets on here. I'm glad about the carriage house that that was dealt with appropriately. No trees. Should be going down.

[110:03] Sit. And, and Lynn, thank you, but your time has expired. Oh! You don't have to tell me that. Thank you, Lynn. And then I will give you another moment to see if there are any additional members of the public who would like to speak to this agenda item. All right, if anyone else would like to speak, please raise your hand now. Give you a couple seconds. It looks like we don't have any other virtual participants who need to speak right now. Thank you so much. We will officially close public comment for this agenda item. And again, I want to invite Kerry or Jeff up public comment for this agenda item and again I want to invite Kerry or Jeff up you do have an additional 3 min. You're still sworn in. Just because people are probably curious what's going on at this place.

[111:06] Because people are probably curious what's going on at this place. And 11 is 32. Rooms. Small quaint. Boutique 4 or 5 star rooms. The 1,100, and 5 property is like kind of like a common area hangout area, Zoom room, football room with big TVs, whatever. The extended stay, which are the 2 units in the back, that's the extended stay for long-term rentals, a 30 day someone who's here, I don't know, 2 months, whatever. The other ones will be like regular kind of a hotel or kind of like almost a little bit Airbnb esque but mixed with a hotel because they're very individual, all designed differently. It'll be very cool and we're really using all basically Colorado based products, all the green codes, and then again, like I said before, I spoke with Stephen before this and we will not be changing anything.

[112:15] As far as the windows go. In the carriage house, but ideally we would love it if there's any way we could get a little bit a higher roof. But as far as everything else around it in those tall windows, those will stay the same, but I mean, I, I, I'm super passionate about this project. It will be called the T. And yeah, I guess that's it. Jeff, do you have anything else that you want to say or do we do questions now? Mercy and I own the building behind it, so I'm okay with it as you well know. Anything else? No, cool. OK, thank you so much. So now we will come back to the board for deliberation.

[113:02] And, I think it might be helpful. I don't know what my colleagues think, but to do the. Do the primary structure. Then do the carriage house and then the new construction and go through it that way and we'll probably going to look at some of your wonderful sides again, you guys. I just have to say right off the bat, I love the adaptive reuse of this. I've wondered if at some point Boulder has too many office spaces when now so many of us work from home or work remotely. So at where this is located, what kind of a gift to have some lodging with, especially extended so close to the heart of Boulder. So I'm excited about that aspect of this. So shall we look at the primary that historic structure first? st Abby, would it be helpful for us to pull up the elevations for the primary structure or it would be slide that That way.

[114:04] Yeah. I think that's the best way to do. Because right now my recollections there's very little changing. On. There's nothing. Yeah, very little. So. There's a basement in the new building. I mean in the old building. There's like a cellar. Seller and so you're oh we're not allowed to. Oh sorry. Are you talking about the new construction? No, this one. Yeah. So like on the floor plan. The floor plan, there's some stairs that are on the public side. That I think they're getting removed. On the new edition. That part that's getting removed has some stairs that go down into the basement. Yeah. Okay, here this one. Yeah, see on. And yes, but on the left side, those are all getting removed.

[115:00] But see, if you go up right there, what are those? Just another entrance from the walkway. So that's the seller. That's the seller. Oh, that's what I was existing but it's covered in the photos with Yes. It might be like the little wine room eventually. Okay, that's a question. Just so we have the clear record if there's going to be discussion with applicants in the board, just come up to the microphone. Please. Okay. So I just, I noticed it on the existing, I mean on the not on the existing but on the new. And I didn't understand there was like, that I was like, where's? Is it a ramp? Is it Sarah, but now I understand. And the applicant says that it's a. Trap door that's existing and the stairs will now be exposed to go into the cellar. So now it's on. And the stairs that are kind of facing that way, that's the ADA, it's actually going to be a little ramp.

[116:02] That was one of my questions. Now, that was my floor playing question, I guess. And so now we can go to the elevations. The front. I mean the front I feel like we can give this a good 5 point in star. Right? Nothing's really changing, you're removing that unit. Looks good. Those windows up in that area if it said they're going to be replaced or are they would? No, they're like keeping that plastic. Right now, whoever replaced them before Stephen bought it. But we can replace them with what that's what we're going to replace them with. Oh, Yeah, and that kind of even happened before the preservation ordinance in 74. Probably was done outside this program.

[117:03] Side view? It does have to because it's On the corner it does have 2 street facing views. So this, I mean, I think I'm just trying to, because it's like 3 different buildings. So I just want to make sure that we're like all like we're all evaluating the same thing. So I just want to make sure that we're all evaluating the same thing, so on this one. Just that back area. Claire did a good job but with the little square. That that's getting removed. And then up at the top and, And then the addition, I feel like this edition. The dormer, I guess my question to staff, that dormer, do we know when it was? If that was, is it in that? Yeah, is that in the historic or? Any signal significance? We don't have any photographs of the rear of the building, but from the brickwork I would say that that was the dormer was original.

[118:07] Okay, yeah. Okay. We're also OK putting that dormer back in. I think it's great. You know, I mean, I think it adds light and if it is the original building. Yeah, it would be more ideal. To, to, to preserve that dormer since it is somewhat visible from the 11th street. And you pointed out that that little shaft thing is going away. I think that if with the new addition. And I think the new addition is. Kind of a little sweet idea. I kind of like it. And with that, I think it's fine that that will. Shaft thing goes away. We wouldn't see it as much. It is, it's a good storytelling of the building, though, what was it?

[119:05] Why was it there? That I'm okay with that skylight removing on this one. Does anyone else have any? Well, my comment would be. That the most I guess the most. Significant changes to the existing building are happening. The most internal to the site. And that is what we tend to encourage because it's it's a It's kind of the most tertiary part of the whole building. Other than the side that faces the adjacent. Neighbor. And from Spruce Street in 11 Street, everything that's being proposed.

[120:00] To my mind are essentially enhancements and improvements to the existing building. It's it's cleaning up the historic the primary face of it. Significantly. And then. The new addition. I think feels the way it's drawn. And before we get too much further, I want to compliment the quality of the design art and the thoroughness of staff's review of this because this is a very complicated. Proposal it is 3 buildings. I feel like the proposed addition even though It's a little more volume. In the building is more consonant to the historic house than the existing kind of thrust out. Roof deck element which Clearly looks like it was kind of scabbed on.

[121:04] So I feel like overall I think that these these changes the the changes that there are to this building and the improvements and the reuse of the building, the appropriate reuse of the building. Is an enhancement. To the historic quality of the site and an extension of the history. Of the house. I support the conclusion on this one. And you know, obviously we want to bring Chelsea in on this, but my understanding is with this North elevation we're looking at a lot of that won't be visible with the new. Addition and the new construction. So that's why I don't feel a real pressing need to belabor that personally. And I do think with the 2 most important elevations, those are virtually remaining the same. So I think that's I think What I see on the primary building is totally approvable.

[122:07] So one thing I would suggest just to allow the story of this building to keep going. This new part. There's, I see a little like step back from the. Building like in the plan view and kind of here like how you see on the right and then there's like a little step back to the round. But on that other side. Is there anything in the notes where like we want to kind of step it in again and give it? The designation so in 10 years somebody knows that it's. Again a addition. There's nothing in the. So you mean on the east side? Yeah, the side that's really not. Yeah. I think that's a great idea. That it would just, it preserves the, historic part of the building and just maybe steps in or delineates.

[123:07] You do have a little bit of something in the back. That were that little step in happens. But if it's on the side, I don't know if that vertical line. Means that it's like stepping in or not. So that would be. If my colleagues think that that's important or not. I'm going to be talking about. If it's helpful, the vertical line is where the curve starts. So it's not actually a, so I just want to point a procedure here. Deliberations and so you got to make your decision based off of the evidence that's been presented. If you have specific questions for staff or the applicants. That's OK, but we just want to invite. Non-board members into deliberations. Okay, so board members do you feel like that? Well, I think what I guess I was just asking if there is a. I think that the change in material is probably significant enough. But there's brick on the bottom and looks like.

[124:05] Right, but that's existing. No. Oh, okay. It's picking up. Yeah, it is picking up. Sometimes, sometimes depending on. In the case where you have oh an addition which breaks from the mass of the building. You do some type of a design. Element like a separation or maybe physical join or something like that. This is kind of nested in in a way. But I don't. I think it speaks to the time, I think it speaks sufficiently to this time. As an addition. And extends the history of the house. Because the material change on the second floor I think makes it Clearly an addition, I guess, would be the way I'd put it.

[125:06] The lower part. I'm I'm not sure you could almost call that lower part of restoration after the removal of that kind of scab done structure. And it may have a brick wall in there. I don't know the house. Yeah, it might just be just like a grout line would make. You know, well that's I'm saying sometimes you can do a separation and a setting element or something. And that's what they, like on the rear, I think it landed itself to make that happen. Very pronounced separation where you're. Introducing a whole new direction. Of the mass of the building. And then you put something like a short glass element or something. To differentiate it. But, but I hear your point and I like it about all buildings evolve and I think when it's done it will kind of show that evolution and not read as like it's always been there was part, I think it will show.

[126:11] That change. Yeah. Okay. I mean this is just just to conceptually this is a desirable evolution in the history of the house because it's being used in a kind of modern residential form. That's a as a short term. Dwelling as they were. Still providing shelter. Kurt, do you have anything before I go to Chelsea? Yeah, I just wanted to say I think that that's a great idea of having some kind of delineation between the existing and the new either change in plane or a grout line. And she's just, yeah, on the back side it's done it with like just like almost the brick width. And then on the side. Or a grout line would be, you know, you would notice that the.

[127:00] Brick, there was a change. And I see the applicant nodding, which is good. Are you comfortable with that? Yes. So Chelsea, what are your thoughts about the changes proposed to the primary building? Yeah, I I like the changes proposed. I don't have strong feeling. I think the way that they delineated the new from the old is sufficient I don't feel particularly strongly about delineating further and I don't really feel the need to be overly prescriptive about it but maybe it's just a suggestion and letting them. You know, come back with. Some ideas, but it's. Yeah, I think it is sufficient to meet the. Standards the way it is. Thanks, Chelsea. So any more thoughts or discussion or input on the changes proposed? To the primary building.

[128:10] No. No, I think. OK, I think we're ready to move to the carriage house. And this always intrigues me because I know there's a carriage house just a little bit east of it in the alley, maybe on the north side of the alley that belongs to the church there as I reap as I recall. So it's kind of cool that the 2 carriage houses are still being used to this day. And may we? May we? Can you? So the applicant has decided not to change these windows. So the applicant has decided not to change these windows. Can we understand what windows were changing and which ones we've decided not to change these windows. Can we understand what windows we're changing, which ones we are not changing as of the moment So the way the process works is that they submit a set of plans. Staff responds to those.

[129:02] With a list of conditions and then at the hearing. The applicants will typically say, we agree with these conditions or not. But the plans that you're making your decision on tonight are what's proposed on the screen and in your packet. So keep the conditions. It sounds like they're open to making those changes, but we're not swapping out the plans at the hearing. Respond to the plans that are in front of you tonight. Those conditions would be addressed at LDRC anyway, correct? You know, assuming there is an approval. For this. Alright. Per per staff's recommendation. Just starting with the with the. The issue of stabilizing the structure, lifting it. And put it on a new foundation which does give it slightly more height. I think that's a totally appropriate.

[130:10] Things thing to do, it would be difficult to bring it right back down to its existing height. I think it's somewhat. Sunken into the site since the grades have been raised around it. Historically I think so. In other words, I think it's appropriate for it to find its new. 1st finished floor height. I think that because of its exposure, it's a corner. Building. So it's essentially got 2 primary elevations. I agree with staff's conditions. That preserving the asymmetry. The kind of quirky asymmetry in the existing.

[131:07] Elevation I think is correct historically. The I'm I'm kind of I have a mixed opinion about the modification to the dormer I think that there's a way to do that, to achieve what is being achieved behind that dormer. And do it kind of historically correctly. I think the strongest figure in the elevation is the Eve line that that completes the roof on that side. If there was a way to do it and preserve that Eve line through it, that might be discussable. But again, that would be an LDRC issue and it would also be. Subject to satisfying the conditions as already.

[132:06] I guess placed on this or at least probably placed on this. I do think that otherwise the window openings The 3 windows on that. Piece of extended elevation on the existing elevation. Are those a historic condition? Was that determined by staff to be a historic condition or was that a modification to what might have just been a simple punched opening. Some of the earliest photos we have show the window and door as exist today. Okay, all right. So I guess we have to call those historic. I think those would be worth preserving. And and bringing up to performance standards as you could with the historical windows.

[133:11] I think that again, I think it's laudable to restore this building and to put it into some kind of use at this point as opposed to Otherwise treating it. So I. Except the recommendation. I consider it approvable with the conditions. With the meaning of the conditions. And support that. That the staff outlines. Right. So. So this is like this, the one we're looking at, the elevation faces. Is going to face the new build. Right, so it's like on an inside. Yes. Of the, yeah.

[134:05] Yeah. So for I just want to consider it being, you know, not as in. As important as the public facing ones. I think that when they, I love the idea that you guys are going to raise it and stabilize it. Great work. I love the windows on the back, the 3 vertical windows. I think that that's, has a good defining characteristic the 2 other windows, it is quirky. As much in that funny little door there. So maybe. In the LDRC, maybe there could be something to consider there to be. A door but bring in some light in that opaque door so that it's not because it doesn't seem like it I don't know if the plan considers that to be. You know, a place to walk out of. So I don't know if there needs to be a door, but that might be the opening I think is important to keep.

[135:08] I think the part of the dormer that is important is that when you look at it from this picture up on the right, you see this little tiny piece. And you're right, the Eve line is the most important. But I don't, I can't really tell if that. They're connecting the wall. So it's almost like, because there's not much, so there, it seems like the dormer is gonna come out. To the wall. And it's going to be a wall dormer rather than a roof stormer. And so I, I am. Staff's recommendation to keep the dormer as it is because I think if you do bring it out to the wall, you're changing a lot more of the. Character of the building. Right, although you could deep set. The window into the lower wall in a way that oh that keeps this little piece right oh okay I see that piece out in front of it yeah

[136:11] That would And the nice thing about that was LDRC being such a collaborative process, with having a real conversation discussion, which is harder for us to do tonight, with having a real conversation discussion, which is harder for us to do tonight, with having a real conversation discussion, which is harder for us to do tonight, even though we keep trying to. Renee, anything else on the carrytails? Can we go to the other? So this side. We've done things with these doors. That allow the doors to still look like close them and then like when the person in there wants it to be open and opaque. It says, open and opaque, but yet. It looks like this image. That the existing and that might be like a nice security.

[137:00] You're looking at me funny. No, no. Oh, yeah. So I almost think that it would be nice if. There was a way to do a door that you'd have to do like a little bit of egress finding, but I like this is such an important. View for us to honor and because it is on the public side so these doors Obviously we're a carriage house and so when we do this in other parts of the historic district is that maybe the slider, like they closed, you know, and they remain. And then when somebody wants more privacy, their clothes, and then they can go open and offer. The nice door and the way to get in and all those things. But then it keeps the historic nature of this side. Well, the reason I reacted this way to have a feeling, Kerry is going to know exactly what I'm talking about. There's a carriage house. I think it's 11 or 9 Pine Street where 11th dead ends and that's now an ADU in the old carriage house and what they have are these folding doors that can make it read like originally was as a carriage house to those doors and then they can fold out I think they fold out and there's glass doors that let you in and beckon you in.

[138:20] Yeah. So I mean, I think that's what, I had. We've reviewed several like that reviewed and approved several like that where historic doors were taken apart and articulated in different ways. And so the historic appearance. Of the garage door. Or carriage door or whatever it is. Is preserved but the operation of the door. And it's hard to change your picture if like that material was the historic material or if it wasn't but if it could read in a historic nature like that was the actual carriage door like I just don't know if that's just normal plywood from very yeah it could have been a very differently i mean it could have been carriage doors frequently had lights in them I just played in various ways.

[139:16] Yeah, that would be a nice. I think cute little quaint thing to make it. A little bit more interesting for the person staying there. But at least the existing opening. The width and height of it should be preserved as it is. I mean the the geometry of the existing open. And then can we see the other elevation? The next one? It's so hard because, but yeah. On the so I I think that that the upper window, it looks like it's a double hung now. So I would offer and I think staff mentioned to preserve this window.

[140:09] But it sounds like this one's going to have to be the egress one. Making it double hung. And modifying it to a casement might be the way to go and that would offer you the egress. I think that the 2 windows on the basement. On the 1st floor, the main floor are. Per appropriate. So yeah, because they're actually restorations. Those windows were altered. And infilled. Anything else? Renee on this? On the carriage house. I also just want to say that one of the things that was helpful for me about raising up the carriage house and the new foundation besides saving it and, you know, stabilizing it is that in one of the, is it called the model?

[141:01] One of the modelings, it really helped me see that still subordinate to even the addition and obviously the primary historic resource. If there's nothing from you to at the moment on the carriage house, I want to reach out to Chelsea and Kurt if they have anything to add. One more, okay, let's do it. There's 1 more elevator. Sorry, sorry. Sorry, Chelsea, okay, back to you. Hello. Oh, I don't, I don't need, I don't. I had a question about the West elevation, with the big opening because I don't see I'm trying to read through the conditions. That staff suggested and it. Staff, did you, were there any conditions related to that? West elevation that that large opening. No, only provide details of new double carriage doors including design and materiality.

[142:01] Okay. Okay. Yeah, that sounds good. Again, I just prefer to be less prescriptive, but I think it's, yeah, great to have. Ideas for how to approach that. Okay, that's all I have for those elevations. Thanks. Thanks Chelsea and I guess we do need to go to these elevation. I'm so sorry. This one's on. On the interior. So that's going to be what the parking is. You know, yeah. Or whatever it is. Yeah. Is it facing the other building? Yeah, yeah, yeah, it'll be facing. It'll be fixed. It'll be a. I don't know. I don't know. This unit. I like him. You're probably being a door, so I honor that. And then. They're adding the window. So one thing about this window. Can I ask that, was there a recommendation on this window?

[143:15] Goodbye. Revise new window opening on east elevation to reflect traditional proportions and size of windows found on building. Noting that there are quite a few. Types of windows on the historic building but typically you would see a narrower double-hung window rather than a wider one. So that's what we intend. That is exactly what I was gonna say. I feel like the proportion on this window could be 3 better than. Could read like the other windows that were. Adding or proving so. Right. And this is probably the least apparent elevation on the building. As the south side one is interior but visible from the public realm. When you pass on the other side.

[144:06] So we're all in favor. Any other comments on on Chelsea now that I finally got to the site belatedly? And then Curtis Oizz, your sage input is welcome. I don't think it's very sage, but I did have one question for staff. Is there in the design guidelines of the Mapleken Hill guidelines? Are there any, is there any guidance about skylights? I know that there is in the downtown design guidelines. Yeah, thank you for your question. There are guidelines both in general and in the Mapleton Hill one that talk about having them in general and in the Mapleton Hill one that talk about having them in locations that are not about having them in locations that are not visually obtrusive, in general, and in the Mapleton Hill one that talk about having them in locations that are not visually obtrusive. So typically not Okay, thank you. That's helpful. So my thought, well, as other members, as the members of the board have expressed, I think it's fantastic that this is being restored and preserved and being really used that goes to the very heart of the historic preservation program, right?

[145:16] The one concern that I would raise I guess to the board to think about is on the north elevation along the alley Well, I'll preface this by saying I think one of the key defining characteristics of this building is its asymmetry that makes it incredibly informing characteristics of this building is its asymmetry that makes it incredibly informal. And the it appears to me that the original windows that were then filled in on the north side were not. Symmetrical, they were different sizes, but they're being shown it looks like as. The same size and it it just adds a little bit of formality so I would Just raised to the board would to to consider whether making retaining that informality would be more appropriate.

[146:09] Yeah, looking at the photo, I think that's going to take some field verification, I think that's going to take some field verification because it's going to take some field verification because it's possible that the head heights were the same based on what I'm seeing In other words, it may turn out. If you studied it that they actually were on kind of symmetrically. Originally. It also looks like there was almost a doorway under the dormer window so There's there's there's some history in that wall. If I may offer the drafted condition for this, reads use historic images and or physical evidence to restore window openings at the north elevation. To reflect the historic size and proportion. So I think that addresses. So that would be the condition. To try to verify that actual.

[147:03] Corner window there. And I would, almost go against it only because there are new windows and so you know, putting back something that was. Historic and restoring it is great but we're putting in new ones that somebody already took out. So I almost think that. Like adding, I think that there's, they're just opposing thoughts, right? I think on the inside it might read nicer if they're actually the same. And it might read nicer if they're actually the same. Not opposed to them being the same because there are new windows. Well, and it will make for a creative discussion at a future LDRC. I think that, and again, I think we all are mindful that Staff had great conditions enumerated for this and so I support the proposal for the carriage house with staffs.

[148:06] Conditions and I think go ahead. And the only condition if we could add something about those barn doors being We're taking notes and we'll pull up the revised conditions for you, but we have something about consider revising. Those double carriage doors to be operable rather than fixed. But we'll ask for your feedback when we pull up the motion. Okay, now I think unless any of my colleagues disagree or ready to move to the new building. And I personally, for me, the heart of the discussion was going to probably surround the carriage house a bit more than anything else for me personally and I think. You know, or onto the new construction. Okay. Should we look at the conditions first? st Yeah, maybe because I can't remember all of that.

[149:05] I mean, clear that outstanding presentation and memo and it's just like, you know, there's so much I didn't. So the condition was to simplify. And I wanted to address that. Going for it. I think, I think that the intention of the guideline that talks about things happening in their time and simplification. Being a way to achieve that. Is that One way to approach this is rather then I guess directly taking elements from a historic building. You derive from those elements and extrapolate them to this time. And There's a number of different examples of that being done well in Boulder.

[150:03] That I can think of. There's 1 on the university campus that's an extremely good example. The 2 theatres that are in the main quad. Were the one that was built in the 80. Does kinds of interesting, it takes. Very much the same elements as the historic building. But it does things to them. To put them in the time. The historic facade was very symmetrical and almost Palladium had an art. Entry and the architect. Took the elements and then put them into an asymmetric composition in the same kind of geometric size. And it was, it's a very interesting piece of architecture. So that's the kind of thing that was the intention of the guideline. And simplification is also a way to achieve that is to take something like a historic form like a Roman window.

[151:09] And Simplify the geometries to their purest form. And, disemphasize things like heavy littles and things like that. So and you're almost there And I think that I think that there's things. I think that looking at the at the front elevation I think that staffs recommendation was to remove the head, the, the cask stone lentils. I think that that would be appropriate for this. That the arched pair in the middle of the composition. You might explore a different way to express that or possibly switch the 1st and second floor. And put the arch in a place where It would it would make sense with the kind of overall composition of the elevation.

[152:12] We don't usually get this prescriptive, but it's this one, wants that discussion. It's interesting that it's symmetrical. Horizontally, but then you have the change of elevation on the site that induces the 2 heights of your entries. And, There's something interesting that you might be able to find there. There's how how you treat or how you resolve those 2 elevations across that middle. And so, but as I said, you're almost there. I think, I think just taking some things off and seeing where you are.

[153:00] Would probably be. A good start. I think it in terms of its location as a piece of of an infill, which is what it is. Between the 2 existing buildings. I think is appropriate and I think it it's scaled appropriately. Between the smallest scale of the carriage house and the biggest scale of the primary building. As I said, I think, I think you're. Not that far off. I think you, you want. You want some You want a certain amount of, I wouldn't say ornateness, but a certain amount of detail around those doors. Which you have. I don't think you want to give all of that up. I think you want those doors to to speak strongly as what they are.

[154:01] So that's. Kind of my comments. I support staff's comments on this and all the conditions as stated. Thanks, John. How do you see it is it to pull up those conditions for this new? Thank you. Can we go back if you want to keep? No, that's fine. And it was just up there, but now. Can we go back to that elevation? Cause I agree with John and one thing when I saw the elevation of this that, you know, the arch window on the main level. Just so I will. Make sure we go over to it. That almost, in this pretty rendering, it doesn't read this that way, but that arch window in the middle, it almost is like.

[155:03] When I when I looked at it the 1st time I was like oh is this an I know it's a new building but it was like oh was this an old building that was changed because there's this piece in the middle, right? And so I think the idea of us, we kind of wanted to read and staff is saying to make it simpler. And like to simplify some of these details, the keystones or the little pieces on the side taking away the little transom windows even. Would be helpful and I think they honored they suggested that I think that maybe making it asymmetric. Would be a sweet, you know, like this is one entrance into one long stay and here's a different entrance into a different stay, that on the front of the historic building there's a really big window. And that's on the second floor and that might be like That really big window might be. I was going to say put that where the arch opening is but there's actually that long that's where you're dividing it so maybe it wouldn't work but I thought because then you're pulling a piece from the up.

[156:16] Stairs and putting it on the lower floor without it kind of looking like. Oh, was this the old door and somebody filled it in? But I think the removing, like they said, removing the windows above with the lentils and I think the little arches above the doors are kind of a little bit of a cute little detail that ties in to the front. Ties into that arch without it being like Was this an old building? You know, I think this window kind of reads a little different. But, and for me, the mass and scale seems in the site plan, seems a little large. But I don't know if we're allowed to speak to that. I think that staff did a good job if there's a fire rating issue or some sort of separation or if there's windows.

[157:11] When fire separation gets too close, there's that opaque rule that we all have to follow. So that we adjust the new build and not the old build and we don't put fire rated windows into the old build we keep it We adjust it all to the new bills. And so I think staff did a good job of. Saying that the changes need to happen here. And So, yeah, I mean, are the fire separation concerns alignment of adjacent windows as well as distance. Do some things by dislining. Yeah, so I just think to do, I think staff was suggesting to do it on the new build. On the back side of this building. I don't know is there a reason to have those infill? See the upstairs? Yeah, that that is an interesting so I thought that might Like, I don't know why there's the infill.

[158:07] For me, it reads, again, old. And so we're trying to make it look old and so I would rather not see that little infill piece there. So that we aren't trying to, it's like give a false history. Yeah. And let, you know, like someone that doesn't. Necessarily walked by this building or live in this building knew that that was It wasn't really a window, it was a I have a question about that now that you brought it up. That goes to the, is that, is that a mechanical? How how you're dealing with the mechanical issues on the site. He has to come to the mic. I think. Yeah, yeah, cause I'm this is. You're asking about the vents, the 2 events? Yeah, well, I'm just asking about that treatment of that elevation.

[159:00] Is there stuff happening behind there that's probably mechanical? And it's actually there's bathrooms behind and okay and it's also facing windows on the 1111 properties, so it's bathrooms, but it's yet open. In that great thing below, what does that read? That's a intake, I'm assuming. It is mechanical, yes. And you're okay with the new, I mean the new material of the stucco below and the changes in the. The window on these sides? Well this is the, this is the most internal elevation. On the entire project. That's stop design, move on. And have we looked at the Dorothen South?

[160:00] The North and South elevation, I just, I feel like it should. Yeah. Oh, right, right. Which I thought was cool. The other thing when you mentioned the asymmetry of the 2 entrances on 11th Street. Kind of pays tribute to Kurt's point about what may have been the windows on the healthy side. But it, and they are all responding to sight. I hear what you're saying about the it reads larger even though it's really a pretty modest-sized building, it reads larger even though it's really a pretty modest-sized building at 1,000 square feet. Well, if we look at the site planets, it's closer. Yeah, well, and it's closer to 11 Street. So if we're making 11th Street, it's not the primary facing, right? It's not Spruce Street, so we're not competing with the main elevation, right? It's not Spruce Street, so we're not competing with the main elevation of the historic house. But it is farther forward. And maybe that like maybe it's just the porches that come out a little bit and then maybe the house is in the same line as.

[161:09] The West. Yeah, you know, like I just I want the carriage house to read because it's the farthest forward and then this one I want the carriage house to read because it's the farthest forward and then this one I just almost would want that. It's hard to put it back so far because then you you know, it reads in line with the carriage house. It reads actually in front of the carriage house because of the porches. So the mass and scale to me should read. Go in a little bit more. Like I I look at the plan and then the elevations and then the 3D like trying to honor the codes of the historic is like. You know, this read is the biggest, the front historic building is the biggest, but if the middle one could on 11 Street, if I was looking at 11th Street.

[162:01] I would know that this was not the most prominent piece. So, and I don't know if I can address it is to move it back, but maybe LDRC could have. Well, part of, part of LDRC will at some point be approving a final site plan, correct? Hello. For the whole project. Oh, sorry. Your question is whether the site plan would be approved as part of the Motion. Well, that's what I'm, we're actually discussing citing right now. Like. Setting back one of the structures. It kind of I think what I like about the plan, the site plan, has been done as proposed is that internal space. Like a little courtyard. Yeah, however that space ends up getting used and I think I don't think you want to.

[163:05] Try, I don't think you need to collapse that space. There's a significant front yard to this project along Spruce. Which is interesting that those houses along Spruce had that space. And the adjacent, very large building has the similar setback. And so. I think that gaining that interior space. Is going to be useful for this as a kind of an overall project. Yeah. I mean, like, it's that middle part would line up with the back side of the carriage house. Yeah. It might, 2 feet or something might not. It might read better on 11th Street than. Yeah, I mean, I thought the same thing. It does kind of. Do a diagonal. Kind of set back along 11th Street from the primary to Kerry Chows.

[164:05] And that elevation on 11th Street that you know, the gable end in the middle. It might be nicer if it was that was simpler and not. A gable dormer right there. We know on that. Elevation. If and when emotion is made, you're willing to say explore. Yeah, exact, which could be discussed at LDRC. So Do you 2 hear a person have anything else on on this? Construction. I think the main thing I've heard that I totally agree with is the simplification of it. And Chelsea, your thoughts please. Hmm. Can I just get clarification on? Well, it's just discuss. And what was? I like to put it simply what was being discussed as being proposed to say explore in the conditions.

[165:01] That the new edition facing 11th Street maybe go back towards the east, maybe even 2 feet. So that it doesn't have such a a prominent or kind of. Primary feeling walking up or down the 11th street. Did I get that? Yeah. Okay, okay. Explore. Explore. Yeah, consider. Okay. That sounds, I don't have, I don't think I have a problem with that. I did like. The ability for you know the porches seem like it's a nice outdoor space for people so I didn't wanna limit that or reduce that and I, I don't have an issue with where it currently sits, so. That's fine. So no other comments for me at the moment.

[166:01] Okay, thank you. And Kurt? Last but not least, Last and least actually, but that's okay. I think that the board has definitely addressed a lot of the important issues here. The biggest concern on this entire project for me when I looked at it was the West facade of this new construction. It just feels so over ornamented the design guidelines talk in a number of places to new construction being subsidiary to the historic buildings. And there are various ways to accomplish that. One is through mass and scale. I think that the mass and scale is appropriate here. I think that it's doing what it needs to be done. Doing what needs to be done. And so I think that that's fine. But certainly another way is with the detailing and I feel like It's taking, it's trying to take all the detailing on a much larger building.

[167:07] And pack it all down into one. Fairly small building, you know, so and and Steph's recommendations are are getting to this simplification, but I think that If when I look at the north and the south and the east facades of this building They are simple, clean. Historically, you know, but there, They they fit really nicely, I think. In with as a new construction in the historic district. And then you get to the West facade and all of a sudden there's all this stuff going on. So I would if I were a deciding person, I would try to get the West Side more similar to what you have. On the north and the south and the east facades.

[168:04] But the the one last thing I'll say is I because of this change in floor plate I think that Well, I think that the change in the roof line here, that that lower roof line is It doesn't work very well. And in the change in heights of the, these porches. So I really, I thought Renee's suggestion of possibly not even trying to make it be one sort of one overall roof. Line but make it almost more like 2 row houses or something. Would really be a more appropriate way if you want to get those different floor plates, that would be a more appropriate way to get there. Thank you for that. And. I do agree that I love how it's presented, but I do think.

[169:06] Knowing this is is basically a wonderful accessory building and an addition. I think just even things like removing the lintels and exploring that will lighten it up and not make it seem. So I think formal's a good word. It's almost 2. It's starting to get really grand and stately and I think simplicity is the best way to go for this. I would never want to cut a conversation short on this board for this hearing, but what I'm starting to hear is some consensus and I don't know if we're to point anyone would like to entertain a motion. Not who would. But I just wanted to tell, you know, let you guys know that this. Is a really great project that the infill is good. I like that you're spending money and expense on the material like it's a brick. Building, I appreciate that.

[170:00] And I think that when you simplify it, you can. Make it less expensive on this simplification. It's true. And they'll be happy. Yeah. So make a motion. Well, that's a comment for the after we vote. Okay. Thank you for that. Okay. Ok, sorry. Would you like us to go through the suggested additional? Conditions that we've drafted so that we don't have to do that in the middle of the motion or do you just want to read it and work? Is can I make the motion? And refer to the conditions as red into the record since Claire read the conditions. She's talking about additional conditions. If we do the additional ones now. Then that would apply to all would that not. I think Marcy just wants to confirm what the additional conditions are so that everybody is on the same page so that we don't do the motion and then have to disagreement about what the conditions are.

[171:05] 3 3 3 3 3 thinking. All right, so we've got them highlighted as we go through these. So the 1st one relates to the primary building, revised design to delineate between old and new on the east elevation of the primary house in material detailing or plane. Correct. Next. That's what we talked. Yeah. Next. On the carriage house retain the north elevation dormer as existing. Revise modification to dormer on the south elevation to maintain the eve line of the main roof. So it sounded like the board was supportive of changing the dormer on the south elevation but maintaining the Eve line. Below. Yes. Related to the double carriage doors. Consider revising to operable carriage. Doors rather than fixed.

[172:01] Next slide. For the new construction. Hmm, didn't finish that one. Simplify design of new building including elimination of transcends concrete lintels and simplification of pour true explore asymmetrical facade design. I would I would change that to explore a symmetry of the base elevation. I think that's what I was, you know, the fact that you have the entries at 2 different elevations. So you want to explore the asymmetry that that induces into the. So is that correct? No? Yeah, okay. So explore asymmetry. Maybe due to base elevation? Yeah, due to the to the differential elevation of the 2 entries. I mean, I think there's 2 things to consider, right?

[173:01] They explore the asymmetry. Due to the base elevation but also just A cemetery. Like, you know, like not having that. The pediments like and everything being exactly opposite. So it's not just Yeah, I think that if you do the explore a cemetery within base plane and elevation and details. You get all 3 of those so that when the LDRC comes through. We can be reminded that it was not just base plane, it was also the elevation and the the details. Yeah. I think that makes sense. Also the simplifying the new building including transom, concrete lentils. I would also like to say, The the roof? Like that. Like the little dormer that comes out in front. Are you talking about the porch roof that steps down or the top part? Like there's that there's that.

[174:10] I don't know how to like simplify it like it could just be a shed. It just could be. All the way around a simple roof. Thanks and it's again explore and yeah I I consider that part of the portroof And so in other words. But it's on the second floor. Oh, oh, oh, Yeah. Got to put it back up. So it's it was right and then that's where like the flip happened and it was And I think that's just simplification of the. Of the roof. Not just the poor truth, but also the Okay, so, Upper Gable. Yeah, let's try this. So simplify design of new building, including elimination of transom, concrete lintels, and simplification of port roof.

[175:01] Explore asymmetry. I think of the facade due to the base plane. I think that one needs a little bit more refinement. And then explore central upper gable. And then explore central upper gable. To simplify roof. Let's work these through a little bit. Because it could be a month or 2 before the DRC sees these and we want them to be as clear. Precise as possible. So do the board members have. Additional suggestions for how to. Clarify this. I love the facade. So explore asymmetry asymmetry of the facade due to the baseline. And details. I don't know if you need the elevation in that one. Takes that out. So take out elevation. And what I was hearing is explore asymmetry of the facade and detailing. Due to and can we call it the grading on the site rather than base? Okay. OK, so explore asymmetry.

[176:10] Of the facade and detailing due to the grading on site period. Yes. Explore. Revision. Of the central upper gable to simplify roof form. Alright, Good step in. Would, I really liked where it's idea of the row houses would what is in here. The like allow for that as an idea. I feel like that's a design. That would be a pretty pretty steep change to the design actually. How could that go in to be lighter? Yeah. It could go in to say. Explore rowhouse typology.

[177:06] Explore is very general. She's very good. In but it conveys that idea. Okay. Great, yeah, cause I also think that, to Renee's point of it feeling, even though it's not a large structure, I think having it be 2 small structures would also make it or make it. Up here less. Of like stately, cause that's kind of the vibe it has right now. So I like that idea. Excellent. Okay, so we put Explore Rowhouse Typology as another condition. Revised design of east elevation to remove the infel panels to avoid creating a false sense of history. I see some nodding. Explore. Moving the building footprint 2 feet to the east to align with the east elevation of the historic.

[178:06] Carriage house. Does it? No, it actually puts it out of the line. Well, what I meant is like should we put in that too? 2 feet or does that allow it only to? Like or just Yeah, like I don't I would like to I mean, I would like more, but I agree that I like the little area in the back, but so the 2 feet would be nice. I don't want to give a number if it's willing to go further or if it needs to come less. Yeah, I think I was proposed explore moving building now footprint east to align with the east elevation of the historic carriage house might be more successful if it said explore moving. Building footprint. East to and then say provide. Additional space at the front or along 11th like explain what the intent of that one is and then I would also strongly encourage that you keep it as an explore because that even if it's 2 feet could have a huge impact on the site plan that could kill the project.

[179:17] So just keep it as explore. And I guess my intention for that was the fact that I wanted, exploring moving the footprint to the east. Supervide the historical. Buildings to read more prominent. So prominently. Yeah, on that east side. So. Okay. To really highlight it. Okay. Yeah, just to show you. Friday, and 3 more percent. Okay. Okay, so explore moving building footprint east to, I'd say, allow the historic. Buildings to read more prominent along 11th Street. Great. I think that's the intention.

[180:04] Perfect. Is that it? I think that's it. I'm very impressed because I know it's very hard to ask staff to make all these. Edits and editions on the fly. So thank you. 1 point of clarification I had something in my notes about the window on the north side, the alley side of the carriage house, the window in the dormer, there was some. Discussion about. Yeah, allowing that replacement or I think this as the condition is written is to preserve that historic window in the historic opening? I think my thought process for that window was to. Preserve the window if possible, but you're gonna have to change the operable. You're not going to be a double home window with a casement. Going to have to take the window and.

[181:02] Make it a casement window so that there could be egress. So I think egress and safety is going to outrule. The historic nature of the building. So I don't know how to write that in there, but. Because if it can't be replaced, I would offer that we honor, you know, like the detailing in it, but that it's going to have to be a casement for that to be an egress window and allow somebody to look. Go to sleep up there. Yeah, and if the South Dormer is being modified, that might be the window most appropriate to change to an egress. Windows so we might put something rather than change both historic windows. On that second level. So a condition might read. You know, preserved. Let's find the condition that already speaks to that. On the carriage house. It says retain. Which one is that? Is it one?

[182:04] Retain existing window openings including position site, yes. But the, no, it's the north elevation. Yeah. It is. But one north? I don't think there is. Is there another slide on? The north faces, The north faces the alley. Yeah. And it's the south elevation. It's the south elevation with the dormer. But, notification to don't on South Elevation. Okay, that is the one that has the, like they want to make the Eve line for that one. So it's actually the alleyway window. That has the wall dormer. And that's the one that I was suggesting that.

[183:05] It would be nice to they had put in a I obviously a casement that was didn't have any detail in it but right now there's a double hung there and to make it an egress window. If the one on the But, South side cannot be, if we don't change that window. To be changed the dormer on that side. Then this one will have to be made egress. To allow it to be egress. So that's going to change. That window and keeping it historic is nicely I've seen it done where they use the same window. And they make it, they change the mechanics of it and make it a casement window. Here's a suggestion. Okay. A condition that reads review. Modifications to be egress at LDRC.

[184:09] Either. Well, I think they could go about which one they wanted to make you dress maybe and make a stronger point. Okay, with that, I believe that that's all the conditions. Oh, a question for. Chris, does John need to read? All of these conditions into the record as part of his motion. I have to do or just highlight it. I'm gonna say no. As long as the conditions are I mean, they're captured on the record here. So I advise that you can just do this motion without having to read all of that.

[185:06] Yeah, and the stated conditions are met as the last language in the motion. Okay I'll do this. I move that the landmarks board adopt the staff memorandum dated June, the 5, th 2,024 as the findings of the board. And conditionally approve a landmark alteration certificate to construct a new two-story building, a rear addition to the house and modify an existing accessory building at 11 0 5 Spruce Street a contributing property in the Mapleton Hill Historic District as shown on plans received May 13, th 2,024, finding that the proposal meets the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate in chapter 9, 1118. Boulder revised code, 1,981 and is generally consistent.

[186:02] With the general design guidelines provided the stated conditions are met. Thank you, John. Chelsea, I didn't know if you might be willing to or wanted to second that motion. Sure, second. Okay, so on a motion by John seconded by Chelsea, we'll do a roll call vote, Chelsea. Hi. John. Vernay. Aye. And I vote I so the motion passes unanimously. And I really want to thank the applicants for those of you who don't know this. I'm excited to see this finished project because Kerry is one of the most amazing designers I've ever seen and some of her work that's not only here in Boulder but other places like LA and whatever, I know this is going to be an extremely wonderful hand. So thank you so much for bringing this to us. Claire will go, Claire will go through the next steps.

[187:02] So. If she has a voice left. Okay, so the Landmarks board has conditionally approved the LAC. City Council has up to 16 days to decide whether to or call up the decision. If they do not call it up, the conditions of the LAC will be reviewed by the LDRC. And once the conditions are satisfied the LAC will be issued. In case City Council wants to review the decision, staff will schedule a hearing and you'll hear about it. And thank you for your time this evening. Thank you so much. I know we have another hearing, but I'm wondering if we would like to take a five-minute break. Yes. Okay, we would. Okay, so we will come back in here. Out 9 15.

[188:05] Thank you. In We're calling yourself. Oh, you're So I was so embarrassed I turned it off, but didn't I act as somebody else? I'm running the city now. In the.

[194:56] Okay. Yeah. I didn't have my

[195:06] Okay, we will now resume the meeting. Our last agenda item for this evening is a public hearing and consideration of a landmark alteration certificate to demolish an existing, 1,990, s accessory building construct a new one and a half story two-car garage and remodel the existing house at 4 32 Concord Avenue and non-contributing property in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, pursue it to section 9 11 of the Boulder revise code, 1,981. And I believe Marcy is doing this presentation this evening. I sure am. Good evening board members. We, we will, begin with, going through the quasi-judicial hearing process, 1st all speaking to the item are sworn in. Board members will then note any ex parte contacts. I'll then give a staff presentation followed by board questions and then the applicant will have the opportunity to present followed by questions from the board.

[196:09] The public hearing is then opened for public comment, followed by questions from the board, and then after the last person speaks under public comment. The applicant will then have a chance to respond. The public hearing is enclosed and the board discusses. Emotion requires an informative vote of at least 3 members to pass. Must state findings, conclusions, and a recommendation. And finally, a record of the hearing is available. So I'll turn it back over to you, Abby, for ex parte contacts. I have none, Renee. Man, John, Chelsea. None. Okay. Thank you. So the criteria for your review in this landmark alteration certificate. Application is found in section 9, 1118 of the Boulder revise code. And that is whether the proposed work preserves enhances or restores and does not damage. Or destroy exterior architectural features.

[197:07] It does not adversely affect the historic architectural value of the property. The architecture arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, Materials are compatible with the character of the property in the historic district and that the landmarks board will consider economic feasibility of alternatives including incorporation of energy efficient designs and enhanced access for the disabled. The options in front of you tonight are to approve the application. Deny the application or provide the application, the applicant an opportunity to withdraw the application if the board discussion is going towards a denial. If the board approves the application, that decision is subject to a sixteen-day city council call-up period. So this application. Began in March of 2024 the applicant submitted an LAC application and we began to prepare for a landmark board review. And we began to prepare for a landmark sport review.

[198:11] At that time, we began to prepare for a landmark sport review. At that time, we were heading towards recommending denial. At that time, we were heading towards recommending denial, and so we met with the applicants. They were very receptive to recommending denial and so we met with the applicants. They were very receptive to our feedback and so they revised the applicants. And so we met with the applicants. They were very receptive to our feedback. And so they revised the design and brought the So this property at 3 at 4 32 concord is located on the south side of Concorde Avenue. Midblock between 4th and 5th within the boundaries of the Mapleton Hill Historic District, really right on the edge as Concorde is the the edge of the Mapleton Hill Historic District. The rear of the property abuts the alley, and currently a small shed is located on the southeast corner of the lot. Although the building was originally constructed around 1924, it was moved to this location in 1,951, which is outside of the 1,851 which is outside of the 1865 to 1946 period of the 1,865 to 1,946 period of significance for this historic district.

[199:06] Due to its relocation and the extent of alteration staff considers the building to be non contributing to the historic character of the district. The existing house is a vernacular bungalow with a front gabled roof overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails. It has a simple projecting gabled porch under the main gable with a closed pediment. The stucco was removed during the relocation and replaced at that time with asbestos shingle. The second story was added to the rear of the house in 1,979. And modified with a shed roof edition in 1,987. A second story was added to the rear of the house in 1979. And I just said that. Here are a couple other photos of the existing house. A small accessory building is located on the southeast corner of the property based on aerial images we believe it was constructed between 1,987 and 1,999.

[200:04] The building is about 9 by 12 and clad in vertical pressboard siding. It has a gable roof with shallow pitch eaves and asphalt shingles. And the building is considered non-contributing. The 6,500 square foot lot currently includes the house which is about 18 or 1,900 square feet. The proposal shows the footprint of the existing house expanded at the southwest corner by 5 feet and increased to the east side near the front of the house by 2 foot 6 but generally retains the existing footprint. The proposal also includes the construction of a new 1,088 square foot detached accessory building. With an approximately 22 by 29 foot footprint. So we will run through the proposed changes to the buildings starting with the changes to the house 1st and mention key design guidelines and staff analysis as we go through.

[201:07] So the request is to remodel the existing building by adding an upper story to the front portion of the building, retain the existing shallow pitch gable roof. The Gable roof edition in construct a flat roof edition at the rear. The resulting form at the facade is a 1 and a half story front gabled house with a 1212 pitch and overhanging eaves. A pair of 2 over one windows are located in the gable end. And the 1st level features a central centrally located door flanked on either side by pairs of double hung windows. The trim is very narrow in the trim band is located between the upper and lower levels. A shed roof front porch spans the width of the facade and has simple porch supports a vertical metal railing. And board form concrete base. On the moving around to the west elevation shows the main gable form extending about 20 feet from the facade where it then steps down to the existing shallow pit truth.

[202:10] The shed roof dormer is proposed to be set towards the front of the building and includes a trio of horizontal windows. In a hip roof bay window is located below the dormer at the 1st level. The windows of the existing addition are proposed to be modified to include 4 vertically proportioned casement windows on the upper level in a horizontal slider on the lower level. And the flat roof edition has a sliding glass door and a band of fixed paint and trans and windows at the corner of the house. And a roof deck is located at the rear of the building. Moving around to the rear elevation that the existing shallow gable roof is retained it's a 5 12 pitch and it's about 3 and a half feet lower than the front gable The later shed roof edition is shown to be removed and replaced with a flat roof addition that spans the width of the rear elevation.

[203:07] In the upper level includes a central bank of dorms of doors with a band of trance and windows above. With 2 casement windows flanking the doors. On the lower level, the elevation is predominantly glazing with full height windows, doors, and transom proposed across the elevation. And then moving around to the east or side elevation, this design mirrors the west elevation with the main gable form extending approximately 20 feet from the facade. And then having a shed roof dormer on this side as well. A shed roof bump out projects from the east elevation and has a band of 3 windows and 3 skylights. And at the rear of the building, the existing windows are proposed to be modified to include 3 vertically oriented casement windows at the upper level with one. Window and 3, one vertical window and 3 horizontal windows at the lower level.

[204:04] So the key design guidelines include that the design be compatible with surrounding buildings in terms of height, size, scale, massing, and proportion and respecting neighboring buildings and streetscape. Maintaining the historic heights and wits as well as their ratios maintained, especially proportions on the facade. And that new construction should incorporate elements that contribute to the character of the district such as the mass roof line, windows, doors, bays, and portrait, porches. And modern expression of traditional elements are encouraged, but new construction should be compatible with the traditional elements. And preserve a backyard area maintaining the general proportion of built mass to open space found within the area. Going a little bit deeper into the details, the key design guidelines include design the spacing placement scale orientation. Proportion size of window and door openings to be compatible with surrounding buildings and reflecting the underlying design of the new building.

[205:07] Select Windows and doors for new structures that are compatible in material. A proportion pattern in detail with those unsurrounding buildings. Windows in a new building or addition should reflect the fenestration patterns in the district. Materials should be similar in scale, proportion, texture, finish, and color found on nearby historic structures. And new porches should incorporate traditional massing. And updated details in the design. So staff considers the new building to be generally appropriate and meet the design guidelines in that it retains the existing spacing, alignment, and openness along Concord Avenue. The proposed mass and scale of the one and a half story front cable form with the front porch is consistent with the character of the historic district. And the proposal is consistent with the general proportion of built mass to open space founded in the area. And I will just.

[206:06] Go off script and say, I think what's specially successful about the design of the house is that the proportions of the are spot on and I think that the design of the house will fit into the character of the historic district without calling too much attention to itself. Or being so, simple that it stands out for not having that level of detail. So staff considers it the following revisions are needed to meet the design guidelines and so these are the conditions that we're recommending. Revise the detailing to reflect that of contributing buildings in the district, including wider window trim, a wide trim board at the gable end and corner boards. So kind of taking that detail just a little a little bit of a level up to be consistent with the buildings around without creating the false sense of history.

[207:01] Revise the proportion of the paired double-hung windows on the facade to emphasize. A vertical proportion separated by trim. As they are currently proportioned and set together, they read as 2 squares. Rather than 4 individual windows. Revise the sighting material from vertical, narrow, board, and batten to narrow horizontal lap sighting or wood shake to reference exterior materials found on contributing buildings. In the district and revise the porch design so that the base is frame rather than concrete. Ronnie Peluzio made a comment at a last meeting about the the language of the porch being a light frame element on the building. Is a character defining feature of these porches and the guidelines speak to those traditional elements. And then revise the paint scheme to reduce the contrast between the body and of the house and the trim.

[208:00] Okay, now we'll move on to the second part of the proposal, which is to construct a new one and a half story 2 car garage as well as the demolition of the existing 1,900 ninety's accessory building. And I, so the south elevation faces the alley and shows the front gable with dormers on either side. There's a trio of vertically oriented windows centered in the gable end with 2 garage doors located on the lower level covered by a shed roof projection. The shed roof form projects about 4 feet to the west side and includes the full light entry door steps and a vertical metal railing. The east elevation shows minimal detailing the wall dormer includes 3 widely spaced square windows. And due to the grade change, the elevation includes stairs from. The backyard space and the full light entry door is near the rear of the building.

[209:03] The North elevation faces the interior of the lot and features a single window located in the gable end. And then the West elevation shows a wall dormer that includes 3 widely spaced Windows similar to that on the east elevation. And then there's a projection for the entryway that includes a vertically oriented window. And stairs with a metal handrail. So turning to the key design guidelines for the accessory building. The starting with mass scale and location, encourage the preservation of the, let's see. Oh, I think. I think I We will not read that across the room. Okay, so the key design guidelines for accessory buildings is that garages should be located at the rear of the lot and access from the alley.

[210:00] Generally paving. Valleys in historic districts also alters the historic character and is inappropriate. And paving driveways. With concrete gives a modern look that is generally inappropriate. And a new accessory building should follow the character and pattern of historic accessory structures. While they should take design cues from the primary structure, they must be subordinate to the primary structure in terms of size, massing, and detailing. Alley building should maintain a scale that is pleasant to walk along and comfortable for pedestrians. Efforts should be made to maintain the character of the alleys of the historic district. And a permeable soft edge surface may be a solution. Versus paving. New structures should take design cues from the primary structure, but be subordinate again in terms of size and massing. And then if consistent with the style of the building. Dormers may be an appropriate way to utilize upper story space.

[211:03] The guidelines continue to say that new garages for single-family residences should generally be one story tall and shelter no more than 2 cars. In some cases, a 2 car garage may be inappropriate. The roof forming pitch should be complementary to the primary structure. Large two-story garages in the district are rarely appropriate. They're typically only seen on large lots with large houses. New garages should be sent sensitive to both. Lots size in the size of the house and should be clearly secondary in importance to the primary structure. Garages that are one to one and a half stories are generally more appropriate. Accessory building should be small in scale and mass and complement the character of the house and alley. And if a new structure is constructed, new design ideas might be found in existing historic buildings. Located nearby. And then in terms of material and detailing, the guidelines encourage that the accessory structure should be simpler in design in detail to the primary building.

[212:06] And that the windows should also be simpler and smaller in scale than those found on the main house. So, staff considers that the new building is generally appropriate in that the new building addresses the street in a traditional manner through its setback. Oh, sorry. We consider that the new building is generally appropriate in that the proposed demolition does not adversely affect the special character of the district. The proposed accessory building takes design cues from the primary house but is subordinate in terms of size and massing. And is secondary in nature to the main house. And the new accessory building is located at the rear of the property. Along the alley at the rear of the law and respects the traditional relationship to the primary structure and the site.

[213:00] Let's see. So our conditions recommended for the accessory building. Is to reduce the width of the garage by at least 3 feet to minimize the size of the accessory building while still providing for a two-car garage. Modify the pitch of the accessory building roof to be complementary to the primary roof structure or the pitch of a contributing accessory building. In the district. Revised the design of the dormers based on their revised a pitch of the roof form. And to be secondary to the overall root form and reflect a pitch and window pattern characteristic of contributing building in the district. Revise the window pattern in proportion on the alley side to reflect traditional window patterns found on historic accessory buildings. And then revise the concrete abutting the alley to gravel or another permeable material. So with that, we also look at the code criteria that I covered at the beginning of the presentation. And staff considers that the existing house and accessory building are non-contributing.

[214:11] To the district and that their demolition is appropriate. Demolition and substantial alteration. And we also find that the stated conditions are met. The proposal will not be detrimental to the character of the historic district. And in terms of the house and the accessory building. So with that, staff recommends that the landmarks board conditionally approve the application to demolish the existing accessory building, construct a new two-car garage and remodel the existing house. And with that, I am happy to go through these. Conditions of approval but for now just know that we have them for reference.

[215:05] For your discussion. And with that, I am happy to answer any questions you may have. You say that it was relocated. Do we know where it was relocated from? Yes, believe it or not, we tried to cut down. Yes, believe it or not, we tried to cut down our staff present. Yes, believe it or not, we tried to cut down our staff presentations by not including information that wasn't. Memo, there's a newspaper clipping of the relocation of the house. And so it came from Broadway and was trucked up. To Concord in 1,951 and then modernized at the time. So again, every property in Boulder has a history. This one, it's pretty fascinating how common it was for these historic buildings to move kind of throughout the 20th century. And we didn't know what it was on Broadway. It was a house, just a house. Yeah, just a little craftsman house. And then, The, we say in the guidelines that 2 car garages are appropriate for larger.

[216:12] Sites. How is the 2? Car garage. And I don't, maybe this is more of a talking point with us rather than asking. You but I just want to go how the guidelines because it seems like staff is recommending that we okay the 2 car garage but it's it's in the guidelines it's like we frown upon the 2 car garages. Yeah, you know that is something that we struggled with because I think there's kind of a long history of that guideline, a request for a two-car garage was a really common one and looking back at the you know, reviews from the last 10 years or so. 2 car garages were not approved very frequently. And so in our kind of fresh reading of the design guidelines, they are discouraged and I think that's something that the board should.

[217:11] Should take into consideration. And I also read the guidelines to say, a variety of sizes and. Styles of of accessory buildings are appropriate walking down the alleyway in the context was also important. In our in our consideration and I think that you know we continue to see an increase of You know, accessory building types because of the policies that are changing for accessory dwelling units. And while the use isn't part of the landmarks board. Review it is putting, Kind of the impetus for this change in. Larger accessory buildings. That that we've seen and so We have approved 2 car garages. In the Mapleton Hill Historic District.

[218:10] I think 10 years ago it was very rare. But it is a it is A proposal we are seeing more and more of. It also strikes me that we'll be mindful that it's a non-contributing property in the historic district. As well. Well the building they're non-controating right? Yeah the property is okay. No, other questions from me. John Chelsea, any questions for staff? Nope. No, I don't. Okay, well I'm sure the applicants are happy to hear we're finally inviting you up to the podium. We will need to swear you in this is quasi-judicial and are you the only one speaking?

[219:03] Tonight? Well, my wife and I will. Okay, well just you'll both just need to swear to tell, raise your hand, swear to tell the board the full truth. And when you do speak, yep. Both of you, please. I absolutely swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you. And then when you begin speaking in then when you come up, please state your full name since this is recorded and your 10 min will begin. Hi. I'm Ian Arthur and my wife is Jennifer Ws. We're here. We're the owners of the property. And have lived there for the last several years. And I especially wanted to thank Marcy because she's been very helpful to us through the whole process and making the adjustments that are required to make sure that we meet the standards required by this board. As longtime residents of Mapleton Hill, we truly appreciate the neighborhood. And its historic nature.

[220:07] 432 concord is a non-contributing property and our objective is simple. It's to update our home so that is in keeping with the neighborhood and specifically with our home so that is in keeping with the neighborhood and specifically with Concord Avenue. A part of the neighborhood, which if you were to see it today. Really isn't the case to be honest with you. Our neighbors are actually quite excited to see that we're undertaking this endeavor. They just updated their property to the to the West and the property to the east is being updated as we speak. So, we are proposing that the front of the home will be updated so that it becomes visible from the street like the rest of the houses on Concord. A key element will be the porch. Similar to the rest of the houses on the block. The porch design will extend the width of the house.

[221:01] With roof that is similar to others in the area as recommended we would be changing the current design of the foundation from concrete to frame. In addition, we will be extending the second floor forward and it has a roof pitches that is more in keeping with the neighborhood than the existing roof pitch and the back condition that was built earlier. We will be changing the siding of the house. From as it's presented from. Well, right now it's asbestos. So we definitely want to get rid of the asbestos shingles and we will be moving to horizontal lap siding. As well as increasing the width of the trim boards on the on the sizes again recommended by the by staff. The windows will be instead of being square as they were presented, we're going to obviously separate them and make them more vertical and nature. And the combination of these elements we believe will help 4 32 concord. To have an appearance that is consistent with other homes in Mapleton Hill and in specifically on Concord Avenue.

[222:09] Our proposal includes a 2 car garage A to you in the back. This is consistent with our block if you look at our block every house has a 2 car garage Well, they may not be using it as a 2 car garage. Our next door neighbors uses it as a studio. It's a 1 and a half story and our other neighbor uses it as a studio. The house right across from us has a 2 car garage so it's it's very consistent with the block, I think, as Marci had pointed out. One of our concerns during the design process was the ability to make the ADU a viable living space. We worked hard to fit the current design considering the solar considering the solar restrictions that we've got. The result is the current proposal is fashioned so that the peak orientation is north south, same as the, as all the other houses on the block, all the other garages on the block.

[223:12] The roof, the current roof matches. Our back, the original back of the house. So it's exactly the same. It's flat, I understand. You know, it's not ideal, but it matches the back of the house. The design has a height of 20 feet, which provides for an interior. The interior height given the solar restrictions of 7 foot 8 inches. So you can see that it's actually quite short as a EDU. And so with the peak coming down, it creates a construction in the proximate size is 450 square feet. And while the proposed size of the ADU is important to maintain the viability, We are open to exploring a steeper roof pitch as we've recently become aware of a modification that allows a roof of an ADU to be taller than 20 feet and to be able to help us achieve this.

[224:03] So we just Found that up. Thank you, Marcy. We want to thank you for your time and your consideration. I know it's late and I appreciate all your input that you're going to give us. So thank you. Thank you. Thinking and tested it. All, thank you. If you don't have anything to add now, we'll always give you an opportunity for an additional 3 min to add anything. So thank you. Any questions from board members to the applicants? Alright. Yeah, I think this is a fairly straightforward proposal in front of us tonight in Chelsea, I assume you didn't have any questions. No. So we will now move on to public participation. Aubrey, I don't know if there's any members of the public that have indicated they'd like to address this.

[225:09] Agenda item. We do. We have one virtual participant with their hand raised. Lynn Siegel, I will unmute you momentarily. And Lynn for the last time tonight I will ask you to swear to tell the board the truth. And state your full name again for the recording. I agree to tell the truth the best of my knowledge. I don't know the truth and I don't know anyone who does. So I kind of questioned that oath to start with. And I would like to address the board, not a image of. Not a PowerPoint. Thank you. To start with. I wondered why they should have to shrink the size of the garage 3 feet.

[226:07] You know, these are the kind of projects that you can add value to the average person rather than Subsidizing the developer as you usually do in most of your demolitions or what have you or considerations of demolition. And I'm not ultimately clear if this house is to be. Added onto if some of this. Original structure is going to be there and what percent of it. Is there, I watched back follow planning board and I see these things all the time, but it's just not. Terribly clear to me what is being left as the original part of the house and what is new. If you can add anything to that, that would be really nice. In fact, it would be really nice if there was a little bit, just a little bit of interactivity.

[227:03] With regards to the public. And the landmarks board. You know, no one else comes before you. I've got my lousy 3 min. You have like 6, 4 h. I've got 3 min. And I'd like to kind of know. What I'm talking about here. I think this, owner is pretty well described. It's pretty. It's pretty inherently obvious they've done a good job here. But I would like to know some basic things. And I'm sorry, I'm an ultrasound technologist. I'm not an architect. And I would like to know like some basic things. Maybe I'm just stupid though and I didn't figure that out, that they're, you know, redoing this 51. This, 1,951 moved house from 1925 whenever it was built. So those are just kind of some thoughts. Like iterativeness, it's a concept. Me talking to a black hole? Very interesting, not very interesting for you, not very interesting for me.

[228:11] So what is this? You know, is this the public? Is this bolder? Being created interactively. It's not. Not in my opinion, if you've got an argument that it is, then tell me about it. But I don't see that. You block me out. I just can say what I want, but. I can't have any interactivity with you. You're like a brick wall. When I want to interact at all. And that isn't creative. And it isn't part of bringing the public. And the Landmarks board together. Thanks. Thank you, Lynn. Before we close public comment, Aubrey, anybody else raised a hand virtually?

[229:04] I do not see anyone else for truly. Okay, so we will officially close public comment for agenda item fivec and again you're welcome to have 3 min to respond to anything or add anything and if not we will bring it back to the board for deliberation. So thank you again. For your remarks. I don't know if anyone on the board would like to kick this. Discussion off. Yeah. I'll start it up. He took the last one. So I'll help out this team this this time. And I think that you should pinch me because I So, it's hard for me on these things because I, I like to go. 1st of all, I always guess this. Thank you for bringing a good solid design in so we can see the differences between what's existing and what's new.

[230:08] I appreciate that. I, It's hard to like the main house. We'll talk about the main house first, st I guess. And it's like that it's so much different. Than what's there right now. The steeper pitch, but I don't know if. I have to be pinched if I'm able to speak to that or if it's more of. The, the conditions, I, we could talk about the conditions, the windows separated in the middle are good. I like the lightness of the. Front. Porch not being stone and it being more inviting and Maybe there's the wood detailing in there, you know, cause I know on Concord there's a lot of a heavy craftsman there.

[231:06] Not that you want to put the craftsman into this, but maybe if the detail could be wood and a lighter feeling. I don't know if the of metal or not. But. The massing, I think. What I really like about this is they didn't come forth with a demolition permit. They came with a remodel. So I feel like this is a win in this in in the situation in itself. So. I don't know how much we I think it meets the guidelines? I don't know how much like Well, I know what you're asking. Here's what I think because it's not a non-contributing property, which I wholeheartedly agree with. I think I would look at, I'm not looking at the proposal versus the existing, I'm looking kind of at the guidelines for the Mapleton Hill historic district.

[232:01] And when you just look at the existing of the proposed. The proposed is just so much more. It's lovely, you know, it's graceful, it adds a grace note. To that block, to that neighborhood. And I think, so I'm looking more like the proposal versus the guidelines and I'm not to be honest looking too much at the existing anymore. Okay. Because it's non contributing. Yeah. Okay. And there's no real historic fabric there. I think we need to advocate. To save so you can kind of feel like look at it. Fresh but against the guidelines. If it meets the criteria. Yeah, so I feel like it does meet the criteria then. Yeah, I agree. I think What's interesting here is and per the question in the public comments about what is being retained and what is being added to or changed or what's actually being added.

[233:05] I think that's a really interesting question and and I think that in trying to address that. I think your comment and what was said by staff originally was the issue of it's not contributing. To the district as the district's defined. The house does have a history and we heard a very interesting history. The original piece of the house. Which was the one story front. Of the whole thing was moved there. From Broadway. It was kind of, it may have been craftsman style, the process of moving it. Or had craftsmen elements. The orientation of the gable and other elements. Kind of maybe were craftsmen. Although it

[234:02] By the process of moving it, repositioning it, restoring it in its new position. It was changed significantly, which is why it's non contributing. And then it was added to and it was added to in a kind of chain of additions. And what's being done here, it's kind of deceptive. Because the original piece of the house that's on the front is actually being added to. It's it's still there. It's it's being changed in a way. That actually begins to make it contribute to the new history of the district, it introduces what you said grace or or it it it introduces things that the guidelines are asking for, it becomes more consonant with the neighbourhood. It creates things. Out of the house that fit more into what's happening in the houses that are deemed contributing because of their authenticity.

[235:10] And then the rest of it is just being modified in place and kind of a coordinated. Renovation to the whole of the house. Which is to improve or enhance it. Functionally. So I think it's doing all of the things that we want to see. Which we don't really have to look at to that depth because it's non-contributing and you should be able to do more things or make more modifications to a non-contributing house as long as you stay consonant with the district. And all those things are being met. Removal of the old accessory. I mean the the inadequate.

[236:02] Late accessory structure isn't. A real loss. It's tantamount to moving, removing a large shed. The 2 story or the 2. The new accessory building in the 2 car garage. Interestingly, that alley is one of the alleys that I've walked down many times in my life in Boulder. There are a lot of two-story garages along that alley now. And it's interesting that it seems to be. More so than other alleys in even newlands and and other parts of the of the Mapleton Hill district. So I think that that's an appropriate ad, especially since you're developing a bigger ADU on top of it. Which regardless of how it ends up being used is is appropriate at this. Time of changing policy. So I think the whole, I think the whole project.

[237:11] Is is an enhancement. Of the property and is definitely. Very harmonious with the rest of the neighborhood and and will be appreciated by the rest of the people. So I support staff's recommendation. I do too. I think the things that staff did pull out or call out as conditions. Make it just even that more compatible and adhere to the district guidelines. So I do agree with their recommendations and you had some cool things in your original proposal with the the vertical vertical citing whatever but just maybe not in this district that would have been cool somewhere else but not here and then Chelsea we'd love to hear from you.

[238:02] Yeah, I agree with I agree with a lot of John's comments I think that this meets the guidelines. I think it's a great project. And I'm especially excited about the ADU. So yeah, I, I think it meets the guidelines and we can move forward. Thank you. Kurt. Yeah, I would agree. It's an non contributing house, so I think that. Obviously it has a lower level of scrutiny than a house that would be contributing. The design guidelines do talk significantly about the importance of the alleys. And so my biggest concern is Okay. Is the appearance as proposed of the 2 car garage and very wide, wide two-car garage, so I think it's very appropriate that that staff recommended the condition of reducing the with their to make it less imposing on the alley.

[239:14] When I was on landmarks board many years ago, we had similar situations where 2 car garages in Mapleton Hill District were proposed and They did not get a, well, I remember one at least that did not get approved and got modified to a like one car garage plus. Some extra weight basically. That kind of consistent with the history of the marks he was talking about. Well, in this case, it's a two-car garage being proposed within ADU that just kind of makes it icing on the cake. And Kurt is right with the historic district guidelines were written. It really didn't include or address the alleys and I think they went back and surveyed the alleys and very thoughtfully really explored that because they could see what they were losing.

[240:08] That in the guidelines that the alleys are important. And they're just as charming as sometimes walking down the street and the streetscape. So you're right, it did especially in Mapleton Hill Historic District. It is important and we can't. Be light about it or gloss over it, but I, I do think this will work in this. In this alley in this block. In this historic district. So, I mean, I, you know, I, I guess my main feeling, especially about the main house. It now is so much more compatible with the rest of that block in that whole neighborhood. It's just like it's it's like You don't kind of realize how your current house is stands out more than this one and this one will just fit in.

[241:05] It's just so complimentary to that. So. I again, never would have stifled conversation. I don't know if we're ready to look at a motion. I don't I didn't hear any of my colleagues have any additional conditions. They wanted to do and I don't know if you've been through the LDRC process. Before but what's nice about it is that real conversation, very, very collaborative. And, and I have that people say I wanted him to sign it in blood. That he got a better house by going through the LDRC. So, there's really, it's a really good process for the next part of this. And I will say that the, the, a real treat because she's helped us in so many ways. Yeah, we're very fortunate with our staff. So I'd like to speak about the 2 car rods. OK, yeah, go.

[242:00] Just so I agree with staff making it smaller. I think that I always like to see it shifted so that that's you know if you need the depth. Of the upstairs or you meet the FAR like you could put 25 feet going. I guess north-south and then have a smaller garage this way. That would make. Because right now you have 25 feet wide so these doors have to be quite large doors, like you could make them 8 foot. Or even 7 foot, that might be a little tiny for a car. But yeah, I mean like 8 foot. Doors might be appropriate or a smaller 2. Carriage doors in there. So you could shrink it this way and elongate it that way to get your square footage, but it would help the alleyway be that way. And then. The little entryway into the you know, kind of like mud room area. It might be nice if that was more of a porch rather than you go inside to a conditioned space.

[243:06] So you kind of go up to a porch. I think that would lighten it a little bit. And not make it so wide as well from the alley. I think that what I saw from the front elevation of the house where you have the nice steep pitch and then the smaller dormers that are lower, you said that now you know the little, you can get higher and with the V do a steeper pitch you're a lot to go higher. The solar shadow, I think you should, because you're on your property. You get that's quite nice, but you're going to go into the neighbors lot is the problem. So I think that is, but you could switch it a little bit to the West if you wanted to it but I do agree with staff making the pitch a little bit. I think it would make it less squatty and actually again lighten it up is what we're looking for like where it's not.

[244:05] It's not a huge mass, it's a huge mass right like squaty little little mass and if we heighten it and you know make it a little more narrow. Because if you bring it in from the lot line, that would help your. Your solar shadow that way. And so if we skinny it up and heighten it. With the steeper pitch because I think if you emulate the front of your house. Like it would be, I know that. We want it to be simpleified so there you you have to play a little bit with it. That front elevation. Might be a great place to. You know, kind of bring in the steeper pitch. To it and I think that Marcy did a good job staff. Did a good job of saying that we need to make it a steeper main pitch. And then bring in some dormers that might be the existing side. Those were my suggestions.

[245:04] And I think that. Can I suggest a condition based on your comments? What I heard is explore porch entry rather than enclosed entry to reduce the width. And then another comment was revised design so narrower width faces the alley. Yes. Okay. And I think that's, I think those are the 2 that I heard that aren't already covered by the conditions. There and then you're shrinking it and then that will just automatically shrink those doors. To make them smaller. Thank you. I'm fine with explore, but I also know ADUs already have such limited interior space.

[246:07] That I definitely don't want the limit. What? Interior space is available if somebody is living there. That little, little couple of feet could be very critical. Oh, I think that my comment was more or less like shrink it on the alleyway but push it into the lot. Oh, okay. That the area of the ADU wouldn't really, wouldn't have to change. Yeah, and then it would be nicer if you got a deeper pitch because then it's going to be nice and light and airy in that. ADU, because you'll have it. Hopefully an interior sloped. Ceiling. Okay, sorry I misunderstood. Yeah, so I don't wanna shrink the ADU, I think that you, you could. Narrow it this way, but make it longer to keep the same square footage.

[247:03] And those are just a couple of ways of doing it. Also with a porch idea right there instead of. Pabby, be a little more massive. So with that I might suggest, edit to the condition about the reducing the width of the garage. It currently reads reduce width of garage by at least 3 feet to minimise the size of the accessory building while still providing for a two-car garage based on the board's discussion, I would suggest it say reduce. Either explore or reduce width of garage. And you can either put in a number or not to minimize the width of the accessory building along the alleyway. I would I would say that I feel like we need to narrow the width of The, so I like the staff's recommendation to narrow it.

[248:03] By a certain that certain amount. And then I think you could explore it because if you if you literally turned it 90 degrees, you are narrowing it because it's 22 feet. North South and 25. East to west so if you just turned the building, right, and then kept the two-car garage on the 22 feet. You kind of do that. I was just trying to say that. I didn't want to shrink the size of the building. I didn't know if staff recommendation was actually to. Shrink the building and not allow. To enlarge it the opposite way. Our condition was to shrink it. And keep the north-south direction the same. Correct. And keep the north-south direction the same. Correct. So maybe the idea is to explore. Then do we do we want to? How do you guys feel about the the North South being larger than 22 feet? I'm oh good.

[249:03] Yeah, I'm okay with that. It'll be a little, yeah, yeah, it's an exploration. Yeah. I mean, cause I wouldn't, if it comes out, I mean if it changes the look from the alleyway that it's you know, by an angle it's going to be a lot bigger than. So I, I don't want to say enlarge it. Explore. I don't know if you really have to say anything about going north south, but I don't want to. Let's see. I didn't want to I you say shrink it the I definitely think that you should shrink it on the alleyway. And I guess I was exploring just turning it. So, I don't want to minimize that 22 feet going north south. Would it be possible to keep the existing staff condition but add on to it. But allow for compensating.

[250:07] Additional north south length or something like that. I appreciate that suggestion and I think it's covered with the revisions. It allows for the building to. Keep it same size but reduce the width along the alleyway so reduced width of garage by at least 3 feet to minimize the width of the accessory building along the alley while still providing for a two-car garage. Explore turning the orientation of the accessory building. So that the narrower elevation faces the alley. Yeah, I don't I don't know if you need that in there. I don't cause it's really I always want to make some statement about keeping the area constant. Well, I just, I didn't want the shrinking, meaning that we can't enlarge it north south. Right.

[251:02] Like I don't want that 22 feet to be. To be creative. Yeah, like I want us to staff to say. Shrink it. I don't think you have to say rotate it 90 degrees because if you rotate it you're not going to have the dorsum here. Like a litter, if we literally say that. So shrink it on the alleyway and explore. What was your? I said but allow for additional compensating additional north-south length or something like that. Yeah. Yeah, allowing for an increased. Shrinking the size but exploring. To go the north-south direction, to enlarge the. Cause you just want to explore it because maybe they don't want to make it bigger, right? Yeah. Are we talking about 3 feet? Like we're talking about 3 feet, right? We're, we're talking about 3 feet on the alleyway, yes.

[252:00] Right. I guess for me, I'll just express that I don't feel like 3 feet is gonna make or break in experience on an alleyway and the things that we're asking in order to achieve an ADU, which is a whole nother housing unit, feel like that's a lot of costs and time associated with redesign and I guess when I think about 3 feet I just I don't I just don't substantially feel like it makes a difference. And so I, I actually don't support this condition, I think. And. I think we could say explore like. Ideas for how to minimize impact on the alley, but 3, like the what we're asking to achieve for 3 feet feels. A little ridiculous? I don't know. Maybe it's late and I'm ready to go to back. That's how I'm feeling.

[253:00] Alright. I mean, I think the 25 feet exploring that to make that. 22 feet, exploring the depth to go from 22 to 25. And then along the alleyway there's there is 4 feet of that entryway and if that 4 feet entryway got to be a an outdoor porch that would also lessen the whip. There, when you guys were suggesting that it be at staff, you were suggesting, 25 feet go to 20. 2 feet, right? And not anything to do with that entry way. Because the overall dimension of the whole building is 29 feet, which is quite large. So, I'm 100% in favor of it shrinking 3 feet and, and in addition, exploring to make that porch even to make the entryway a porch. Which would also enhance it and make it even. Better on the alleyway and then increase the size if need be they want to increase the size.

[254:07] The 22 to go to 25. Explore the increase in size. So that the square footage doesn't change and they're able to have a decent sized unit. I agree with your exploration that because it addresses staffs condition already wanting to do that. Yeah. So I also think that those are the kind of things that are Taylor made for LDRC. And are harder for us tonight. Yeah. You know, to do. So I, I would support exploring. Because at 29 foot big garage on the alleyway is setting presidents for the other. You know, them on that. So I think. Making it smaller and you know, not decreasing the size of the unit. I honored the size of making additional housing but I think I don't want to have 30 foot garages.

[255:07] Well, and staff had already called that out. Yeah. Yeah, that's a condition that's there. Already, yeah. And I think that She's just providing a couple of creative. Alternative ways to achieve that. To do it. Yeah. That's what I hear. Yeah, so I, I support the condition that is there, stands as it is. At B, it sounds like you've been able to keep up with that language change. Yeah, I'm gonna read what I have and correct me or clarify if it's wrong. Okay. Reduced width of garage by at least 3 feet to minimize the width of the accessory building along the alley while still providing for a two-car garage. Increased size into interior of law if needed. Explore other ideas on how to minimize the width along the alley.

[256:00] If her disagreement on the board, so let me know which way you would like the condition. To read but that's what it states currently. Well, I think that I think that explore. Explore other ideas on how to minimize the width along the alley would be a nice add to the end of And then there is another condition that says explore porch entry rather than enclosed entry. Yeah, yeah, I actually I think you've got it Marcy. Yeah, I think it I think it's captured there the whole of the discussion. Anything else to discuss? Yeah. Okay, there's that. More ideas, but well, that's the perfect spot to do that.

[257:00] Any board member wanting to make a motion? I motion? Okay. To to like this. I move that the landmarks were to adopt the staff memorandum dated June, the 5, th 2,000, and, 24, as the findings of the board adopt the staff memorandum dated June, the 5, th 2,024 as the findings of the board and conditionally approve a landmark altercation certificate to demo demolition of an existing, 1,990, s accessory building construct a new one and a half story 2 car garage and remodel the existing building at 4 32 conquered avenue. A non-contributing property in the Mapleton Hill district as shown on the plans dated April 17, th 2024, finding that the proposal meets the standard for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate in chapter 9, 1118. One is generally consistent with the general design guidelines providing the stated conditions are met.

[258:04] I second that. So on a motion by Renee, seconded by me, we'll take a roll call vote, Chelsea. Hi. John? Hi. Renee. I and I vote I so the motion passes you unanimously. And Marcy will very briefly tell you what the next steps are. Yes, and I just want to pause and really think Ian and Jennifer for being such great applicants and so receptive and I think that this is one of those examples of go slow to go fast with this unanimous approval, it really shows your commitment to the neighborhood and how open and receptive you are to where you were to our feedback. So just thank you for your how you went through this process. I really appreciate it. So with an approval, the LAC will then go to City Council for their opportunity to call up the decision.

[259:07] That will be on June 21st and then if they don't call it up we'll schedule. Review of the final conditions at the LDRC once you submit revised drawings. And if it is called up by City Council, a hearing is scheduled within 45 days. Once the LDRC reviews the conditions the LC is. Issued. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Really appreciate it. Thank you. Yeah, so thank you for staying so late. Appreciate your effort. We actually did a lot of people. Yeah, we did consider. Everybody received a 1. We did and our neighbors are doing another wonderful job. So decided so. Yeah.

[260:00] 3 houses are gonna be. Yeah, fine. Thank you. Thank you. So let's move on to matters. Well, knowing that this would be a late meeting, we kept the matters late. And that's also because we have a retreat in 2 days from now. That will be on Friday, June 7th from noon, but the retreat starts at 1230 and then we had to adjust the in time to 3 o'clock instead of 3 30 because there's a conflict with the room reservation so it's slightly shorter. I know you're very disappointed. The agenda for that will be a refresher on all things code and criteria. I always learn something new every time I hear it, so I appreciate Chris providing that, will then have a debrief of the Civic Area Historic District process and that's really an opportunity for the board to talk about that fourteen-month process or so now that it's done and decided.

[261:08] And then we will carve out the last bit of the agenda to talk about kind of what's coming next, looking at the ten-year update to the historic preservation plan and the ten-year update to the historic preservation plan and the ten-year update to the historic preservation plan and the timeline for that to the historic preservation plan and the timeline for that and then what LDRC adjustments to the historic preservation plan and the timeline for that and then what LDRC adjustments we are proposing to take forward before that update starts. So it'll be action-packed for the 2 and a half hours that we have. So we'll see you all. On Friday. That's it. And I think, I think that's it. So the meeting is adjourned at 1024 pm. I