July 10, 2024 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:03] The July Landmarks board meeting is called to order. Welcome to the July 10, th 2024 landmarks board meeting. It is 6 0. 3 PM. So the 1st item this evening Marcy, will review the virtual meeting decorum. All right. Thank you, Abby. 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 of Commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives. More about the vision can be found on the link on the screen. and the following are examples of rules of decorum found in the bolder revised code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld. During this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person.

[1:06] obscenities, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited, and participants may raise their hand to speak during open comment and public comment. Periods. During hearings individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. And currently, only audio testimony is permitted online. And then this next slide is just one to show how to use the raise hand function. So if you are on a computer, you can find that under the reactions menu to raise your hand, or there are shortcuts alt y on a PC, option y on a Mac or star 9. If you're joining from a phone. Aye. Thank you so much, Marcy. I want to acknowledge that we do have a quorum this evening. 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 really quick roll call and introductions. I'm Abby Daniels, the current chair of the Landmarks Board, Chelsea.

[2:17] Chelsea Castellano Landmarks Board, Member. John. I'm John Decker, vice chair of the Landmarks Board. And Ronnie. Ronnie Paluio Landmarks Board, member. And Marcy Claire or Aubrey. I don't know if we have someone from the Planning Board as a liaison this evening. I don't believe I've seen Kurt. I do have Kurt we're just having issues getting him promoted. But he is here in the attendees. Okay. And Abby. Before we continue, I can confirm that Rene is not able to join this evening. Okay, thank you. That's important. I know she was going to give it her best shot. So thank you, Marcy, so we will go ahead and proceed.

[3:02] We know that there are people here to participate this evening that may have strong emotions about particular projects. We want to hear from you, and have found it more productive. If you are speaking to persuade us, rather than berating a staff or an applicant, as with regular landmarks, board meetings, you may only speak at the appropriate time during the public hearing requests to speak outside of those times will be denied. We request that members of the public who wish to speak this evening will follow the normal procedures of raising your hand. The virtual hand when we get to either public participation for items not on the agenda, or one of the 3 public hearings as board chair. I will call for a roll call, vote on any motions made. The next item on our agenda is approval of meeting minutes. Does anyone have any changes or alterations to the June 5, th 2024 board meetings.

[4:08] seeing or hearing none. I will move to approve those minutes. Is there a second. I'll second. Thank you, John. So on a motion by myself, seconded by John, we'll do a roll call. Vote on the June 5th meeting minutes, Chelsea. Hi! Sorry. Hey! Thank you, John. All right. Ronnie. Aye. And I vote I so the minutes are passed. And I don't know. I can't remember him. We have the more meeting minutes right from the june 7.th landmarks, board, retreat. Are there any changes or alterations to those seeing or hearing none, I will make a motion again that we approve the Landmarks Board retreat on June 7, th meeting minutes. Chelsea.

[5:09] Oh, wait! I need a second sorry. Totally second. Okay, thank you, Chelsea. So the motion by myself, seconded by Chelsea, Chelsea, you'll be the 1st one to vote. Okay. Aye. John! Aye. Ronnie. Aye. And I go to I. So the meeting notes from the June 7th Landmarks Board Retreat have been approved. We'll now turn our attention for to public participation for any items not on the agenda this evening. So if you're here to speak to any of the 3 public hearings, we will allow time after both staff and applicant presentations. So this is the time to raise a virtual hand in the zoom call. and I believe if you're on the phone. You press Star 9. Correct.

[6:00] and then I'll give Aubrey a moment to see if there's any member of the public who wishes to speak to us. All right. It looks like we have Lynn Siegel, followed by Fran Sheets and Lynn. I will start the time. We've got a public hearing, number one and a public hearing. Number one again. So what what gives here? I'm trying not to address what's on the public hearings? We've got 3 number one, public hearings. It's not number 1, 2 and 3. What's going on there. Usually it's agenda item like 5, a 5 b and 5 C. It says, public hearings one, and then it says, 1, 1836, pearl, it says, 1, 2040, 14, th and it says, 1, 2030 11.th That would be 1, 2, and 3 right, and somebody just didn't number them right.

[7:01] Yeah. So it's probably an oversight, but it are. Yeah, I want to talk about 1015 juniper and I looked at the imagery today of the internal part of that building, and I'm amazed after we went through the inside of 1836, and I'm sorry I mentioned that it's just for comparison to 1015 that we entered that building, and 1015 was the building that needed to be entered. It is a it's a high end. beautiful redo. It's incredible. There's a pond in the backyard. There's a there's wooden tub, you know, like a a hot bath in the house. There's a sauna, there's a a an outbu one of the outbuildings has it all open. You can open the whole thing to the outdoors, and it has a teak ceiling, and it has. It's just you couldn't.

[8:07] you couldn't. How do you say? What realtors do? They go in and make a place look nice? This is the this looked like it was lived in like it was beautiful things that no one could ever get to do, just a showing for real estate. It's a beautiful place, and we should have seen the inside of that. It was. I'm sorry to be negative, but I have to be, and no one ever says anything back to me. It doesn't matter if I'm nice, or if I'm not nice. it doesn't matter. You don't care. You just want to demolish everything. and that building should not have been demolished, not in any possible way. That that is, you know it. It was 21 to 2,500 square feet. Now they've got a place for 3,000 square feet. That's just horrible looking, you know, a fabricated artificial building that could go in there

[9:03] and I'm curious. Why didn't they put a 10 million dollar house in. I mean the comparison, and the price is 2.2 to 2.5 million bucks. Why would you demolish something? That's perfectly good. I mean, you might as well demolish a brand new house and just say, Hey, we don't care. We just care what it looks like on the outside. That's a problem for landmarks board, you can't I? I'm tired of going into houses in my area of Mapleton Hill and seeing New York City inside the house. And put. The internal component of what goes into the. i i i so apologize, but your time has expired. and I believe Fran Sheets is next. All right, Fran, you should have the ability to talk, and I will start the timer as soon as you're able to unmute.

[10:11] Okay. Can you hear me now? Perfect. Rate high landmarks board. I find myself on the other side of the table. I just wanted to say that the big celebration in Central Park was a really big success, and a lot of people showed up, and we had tables set up to answer questions. and there were pictures, and we had specialists there, the tree guy and all kinds of good things happening. And it was really nice. It was, however, kind of disappointing, because people from the city, who don't seem to understand preservation or seem to care much about it, for the most part, didn't show we didn't have any city council members there. We did have the mayor there, but nobody else, really from the city showed, and that was a real disappointment, because I think people are missing out on the advantages and the beauty of what Boulder has in terms of our landmarks. And that's all I wanted to say.

[11:19] Thanks, talk to you later. I'm going to represent historic boulder tonight. And so I should have something on all 3 of those issues. Thank you, Fran. Fran, was the celebration you were referencing on July 4.th No, it was on the 29th of. Oh, oh, right? Right? Okay. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Are there? Aubrey? Do you see any other members of the public who'd like to address the board this evening? If anyone else wishes to speak, please raise your hand now.

[12:03] All right. I think we're good to move on. Okay, thank you so much, Aubrey. And as Marcy noted yesterday in an agenda meeting before tonight's meeting. There are no current or pending states of demolition to discuss. So we are going to move right along straight into our 1st public hearing. This is a public hearing and consideration of the proposal to designate a portion of the property. In 1836 Pearl Street as an individual historic landmark. Pursuant to Section 9, 1115 of the Boulder revised Code, and under the procedures prescribed by quasi judicial hearings. Marcy, I believe you're going to be doing this, and when we get to public comment as well as the applicants. Everyone will need to be sworn in this evening. Wonderful. Thank you, Abby. This has been a long time coming, this landmark designation, and it's 1 that has a pretty interesting history and a pretty interesting preservation story. So without further ado, I'll get started. I'll start by going through the quasi-judicial process, all speaking to the item are sworn in, and board members. Note any ex parte contacts

[13:23] and the will then give a staff presentation, followed by board questions, and then the applicant will have a chance to present, followed by any questions from the board. The public hearing is then opened for public comment, followed by any board questions, and then the applicant has a chance to respond to anything that was said after the last person speaks. the public hearing is then closed, and the Board discusses. A motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass, and motions must state findings, conclusions, and a recommendation. And finally, a record of the hearing is available in central records.

[14:00] The criteria for your review for this landmark designation is found in 911 5 c. Of the boulder of Eyes code, and that's that the landmarks board shall determine whether the designation conforms with the purposes and standards. In section 911, one and 911, 2 of the boulder of eyes. Code. Hey, Marcy, I so hate to interrupt you. Are we supposed to be seeing something on the screen. Thank you so much for. I don't see anything. Much farther. I appreciate that. Here we are. you know, it's on those earlier slides. So thanks for catching up before we get to the interesting things. Let me just rearrange my windows here and. To do ex parte. Now. Oh, yes, please. I have no ex parte contact other than walking by at Chelsea. None. John. I have none. And Ronnie. Nana. Okay. Thanks. And an ex parte contact for both John and Ronnie would be that you attended a site visit on Monday.

[15:05] okay? And that site visit was open to the public, and we walked around the outside of the building as well as toured the inside to see the remodeled piece there, so just adding those for the record. So the options in front of you tonight are to either recommend designation to city council, in which case we would hold a public hearing within 100 days, or recommend disapproval for designation, and that is subject to a 40 five-day, call-up period. This application process goes back pretty far back to 2018, when the previous owners submitted a demolition application for the House, and that was referred to the Landmarks board in a public hearing on October 3rd of 2018, the Board placed a stay of demolition on the application, and throughout the course of the stay explored alternatives.

[16:04] The landmarks board then voted to hold an initiation, hearing to consider designating the property over the owner's objection, and the owner requested to withdraw the request to demolish the building, and instead submitted landmark, designation, application, and an Lac. Application, because the result of the conversations during the stay of demolition did find a viable option to save the building. On May 6, th 2019. The Landmarks Board approved an Lac. To remove an addition and relocate the building on site, and that brings us to today, July 10, th 2024 for the Landmarks board, hearing the gap between May of 2019, and July of 2024 is a number of reasons, one being that the designation application was held in agreement with the owners until after the building was relocated, and then, as well as Covid happening in there, and just some staff transitions here, as we catch up on some of these backlog landmark designations.

[17:16] So the property is located at 1836 Pearl Street. It's located on the south side of Pearl, between 18th and 19th kind of on the East Pearl neighborhood. Here is the northwest corner of the building. After its relocation, the one-story building was constructed prior to 1880, making it one of the earliest residences along Pearl Street. The vernacular masonry house features, a front gable roof, with half timbering at the front gable and stucco, was applied to the masonry sometime between 1922 and 1929. The front porch includes craftsman elements, including the tapered porch supports and the field stone base. The porch was also constructed between 1922 and 1929, and replaced an earlier full-width porch.

[18:09] The building has limited ornamentation, and it is simple in design. The building includes a central masonry chimney with metal coping, and the door and window openings. All include segmental arches. The building's stone foundation has been parched with concrete. the building appears largely intact into its original construction. The original materials remain, including the brick which was originally exposed, and the changes which I've covered in in terms of adding that porch and covering the building in stucco in the 19 twenties the building has been relocated forward on the site, and the rear frame addition, which was also added in the twenties, has been removed, and the two-story addition has been constructed at the rear of the building. The surrounding setting has changed since the house was constructed in the 18 eighties as boulder developed eastward, and now includes multifamily buildings on the south side of Pearl, and commercial buildings on the north side

[19:15] overall, though the construction of the rear of the lot, and the relocation of the building do not diminish the House's overall integrity, and the property retains its ability to convey its feeling of a 18 eighties to 19 twenties house and its association with the historic residence. This next slide is hopefully going to play a video. It doesn't have sound. But it's a time lapse photo courtesy of the owner showing the house moving on site. So hopefully technology will work for us. Is it working.

[20:01] and hopefully the owners will talk a bit about the moving process. And there's very few movers building movers in this region. But it's pretty remarkable that this 150 year old building was moved with 2 bobcats and a whole lot of steel into place there. and Boulder has quite a long history of moving houses, you know. Even a hundred years ago houses would move across town, and the technology really hasn't changed too much with pump jacks. And some sort of. you know mechanism to move them either on the site or all the way across town. and then you can see that the stone porch was removed kind of in one piece after the building moved. It was then put on place, and the porch was reconstructed very carefully.

[21:02] so now we move to the criteria for review, which starts with the historic significance. So the property is associated with early boulder residents. Henry and Ella Harris and James and Estelle Bemis. Harris had a transfer team, and Bemis was a justice of the peace, and later a janitor at CU. The Baker family lived here between 1896 and 1913. Edwin Baker was a sexton for the Presbyterian Church, and lived with his daughters, Marion and Bell Baker. Marion was a civil war widow and worked as a housekeeper, and Bell worked as a music teacher. Salmaidu is the property's longest resident, living here for more than 6 decades, starting in 1930, until her death at the age of 91. In 1996, her parents, Hal and Alma Maydo, rented the house before purchasing it. In 1931, her father worked as a house carpenter, and was likely the one that added the porch in the 19 twenties.

[22:05] Thelma, her mother, Alma, and Sister Cuba, and as well as their cousin Kayla, all lived here and worked as laundresses, while a brother and another sister worked for an oil company. The house meets the architectural significance. Criteria, as an example of the vernacular masonry construction with craftsman elements through the steeply pitched gable roof, segmental arch window openings, tapered porch supports and half timbering. The building retains a high degree of architectural integrity, and the house dates from the city of Boulder's earliest period of European settlement, and is one of the few remaining 19th century houses along Pearl Street. And this photo in the bottom is remarkable. It's a photograph of a baseball game in 1887, and there is the house singing, proud, just on the south side of Pearl Street.

[23:01] And then, 3, rd the environmental significance. The property meets the environmental significance. The area has historically been a mix of commercial and residential properties, and the house is a familiar visual landmark along East Pearl. The scale and massing of the building and its overall site, characteristics are compatible with its surrounding mixed use. Context. I will also mention that as part of the redevelopment of the property and the decision to preserve the house, the owners were able to take advantage of vacation in the Mu 3 zoning district to allow this to be used as housing, whereas by right it would have been commercial on the 1st floor in the Mu 3 zoning district along East Pearl Street. So it was a large number of factors that kind of helped preserve this house. So with that staff recommends that the Landmarks Board recommend that the house be designated, along with a portion of the property as a local historic landmark, to be known as the Thelma may do house. Finding that it meets the standards for individual landmark designation in the code and adopt the staff memorandum, dated July 10, th 2024. As findings of the board.

[24:20] The proposed name and plaque language is here on the screen. We are recommending it be named the Thelma may do house, and recognizing that she was the longest resident here that she was born in Riverton, Nebraska, in 19 0 4, and came to Boulder in 1921, and was a member of the 1st United Methodist Church and an avid gardener. The proposed landmark boundary encompasses the house as well as the portion of the land going to the north property line, and we feel this is appropriate, as it will preserve the view of the house from the public right away along Pearl Street, while allowing for the redevelopment of the rest of the lot.

[25:07] Here are the proposed findings, and a reminder that that concludes my staff presentation will next follow with the applicant presentation, public participation, applicant response, and then board deliberation. and with that I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Go back to here. I don't see or hear any questions, and I do want to give a shout out to John and Ronnie for being able to go to that site, visit on Monday. and not seeing any questions from my colleagues on the board, we invite Erin Grant to give your presentation. And make sure Erin's here. Yeah, there we go. And and, Erin, I will need to have you raise your hand and swear the state your full name. Swear to tell the board the full truth, and then your 10 min will commence later. You will have an opportunity for an additional 3 min if you would like, after public participation.

[26:17] Okay. Can you hear me? Okay. We can hear you, so if you'll start by swearing to tell us, you may then begin. Okay, so remind me what I need to repeat. I'm sorry. Just just that you swear to tell the Board the full truth. I swear the teller, the board the whole truth, and is my, is my video on, or is it not. And I are you just see your name. Erin. If you would like your video to be on, I will promote you as a panelist officially. Just one moment. Okay. All right. All you'll have to do is accept perfect. He's coming in as a panelist

[27:05] now. Oh, great hi erin. Hi, can you see me now? Okay, great. I got a new ipad, and I'm just trying to figure it out. So well, thank you for taking the time, ladies and gentlemen of the landmark and Staff. I don't have anything too formal to talk about. I just wanted to express my camps feeling of of of success with this project, I think. It was. you know. There was a challenge in the beginning. With the former owner, and and when I came in to to buy the property, and and came up with the idea of of relocating the structure. I was I was surprise, pleasantly surprised at the at everyone's reaction, and and and I felt everybody was more than reasonable. And I I on the property tour the other day I I mentioned the fact that you know sometimes these unforeseen

[28:09] site conditions and development. You know, they they always seem to turn out to be the most interesting piece of my projects, because you have to put so much time, effort, and thought into it, and and and and so that is certainly the case here, so that the house the Mayou house really is pretty cool. A cool aspect of the property. And we've noticed some people walking by on the street and and not even realizing that there's 3 brand new townhomes right behind it, which I think is a compliment. And so yeah, I just wanted to say thanks. And and if there are any questions, comments, concerns. I'm happy to answer. Thank you, Erin. Do any board members have questions for Erin again. I don't see or hear any. So, Erin, we're going to move on to public participation and give you another opportunity if you choose, after that. So, Aubrey, I'm going to turn to you.

[29:12] This is the time that any member of the public should press the raise hand function in the zoom call. Or if you're joining us by phone star 9. All right. 1st we have Fran sheets. Fran. Just give me one moment. And and, Fran, you probably remember this well, I will need you to raise your hand and swear to tell the board the whole truth, and then your 3 min will commence. Well, you can't see my hand, but I swear to tell the truth. this has been a really long project, because I was on the board when we made the 1st visit. So it's really exciting to me to be able to see the fruition of it all, and I think that everybody did such a good job and historic boulder would like me to say that they commend you for it, and that we welcome this

[30:10] this, basically a new site and think that you did a really good job. That's it. Thank you. Thank you, Fran and Aubrey. Anyone else indicated they'd like to speak to this. Oh, sorry, my zoom pros for just a moment. Can you all hear me? Okay. We can. All right. Next public comment. We have Lynn Siegel. Are we ready to

[31:04] move on to the next? Okay, great. Thank you. Sorry about that. And and Lynn I will ask you to raise your hand and promise to tell the Board the truth, as you know it. The truth as I know it. Yes, Can you put on my video. We do not allow video during public comment. Why not? To my knowledge it is to be consistent with other boards and commissions. That should be changed. Also. Can you please stagger the Osb. And L. Landmars board public comment times because they come at the same time, and any other board meetings that happen that same night. Please coordinate between them, so that I can testify at the others, too, please. It's very nerve wracking to have to jump between one and another. Now the interior of this looks like New York City. Other than that, I think they did a great job, but I think the interior is important, too.

[32:10] and to to preserve something or to recreate, as I know you often say, you don't want to try to recreate things to look like what they did. But I think that's very important when you have basically a New York City apartment inside of it, of an old building that has a beautiful appeal to it. It needs to also be represented in some way on the interior, and that's all I have to say. But I they did a monumental job, and all of that, and I appreciate that. But, you need to start considering what the inside of these buildings that the impact that they have to the many people that will be going inside of them for probably hundreds of years, because this building is made to last a long time done.

[33:05] Thank you, Lynn. And we hear you. But you know the the landmarks board does not have purview over the interior of our historic resources. Aubrey, is there anyone else who's indicated? They'd like to speak to this. I don't see any other hands raised. But let's just give it a moment. Nope. But. Alright. I think we are okay to move right along. Okay, so we will close public hearing for this agenda item and bring it back. Now, Erin, you would have an additional 3 min. I don't know if there's anything you want to add. But, you know, I think the Board is looking forward to to these deliberations, and I don't know if John or Ronnie would be able to kick it off, especially because you were able to attend the site visit earlier this week.

[34:09] I can kick it off if Ronnie doesn't come. go for it. I think that 1st of all this is an exciting project to have any role in it's it demonstrates in a multiple set of ways what the best possible outcome of our processes can be. The fact that it started as a demo request. We set the State A team visited, engaged with the the petitioners, and came up with solutions and ways to save the house. but I think that the the level of of

[35:02] work that went into preserving the house was exemplary. I somewhat like the interior, even though it's not our purview. it. It was just very. It was just beautifully done. It demonstrated so many things, including how to move a house on a property with essentially 19th century technology and and make it work. So it was it was. And and I also have to compliment the developers on the projects that they built behind it, because they are done in an understated way that is somewhat unapparent from the Pearl Street side. You. You kind of have to know they're there and have to understand that they're on the same property. They look more like they're

[36:03] behind it. And and it's just it just all worked very well. It's it's just. I'm very happy to support this and be even the smallest part of it. So thank you. Thanks. John Ronnie. Yeah, I agree. Erin, you and your team did an excellent job. And you know, I think. that the gesture that has been made to the community. That is, the preservation of this building, and the many years of opportunity for people to engage. But as they walk by and for us to kind of recount. This history is a wonderful thing that you've done for the city of Boulder. I agree with John that

[37:01] not only at the largest scale, but at each increment great decisions were made. and so the background nature of the new construction allows the historic building to be a foreground building, and even when you know relocating a building isn't the 1st desire in terms of preservation, I think this is a great example of when and how it can happen and do something that is meaningful and successful. And then to go just a little further on the details. I think that there's a lot to learn from this. I think that the building itself the preserved building. There's quite a bit of lessons to be learned there about how to bring a building that is historic up to today's energy code and where and how you can do it. And I was grateful to have had the opportunity to walk around and to even go down into the basement with some of my colleagues here.

[38:17] So you know, Aaron. Congratulations. I I you know, congratulate you on the success story. I saw you already with your team talking to neighbors. You start. You've already created community just through the process of having worked in that neighborhood a huge like check box. And now you're doing it again with the large gesture to the city. So, thanks for your effort. I think that it's a beautiful project, and wish you guys best of luck. Chelsea.

[39:02] Yes, great! I won't believe we're the point. And I think it's a great project. You have put a lot of work and effort into this, and I support Staff's recommendation. Great job. Thanks, Chelsea and Kurt. I didn't know if you'd like to add anything on behalf of the planning Board or yourself. Sure I will add some things. 1st of all, I also was able to go on the site visit, and I really appreciated that it was wonderful chance to see the building the project, and I am grateful to the applicants that they we're kind enough to let us go through and and spend a bunch of time with us which was great. And it really I I totally agree with Ronnie and John that the it's a great project. I'm very grateful that the building was preserved, and I think that the result is good.

[40:00] that all being said landmark designation is a process that has certain criteria right? And it's not completely clear to me that it actually meets the criteria for significance. I think, in terms of historic significance. The one clear thing is that it's an old building, right? It's from 1870 something and so that that in itself is gives it a certain amount of significance. But it was not associated with any particularly important events or people in history from an architectural standpoint. I mean, we can talk about. the the the form but it's actually kind of a strange amalgam of 1870, something and 1920 something. And it certainly does not have

[41:03] a defined, an architectural style. It's it's really a strange hybrid of styles. Moreover, my understanding is that the front porch, which is the most prominent part, the roof structure has been completely reconstructed. There's no original material there from in terms of the roof structure, and so I think it has. It really doesn't qualify for architectural significance and for environmental significance. The the building was moved right, which is part of the deal. And that's great. But I think that that removes what small amount of environmental significance it originally had. So I think it's a valid question whether it actually meets the criteria for designation. As I said before, I'm very grateful that the building has been preserved. I think it's a wonderful building. It's a wonderful project. I think that the applicant did a great job, or whether it should actually be a landmark, I think, is a question.

[42:09] Thanks. Thank you, Kurt. And it's interesting in the preservation, the city's preservation 50 year old program. I don't think that there have ever been issues with the big, grand, stately homes or ones associated with important people throughout Boulder's history. I think it's the homes like this that tell the story of ordinary people. who lived and worked and were a part of our community that are always the most vulnerable to demolition. And so I do know. In the 2013 city's historic preservation plan one of the things was called out, is to look at some of the smaller dwellings and some of the smaller

[43:03] buildings that we could save. And this it's it's almost like it became an unofficial landmark on the street. And granted it has been moved forward a little bit, but but I think it tells a story. Still. that's important, and I think that it just adds a patina and a real grace note to the whole property, and if I were someone looking around for property just by virtue of saving that, whether I was interested in purchasing that particular unit or one of the the wonderful homes behind it. It's the fact that that's standing that tells a part of story, a part of bolder story, that it's it's got something unique and special. It's got character, you know. It has soul in it. It would make me someone really much more interested in that property. So I also think there's an added value. So I am delighted to be supporting stash recommendation to forward this to city council. I think kudos on that. It was great to see that video that was really, really fun to see. So thank you.

[44:11] Thank you so much for doing that. And I do think it. I think it makes that whole street, that whole area. I think it just gives it a character that would be gone if that building had been hauled off to the landfill. So kudos to that. And you guys thank you all for this thoughtful conversation. That being said, I don't know if there's any board member who would like to make a motion. Yeah, I'd like to make a motion. and if you could pull up the motion staff, I will read from it, and you know, without a doubt for me, I am going to make the motion to recommend, and just to before I do.

[45:00] You know, this is a building that has been around for a very long time. It is a building that clearly demonstrates its original form. its subordinate massing elements, including the porch. While it was an addition. It was still a very early edition, including the aspects of the architectural character that made it more craftsman-like are all part of the period of significance. I think that while the stucco in my mind is an, I think, an unusual exterior material. That I typically, don't you know. Think of. When I think of buildings of that era. It is stuck. It is the material that was present during that early period, and I think it

[46:00] kind of modernizes the building today because of how much stucco is used in current work. The only reason I bring that up is because I think it gives a little bit of confusion to the story, but I do know that Staff's report has described this very well, and I think the building has been preserved very well. And again I just compliment the applicant for having gone through the effort and doing such an excellent job on that note. I move that the Landmarks Board recommend to the City Council that it designate a portion of the property. At 1836 Pearl Street as a local historic landmark, to be known as the Thelma may do house. Finding that it meets the standards for individual landmark designation in Sections 9, 11, one, and 9, 11, 2 Brc. 1981, and adopt the staff memorandum, dated July 10, th 2024. As the findings of the Board.

[47:06] Thank you, Ronnie. Is there a second. I'll second. Thank you, John. On a motion by Ronnie, seconded by John. We'll do a roll call. Vote Chelsea. Aye. John. Aye. Ronnie. Aye. And I vote aye, so the motion passes unanimously, and Marcy will briefly go over next steps. Thank you. So we will schedule this review by city council. That's the 1st reading will be on the consent agenda, and then the second reading will be a public hearing, and that will occur before October 18.th So we will be in touch with the city council date and if approved. Then the building is designated, and the city will provide a bronze plaque and recognize your efforts. Aaron, as well as other recently designated landmarks at the historic preservation awards ceremony in May at Chautauqua.

[48:15] Thanks again, Erin. Now we'll move on to agenda. Item 5 B. This is a public hearing and consideration of a landmark, alteration, certificate, application to construct an approximately 2,000 square foot, 3rd floor, addition and roof deck at 2040, 14th Street in the downtown historic district, pursuant to Section 9, 1118 of the Boulder revised Code 1981, and under the procedures prescribed by Chapter one, through 3 quasi-judicial hearings, also the bold revised code. Thank you, Abby. Just wanna check that. You can see the

[49:01] Powerpoint. Excellent. Okay. So I'm going to go through the quasi-judicial hearing procedures, everyone speaking to the item will be sworn in, and the board members will note any ex parte contacts. I'm going to give the staff presentation. After that the Board may ask questions. The applicant will have 10 min to present to the board, and the Board may ask questions again. We'll then open the public hearing. After all, members of the public have made comments. The applicant may respond to anything that was said. We'll then ask everyone to mute their computers, while the Board deliberates, and the motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members. To pass. 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 archive within 28 days, usually sooner. So I will pass it back to Abby for ex parte contacts. But the the Board has requested that we note

[50:00] who has reviewed this previously, and this was reviewed at the Ldrc. By John and Chelsea. So back to you, Abby. Thank you, Claire. I have no ex parte contacts for this Chelsea. No. John. None other than the Ldrc. And Ronnie. Nun. Thank you. Okay. Back to you, Claire. Okay. So the criteria for review are outlined in the Boulder Revised Code under 9 1 1 8 b. And C, and the review is to ensure that the proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores, and does not damage exterior architectural features of the property does not adversely affect the historic architectural value of the property, the architecture, arrangement, texture, colour, arrangement of colour, and materials are compatible with the character of the property, and that the landmarks board considers the economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of energy, efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled

[51:06] The options today are for the Landmarks board to approve the application. This is subject to a city. 16 day city council call up period where city council can choose to review the decision. The Landmarks board may also deny the application which would be subject to a thirty-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 usually, if the board is headed in that direction, they will give the applicant an opportunity to withdraw. So this is the application process so far. In November 2023, the applicant submitted a pre-application which goes to all Development Review staff who can use that to identify any significant permitting or zoning code issues, and they

[52:06] requested additional review of the parking reduction, height, modification, and variance to the setbacks for the elevator and stair towers on the east and west ends of the building, but didn't identify any other major issues. So on April 25th of this year the applicant submitted the Lac. The landmark alteration certificate, application to construct the approximately 2,000 square foot. 3rd floor addition, which has a rift deck also. On May 8th the proposal was reviewed by the Landmarks Design Review Committee, which was Chelsea, John and myself, and the Ldrc. Referred the application to the Landmarks board for a review and a public hearing to ensure that the new construction does not detract from the adjacent historic structure or the visual continuity of the historic district.

[53:06] Okay, so this is the property. It's located on the southeast corner of 14th and Spruce Streets within the boundary of the downtown historic district. The property is bordered by an alley to the east right here, and the Boulder Theatre to the south. That's the orange block right there. The footprint of the two-story building encompasses the entire lot. and Although this building itself doesn't contribute to the architectural variety of the district which we'll get to in a second. It's located on a very prominent corner that includes multiple individual landmarks, including the Boulder Theatre

[54:00] and also the Boulder County courthouse, which is right here, which is actually on the National Register of historic places. And then there's 3 individual landmarks facing the property on the other side of Spruce Street. Right here. There's the 1st United Methodist Church here, the Nelson Terrace, and this is the Rakoff House house right here. So this is the the building itself. This is in the downtown historic district which was added to the National Register in 1980, and designated a local historic district in 1999. It has a period of significance. From 1860 to 1930 this building itself was constructed in the international style with that recognizable University of Colorado style stone Facade. That's that lion's red sandstone. In 1966. It replaced an older building on this location. It has a flat roof and ribbon windows that are emphasized by those panels below.

[55:15] We don't know the architect, but we do know that it was developed by a boulder attorney, James G. Martin, and together with a real estate broker, and was constructed by Faith Contracting Company. It's a good example of the distinctive variation to the international style that we see pretty commonly in boulder with that lion's red sandstone and the flat roof and the ribbon windows. It has a moderate level of integrity to the original design, including the two-story flat roof form, and most of the materiality. The design was altered in 2,006 by the construction of the parapet, which you can see up here. The panels below the windows have been removed on the 1st floor and reduced

[56:15] in height on the Second Level and the window design with the distinctive mountains has been changed at the at the lower level also. and incidentally it did receive an lac in 2,006 for that work, and it was considered a non-contributing building at that time, too. So because of these changes and the date of construction outside the period of significance. We considered this to be a non-contributing building to the district and treated it that way in our analysis. Okay, so this is the proposal is to add a 3rd story, flat roof addition that includes an elevated tower. At the facade we separated our analysis into key site and setting characteristics, including setback orientation, spacing and distance between adjacent buildings, also the height for massing size and scale of the overall proportion of the proposed

[57:16] work and key building elements, including dormers, windows and doors, and and also materials and details, including scale proportion, texture, type and a finish. And I'm going to go through each of those individually. So first, st we're going to look at the key site and setting characteristics. This includes the setback orientation, spacing and distance between adjacent buildings. This is the Site plan, with the outline of the proposed addition on the rooftop. Here there are no proposed changes to the setback orientation spacing or distance between adjacent buildings. There are 2 mature trees in the right of way that have been identified by the city foresters needing to be removed due to their condition, and they will be replaced. And if you have questions about that, that's a good question for the applicant.

[58:15] We also looked at mass scale and location of the of the proposed addition. So the height for massing size and scale and overall proportion. This is the proposal from 14th Street. So this is the adjacent boulder theater facade right here. And this is the addition at the top of the this building. This includes, an elevator tower at the south side which is set back approximately 12 feet from the roof parapet. Here, facing 14th Street, the tower is approximately one story tall and about 16 feet wide. There's an elevator overrun which is up here.

[59:09] And it will be approximately 16 feet above the height of the existing parapet wall. The main massing of the addition, which is this part here, is set back approximately 36 feet from the roof parapet facing 14th Street. It's about 12 feet wide at this elevation there's a cantilever awning that projects 17 feet from the proposed addition. It's set behind the elevator tower with a 19 foot setback from the parapet. I hope you're following all of this. The awning wraps the northwest corner of the addition, and this part here projects about 5 foot 6 inches from the north side of the addition. We do have 3D modeling, and it's a lot easier to understand it from that. So this is going around the corner. This is from Spruce Street. You can see the elevator tower on that west side. It's set back 33 feet from the parapet on this side, and then the bulk of the one story addition is approximately 21 feet from the Spruce Street parapet side.

[60:26] The proposed addition is about 76 feet wide at this elevation expands about half the width of the existing building. And there is a the cantilevered awning that projects from that main mass of the addition set about 15 feet back from the parapet. From here. There's at the rear, also a rear tower that contains egress, emergency egress stairs at the southeast corner of the building.

[61:04] Okay? So we looked at some key guidelines for the mass scale and location. Of that proposed addition. in the downtown historic district guidelines. The guideline asks us to consider proportioning of the height and mass to the building. Footprint in general buildings should appear similar in mass height, mass scale to other buildings in the historic area, to maintain the historic district's visual integrity and unique character. At the same time, it is important to maintain a variety of heights, while the actual heights of buildings are of concern. The perceived heights of buildings are equally important. It goes on to say that 1, 2, and 3 story buildings make up the primary architectural fabric of the downtown with taller buildings located at key intersections, and that you should consider relating the height of buildings to neighboring structures at the sidewalk edge

[62:03] for new structures that are significantly taller than adjacent buildings. Upper floors should be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the front facade to reduce the perceived height. the general guidelines. Add to that that it's not appropriate to construct an addition that would detract from the overall historic character of the district by overwhelming existing buildings in mass and scale. We looked at the general design guidelines, too, to to consider the roof deck and the the guideline specific to that says that second story roof decks and balconies are characteristic of only a few architectural styles found in boulder and roof decks may be compatible if located on the rear. and if they are integrated into the primary structure, any decks or balconies above the second story are inappropriate unless based on historic precedent.

[63:01] So when we looked at this, we considered that the height and mass of the proposed addition would be appropriate, because the main mass, not including the elevator tower, is set back at least 15 feet from both street-facing facades, which reduces its visual prominence. The proposal doesn't make the existing building dominant in height, mass, or scale to neighboring buildings. The elevated tower is set back only 12 feet from 14th Street. and is more visually prominent. But Staff considered that it was subordinate to the adjacent Boulder Theatre, and therefore would not detract from the overall historic character of the district. In addition, we thought that the addition is potentially reversible. and on the roof deck, while roof decks are usually discouraged. Staff thought that it was minimally visible and located in this downtown context, it would be appropriate.

[64:08] Okay? So next, we looked at the key building elements, including the dormer. There's no dormers, including the windows and doors, and the solid to void relationship and materials. And of those windows. so the proposed design is contemporary with large areas of full height, windows and glass doors with minimal frames. This is the west elevation. From 14th Street you can see the proposed windows below the the cantilevered awning. Here this is the Spruce Street elevation, with mostly full height windows and doors. Except for these 2 horizontal sliding windows near the east end of the addition. The railing surrounding the rooftop deck includes alternating areas of solid metal planter boxes that intend to screen the mass of the addition. See these here, and also in the 3D modeling.

[65:18] So the key guidelines that we pulled out for the building elements include actually quite a lot of them. Let's go through them. The downtown historic district guideline. which says, to incorporate traditional building elements in new design and construction. this guideline advises careful integration of traditional facade features to reinforce patterns and visual alignments that contribute to the overall character of the district. These features may be interpreted in new and contemporary ways. The general design guidelines suggest that alterations to non-contributing buildings built in a recognizable architectural style should preserve and respect that style.

[66:02] and that the spacing, placement, scale, orientation, proportion, and size of window and door openings in new structures should be compatible with the surrounding buildings that contribute to the historic district while reflecting the underlying design of the new building. The building, as as it's non-contributing, is designed in a recognizable style, even though it is non-contributing. It's a very, very recognizable mid-century style. and the design guidelines encourage preserving and respecting that architectural design staff considered that the balance of the solid massing of the addition, and the elevator tower is balanced by the void of the large areas of glass and cantilever in a design that respects the style of the existing building.

[67:00] Okay? And finally, the materials and details, including the scale proportion, texture, type and finish. we looked at the proposed materials and detailing, including their scale, proportion, text, type, and finish, and so that the materials proposed are predominantly fiber cement for the siding parapet, trim and metal for the roof, planter boxes and railing windows and doors. The proposed colours include light grey for the siding and trim the black for the roof, the planter boxes, railing windows and doors and beige for the parapet, and black and beige for the siding at the elevator overrun the siding at the elevator, overrun is proposed to be metal set horizontally, and the woodlook fiber cement siding is proposed to be installed vertically with a horizontal trim key guidelines for the materials and details include a few downtown historic district guidelines, including the use of traditional durable materials. As the primary building material, is encouraged to reflect the historic building construction and development pattern within the district.

[68:14] It says, to choose accent materials similar in texture and scale to others in the district, select building colors appropriate to the area's historic character. Select a color scheme that will visually link the building to its past as well as to others in the area. Consider colors that are compatible with the building's predominant materials develop a comprehensive color scheme. Consider the building as a whole as well as the details that need emphasis. Softer muted colors establish a uniform background and establish a hierarchy for the color palette with one color. Similar elements, such as window frames and reserve bright colors for special accents, to emphasize entryways and to highlight special architectural ornamentation.

[69:03] the downtown historic district guidelines also note that exterior building lighting should be designed to enhance the overall architecture of the building and security. Lighting should be designed for safety as well as nighttime appearance. The general design guidelines emphasise that new finished materials should be compatible with, but not seek to replicate original finished materials and use materials that are similar in scale, proportion, texture, and finish to those used historically and use authentic materials. Materials made to look like other materials, such as concrete, that is scored to look like brick are not appropriate. Okay? So in our analysis of the materials and details, we did consider the location of the Boulder Theatre, which really draws the eye upwards towards the decorative facade of the theatre, and thought that care should be taken to ensure that the detailing of the proposed edition really reflects that we thought that vertical siding is not traditionally found in the historic district.

[70:07] and that the use of the composite. The cementitious wood products are identified in the guidelines is generally inappropriate the the general design guidelines actually also the downtown guidelines encourage the use of authentic materials. So we thought that the use of the stamped cementitious siding at the locations visible from the public right of way were inappropriate to the character of the district. we also noted that other rooftop additions in the district use metal siding to reflect the contemporary construction, and to visually blend into the district. We thought that durable materials, not made to look like other materials, such as metal or stucco, would be appropriate. and that the but in general the proposed color palette establishes a uniform background.

[71:06] We also noted that the exterior building lighting is not included on the proposal, but should be reviewed to ensure that the nighttime appearance appearance of the addition doesn't distract from the appearance of the adjacent theater. Okay. So, in addition to compliance with the guidelines, the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate are outlined in 9 1118 B of the Boulder revised Code. and the issuance must meet the conditions of whether the proposed application preserves, enhances, or restores, and not damage or destroy the exterior architectural feature of the landmark or the subject property within a historic district. whether the proposed application adversely affects the special character, or special historic, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark property, and if the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials used on existing and proposed structures compatible with the character of the landmark property.

[72:12] We thought that the proposed work will not damage or destroy the architectural features of the historic district. As the building is considered to be non-contributing. we also thought that the proposed addition will not adversely affect the special historic character of the district as it is set back from the facade of the building, and will not visually overwhelm the subject property or the surrounding historic buildings. Additionally, the design of the addition is complementary of the existing mid-century modern building. and we also thought that the architectural style of the proposed addition is compatible with the character of the non-contributing building. If stated conditions are met to eliminate the cementitious stamp siding to imitate wood.

[73:01] And we thought that the the texture, color arrangement of color materials used on existing and proposed structures are compatible with the character of the subject, property, and the district. and we thought that the proposal is generally consistent with the general, with the design guidelines, and in that it is set back from the street facing facade. minimally visible, and does not detract from the overall historic character of the district and is reversible. So with that staff's recommendation is to approve the application with conditions. Finding that the proposal meets the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate in chapter 9 - 1118 of the Boulder Revised Code. and is generally consistent with the general design guidelines and the downtown historic district guidelines provided the stated conditions are met.

[74:00] and the conditions of approval recommended. Conditions of approval are to revise the citing material to a durable material traditionally found in the historic district, such as metalus or stucco, and to provide details of exterior building, lighting, and analysis of visual impact, of the addition, to ensure that the nighttime appearance does not detract from the appearance of the adjacent theatre and staff recommends that the landmarks board adopt the findings that, providing the stated conditions are met, the project will meet the standards of issuance of a landmark alteration certificate. So we've estimated that the Board will need approximately 30 min for their deliberation, and generally the question is whether the project meets the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate, but we also provided some additional prompts to help the discussion. If you need that whether the mass scale, location and height of the proposed new addition and roof deck is appropriate.

[75:08] Does the scale placement and locations of the windows and door openings meet the design. Guidelines and other proposed colors and materials are appropriate. So that's the end of the staff presentation. This is a reminder of the next steps in the process. The the applicant and owner have up to 10 min to present to the board the board may ask them questions. We'll then hear comments from any member of the public that wishes to speak. And the applicant may have additional time to address anything that is said, and then the board will deliberate. So any questions for staff before we hand it over to the applicant. Laura, I don't see or hear any questions for you at this point, so thank you for that amazing presentation that was so comprehensive and thorough. Thank you. Well done.

[76:08] And so now we'll invite back Erin Grant, who we also met during the 1st hearing tonight. And Erin, I don't know if you're the only one who is going to be speaking. I know you have an awesome team, and there might be other members who are speaking. You'll have a total of 10 min. Everyone will need to swear to tell the Board the full truth and state their full name, Erin. Even you will need to do that again. So I don't know who on the team is going to kick it off for the applicant. I'll I'll Abby. You know. Kick it off. So again I so I swear to tail of the truth. My name is Erin Grant. And thanks again for the opportunity. you know. I 1st off just wanted to respond to Staff's proposed conditions of approval. They are absolutely acceptable. We're working currently through the revisions to the building materials.

[77:14] And we will certainly work with staff to identify the authentic materials referenced and and and look to fit in with the historic neighborhood. The other item that I would like to address is. I understand that the representative owner of the Boulder Theater wrote a letter in opposition. And so I just wanted to address her comments. Cheryl whom I whom I've never met. But Cheryl Logari I understand her concerns absolutely. I disagree. I think.

[78:05] you know, being that close and being above the Boulder Theatre is actually quite an amenity for a residence. I know that firsthand, because I lived in a loft on Ogden and Colfax in Denver for 11 years above the Ogden Theater, a theater similar with similar type shows. And she mentions that the artists load in and out of the back alley and park tour buses. Which is not a quiet process. I have been around that for a long time. It's been a few years, but you know 1 1 show. I was at my loft one day, and I was fortunate enough to see Prince get out of his bus. So you know, seeing the artist load and unload, you know, is very attractive to me, and I understand there's an exit in front of the building in mass quote unquote. I totally understand that I mean the residents being on the 3rd story, I would think it would be relatively insulated from that activity.

[79:11] and whether or not it's suitable for residents. As I said, I think it's an amazing amenity. I've been going to the Boulder Theater myself since I was. you know, 14 years old, 15 years old, and growing up outside of Mead in Longmont, and then I went to school in boulder. So I'm very familiar with the Boulder theater, and I look forward to being their neighbor. Let's see if there's anything else I'd like to address. I have my architect. He's on the line, you know. He's here to address any technical questions that may be asked. I don't think he has anything to say during this presentation, and I'll just leave it at that, and again thank you for the opportunity. Thank you, Erin, and We'll now move on to public participation. Wait! Do any board members have any questions of the applicants before we move on to public participation

[80:09] again. I don't see any raised hands or hear anyone, so we will go ahead and move on to public participation. And Aaron, as you know, we'll come back to you in a few moments. So, Aubrey, I'm going to turn to you to see if anyone has raised their hand to speak to this agenda item. or if they're calling in by Phone Star 9. Alright! It looks like we have 2 hands raised. So far we have Fran Mandel sheets, and then Andy or Olree, sorry for my pronunciation. Fran, I will promote you momentarily. and then I'll start the timer. And Fran once again, if you would be kind enough to swear to tell the Board the full truth.

[81:01] Oh, I swear to tell the Board the full truth. In general, the the historic boulder, speaking for historic boulder, supports Staff's recommendations on this project. And finds that this building has been modified, in that. The 3rd story is appropriate, especially with the setbacks. I had a few questions, and this might not be an appropriate place to bring them up. But I'll briefly put them out there, not as objections, but as purely as questions. One would be the appropriateness of that wall, basically of the tower, that because I think it'll be very visible from the street. I think we're kidding ourselves if we think that these are not visible structures on the rooftops, and not only is it large and potentially could detract from the theater facade, but

[82:02] it it's highly visible, and the materials. I I don't understand how and this is my personal issue. Where? Where there's other metal in the district that makes this, that makes metal appropriate. And I think it's it. It's set far enough up rather than far enough back that the tower will be. It's high. And we went through this on the hill with some of the building top, the things that were put on to on top of those buildings. In a matter of fact, the theater on the hill, and they ended up being highly visible from the street. So that's just a question more than anything. And another question is that this was in past times in Boulder considered a contributing restorable building, and it might not have been. It doesn't meet the the the period of

[83:07] significance for the district, but it would have been it could have been for a an individual landmark, too, and it feels like it moves this building further from being restorable. And I just wonder whether there's not some kind of compensation. Because technically, I think somebody could come back in a couple years and ask to demolish it again. And say that it's not non-contributing, and it because it's further, it's been changed even more so I I question how we can, how we eliminated this contributing but restorable criteria and let's see.

[84:00] I I think in general, it actually is a a really good idea, and might in in for at least a period of time, save the building from demolition because it's its use, has is going to be highly functional and highly needed. Brad, I'm so sorry to interrupt you, but your time has elapsed. Do you want to just finish that thought? That's okay, Abby, thanks a lot. And we do support staff in this. Great. Thank you, Fran. And then, Andy, I believe you're next, and if you'd be kind enough to raise your hand and say you'll swear to tell the Board the truth, and then state your full name for the recording, and then your 3 min will come in.

[85:00] Alright sorry for the delay, I believe Andy is part of the applicant group, so I'm just a little confused. Are we good to proceed as normal for public comment. Hi, Chris, I see you're unmuted. Can can you hear me or not? Oh, we can hear you now. I I solely raise my hand to let you know one to see if I'd like this actually functioned and worked. That was really the main reason for me raising my hand and I apologize for doing that in any way out of order. But I didn't know I couldn't figure out any other way to her good attention. So I don't have anything to say currently. But that was it. Alright! Great! Thank you. And Aubrey, do you see any additional raised hands or members of the public calling in that would like to address this.

[86:10] I do not see any other raised hands. But let's give it just a moment. all right. I don't see anyone else who would like to speak on this item. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Aubrey. So we'll officially close public participation for agenda. Item 5 B. And Erin. I'm just gonna give you a chance. If you want anything else to add for an additional 3 min before we return this to the board for deliberations. I guess i i i just like to add that it's my understanding that it's 1 of the directives for downtown boulder to promote residential over commercial as I understand it. So that's that's I just wanted to make that point.

[87:02] And then my architect Andy has one thing to say if he could just chime in for my last. I'd like to defer my last minute or so to him, if that's possible. Yes, thank you. But, Andy, I am. Gonna ask you to swear that you'll be telling the board the truth, and then you can take the remaining several minutes once you're on mute. Sorry I sent Andy an official promotion request. He's probably just coming in, Andy. You should be able to use your video now, if you're interested. I don't think anybody really cares to see me. So I'm okay with that I will try to be real brief. I just wanted to respond to a couple of comments that came up during the presentation one of them being the choice of materials. As Aaron said. We are more than happy to work with landmark on the choices of materials. Sorry for interrupting, but just to keep

[88:00] the procedure the same. Yeah. And can you state your name for the record too? My name is Andy Ulry, and I swear to tell the truth. Okay. Okay, Andy, go ahead. Just to respond to the material question. We in initially had a fair amount of stucco on the building and through our site plan process. Stucco was determined by I'm not sure which part of the staff, that is, but that was not an appropriate material where we in fact, thought it was an appropriate one, with its proximity to the Boulder Theater, 2 with the stucco that was installed during the construction of 2,006. We thought it complemented both our neighbor as well as our existing building. So if that is a material that is desired, we would need some help from landmark to with the other parts of boulder staff to to make that happen.

[89:02] The other item I did want to address was some of the metal being appropriate. Claire, the the Powerpoint that I sent you earlier that showed some of the other contextual residences. I don't know if you can pull that up or not, but there are several. We went and took a lot of photographs in the Boulder historic district of other residential rooftop projects. If you scroll to some of the latter pages. You'll see that metal was that's 1 the one before. and I think the one after You can go to the next page, and then the next page. Both of those are examples of metal, and I'm not sure if this is an actual contributing building or not, although I I like the detailing of the existing building. It definitely seems to be built at an older time, and this may have been a rooftop residence with a metal

[90:05] exterior on a what I believe to be a contributing building. Those are the only things that I wanted to add to some of the comments I had heard earlier, and I'm happy to answer any questions as they come up from staff during your comment time. Okay, thank you. And the questions might come up from board members. So thank you for that, Andy, that that's helpful. So we will bring it. We public participation's been closed. We've heard now again from the applicant. We will bring it back for board discussion. I know Claire mentioned that we estimated about 30 min for these deliberations. and oh, thank you for those prompts, Claire, and I don't know if there's anyone who would like to kick it off this evening.

[91:03] Nobody else is jumping in there. I will. Go for it, John. Thank you. Okay? I think that I I think that, considering what is the overall style of the existing building, which is somewhat dilute international style. I think that this is a reasonably and actually wholly appropriate kind of intervention on the roof of that type. It's it's not uncommon. at least in some cases, the kind of original examples of this architectural style to have penthouse components on them from original construction, that were done in kind of dissimilar form to the rest of the building, made lighter in the form of glass and steel. I can think of any number of examples of university buildings and similar buildings, some that were even full blown brutalism that then broke with that on the penthouse level and went to glass and steel.

[92:22] It's also a form in a lot of contemporary architecture that is more reminiscent of mid 20th century commercial styles, like architects like Perkins and Will. And they're kind of Chicago style, and Zimmer, gunsel, fresco, and others that use that same kind of break at the top. So I think, also addressing it from the urban design standpoint. Looking at it on the Streetscape side on the 14th Street side. I think that the way the mass, the proposed new mass

[93:01] gradients away from the Boulder Theatre and steps back to the original street wall of the old building, and similarly does that on the 14th and Spruce Street side, on the corner, I think, is fairly appropriate. I'm not as troubled by some of the materiality discussion either. As I said, it's breaking with the kind of forms of the lower building, I don't think is inappropriate in this instance, especially with the setback and the gradient shaping of the mass and bringing it down and in character with what city Council and others want to see happen with residential development in the town? I think it's also wholly appropriate as a use.

[94:02] it's kind of an exciting potential location. I I envy Aaron if this is where he's going to live. so I think it's I think I totally support staffs recommendation and support their conditions as stated and would even be willing to entertain a motion if it comes to that. Thank you, John Ronnie, or Chelsea. Ronnie, you can go for it. Okay? Yeah. I agree with John. I think that this proposal is an excellent proposal. So I agree with Staff's report. Their assessment of the property. I think maybe it's worth coming back to the materiality question. I recognize why it was brought up in Staff's report. I don't disagree with it. But I think if we're looking to have a

[95:07] more robust talk about that before we move to make a motion. You know I'm game for having that talk. It sounds like John. Might be thinking differently. But I think that the proposal will not detract from any of the valuable historic characteristics of that area, including the detracting from the neighboring building. I know that there maybe was a concern about the elevator locations and their prominence, and I think that they were dealt with smartly. And then the aspects that John talked about in terms of transparency and stepping back, and the gradation of the building, I think, are all spot on so. and then just to circle back to the application quality. I think that the graphics that were presented in the proposal are very helpful, and so I compliment the applicant with the clarity of their application. I think it really helps us assess

[96:10] what it is that is being presented. And I am in favor of approval. Thanks. Ronnie. Chelsea. Yeah, I agree with my colleagues. I'm in favor of approval. I think the staff did a great job with this report, and the applicant did a fantastic job with their materials like Ronnie said it was really easy to project what it was gonna look like in the future. I think I am convinced by what John was saying about the material, and being a little bit more flexible with that so

[97:00] I am open to having that conversation, if it makes sense, but otherwise support the staff. Recommendation. Thank you, Chelsea. So before I turn to Kurt to see if he wants to share anything. I'm very excited about this, and I've always liked the original building, and I I understand it's you know, modifications over the year, but I've always thought that was a really cool building with its own own beauty, and I think that when I 1st saw this proposal was going through the materials, and again shout out and kudos to staff, for not only a great comprehensive memoranda, but that that was buttressed by Claire's great presentation. And then, Erin, your quality of materials, like Ronnie alluded to, it just makes it a lot easier for someone who's not an architect to speak to. But what really struck me when I 1st looked at it is how much this is going to enliven. Not just that building, but this intersection.

[98:05] I mean, you know, it's really cool. And I will say, when I 1st went through it, I thought. There's some people working on this proposal that have looked at our design guidelines that know our design guidelines. And I know people like Nancy Blackwood, who are so familiar with those and wanting to adhere to that. So I will be supporting Staff's recommendation with the few conditions that you already sound amenable and have already looked like you're exploring how to change that. I do agree that maybe, and maybe, Ronnie, you would be willing to facilitate this. The one thing I am interested to discuss in regards to the materiality is that my understanding still, in any of our guidelines, as well as the Secretary of interior standards that we follow. Cematicia siding is still not something that has been updated or approved and is discouraged in those guidelines. So that's the one material I would like to have a brief conversation about, simply because

[99:14] a few places I think it's been approved. But it's not really something we've addressed head on. But, Ronnie, if you might be willing to get that conversation, have a brief conversation about that. I want to give Kurt an opportunity before we do that, to share anything. Thank you. And I agree largely with what other people said. I think that this is overall a great project. I think that it will be minimally visible from the street. It seems, like many of the renderings actually were from an elevated position that made it more visible in order to be able to see it. But in reality, W. Certainly, when you're next to the building, you won't see it even on the other side of the street. I think it will be very minimally visible. So i i i think that that all makes it consistent with the standards and with the design guidelines in terms of the materiality. When I was on landmarks board we struggled with this question of 5 siding, and our determination at that time was that it was an acceptable material.

[100:22] My feeling is, it's although it's kind of inspired by wood. It's nobody actually mistakes fiber cement for wood or wood for fiber cement, and to me it's a little bit like asbestos shingle siding, which was again sort of inspired by wood. But you look at asbestos shingle siding, and you're like that's as best as shingle side. You can tell it from 100 feet away, right? So so I don't think it's a big deal, but I would not have any objection to the fibers of insighting if I were to be voting on this. Thank you.

[101:00] Thanks, Kurt, and before I wanna see if Ronnie will start, the discussion about the materials is cause. It seems like 2 of us are a little more interested in it. John and Chelsea seem to have shared some flexibility. With that I would be remiss, that even though I had such a positive reaction to such an elegant you know proposal that really did seem to try to adhere to the guidelines. I do think it meets the criteria, and I think that's important. Just not that I thought it was cool. I did find that it met the criteria as staff identified and called out and agree with their findings. So. Ronnie, are you willing to discuss materials. Sure. Claire, do you mind bringing up the image of the building? And perhaps there's a yeah, you might have a slide. That shows where the materials are being applied.

[102:05] great. Yeah. So I'm not sure exactly how to address this, Abby. Other than you know. I know that the intent of the material language in terms of simulated wood and simulated materials in the guidelines is purposeful, and it is really about the authenticity of the materials and the application of materials in traditional manners on buildings. and personally, and and I know that we, you know, are usually reviewing residential buildings that are exclusively residential. That's not to say that those residential buildings don't have masonry on them, cause they often do but I think that there is a more direct understanding of

[103:02] the ways in which those buildings and their materiality convey the construction method. I think this is pretty darn unique in that the wedding cake. like reduced footprint on the upper floor. Is clearly from contemporary time. and I think that this isn't a building that has other areas in which there are wood elements that are of the character and language of the simulated wood product that's being proposed. I don't think that it would be telling a version of a false history. Which is often the case of the concerns when it comes to all of these character defining architectural elements. And so I think, in this case in particular, because it is such a distinct form on a building that clearly

[104:00] demonstrates a very different construction technique that for me the application criteria of these material. You know. Material regulations, I don't think, apply as directly as they do with their intent in our typical single family, residential historic district reviews. I don't think from the public realm that people will necessarily even see this. I don't think that there is anything that anyone would be distracted from the public realm if they could see it. That has to do with the textured nature of a pressed board, which is another like it's it's it's another step removed from like the true nature of wood. Because wood really doesn't have that grain. That's just a perception. It's usually flat and so I think it has really a minimal impact on the public space and anybody's interpretation or understanding of the history of this building.

[105:07] and so I think in this case I would be willing to approve it. With the current proposal. And John and Chelsea any, any additional comments you'd like to make after. Well, I can. I can say my my statement was, I'm not troubled by issues of materiality in this case. Was what I said I. I I agreed to accept Staff's recommendations. However. if if we loosen those. if we loosen the conditions on materiality, I have no problem with that I I, in terms of the specific material

[106:01] of cementitious board, which is yet to be resolved. where it is being proposed in a lot of cases except on a case-by-case basis. I think that I think that it's a material that we do need to consider more, because in terms of resilience and sustainability. It is a very resilient material that, once applied, is not going to require a lot of upkeep and maintenance, and is going to last a very long time, and it also has a certain amount of fire suppression, quality to it. So it's a good material that we should be looking at. but not as a simulation of other materials so much, but as a material in its own right, the stuff that's being fabricated nowadays better and easier to work with than the original stuff 10 years ago. So

[107:05] it's it's. I think it's a material that we should, especially in a condition like this, where, as Kurt said, from the public realm. It's not going to be immediately apparent. It's up there. It is a different type of construction deliberately from the rest of the building. And so I'm I'm totally okay with that. Claire, will you? Either verbally, or if there's a slide, remind me what Staff's recommendation was just on materials. Yes. Let's see.

[108:00] yeah. We thought that the the vertical siding was not traditional. The use of the stamped wood version of the composite citing was didn't meet the guideline of using authentic materials. and thought that Any, any durable material that was made to look like other material. that was not made to look like other material would be more appropriate. Think that? Was it. Thank you. The piece I'd forgotten was the horizontal versus vertical. So thank you. I knew there was something I couldn't call up immediately Chelsea. Anything you'd like to add.

[109:06] I don't think I have too much to add just that. I agree in these instances for this project. It does make sense to be more flexible. So if folks are amenable to more flexibility, that's what I would support. Can I say one other thing, Abby, before. Please, please. One. I think that Staff made the right recommendation. I'm grateful that Staff made this recommendation because I think it's very clear. And so, you know, Erin, I'm kind of tangling you and your case up with a little bit of our like process here. But I think staff's recommendation is very consistent with the guidelines, and it's consistent with our history of decision making on the board.

[110:02] I think that this is a topic that has come up in the past. and clearly, you know, it's come up during Courts Kurt's tenure on the board, and I think that this topic requires greater discussion. For the reasons that we've been talking about like when is flexibility appropriate? And then how you know fiber, cement, and other materials are becoming more prevalent, not just because of their availability, but maybe because of other longevity and fire. Related. you know, aspects of them. So I'm really grateful that Staff made the Re the recommendation that they did, and I'm sure Aaron's pretty flexible on this. It sounded like he was and so this might be just a little bit more of an academic debate that is still worthy of the talk. But I I think that we need to be careful if we do approve it as is, and qualifying, why, it might be appropriate. Because I think when you read the guidelines directly, that Staff made the right

[111:09] suggestion. It's a very, it's very clear and consistent. But then, again, you know, we're a board that is a decision-making body, and we're looking at guidelines. And so it's not just a red, light green light, you know, we're here to interpret. And so, you know, I I think that there could be flexibility in this case. and I like, I said, I just think we'd have to be very clear if we do provide it. If we don't. I don't think we would be doing any damage to the design of the applicant's design, and I think you know, we would have a clear reason not to, so I'm flexible on this, Abby, what are your thoughts. So here's where I am. I. I'm excited, and I really find this proposal project very compelling, and look forward to when it's completed. I still agree with Staff's recommendations on the materiality

[112:14] on one vote. But I still do think for consistency, and because of being in a historic district, you know, I still would support Staff's condition on that. and and I assume conditions are going to come back to whether we place conditions or this is going to come back to Ldrc. Anyway, since it's not going to get resolved this evening what the final materials are. Sounds good. Sounds like we're ready for a motion.

[113:02] You want to make it Chelsea. Oh, sure. Okay, I move that the landmarks board adopt the staff memorandum, dated July 10, th 2024. As the findings of the board unconditionally approve a landmark alteration certificate to construct an approximately 2,000 square foot, 3rd floor addition and roof duck at 2040 14th Street, a non-contributing building in the downtown historic district. as shown on plans dated January 18, th 2024. Finding that the proposal meets the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate in chapter 9 - 11 to 18 brc. 1981, and is generally consistent with the downtown historic district guidelines and the general design guidelines for boulders, historic districts, and individual landmarks, provided the stated conditions are met. Do I have to read them. I think so, Chelsea, in particular. If you're going to modify it.

[114:04] I don't think we are, though, are we? My my advice is that you don't need to read the conditions. If you're just adopting the motion that has the or adopting the staff memorandum that has the the conditions. Okay? Thank you for saving me. So yeah, so just as as as presented by staff. Do we have a second. I'll second it. Thank you, John. On a motion by Chelsea, seconded by John. We'll do a roll call. Vote Chelsea. Aye. Dawn. Aye. Ronnie. Aye. And I vote aye, so the motion carries unanimously. Erin, you've made our job fairly easy or straight, at least straightforward this evening, and Claire will again go over what the next steps are. After this approval tonight.

[115:07] Yeah. Give me a second to find that. Oh. the wrong way. Okay. alright. So the city council has up to 16 days to decide whether to review. We call it a call-up. The decision, if they do not call that up, the conditions of the lac will be reviewed by the landmarks design review committee, and then, once the conditions are satisfied, the lac will be issued in the in the case that it that the City Council wants to review the decision. We will. We will be in touch and let you know that that's the case. It happens sometimes, but rarely

[116:03] so thank you very much for your time this evening, Erin. Thank you. Thank you so much, Erin. We really appreciate you being here in the quality of your projects and proposals. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, John, I see your hand raised. Yeah, this is for the next case I before you move into that, I'm gonna I am going to have to recuse myself. Okay. Yeah, I'll leave the meeting, and if Claire or Marcy can just shoot me a call when we're done I'll come in for the. And it might be Aubrey. So thank you, John. Yeah. Anybody's welcome to call. Before we move on to agenda. Item 5. See? I just wanted to see if anyone needed a 5 min break.

[117:01] Okay, I'm not seeing an outpouring of cries for a 5 min break. So let's go ahead and begin with agenda. Item 5 C. This is public hearing and consideration of a landmark. Alteration certificate. Application to remove 3 historic windows modify the opening and install 4 windows in the front dormer of the building. At 2130 11th Street. a contributing property in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, pursuant to Section 9, 1118 of the Boulder revised Code 1981, and under the procedures prescribed by Chapter one - 3, quasi-judicial hearings. And, Marcy, are you doing this presentation. I am. Abby, would you like me to repeat the quasi judicial process, or do you feel like we've covered that in the. Like. Previous. I think we've done pretty well with that. So I think we can just start with. I have no ex parte contacts other than seeing this at Ldrc, Chelsea.

[118:08] None for me. John! He's recused himself. Oh, right sorry. Sorry, Johnny. He definitely okay. And Ronnie. None. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Okay, so the criteria for your review of this landmark alteration certificate is found in 9 1118 of the boulder revised code, and that is, whether the proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does not damage or destroy exterior architectural features of the property. that the work does not adversely affect the historic architectural value of the property, that the architecture, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials are compatible with the character of the property, and that the Board considers economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of energy, efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled.

[119:04] The options in front of you this evening are to approve the application, subject to a sixteen-day city council, call up period, deny the request which is subject to a thirty-day council call-up period, or provide the applicant an opportunity to withdraw the application. That's typically if the board is heading towards a denial, the application is then withdrawn and the case is closed. If the board does vote to deny the application, the applicant wouldn't be permitted to apply for the same scope of work for one calendar year. So this application process goes back a couple years, starting in September of 2019, when there was a previous request to alter the building, including modifying the front dormer that was reviewed by the Landmarks Board in September of 2019, and the staff recommendation was to deny the application. The applicant chose to withdraw during the hearing

[120:04] in October of 2020, so about a year later, the applicant submitted a revised design that was conditionally approved by the Ldrc. And the Lac. Was issued. Once final materials were provided in April of 2021 in March of 2024. After that previous Lac. Had expired in march of this year the Ldrc. Reviewed plans that were largely consistent with the 2021 Lac. And the Ldrc. Approved that scope of work, finding that it was generally in in alignment with the design guidelines, with the exception of the modification of the front dormer, and so that portion of the proposal was separated and referred up to the Full board for review in May the applicant submitted a complete application for the Landmarks board hearing this evening, July 10, th

[121:06] so while the majority of this proposal, this project has been reviewed and approved since only a few of the Board members saw it at the Ldrc. I just wanted to put it into context, and to clarify that the whole project includes the following approved scope of work, demolition of an addition at the northeast corner, and construction of a new addition. modification of the attached stone garage, converting that into an addition with a second entrance construction of second floor balconies with metal railings. Addition of the Carport access from the alley, an expansion of the existing rear dormer, the addition of skylights, windows, and doors at the east or rear elevation and rehabilitation of the existing windows. and I think, in the Ldrc. Meetings and the notes, the committee kind of acknowledged the constraints of this site, and provided that flexibility in approving some of these changes that you see on the screen today.

[122:14] So this property is located on the east side of 11th Street, between spruce and pine, and it's in the Mapleton Hill historic district. It's also one block north of the downtown historic district, in a transitional area between the commercial downtown and the residential neighborhood to the north. The house is the only building on the lot, and an alley is located to the south, and a parking lot of a commercial building borders the lot. To an east the building is a 1-story craftsman-style bungalow, and the side gable roof of the house includes overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tales. The full width front porch roof changes the pitch of the main roof only slightly, so that the front porch roof appears to extend from the main roof.

[123:01] The height of the porch wall creates a very narrow opening between the top of the wall and the porch roof, and due to this. The facade of the house is recessed beneath the porch and the roof Dormer becomes the dominant character defining feature of the house. The dormer which you can see in both photos is clad in stucco, with half timbering detailing. There are 3 3 over one double hung windows within the dormer, and the windows are wood, and appear original to the house. The windows are framed by a tapered craftsman, inspired surround. and this detailing is also used at the central centered Louver vent above the windows. Here the property is considered contributing to the character of the Mapleton Hill historic district, and the house retains a high degree of integrity to its original design and materials, including original wood windows. At the facade. The tax assessor image, taken around 1,940 shows the dormer, including the form, pitch, and roof in the as well as its width.

[124:02] and the detailing of its overhanging eaves, rafter tails, trimwork, and stucco, as well as the window, remain unchanged. so the current proposal is to remove the 3 historic windows, modify the opening and install 4 windows in the front Dormer. We separated our analysis into the key site and setting characteristics, including setback orientation, spacing and distance between the buildings. height, form, massing size and scale and then key building elements, including dormers, windows, and doors, and then the materials and detailing. And this is a format we're going to use going forward into the lacs to break it into these different components. For a scope that is like this, we actually don't need to go too far into the site plan, since the Site Plan is changing and the mass scale and location of the dormer isn't changing. So then I will jump to the Key building elements which include dormers, windows and doors, and the solid to void relationship as well as the materials, and detailing.

[125:06] So as you can see on the left hand side. That's the existing design of the dormer. With the 3 existing windows you can see that in the photograph in the top right, and then the proposal is to remove the 3 historic windows, enlarge the opening, and add 4 3 over one windows. The existing pattern is the 3 over one double hung windows with the decorative tapered trim that surrounds all 3 windows, the trim would be recreated around the new opening, and the existing windows are not proposed to be reused, while the height and width of the windows will remain consistent. The addition of one window necessitates enlarging the existing opening and changing the historic window pattern. The proposal to add an additional window is to provide the building to be converted into a duplex, and a fire rated wall is required between units which is shown to meet the dormer wall between 2 of the 4 proposed windows and the applicant provided the

[126:08] floor plan as part of the application materials. We typically don't review interior plan changes, but because this exterior change is driven by a floor plan. Need I think it is central to the discussion. So the proposal. as I mentioned, requires a fire rated wall between units, which is shown to bisect the building, and then it jogs within the dormer to meet. What would be the new window opening in the in the dormer, and information on why the fire rated wall cannot be located if it can jog between the existing windows was not provided in the application materials. So we look at the key design guidelines for the building elements and the Mapleton Hill historic district guidelines

[127:02] state that the window opening itself should be carefully preserved. It should not be made larger or smaller to accommodate a different size window. It continues that preserve original window locations do not move windows from their historic placement. and if through the window and door application survey, it is determined that the window may be replaced. The window opening itself should be carefully preserved. It should not be made larger or smaller to accommodate a differently sized window. Moving then to materials, and detailing the materials proposed to the new windows are wood with a 3 over one pattern and double hung operation in simulated wood, divided lights. The finish is proposed to match the existing, which is a medium brown paint, and the trim would be recreated, though the materiality wasn't specified in the application. The general design. Guidelines put a great emphasis on windows, particularly at the front of a building, and so it reads. The location of the windows proposed for replacement is important in assessing their significance to a historic building.

[128:10] In general, the more important the elevation where the window is located, the less likely that retrofit or replacement will be appropriate. Elevations will be categorized as primary, secondary or tertiary, using the methodology set out in the window and door replacement survey replacement of intact historic windows on primary elevations is rarely appropriate, and as this is the facade of the building, this is a primary facade. The design guidelines continue that snap in mullions or other unauthentic architectural details, are generally not appropriate in the historic district. and retain and preserve existing historic windows, including their functional and decorative features, such as frames, glass sashes, muntons, sills, heads, molding surrounds, and hardware, because windows near the facade are particularly critical to the character of historic buildings. Their protection may supersede the protection of historic windows elsewhere.

[129:09] So, in addition to the design guidelines, both the general design guidelines and the Mapleton Hill design guidelines. The criteria for review is also the code criteria found in 9 - 1118. And so we'll go through those. Does the proposed application preserve, enhance, or restore, and not damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the landmark or subject property within a historic district and staff considers that the proposed work does destroy exterior architectural features of the contributing building by removing 3 historic windows and modifying the original window pattern on the facade. due to the prominence of the changes to character, defining features on the facade of a contributing building. The proposed work will adversely affect the historic character of the property

[130:00] and staff considers that the proposed. Architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, and materials are not compatible with the historic character of the property as it alters the original design of the craftsman, bungalow house. and so staff considers that the proposal does not meet the code criteria in that the window opening is not preserved, that changing the window pattern on the facade alters character, defining features of a contributing building. and that the replacement of intact historic windows on the primary elevation is inappropriate as it comprises it, compromises the historic integrity of the building. So with that staff recommends that the Landmarks board deny the application for the Lac to remove the 3 historic windows modify the opening and install 4 windows in the front dormer of the building at 2130 11th Street. and we've have the findings on the screen. If you'd like to reference those.

[131:04] and with that I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Do any board members have questions of Marcy at this point. I don't see or hear any marcy. So I have a question. Sure go. Oh, I was just so. The dormer is. Yeah, I'm just trying to see. But the so the structure is the same. It's just the window openings that will be different. - File. Okay. Thank you. And Marcy before we go to the applicant presentation. Would you be kind enough to go back to slide 1 16 just because it refreshes my memory of the changes that have already been approved. And to look at this more. Okay, there's the left is existing.

[132:12] Write as proposed. Okay, that that helps me, because I know there have been a lot of things already approved and moving forward. So I wanted to say, context. Sure, and this slide has more detail with both the East and the west elevations. But I'm happy to go through. The the overall changes here, and I think the maybe the point here is that historic buildings change. They continue to change, and our review is really how it changes over time. And so the Ldr. Assumed that the majority, the vast majority of the proposal, did meet the design guidelines, and was something that was approved, but that changing a character. Defining feature right on the front of the house didn't meet the design guidelines, and since the Ldrc. Doesn't deny applications, they can either approve it, or refer it up to the full board. That brings us to the Full Board's consideration in this hearing this evening.

[133:16] Well. And the other thing that's unique is that with John's recusal and 3 board members present. that it takes 3 board members to move forward on any motion unanimous. correct. Yes, and chris Reynolds from the city attorney's office is here to help us navigate if we get into a situation where the board doesn't have 3 votes to make to take action. Okay, thank you for that reminder. No, this just told me. I just wanted to. I know I've seen this. I'm excited about things that have already been approved. So now we'd like to invite the applicant for their 10 min.

[134:05] Oops! And I don't know if it's if it's both Kate and Carrie speaking. I believe Kate is going to present, and Aubrey is promoting you. There we go. Hi, Kate, welcome it. And Kate, once you can hear me, and you're welcome to turn on your camera. I will need to swear you in, and you can state your full name for the record before your 10 min commences. Okay. Yes, and I am Kate Leggett from Esa architects, Gary Whitman. Hi! Welcome, ladies! And then, both of you. I'd like you to raise your hands and swear to tell the Board the full truth. and you may. Yeah. Tell the full truth. Where. thank you, you may proceed.

[135:01] Go to start, sure, and I don't. If Aubrey or Claire, I don't know who might thank you. So where you just heard from Marcy on the 2130 11th Street project. If you can go to the next slide, please. Overall, I Marcy is given a great account of where the property is what the project entails. I think we can. Probably these are renderings just site plan locations next slide, please. Similar. These are the elevations that we had submitted as part of the Dormer only change also, Abby showing those previously approved just in a different orientation. We are here presenting, for as Marcy had outlined the change to the windows. as outlined in your report, this project has gone through. Currently it's on its 5th year of moving through the process, trying to come up with a solution for

[136:08] this location, which is actually in the Rh. 2 Zone district for zoning separate from your historic look at it. But in in general this building itself does not meet. It is a nonconforming use on multiple levels in its location for its size, its parking, its orientation. Setbacks. It does not meet barely any of these requirements, and we will be moving forward with the zoning process next. As part of that, and we are have looked. And Carrie, previous to my involvement, has looked at this Dormer trying to find a way to accommodate the zoning the building requirements, as Marcy has outlined, to separate these 2 units with that fire separation well.

[137:02] and provide a space that is functional, and provides a nice living arrangement. So one of those pieces in in there are in this presentation. In some of these next slides there were other options that were looked at for the dormer, and we received the feedback at regarding how important the dormer was have backed in, you know, backed up. We have kept the dormer same size, same size. It will have the same trim work. We will leave all of the detailing. We will be reusing or replicating the trim windows. and then the windows where this orientation comes in with changing it to 4, has to do with the usable space behind it. That allows the fire separation wall. It does have to jog inside, but it can come in between the the 4 windows. So right in the center, allowing the spaces behind it. To have a more functional space, because, as you see, the dormer, because of the pitch

[138:08] the tallest, most usable spaces in the center. So making sure we have that usable this dormer can be as functional as possible. Really, just also for suggestions. You know, we just don't know what to do. Go ahead if you go to the next slide, please. and that's in this plan. You can kind of see the spaces where someone would be standing. The shower, the toilet, the vanities, are all in the center, which is at the top of the gable of that dormer where people have the most amount of space they'll be able to utilize. Look out the windows and just trying to make it functional next slide. So these are just a few examples of other dormers in the Mapleton Hill area. That were, you know, going? No, no, I'm just saying we're bigger. Go ahead. Yeah. Just had some other ways that they were arranged on different types of houses around Boulder.

[139:11] also having the craftsman detailing at just a different type like the center picture, allowing for 4 windows. The roof does have a shed element to it. just trying to find a way to try different options. And if we go to the next slide, we can look at a couple of these other options that Harry had looked at in this process as well. So on these next alternative dormer options. We're really. we had. Yeah, essentially, we've gotten to a point where we have tried to do a limited change. We're really trying to limit what we're doing, keep as much integrity as we can. Understanding that the 4 windows, instead of 3, helps with the functionality here. So if on the next 3 slide or 5 slides, you're gonna see some of the other multiple options that have been looked at that have not been presented. You know, we're just

[140:09] trying to find a solution, and we really appreciate the Board's time in taking a look at this and your consideration and your feedback as to what might be the best direction, as it applies to what you are looking at. In consideration of this being a restricted area, nonconforming already, not only from landmarks perspective, but from the other portions of the planning and building department we're going to have to go through. So yeah, go ahead. Yeah. If so these other options were just things that we threw out there, and I and again I like the dormer. I I like the way the dormer is. I just don't know how to lay out to site a duplex it like this. So if not, then I have to go all the way back and redesign everything

[141:04] so that I'm just here for advice. Suggestions. i i i don't know what else to do. The I appreciate all the stuff that has been approved. It's super exciting, and I love love love it. But I just don't know what else to do, and as far as the windows go. I love the windows. I'm happy to keep the windows, but the windows are in such bad shape. I have no choice other than to make them look exactly the same, but do new windows. Some of the ones on the bottom floor are in good shape, so those will be kept but those dormer windows are very, very, very bad. And do you want to talk about some of these other dormer options? Yeah, I was just trying to figure out a way. I just put it in autocad, and just tried to figure out a way that we could put that firewall in the middle, and I went all over Mapleton Hill and went kind of crazy. So I just decided, okay, well, let's try 2 on one side and 2 on the other, and then there's room for the firewall, and it still looks good that one does change the size a little bit on the right.

[142:09] So you can go to the next one next slide. Oh, there you are. Sorry. Yeah. Then I said, Okay, well, let's try to. Since I'm turning it into a duplex. I I was literally just throwing paint on the wall to see what would stick. Take the continuation of the original dormer, add another dormer, center it over the bottom windows. I think it lays out really nice, especially for a duplex. Again, these are just solutions I don't have like a problem with the dormer. I just don't know how to make it work. Go ahead to go to the next slide. Is that the same one? Yeah. Yeah. So that that was pretty much it. I think one of them was a little bit bigger. Oh, we had the shed, too. Yeah. And then, after seeing the place on.

[143:05] because on spruce and 8, the one that was in the middle of the pictures. I saw that there was a shed roof there with 4 windows. So then, that inspired me to throw this in there. I I just don't know how else to make the the firewall work. So I'm really just here for suggestions. Otherwise I have to redesign everything and come up with something else. Go ahead. Oh, yeah. And then that one was same kind of idea. Also, the view is really good there. So I'm like, Well, I'll just throw it against the wall. See if it sticks. I love that that each side gets a beautiful view of the flatirons. But this is also another larger shed roof. Just another idea. I know it. It's yeah. That's good. It's just different, just trying to. Yeah, we just don't know what else to do. We both are putting our heads against the wall going. What are we gonna do is that the last one next, there's 1 last slide.

[144:08] So in in conclude that, sorry, that's it. Oh, that's the one. Go back one, please. Yeah. We just are trying. Carrie is looking to. Oh, sorry. The just the list. Yes. Wants to proceed to provide these necessary updates the tlc, that this house needs at, especially at this point. In conjunction with the restrictions on the Rh. 2 zoning that are in place. Meeting the building code for that fire separation wall and trying to find the middle ground between all 3 of these pieces, the landmarks, the zoning, and the building requirements, and we appreciate your time and your consideration of this, and would really also appreciate any and all feedback. Yes, suggestions. Great. Thank you. And ladies, I need to tell you. You just came in beautifully at 10 min, according to my little timer at home so well done. And you know, I think you know this, Carrie, that we also come back to applicants with an additional 3 min, as well as any questions from board members. So our next step is public participation. But prior to that, I want to see if Ronnie or Chelsea has any questions for either of you right now.

[145:34] I'm not, Ronnie. No, okay. None for me. Okay. thank you. And I don't think Chelsea has any at this point, either. So we will move on to public participation for this agenda item and Aubrey for the last time this evening. Do you see anyone who's raised their hand, or anyone on the phone who has pressed Star 9 to speak to this.

[146:06] We do have one hand raised. It is Fran Mendel sheets. so just give me one moment. Hi! Again! Randy, what I'm gonna ask you to start off with. I'm sorry I didn't hear you. Fran, be sure you swear yourself in one last time this evening. Thank you. I swear to tell the truth. nothing but the truth. and my name is Fran Mandel Sheets. It seems to historic boulder that the Ldrc. And Board have been remarkably flexible with the changes that have been approved on this highly intact house. In a really important district. Therefore, the proposed changes, the

[147:05] we felt, do not really meet the design guideline standards, and I will say, just as a side that all windows can be rehabbed. Historic boulder agrees with staff recommendations that this is not compatible with the city standards, and in denying this application, for all the reasons that are listed in the packet, and that's it. Nutshell. Thanks a lot. You guys. Thank you, Fred and Aubrey. I'll give you a moment to see if there are additional people wishing to speak to this. Alright. I don't see any other hands raised. If anyone in the virtual audience would like to speak, please raise your hand

[148:10] all right. I think we're okay to move on. Thank you, Aubrey. We will close public participation for agenda. Item 5 C. And then Carrie and Kate, you do have an additional 3 min. If there's anything you'd like to add before we bring it back to board deliberations. I guess just I just would love any suggestion from any board members. We've just really kind of we. There's I just don't know what to do, as far as if we're gonna turn this there. I just there's just I don't know how to put a firewall in between those 2 units and give more space and more housing. So I just the main thing I want is just suggestions. I appreciate everything that's been approved. But it's this house is, you know, not very intact. Contrary to

[149:05] what? Aubrey just said, it is, Fran. I'm sorry, Fran. Sorry. No, it just is not very intact at all. It's it's a big, big, big project. It's so. It has never been maintained. It is a mess. And I am more than happy to people. Consent I've had my James had given me like 3 James. He would give me like 3 different window people that came over to look at this, and I think I submitted that back a long time ago. And the upstairs normal windows, they said, there's no way they can do them. They are a mess, so I'm happy to use them if they can do them. It's great, you know. So that's just kind of where I'm at. I just kind of don't know what to do. If not, I've got to go back and redesign, and I've got, as you guys know other projects going on? And do I just let it sit there and figure it out? i i i don't know. So I would love any type of communication from

[150:01] any suggestions you have anything else to say. No, that's it. Really. I'm under my 3 min. Okay, well, thank you, ladies, and and we might come back to you with questions. in a moment. So now and and there are 3 of us. Considering this Ronnie Chelsea and myself. I don't know if Ronnie or Chelsea would like to kick it off this evening. Can I? Just before we get started? can we just hear very briefly about what happens if we don't all agree. Great question, thank. So to take any sort of action. You need unanimity here, cause you need 3 3 votes for for either denial or approval. so I would I would. I would advise trying to come to a unanimous decision, because if you can't.

[151:03] if you can't, then we probably have to redo this with additional board members. Let's. So, Chris, and sorry to interrupt you, Chelsea Chris, I mean we'll see where we are with a board decision. Is this a hearing that could be continued. We probably we would probably need to redo the hearing because we brought additional board members in. They would need to be presented with evidence. Okay, okay? They then, right? Because they weren't at this one. Thank you. So Chelsea, does that answer your initial question? Yeah, yeah, I just before we, I thought it'd be helpful to know that before we get into it. Yeah. And I don't know if anyone wants to jump in. Sure I can jump in

[152:03] Carrie and Kate. Carrie, you've been at this for a long time, and I really respect your tenacity. and you know your ability to endure a process that is complicated. I think you have a great project on your hands. so I would hate to see you give it up. Don't want you to give it up. You you're doing a good job. You're gonna have something that is that is really wonderful. I know that every time you've come to these meetings you've been very open and willing to hear, and I you know, compliment you for that as well. So this is unfortunately in. It's unfortunately pretty clear for me. That it's not allowed. I wouldn't agree to be able to put the 4 windows on the front of this, for all the reasons that staff included in the report and

[153:02] the history and the consistency of the application of those guidelines. and I know that you are trying to solve this, too. And so I'd be up for talking a little bit about solutions and trying to understand the problem in a little bit in greater detail. And I feel like we should do that if there's time and opportunity to but I agree with Staff's recommendation, and maybe before we maybe before I go into some problem solving mode we should hear from Abby and Chelsea. Thank you, Ronnie Chelsea. Well, I actually don't agree with Ronnie. I I look at this proposal and the original building, and it reminds me of those

[154:01] children's magazines where you're asked to see the differences between the 2 like to me the difference it evokes. You know, the main structural elements are exactly the same, and I do not think that it detracts from the historic significance of the home to have that 4th window. I think if you you showed a lot of other photos of nearby homes that have those dormers. They have 4 windows. I just. I don't think anyone will notice. I don't think it detracts from the significance. And And I also know that when we talk about the guidelines, it says in the guidelines like this is not meant to be a checklist. And so I think that's why we have a board. If it was just a checklist, then we wouldn't need as a board to be here reviewing this application. And I think this is one of those situations where we're taking one Gargantuan house and making it into 2 that provides more housing and more in theory, more affordable housing, since they're smaller units, and

[155:13] to me, having 4 windows in the same dormer as opposed to 3, just doesn't detract from the significance of the home, so I will not be supporting the staff recommendation. I think it should be approved thick. Thank you, Chelsea and you know I do appreciate the photos of the other homes that ha! Some had 4 windows in their Dormer, but I don't know if that was originally there. If it's an evolution of a house, if what historically was there? So you know, I I think that I am in alignment with Ronnie, and will be supporting Staff's recommendation, and one of the most compelling things to me. I mean, on one hand. It seems simple. Yeah, why can't we just do that?

[156:06] I think that that it comes down to the details. And I think that what's most compelling to me is that on the 1st floor there are 2 sets of windows triplets, you know, there's 3. So so it's like introducing a whole new element, whereas, if there were like maybe 2 sets of windows on each side of the front door, or whatever and and I know that Ronnie, as an architect may already have a couple of creative things. I I understand why you want to do it. And I I think it makes sense. It sounds like you want 2 story duplexes versus, you know, one duplex on each level, and and my best guess would be that would be to take advantage of our fabulous mountain views.

[157:00] you know I I also know there are some people we're living on on one level is very appealing, too. But I will be supporting Staff's recommendation. Again, I can't speak to the other great examples you showed us, because I don't know if that was always there, historically, or modifications over a a home's life. So It looks like Ronnie might be ready to say something, and then, of course, we will give Kurt a chance to share his thoughts. Sure. okay, I guess I just just 1 1 thing again about the applicant. I think. Carrie, you guys do a great job with compatible design. Thank you. Like you could design a new building in the historic district and check and just do it right, like, I'm confident, based on what I see here, like you can do a great compatible design building. And so the options that you were showing on the front elevation that's like a dormer, an enlarged dormer, a shed dormer, a pair of dormers, and then also the sourcing of information, which is.

[158:14] what do dormers look like in the area? And how do dormers interact with Major Gables? You know? What's their knee wall height. What's the pitch like you guys are doing that and and even presenting tonight, like there's dormers out there with 4 windows in it, and I'm sure there's dormers out there with one window in it. But that's not really well, 1st of all, that's a compliment. and then second and then second, it's also a little bit of like, not what we're doing right now. And I know that you know that. But I'm just saying it because I think that the the references are really good. But if you start with the biggest principle of the building. It's about the massing and the massing, for this building is its roof forms, and then the things that are happening below it. Which is this like heavier base, and the porch elements and the columns. And then it's the detailing of that. But if you look just specifically at the roof form, you would say, the most character defining piece of this roof form after, like the major gable, is that Dormer?

[159:19] And I know you know that, too. Cause you're like we're not gonna change the Dormer after those elements. We talk about the openings in the building and the most perceived opening in the building is this triple window. And so it's like, kind of like hierarchically, the most recognizable window you're proposing something that is very compatible. And I agree with Chelsea. It's not like necessarily going to ruin the building. But it is the most character defining window in the building. There might be other windows on secondary elevations or tertiary elevations, as we've done with you that are more easy to change. But this is like the primary window.

[160:15] So I think if we were to. If if if I could be of help, it would be to talk about design solutions that might keep the windows where they are, cause. I think that's what you're hearing from staff and I think that that is very consistent with the way in which we have applied. You know the interpretation of these guidelines. The other thing is housing yay, more housing. People need housing small houses. There's the guts to the building, and yes, this isn't a debate about whether or not 2 units is the right thing, or 4 units is the right thing, or one big unit is the right thing, right? Like where that's not what this is about.

[161:08] And and so I think the design components related to your goals are something that we can talk about, and I'd be willing to look at that a little bit, and I don't know if there's room to do it. But there's like just some obvious questions about space making and the fire rating complexity, and whether or not it's it's doable to keep 3 windows, because I think I think it might be, and I don't think it's a total revamp. I would hope it's not. But those are my thoughts on some of the topics that have come up. Thanks, Ronnie. I'm going to look to Kurt to see if he'd like to add anything. Sure, and it sounds like there's a split on the board, so I probably won't get into those details. But it's not clear to me why, the firewall can't just

[162:01] well. Why, the center window can't just be closed off on the inside, and then the firewall goes up to that so it would no longer be. You know it would, it would appear the same from the outside. It would no longer be a window. But That would be where I would suggest at least looking into. So that's all I have to add. Thank you. Thank you, Kurt. So, Ronnie, were you thinking of taking a few minutes to share some ideas? What? Or have you even gotten to a place to say like how we could. Sure. I mean we we could talk about it if you if the everybody thinks that's an appropriate thing, I mean, we'd have to pull the plan up and take a look. And then I could ask some questions. because I think it's a plan driven question. Okay? So the overall width of the

[163:02] Bay is 15 foot 4. Is that correct? Is what what the overall width is. 15 foot 4. Yeah. And so do you. How wide? I mean, I think that this is a plan driven? Question right like, is there a bathroom solution. If the bathroom stay here, in which you can get a demising wall to jog because your current demising walls jogging and hit one of the structural members between existing windows. That's kind of like the primary thing. I'm sure you guys have looked at this. Why, why doesn't it? Why doesn't that work. It comes right into the middle of the window. Can I? Can? I just say one thing, Ronnie, real quick. Sorry. Just so basically. I'm gonna keep one of these and sell one of these right. If I I've spoken to every realtor from Tim Goodacre, who I went to high school with to Bill Goodacre to digger to everybody, and for the amount of money that I have to put into this building to get it in a good place, because it is not in a good place.

[164:17] They all are saying to at least get. you know, some of my money back for the you know, 2 and a half, 2 million dollars I'm gonna have to spend economically. The 3 floors is is a better sale. I'm keeping one, and I'm selling one. and that's where I'm having a hard time. I've laid it out on one floor, 2 floors, 3 floors. I've laid it out on one floor on the bottom. We have them here and 2 on the top, doing 2 units like that and a economically. I don't know that it would make sense, and we have done. Sorry to an not to an not answer. Your question, is there? We tried to jog it over, and then also, Kurt, like, you know. Can you just put it up right into the window? But on the outside I don't know how that's gonna look good. If the dormer is supposed to be a amazing element. You're gonna look up and 2 are gonna have light going through. And the middle one's gonna be dark.

[165:18] Which I think as a designer. I don't think that would look good. I also want the aesthetics of the outside to look good. I I don't want, you know, to see a a wall in front of a window, or one is blacked out. Or you know, I just think it's gonna look weird. So what what did you wanna jump in real quick? I I what would you? I mean, would you all? What is your opinion on that? If one of the windows was, had a solid wall behind it visually. Is that a an acceptable solution for landmark. Oh, gosh! I I mean I that would not. We should talk to Staff a little bit about that. That's not the solution I would pursue, even as the owner of the building, because you already have limited windows sort of like cover a window. And then there's a fire rating question you'd have to build, literally build a wall

[166:12] so that you could fire rate. I'm assuming the interior face of that wall and then bring it out to the point of the termination of fire rating. So it it it wouldn't be what I would suggest. You do so. But let me let me ask the question. Why can't you lay the bathrooms out with the windows in their current location? We're not talking about, you know, reconfiguring all the floors we're just saying. leave the windows where they are. and let the fire rated wall terminate into one of the structural members in between windows because you got 15. You almost have 15 and a half feet on the exterior right? A typical bathtub, and I'm not, or a shower, or whatever. But bathtub is a 5 foot dimension, and I know you're doing something that's more luxury. So I'm not suggesting you use the minimum. But it seems like you, if even if you kept the tub in front of a window that you might have room for that

[167:16] we'd have to see it. And Ronnie, and what we were looking at with that if and this kind of comes back to the the discussion about the Dormer pitch itself. So if you, we can't jog to the right any further because of the entry door on the floor below. This sits almost right where that toilet is. So we and the door cannot be moved. Historic. We you guys have already said that moving the door before with you guys, it, it has to stay, so that means the demising wall can't jog to the right. It would have to jog to the left, and as we go, if you can picture going. Call it a foot. maybe 14 to 16 inches

[168:01] past the center line where we are. Currently, if we're trying to get in the middle of the, or to have 2 windows on the right and one window on the left. We, the the slope of the roof, is creating a space that I I don't know how we would use it if you if you picture standing under it the floor level and where the pitch of the roof is coming in. You're gonna get to that point where you're standing with your head against the the pitch of the roof. So it it becomes a less usable space. It probably wouldn't be best for a shower we wouldn't want to put a sink on the outside wall. So that's where the struggle came in. Is, what? How do you utilize it in this in as a bathroom. when you're you're essentially pinching it into the pitch of the roof and the short demand or short edge wall of the dormer. Right, do you? Can you? I mean, I know that we're getting into the details on this. But can you?

[169:03] Sorry! Hold on! My screen went blank. Here. And not. You. Your pulp. Ask your question, and then I want to look to Marcy and Chris to see if this is appropriate. To continue this conversation a little further, or if we're veering into something that with 3 of us weighing in on something and a potential another hearing, I just want advice from either of you when and where you feel it's appropriate. Yeah, thanks. so you know, I think if if there's a kind of a quick factual question to ask applicants during deliberations. that is okay, cause we want the board to make decisions based off good information. But from my perspective, what's happening here are are the applicants are basically like participating in the deliberations. And it's more of a back and forth conversation and a brain brainstorming session which isn't really

[170:02] appropriate for deliberations. You know, like. How how big is this? That's 1 thing, whereas, like. let's have a exchange of ideas that's more of participating in deliberation. So I'd say the Board is kind of in not not great legal territory. Right now, in terms of you know, complying with the rules, the the board deliberations should be amongst board members and not really anyone else. But but it's okay for a factual question. I I just right, because it did start feeling to me, which is what I love about Ldrc. And the collaborative nature. I just wanted guidance on that. Ronnie. Does that help you with? I know you had another question or suggestion. I mean doesn't help me very much. But in the sense that I'm gonna start asking the questions like this, you see that orange arrow. How big is this.

[171:00] That seems factual. Yeah, that's what I'm going for. Proportionally it could be. If the whole thing is 16 feet across. call it 3 and a half, 4, 4 and a half, maybe. and then the structure of the roof, you know, is down with the insulation for the roof, so it kind of comes off the corner of the window. But again, I don't want to. Oh, it does! Doesn't want us to get into. Well, are you saying the ceiling cuts off the corner of this window. It. No, no, it doesn't cut off the window, but it's it's just above it, because it has the roof. Insulation. So it's it's very proximal to the window itself. It. I think it's up just slightly. It ha! I don't have the measurements in front of me, Ronnie. Sorry. Okay. Okay. Well. I think I I don't know if I have other. Can you go to the plan for a second?

[172:02] I want you to be successful. Hopefully, it's okay for me to say that. And so I I'm you know. I I would like for us to have a solution that you could go away with and feel great about. I'm not sure how the vote is gonna play out, because I have kind of heard from the straw poll that it sounds like 2 of us agree with Staff, and if we and and one of us does not. so there's something that might continue to happen here. I still believe in Staff's recommendation. and I'm very hopeful about what I see here, and that I believe you could find a solution that meets your objective and still complies with preservation scores without redoing

[173:02] all of your project. It's just I I think it would require running through a handful of plan, option scenarios. And, Kate, I know that you you're capable of doing all that like. Clearly, you've put this building plan together. It just. I think I think it might require a little bit of thought and additional thought and creativity, and perhaps redesigning the layout of the bathrooms. So yeah, I would love to give you more information. But you know, you've heard already that we've kind of gone a little further than we normally do. Yeah, I know. And that's the challenge, because we we love when we can have the dialogue. But I know it's not appropriate when we're in our deliberations, and it just it feels kind of like we're truncating everything. But you know, we also have to abide by by

[174:00] the meeting rules and procedures. so I go ahead. Chelsea. Well. So just in terms of the options for them. I feel terrible that they've been through so many processes around this project. And I'm really disappointed that this can't find a way to be approved. But would it if they were to withdraw? Cause they basically would, I predict, is that the the likelihood because John is recused. it would. Even if Rene supported the project, it would still be a 2 to 2

[175:00] vote, and so I'm wondering to save everyone time if it makes more sense to withdraw this. I don't know if you can withdraw just this element of the project. Because I feel like that. Make would make more sense from a time efficiency standpoint. then to bring it back with one other person, and then the best case scenario. It's 2 to 2. So I just wanna discuss potential options before we move forward. That's a great question. the the and Chris can correct me and or Marcy about if they and this is, I think the last thing they have with the the major rehabilitation of this property if they can withdraw. I I think I've got to just be very honest at this point. I think this could be the maybe 3rd board that has looked at this dormer and changing the windows or changing the dormer. So so

[176:09] I don't know what the path would be coming back again with. With this, you know, with the 4 windows. It would give them time to maybe explore the interior layout, but as this has transpired over what 5, 6 years now I I know other boards have also turned this down. but. The but the whole. The rest of the project is approved. Right? Right, I'd say 90. 0, Carrie, I'm terrible at math, but you know, I think 90 of the requests have been approved. At the Ldrc, so I'm really gonna have Chris and Marcy help with this, because not only are there just 3 of us right now hearing this, but I also know this has been presented, maybe in slightly different iterations. But before you know, some current Board members, some former board members.

[177:08] maybe I don't know if it ever was before a group where none of us was on the board. But, Marcy, am I making sense what I'm trying to articulate. I believe so, but I missed. If you had a question in there for me. I don't. I? I think of what your Chris, what I'd like to know if there is a recommendation to withdraw, and what that really means. So. From the fact. It's been here before. Yeah. So the rest of the project has a a landmark alteration certificate that's issued. So this isn't holding up. You know the rest of the project, and so, in terms of offering the chance to withdraw. That means the applicant could reapply for a similar proposal in the future. In the next year, if and it sounds like

[178:08] that's 1 option. It doesn't sound like there's a vote with 3 or a motion with 3 votes this evening to take action, so I think the other other option would be continuing the hearing until the 4th member is back. But to Chelsea's point that could still be a split vote without action. So, Chris, you might step in and add anything. Yeah, there's there. There is the option to ask the mayor to appoint a former board member. for that hearing, so that we wouldn't necessarily have a time. So there'd be 5 board members. John's recusal, and that actually, I have been to a landmarks board meeting eons ago, where? Where a former landmarks board member did attend and did vote.

[179:05] I'm yeah. If I were the applicant, I don't know if I'm allowed to say this, but I think I think with drawing this at this point would probably be your best. and and trying to figure out how to it sounds like these 3 windows are very important. So so I think I think, withdrawing and trying to come back with a way to preserve those windows is your most efficient and like best use of your time to make this happen. That would be my recommendation. Right, because, without having a motion and taking a vote it it the consensus seems to be. There'd be 2 who would support Staff's recommendation one person that wouldn't. So no, you know, we couldn't

[180:03] take any action either way. So Marcy and Chris, does that make sense. Does it make sense. So, yeah. Work. To to give the applicants an opportunity to withdraw. I think. That I mean that is, that's that is part of the Board's historical practice. so I'm not. Gonna it's you know what the applicants do is completely up to them. So. So let me let me just jump in because I think they're talking about it. I think we're giving the applicants an opportunity to withdraw, and I'm sure that they're talking about that trying to figure out if that's the smart thing to do, if they choose not to withdraw. Do we have to put a vote? And do we have to prove that we don't have a quorum. I I would recommend somebody making a motion for approval or denial, and then taking a vote, and then, if we're not, if the magic number of 3 is not reached. Then I would recommend somebody making a motion to continue the hearing until we can have an additional board members.

[181:18] Do we offer them an opportunity to withdraw first? st Or at what point do we offer that. The applicants can choose to draw at any time. Okay, I, just say. The board, taking action, which would be. Okay. Reaching that number of 3. Right. Are we working? So I think. Required to to make the vote in order to request a continuance. I'm sorry. Can you say that again. Are we required to take the vote in order to, you know, have the continuance. I mean, that would just be the cleanest way. It would demonstrate the reason.

[182:01] Yeah. Just to move to continue the hearing for the so that we can have an additional at least one additional board member per. Perhaps too. Okay. Are we done with discussions, or should we offer them the opportunity to withdraw. I think we offered it already. So. I think they heard us. Yeah, I I don't know. Do I have to make that decision right now? No. Yeah. Because we can. We can move forward with the continuance, and you can withdraw at any time. So it's kind of a little consequence, as far as I understand. So I would like to make a motion. Chris, is that cool. He! You! You can make any motion at any time that you want. But I would. before moving to continue, I would

[183:00] recommend voting on the staff proposed motion. Yep. Just so that we can demonstrate the the that we don't have any sort of a the map, like the the number 3. Yeah. That's my motion. I move that the Landmarks board adopt the staff memorandum, dated July 10, th 2024 is the findings, and deny the application for a landmark alteration certificate to remove 3 historic windows, modify the opening, and install 4 windows in the front dormer of the building. At 2130 11th Street. a contributing property in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, pursuant to Section 9, 1118 of the Boulder revised Code 1981, as shown on plans received May 13, th 2024. Finding that the proposal does not meet the standards for issuance of the landmark alteration certificate in chapter 9, 1118 brc. 1981, and is generally inconsistent with the Mapleton Hill historic guidelines and the general design guidelines for

[184:00] you guys, your faces are all on the way. Oh. boulders, historic district, and individual landmarks got it. I second that. So on a motion by Ronnie, seconded by me, we'll take a roll call. Vote Chelsea. No. Ronnie. I hear? Yes. And I vote aye, so the motion is fails, because it's 2 to one. And then I will move to continue the hearing. Chris, is there anything else that I need to describe in that motion? I would say I would move my recommended motion, be I, I move to continue the hearing to the next regularly scheduled landmarks board meeting. I move to continue the meeting to the next regularly scheduled Landmarks board meeting.

[185:00] I second that we'll take a roll call. Vote Chelsea. They would if I don't vote. Yes. You don't, you don't? Oh, my goodness. I just genuinely curious. What happens. Then that motion fails and no action is taken. Tonight is my understanding, Chris. Well, We are in the middle of a motion right now. So But but if children. So there's so there's there's the. There's the cleanest way to do something, and then there's other ways of doing something. So if the board didn't move to continue the hearing. I think the hearing would actually be continued, because it hasn't been closed, and so it's gonna be open until the next landmarks board, hearing, regardless of whether or not there's a formal motion that's approved by our landmarks board members. But the reason why I'm asking recommending and advising

[186:05] that the board move to continue it is is that is the cleanest way forward. Otherwise I think it continues. by a operation of law. Chelsea. Does that answer your question? Yes. it does. I'm just deciding e. I I just don't with it with only 4 board members. I think the outcome would. It would be that the applicants withdraw. and so I guess I don't see the point. Well, I, why are you making that assumption.

[187:02] Yeah. Because I wouldn't be supporting it. If Rene doesn't support it. It's tied. If she does support it. The project is denied, and the applicants would withdraw. That's the process. I mean. No, I know. So I'm just saying. yeah. So I'm just trying to save us all time. But I guess I've not so. Like. Take it that it's continued by a matter of law, regardless. Yeah, that's why, yeah, so sure. Matter if we want to make it clean or not. Okay. Sure. Yes. I'm gonna restate the motion on the table, which I think I put on the table. But I can't remember. Okay. So on a motion by Ronnie, seconded by me, we would continue this hearing till the next regular scheduled landmarks board meeting on a I know it's August 7th we'll take the roll, call, vote Chelsea.

[188:03] Aye. Ronnie. Aye. I vote I. So the motion passes unanimously to continue this. and this is the part, Kate and Kerry, where we give the person who gave the presentation on staff to tell you what the next steps are. So. Marcy. good luck. Alright. Well, we will see you back here at the next Landmarks Board meeting, which indeed, is on August 7th and we'll be touch in touch. In the meantime, in case there's any additional information about about the process, since this is unusual, but not unprecedented. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much, ladies. Thanks everybody. I appreciate it. Thank you. Appreciate it. I. And I know. So someone was gonna reach out to John so he can rejoin for matters.

[189:02] Yes, Aubrey's gonna give him a call, and I'll pull up the slides here. And just as we're waiting for John, I just want to make the point and advise landmarks board members this year, and is still continuing, so don't don't discuss it with anyone. because that would be an improper exp part date contact that would then need to be disclosed at the next hearing. So the next time any Landmark Board members should substantively engage in in that application should be at the next hearing, and not outside of that at all. And thank you for helping navigate this cause. and we didn't know to write before the meeting that that Renee was not able to connect virtually to this, so it made it a little unique. But, Chris, thank you so much for navigating this. You're welcome. And while we wait for John Chris. when

[190:01] Abby asked if I thought what you said was helpful, and I said, No. I was kidding, and I don't know you well enough, probably say that I just know. I didn't. I didn't even register that you were making it. Oh, but I. But it's still. Yet for the record. That was a joke. yeah, no, it's it's very helpful, and I think very interesting to you know. Think on those aspects of what we're doing here, and I'm grateful that you, you know, help lead us through that, because I think it's you do. You're doing a very tactful job, and I think it's the right balance of giving us a little bit of room, but not enough room to do something that might create a legal issue. Well, and when I think I'm gonna walk away with Chris, it's more that when it, when the applicants become part of the deliberations versus questions and answers questions and answers. So the thing I think I learned is is when it gets to more like, and we're so accustomed to it during Ldrc, but it's when they did.

[191:12] you know, if when it crosses that line into them, becoming more part of the deliberations when they're really not so. Hi, John. wow. So with that being said, are the, would John probably appreciate an update. On that. Why don't we do we do that now, or is it just show up cause Renee's? Can you hear about it? It feels like we move on right. Okay, we move on. Okay. And Marcy matters. Okay, great. Okay. So here we go sharing my screen. A game is here. So alright, you all can see this screen. So the 1st topic is, the update on the landmarks design review committee proposed changes. So since our last meeting we've been meeting with our colleagues at the Code amendment team and scoping out this process, which

[192:14] has many, many little steps. But is something that we are taking forward. So you will see the the process and the general direction in August under matters. and then you'll see it again in September for a public hearing, and the changes that are being considered about shifting what the Drc. Reviews versus what staff reviews, and then also extending the timelines for the initial review of applications, and then how long the approvals are good for some of those are administrative rules that the Landmarks board can adopt through a process. Some of those are code amendment which needs to go to council. The Code amendment team

[193:01] can fold in those code amendments into their work plan, and so they'll be on a parallel track, and then the time line ones will continue on to counsel, whereas the administrative rule for what goes to Ldrc would be in effect after your review. So I didn't finish this slide. There's 3 bullet points. So august. Confirm direction. You'll see that as an item under matters in September we'll return with the full public hearing for both the administrative rule and the code amendment. And then, after the public hearing, which is not intuitive. But it's the way rulemaking is done after the public hearing is held. There is then a 15 day public comment period. 15 days from when it's posted in the newspaper, not from the day of the hearing. That means that we'll reach out to recent Ldrc applicants. We'll put it in our pnds, Newsletter. We'll try and get the word out so that people are aware of this change and provide comments

[194:07] in October is the 3rd bullet here. That's when we'll bring all of the public comment that we heard back to the board. And then you all decide. We want to change the rule that we just adopted, or it goes into effect, you know, the next day. So that is a look at the process and the wheels are turning. We've been working on kind of the groundwork phase of these changes any questions on that before I move to the next item. Have a question. Go ahead! Yeah, I really really appreciate all the work that's been done so far on this. I know I brought this up almost a year ago, and I think this is gonna be a great improvement both for staff and for members of the Board. And so I really appreciate all the work that has been put into this.

[195:09] and I think our future board members will be appreciative as well. And I so I guess I I still just would love to keep it on the table to move the time of the meetings. I know that Staff has made the determination that that's not feasible, but I just don't believe that that's the case. Every other. There's no other board meeting that requires this to happen during business hours. and if business hours were the most appropriate time to have board requirements. Then all board meetings would happen during the business day, instead of

[196:04] outside of the business day, which they currently are. And so if we're putting in all this effort to make this possible. I would hate for the ultimate goal. basically excluding a very large swath of people from participating in this board to not be met And so I just wanna bring that back up because we're so we're like putting in a lot of time and effort. and my fear is that while it'll make things more efficient, it still does not accomplish the goal of having opportunities for everyone to participate. or at least a lot more people to participate. Obviously, we can't. can't allow, you know, it's not possible for volunteer opportunities

[197:04] to be accommodating to everyone, but a vast majority of people are excluded by having this during the business day. And I know Christopher Johnson is on the call as well. If you want to chime in on this. But, Chelsea, I do think that the changes that we're proposing fundamentally changes the Landmarks board members, commitment of the Ldrc. In terms of reducing the amount of time required for your Volunteer board commitment. It also is fundamentally a program operation, and that happens within business hours. And if it is outside of business hours it may be accessible to some community members. It then would be not accessible to other ones. So I do disagree with the point that

[198:01] that it would be more inclusive, changing the hours, and I would recommend that we revisit that single idea after these other changes are put in place, and we understand what the new hourly commitment is for the Board. Yeah, I I think it's right, Marcina. I don't really have a whole lot to add. You know, I think you stated it well, and certainly we're open to continuing to explore how we can make those Lvrc meetings as accessible as possible and and reduce the burden on volunteer board members. And I, I do think that, you know, allowing we're creating these changes and allowing them to work for a while to better understand, you know the impact that that's going to have is is going to be really helpful for us to make those decisions going forward as to what additional changes may or may not be necessary.

[199:04] Okay? Well. I guess it does. I understand that some people can't attend volunteer opportunities in the evening, but I think the vast majority of people is people who are under the age of 40, who I've talked to have done a lot of outreach with a lot of people. This is not a workable schedule for that demographic which is the majority of people living in our community. So I feel like it's dismissive to say that it's just as equal to have meetings during the day than it is after business hours. But I understand that's where the city is landing. One other idea is to

[200:04] only require one board member for every Ldrc meeting, because then it would still be 2 people, the staff member and the landmarks board member who only one of them has to agree. but it would reduce the number of meetings that each board member would have to attend. I do want to echo Chelsea's appreciation to Staff for looking at all of this, for for exploring all sorts of alternatives, and so forth. I do look forward. I mean I it. I haven't seen what everybody's coming up with, what goes through rulemaking versus code changes. So I applaud and appreciate staff doing this, and I look forward to seeing what some of those options are, because I think it sounds like, just by the simple virtue of moving some things to staff review that already is going to eliminate a lot of

[201:07] things that might appear on an Ldrc. Agenda. And Christopher. When I started exploring from within Colorado to Los Angeles, to St. Augustine, to Charleston, South Carolina, I was struck. How many of the monthly board meetings? Not at Ldrc. Things. How many communities and cities have their board meetings actually, during a workday, you know. Denver's Historic Commission meets. I don't know which. Thursday of the month at 130. So I mean, it's it's but it makes sense to me that the operational part of the program is during normal business hours, and that the board meetings I applaud in boulder or after work hours so more more members of the public can participate, whether in person or or virtually

[202:07] so I look forward to seeing this. I know it's a lot of work, and I do appreciate and acknowledge all of that. And you know I do also just want to acknowledge that I feel like we've been fairly flexible in working with board members schedules over the years, and to minimize your commitment, and in agreement with the Board to 1 HA week. And so I do feel like this should be a continued conversation about the board level commitment and what is doable, what's feasible for individual board members and board members as a whole as well. But I think there are incremental changes that provide quite a bit of flexibility and quite a bit of accessibility, that it's not this binary that I'm hearing that either we're inclusive, or we're not.

[203:06] Very. But if you. Marcy. Thank you. What about the idea of only requiring one board member per Ldrc. Well, and I'll say it's 9, 30, and I'm not feeling 100%. I truly believe that the landmarks design Review Committee is one of the best processes, not only in the city, but across historic preservation programs in the State and in the country. It is access to the decision makers on a weekly basis. One professional staff member, 2 volunteer board members appointed by the Community City Council to sit across a table, now a virtual table to work out these design solutions and having that dynamic, I think, has been incredibly successful over the last 50 years of this program. I think when you take away one board member, and it becomes

[204:06] one staff member partnered with one board member. You're changing that. And for what? And so I think this is worth a larger conversation. But I think in these changes, and I'm open to these fundamental changes of what goes to staff and what goes to the Ldrc. But I don't wanna lose kind of the core benefit and value that, I think. And I don't want to speak for your fellow board members. I think that that's where a lot of the enjoyment and fulfillment comes from in being able to sit across the table from these homeowners and work out design solutions together. Marcy. I just want to jump on that, too, because as a board member, and when I used to attend monthly board meetings wearing a different hat, and very occasionally Ldrc. For me as a landmarks board member Ldrc. Is is

[205:00] very rewarding. It's very educational. I learned so much. I always love when an architect assigned with me because I learned things I never knew. And I think it's just that that connection with members of the community, I mean. We might hear further from them at 3 min from a podium or through a zoom call. But just sort of, you know, having a longer conversation, the collaborative process. And I think what so many different people over the years I can't say I need to be careful to say. Many people have said, because if you ask me the number, it might be a dozen, which many sounds like way. More than that. So here's the thing. So many people. a dozen or so people over the last, almost 20 years I've been attending landmarks, board meetings oh, 18 have told me that they've gotten better projects and better homes and better solutions by participating in the Ldrc.

[206:02] Yeah, I I just just one quick pad, I guess to the discussion is the fact that I think one of the more successful aspects of the program is the fact that you do have 2 people ideally 2 board members at each Ldrc meeting, in which one of them is an architect. and I just think that I think that part of the power of the program is to have access to a design professional and citizen review on the other side. I I think it's a very balanced process which does make it effective for for people who are coming through. the process, and it does yield better projects. And so it is something that it it

[207:00] it would change. It would change the dynamic if you had. You had meetings at some alternation that were a an architect in one case and a non architect in another, it just would. It would just be a different dynamic that may not be as effective as as what we have right now, and I'm not sure what the solution is. Yet. But I think that's why we will hear more in August. And then the public hearing in September. So it's hard to believe it's less than a month till we hear the you know, the more vetted ideas and suggestions, and so forth. Well, with that I'll continue on and the public comment at the beginning of the meeting about the event in the Park, which was at the end of June, made me realize that I failed to send that information to the landmarks board beforehand. So my deepest apologies it. It is a series, and it includes a museum

[208:15] exhibit at the Museum of Boulder. But it's a very wide kind of effort across many organizations to kind of mark 100 years of Boulder, Central Park. and telling hundreds of years of stories. And so there was one talk already or no 2 talks already, one from Ava Hamilton, who's in Arapaho woman who spoke about kind of the history of indigenous people in general in the Boulder Valley. I was able to attend that one. And then, I believe, Peter Pollock spoke about Olmsted and the Community group responsible for the park's development in the 19th twenties. And so I do want to highlight these upcoming ones. July 17.th So I think that's next Wednesday. There's a talk on the history of the outdoor industry. A couple days later, unheard voices of Boulder, a community conversation, the displaced residents of Boulder Central Park will be presented by our very own Claire Brant.

[209:20] and then Leonard Siegel, with historic boulder, will present Central Park's architectural landmarks on July 30, th closing out that series. And then there is the Museum exhibit itself which runs, I think, all the way through August, but definitely swing by and don't miss it, and huge kudos to Claire, who put a tremendous amount of effort and helped kind of bring that all together. Claire. Anything else you want to add about about that event. or any of the events. No to share widely amongst anybody who'd be interested in coming.

[210:10] Great. Thank you. Wonderful, that's all we. Marcy. That's it for matters. Okay, anything else from board members before we adjourn. Yeah, I'm gonna do self promotion very quickly. I have 2 paintings in the library in the canyon gallery which I think are worth going to see. The show is phenomenal. It's the Boulder Arts Association. and it's it's an extremely diverse and talent rich show, and I'm very honored to have been included so. Oh, cool! Definitely be going to see that. Yeah. Thanks. John. anything else.

[211:01] Mine. Mine was small. It's kind of thing I always say. The events that you just talked about, Marcy. Do we get calendar invites for those. I will say. That can. Your invoice. Okay, that's awesome. Can do that. I can do that. I think, in general, if we have those types of things coming up that would be great just to always just send that stuff out. And anyway, you've heard. Yeah. Come back! Happy happy to do that. Actually I had heard of the other 2. I was aware of the both Peter and Ava's presentation. So. but it's nice to have. I'm excited about the 23rd for Claire. Me too. So. Is there anything else? Sorry. I'm trying to see what time, if there's nothing else from any board, members or staff. The meeting is adjourned at 9 35 PM.

[212:02] Good night, everybody! Bye. Thank you. Bye, march. Yeah, hope, you feel better. Yeah. Feel better. Marcy. I could hear it.