August 7, 2024 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:03] Thank you. Good evening. Welcome to the August Landmarks Board meeting. We are called to order. It is 6 0. 2 Pm. Before we begin. Marcy will review the slide about decorum and our policies hold up. Okay, thank you, Abby. and good evening. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board and commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives. More about this vision and the project's community engagement process can be found online through this link working. the following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision. They will be upheld. During this meeting, all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other form of intimidation against any person.

[1:15] Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited, and participants may raise their hand to speak during open comment and public comment periods during hearings. individuals joining online must display their whole name before being allowed to speak. Currently only audio testimony. Testimony is permitted online. And here's a refresher. If you are joining on zoom that the raise hand function can be found in the reactions bar at the bottom of the screen. Or if you are on a phone dial star 9 back to you, Abby. Thank you, Marcy, and I want to acknowledge that we do have a quorum this evening. A recording of this meeting will be available in the Records Archive and on Youtube. Within 28 days of this meeting we'll do a very brief roll call and introduction. Starting with Renee

[2:12] Rene Globik Landmarks board member. and I'm Ronnie Pelucio, also a landmarks board, member, and I'm Abby Daniels, the current chair of the Landmarks Board. I'm John Decker, vice chair and Landmarks Board, Member Chelsea Castellano, a landmarks Board member and Kurt Nordbeck representative from planning board to the landmarks board. Thank you. We know that there might be people here this evening who wish to participate who may have strong emotions about a particular project. We do want to hear from you, and have found it more productive. If you are speaking to persuade us, rather than berating us staff or an applicant. as with regular landmarks, board meetings, you may only speak at the appropriate time during the public hearing requests to do so outside of that time will be denied.

[3:08] We request that members of the public who wish to speak in person tonight, either in public participation or after one of the during one of the public hearings. Sign up. There's a sign-up sheet over here that you can use as the board chair. I will call for a roll call vote for any motions made this evening. and our 1st item on the agenda tonight is approval of the July 12,024 board meeting minutes. Do anyone have any changes or alterations? Seeing none, I move that we approve those minutes. Is there a second? I second, I second, okay, seconded by Ronnie. Renee. this is a vote on approving the minutes. I'm sorry

[4:02] I don't think I can. Oh, you're right. You aren't here. You tried to be, but you weren't. Okay, Ronnie. Aye, I vote. Aye. I vote. Aye, aye, okay. So the the minutes are approved. Thank you. So tonight we have, we will turn to public participation for any items not on the agenda. We do have 3 public hearings, and if you want to speak to those, you will wait until those hearings are underway. It does look like Amanda may have one participant for public participation in person at this point. I believe he'd like to just speak to one of the items on the agenda. Okay, okay, thank you, Leonard, or no. Or is that I'm sorry. Oh, both. Okay, go ahead. I'm sorry I'll give Abby. So so you're welcome. So the first.st

[5:02] Thank you. The 1st speaker tonight under public participation for items. Not on the agenda is Leonard Siegel. You may proceed. Can I speak to that now? Yeah, you would speak to that this evening, and then there will be public hearings next month that you're welcome to speak at that too much time. Do I have 3 min, 3 min. and, Leonard? I'm not sure but I think you have to push the button underneath the microphone so that it can be properly recorded. All right. Wow! Echo. Okay, good. Thanks, Leonard Siegel, with historic boulder. And I'm speaking on behalf of historic boulder. This evening I wanted to talk to some of the issues related to streamlining the processes in the landmarks board workload. And

[6:04] I I'm speaking to say that the historic boulder would prefer that the number of people remain the same for the landmarks, board design review meetings from 3 people. So 2 board members and one staff person, we think that's more effective that way. both in terms of intelligence and information that's brought to the knowledge of the people there. And also it's good with tiebreakers. So I think it's an important thing. It's a good step. It works really. Well. I want to talk about timing, reducing the number of meetings. We actually think it's not a great idea to reduce the number of meetings. If you look at the volume of demolition permits that will continue to increase. So we would suggest that while we hear, that's the direction you're moving, we would question how you handle that amount of work in the future, and also during day daytime versus evening of landmark design review meetings, we would err in the side of supporting staff, since Staff does the lion's share of

[7:15] the work on this, and it's their job. And to ask them to come in the evening, I think, is a burden. I think there's an issue about demographics, whether it helps to have more people who don't work during the day or work during the day, and I think it's not clear whether the demographics justify changing it. So I think it should. Historic boulder believes it should stay the same. and it should just be really clear at the beginning when new board members come on that these are the preconditions along with understanding the the ordinance, you know. Just that's that's what I want to see about that I have 46 seconds left. I want to talk about 2 more things, potential demolition. I've been in contact or reached out to by the owner of Mustard's last stand.

[8:05] Mustard's last stand was built in 1,955 as Bush's drive-in. 3 of the original walls are still there, although they've been heavily remodeled. And so the question is. should historic preservationists come to the support of the owner who wants to preserve the building instead of it being demolished as a part of the civic center redesign. So I think that'd be something to make sure it's on your radar screen. Another one is 5,505 Arapaho. It's a credit union building that was designed by Hobart Wagner and his successor firm. and it's on the same site that's proposed for redevelopment. If you could take a look at that, and because that's of concern as well to historic boulder, thank you. Thank you, Leonard, and it sounds like we'll see you a little later. Anyone else here with us in person who would like to speak to items. Not on the agenda.

[9:02] Okay? And Amanda, I don't see anyone, so let's see if there's anyone who's joining us via Zoom, who'd like to speak. Yes, it looks like we have one raised hand, Lynn, Siegel and Lynn, you have 3 min. Yeah, it would have been nice if I knew that you were live because I was down at the farmers market and had to race home to to get here. Like. Is it that hard to put that on the notification of the of the meeting under calendar? I mean, how hard. Is that what you did today on 11 0, 5 spruce is nothing short of obscene that that I'm sorry, Abby. I can't be nice about this because this is the future of Boulder, and it's just horrific. I'm just speechless with anger at what has been done to that building, and Stephen Tebow had an architect that did a pretty decent job originally, and then. Now what they've come back with they fired the architect. They should beg to get him back, because this is a monstrosity.

[10:17] It's the the worst thing I've seen yet being done to something that's, you know, preserved but hardly. It's just terrific. And that should have gone to the landmarks board definitely. It's J. If those are your guidelines, you need to change your guidelines, and if the interpretation of the guidelines is the way it is. You need to change your interpretations because this is just unspeakable. What's been done to that building? It's a beautiful, you know kind of foursquare thing. But then with a gable in the center, and what instead they did, I wish could you put up the imagery? Because if anyone could see that they would throw you all off of the landmarks board. Now, right now

[11:04] it's just horrific what you did, anyway. 2 gables were made from the top, from the single gable in the center, and like just really pretty building, 2 big gables oversized even over the edges of the lower part, lower level of the building. You know I'm an ultrasound imager, so I have a you know, a visual eye, but you know I'm in the medical field. But I do have. I'm in the visual arts, you could say, and this is just you know what if this is the future of boulder? This. It's nobody's going to want to come here, and nobody's going to want to stay here, for that matter. In fact, I inquired with some people that I know that associated with landmarks board, that they just want to get out of here. Because of things like this. So you need to do something. You need to also get it so that these things don't keep coming back to Ldrc. You need to record Ldrc, like, if I want to tell my friend. Go! Look at this, you know I can't.

[12:15] I can't. You are so untransparent and sorry if that doesn't convince you. Then think again what you're doing. Lynn, I'm sorry your time has expired. Thank you. So, Amanda. I'll give you another moment to see if any other members of the public want to join us remotely. We don't have any other hands raised at this time. Thank you. Then we'll officially close public comment for this evening, and we'll actually move on to our 1st public hearing. This is agenda. Item 5 a. And it's a public hearing and consideration of an application to designate a portion of the property at 3,300 Pinrose place as an individual landmark pursuant to Section 9, 11, 5 of the Boulder revised Code 1981, and under the procedures prescribed by Chapter 1, 3, quasi-judicial Hearings, boulder Revised Code.

[13:24] And I do want to tell anyone who's going to be speaking to this this evening either the applicant or members of the public, whether in person or on the phone. We will need to swear you in because it is a quasi-judicial hearing. and with that I'll turn the presentation over to Staff. Thank you, Abby. This is a quasi-judicial hearing. So, as Abby said, all will be sworn in. I'm going to give the staff presentation, and after that the Board may ask questions. The applicants will have an opportunity to speak, and the Board may ask questions of them, will thank you

[14:05] will then open the public hearing after everyone has had an opportunity to speak, the applicant may have additional time to respond, and then the Board will deliberate. A motion today requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass, and a record of this hearing will be available in a couple of days as a video recording, and the official record will be added to the archive within 28 days, usually much sooner. so usually with an lac. The the board asks for a reminder of who has seen this previously at Ldrc. This is not an Lac application. It is a designation. But Abby and John, you did review an Lac application for this property on March 20.th So back to you, Abby, for Exploitte. Okay, Renee? No.

[15:01] I have none. I have none other than the aforementioned Ldrc review. Yeah, I have none other than Ldrc. I have none back to you, Claire. Thank you. So the criteria for review is outlined in the Boulder Revised Code under 911 5 C. And the options today are for the Landmarks board to approve the application and recommend the designation to city council. The city council hearing would be held within a hundred days, or the bay. The board may disapprove the request, and this is subject to a 45 day call up period, and the owners would need to file a notice of appeal. Within 21 days of today the building was actually recommended for individual landmark designation through the Site Review process. The applicant proposed individual landmark designation of the original 1,972 portion of the building as part of the development agreement for the site, we anticipated the landmark application.

[16:08] So the Ldrc. Did review the Lac application in March to remove a 1,993 addition to the building and restore the corner of the original building, and also replace windows. On May 7th planning board approved the proposal to redevelop the site which includes demolition of the addition and construction of 4 additional buildings which would be outside of the designated boundary. and then, on May 8th we received the formal application to designate the building and a portion of the site. So this is the property here. It's at 3,300. Sorry, I'm just finding my pointer 3,300 Penrose Place. It is located between the diagonal highway which is here, and Iris Avenue, which is down here, and between 30th

[17:05] and 34th Streets in northeast boulder. The top image here is the the secondary entrance which which faces onto faces towards diagonal highway. And the original building entrance is the lower image, and it actually faces southeast. It's down here towards an interior courtyard. and the property is not located within a historic district or a potential historic district. It's a it's a 2 story building. It was constructed in 1,972 for the Geological Society of America. The architect was Arthur Everett, Jr. Of the firm, Everett and Ziegal. He kindly wrote an introduction to the building for the Geological Society in 1,972, that says that the building's absence of walls for holes, walls with holes for windows.

[18:02] instead uses horizontal, broadly cantilevered concrete planes, each one larger than the one below, supported by projecting vertical arched slabs. These are visually connected only by mullions and glass. So Everett chose to use the brutalist style of architecture, and this uses concrete as the dominant material. but he he really excited the geologists by proposing casting the concrete in place, using plywood forms that were sprayed with a kind of retardant that prevented the concrete setting on the surface, and then they, after they removed the forms, they washed down the surface to expose the aggregate of tiny rocks and pebbles which the Geological Society's Guide for visitors in 1,974, called a collection of specimens, especially fascinating to a geologist.

[19:02] So the the brutuous style is characterized by the overall heaviness of the building, the monumental massing, and also the waffle slabs in the eaves that form the roof system that you can see here, the deeply recessed window and door openings, and the rough, exposed concrete walls, with that pebbly aggregate which is on the inside as well as the outside. I have to mention this is, even though it looks like the outside. This is actually inside the building and one of the atriums. also, there's a park like setting, which was designed with integrated geological exhibits. It was designed by landscape architect, Floyd Tanaka, of Thk. Associates in Denver, and John R. Frank Hauser. Some of the exhibits on the south and east side of the building remain there, including the sundial that's carved in a polished slab of serpentine. In the middle you see a garnet rock monolith, and behind it a memorial to Charles Lee Mcguinness, and then

[20:14] also the image on the on the right here shows rock anthracite door pulls and granitized hornfowls that are attached to the wall. Hopefully I pronounced that correctly the the undulating, surrounding landscaping with integrated retaining walls and hardscape. Features are some of the character defining features of the property. Other features include the cantilevered flat roof, with the deep overhangs, coffered ceiling, and waffle style soffit the deeply inset arched doorways with massive wood doors, especially the original entry door. the oversized windows with divisions that align with the coffered ceiling and reflective coating that emphasizes the voids of the building.

[21:06] So, as I mentioned in 1,993, the Geological Society commissioned a large addition on the west side. And it's this addition right here. It added this 3rd interlocking pavilion to the original 1,972 building. Which is which are these 2 pavilions, these ones hiding behind the trees here. But there are 2 right there. They're original, and the the property has received an Lec to remove this later addition and the original exterior restored. So in general, the building retains a very high degree of historic integrity. It's in its original location, which, with much of the setting remaining with that park. Like surroundings. the general elements of design, the form, the plan, the space, structure, and style of the original building, all remain as do the original materials, including the concrete.

[22:05] many of the huge slab doors and the surrounding retaining walls and berms. The workmanship of the 1970 s. Is apparent through the use of these materials the historic character of the building conveys the feeling and association with the building's history. Apart from the addition, the alterations include a balcony that was enclosed in 1,977. A new roof in 1,990 roof, mounted solar panels added in 2,010 and some new windows in existing window openings. So for our staff analysis, we saw that the building is historically significant for its association with Geological Society of America. For the past 52 years it was purpose designed for the Geological Society of America's National Headquarters. The Geological society was formed in 1,888, and moved from New York to Boulder in 1,967.

[23:10] The relocation to boulder was part of the trend of Federal and private institutions after World War Ii. Relocating here this trend included the construction of the National Bureau of Standards, Central Radio Propagation Laboratory, now NIST in 1,954, and the establishment of Ucar in 1,959, the National Center for atmospheric research's mesa laboratory was designed by a modernist architect. IM. Pei. In 1,961, and constructed in 1,967 in a similar brutalist style. The building is also architecturally significant. It was designed by art. Everett of the firm, Everett and Ziegal. Everett was a co-founding member of the of the firm in 1,964, along with business partner, Alan Ziegal Everett is considered one of Boulder's masters of local modernism. His other architectural works in Boulder with Ziegal include the Pearl Street Mall, which won a national design award. And I'm sure you're familiar with it.

[24:22] Everett used the brutalist style which you can see in the horizontal, broadly cantilevered concrete plains, each one larger than the one below. supported by projecting vertical arch slabs, which are visually connected by mullions and glass. In 1,978 the daily camera wrote that this is one of Boulder's most attractive and interesting buildings, and offers visitors the uncommon experience of enjoying natural history as an art form praise. Indeed. the scale and mass of the building are compatible with the park, like setting with integrated geological exhibits.

[25:02] The site was chosen for its view, and to add to the beauty of the approach to boulder along the Longmont diagonal. and it has retained that setting which adds to the building's significance. Stuff's recommended motion is for the Landmarks board to adopt the staff memo, and recommend to city council that it designate a portion of the property at 3,300 Penrose Place as a local historic landmark, to be known as the Geological Society of America. Finding that it meets the standards for individual landmark designation in Sections 9, 11, one, and 9, 11, 2 of the Boulder Revis Code. The proposed name is the Geological Society of America, and the proposed plaque would read. This building was constructed for the Geological Society of America out of concrete with an aggregate of tiny rocks and pebbles that came from the flood plain of Boulder Creek architects. Everett and Ziegal designed the building to bring the outdoors in and take the indoors out, and included geologic specimens on the building and within the grounds.

[26:09] The proposed boundary encompasses the original portion of the 1,972 building, and would exclude the proposed contemporary development planned for the site. The proposed findings are that the designation application is consistent with the purposes and standards of the historic preservation ordinance. And that's the end of the staff presentation. This is a reminder of the next steps in the process. We'll ask the applicants if they have anything to add, and then we'll move into public participation and then board deliberation. We're estimating that the Board will deliberate for about 20 min, and the options today are for the Landmarks board to approve the application and recommend designation to city council or recommend denial.

[27:04] Any questions for Staff. Then we'd like to welcome the applicants up. I don't know who's going to speak, or if you have several speakers, you'll have 10 min. You'll also have an opportunity. We'll invite you back again for 3 min if you would like that. But please go over to the podium. I will need any speakers to raise their right hand and swear to tell the Board the full truth, and then state your full name for the record. and then your 10 min will commence. All right. I'm Ian Swallow, with boulder housing partners, and I will tell the whole truth yourself in. I'm Bill Hollicky, with Coburn architecture, and I will also tell the truth. Thank you. Well, good evening. Landmarks board. I'm Ian Swallow, with boulder housing partners. I'm the project manager for Bhp. On the 3,300 Penrose Place project.

[28:04] I'll keep my remarks pretty pretty brief. We have our architect here, and then also happy to come back and answer any questions that you all may have so just very quickly. I think most of you are familiar with boulder housing partners. Bhp. Is the housing authority for the city of Boulder. So our mission is to provide safe, affordable housing for the community. I think a project like this is one we're very excited about, because we can not only achieve our primary mission, which is providing affordable housing, but at this site we also have the opportunity to both preserve this building, and also do adaptive reuse and provide units as well as some common spaces within the building that we're proposing landmarking. So I think we're very excited about that. That is not our typical community that we develop. So this is a very unique site. Again, I think you know

[29:00] lot of numbers here, I think, won't get into the details on that. But just to say again, I think this is a project that we don't see come around very often. And so it's a really unique opportunity. That's part of the reason we've come forward with the landmark designation request. That was also really important. We went through the Site Review process, both with staff and with planning board, to be able to provide new housing in conjunction with preserving an existing building. That's a real asset to the, to the community. So with that I will hand it over to Bill Hockey, who can speak to the site a little bit. Thanks again. I'll keep it pretty pretty short. Thank you to staff for an excellent walk through the existing building, and I guess maybe I'll I'll concentrate on highlighting the overall project a little bit. So in kind of soft petals. Bhp, and if you don't know what they do, they provide an enormous number of affordable homes for boulder residents to live in, keeping folks that otherwise would have challenges with housing attainability in town.

[30:02] At the same time, on this project we're able to check all kinds of boxes and do what really is sort of a dream project for the architectural team. And I think the development team as well, we've got this sort of overarching concern or problem within the country, especially since covid with the abandonment of the office space, and all of these buildings that are kind of sitting around unused. And it's interesting that this building had about a 50 year life cycle. It was highly occupied and so highly occupied in the early nineties that they put an addition on it. And in the last decade or so it's it's really not been a primary use for the Gsa. Staff. And since Covid, it's it's kind of an unfortunate situation. It's this cavernous building, with only a handful of people in it a day, and the rocks inside are gorgeous. There's so many artifacts and all these things that will be sent out to other places and and put on display and sent to museums and all that, but the but the place itself doesn't have any life. So you know, the option that we're always confronted with as architects is, what do we do? We tear these things down and replace them with

[31:06] something else, a different kind of use. But Bhp had the vision to to look at this and see a different kind of scenario. And the idea that this work of art, because it really is, you know, we don't build like this anymore. We can't build like this anymore. Cost too much to do this now. But it's sort of like a prairie style. But with stone, you know, it's it's like that. The idea that it's coming out of the landscape and that it's reflecting the the flatirons of Boulder. You know I've spoken with the Gsa. Members that have the oral history. And that's exactly the way they think about it, which is really pretty cool. So to be able to take that, and I'm just going to try to fast forward a few slides here and get to an image of well, I went fast forward too far, you know into to be able to take that and turn that into a living community, so that an actual community gets to reside in and appreciate that that piece of art and that history, you know, it becomes lower. The community, it becomes something that kids can grow up with. It's something that can support a neighborhood, and it's not an easy challenge. The building is brutalist, and you don't normally associate brutalist with housing, and you don't normally associate with affordable housing. But we spent a lot of time on softening the rest of the site up.

[32:16] working out how to lay units out on the inside, utilizing things like the internal skylights and the entry door, and some of the artifacts will remain like this massive boulder inside the front door called Big Al that gets to stay there, and that kind of stuff. So you end up with a project that kind of checks all these boxes. It's going to be highly highly sustainable. Bhp. Puts renewable energy and solar panels into all their projects. It'll be, you know, approaching a very low energy use. It'll be affordable, permanently deed, restricted housing for the city of Boulder, which is awesome. It'll reduce the number of incommuters out there. It's it actually isn't even parked at a 1 to one ratio, so it encourages all transit and other modes to getting around town. It's connected to the bike paths. It's a landmark landmarking structure that, in my opinion, is as cool as anything. I've been in Boulder for 3 decades, right? It's as cool as anything that I know of in this town. So

[33:09] That's all I want to say. It's really awesome to be part of this kind of project. Please ask any questions you have, and we're we're really excited about the outcome. Thanks. Thank you, gentlemen, both so much before we go to public comment. Do any board members have questions of the applicants? Just an informational question. Will that building be used for public or just for the people on the site? Oh, that's a great point. So the upper levels and a very little bit of the 1st level. So there's there's kind of the upper level and the lower level. The upper level will be all units. A little bit of the 1st level. But then there's there's space in there really designed for community space. So still working to try to figure out a potential use. And and you can speak to that if you want. Yeah, so I can. I can speak to that a little. We had initially had a partnership with head start. They had been looking to expand classroom space in boulder. So actually, the

[34:04] the ground level on what would be the north side of the building we had initially designed as classroom space for a head start classroom. After reviewing the building and looking at some of the costs and what the space would be taking a historic building and trying to make it adaptable for childcare preschool use proved to be a little too difficult and head start kind of opted to look elsewhere. But we're still sort of holding a port of that lower level for some sort of public use potentially in the future, that the building has much more square footage than than we need, or that we can configure for housing. So I think we're sort of imagining what that could be in the future. But we would envision some some type of use in that space which really allows the building to give back to the community. But, more importantly, the community can come in and experience the building, which is pretty cool. Any other questions.

[35:04] Okay, not seeing any. We'll turn to public participation for this agenda item. We will begin with anyone here in person who'd like to speak with it. Lynn. I know you've already signed up. I don't know if there's anyone else here who would like to speak to it? But we'll start with you, Leonard, and I will have to swear you in for this. I swear to tell the truth. and state your full name for the record. My name is Leonard Siegel. My address is 7, 2, 6 Pine Street, and I swear to tell the truth. All right. about 25 years ago I was part of a group that was hired by the city of Boulder to survey the best modern buildings in Boulder, and this building was included in our estimation as one of the best, and it's thrilling absolutely from a preservation point of view. to see

[36:00] this building repurposed and reused and celebrated and landmarked. And so preservationists are celebrating the intent of that document 25 years ago was meant to inspire redevelopments like this historic boulder had an opportunity about a year ago to tour the building. And it's just incredible on the inside. If we could make sure that the atrium spaces are preserved in some manner, or are part of the design. That's really the part of the joy of being in that building. The other aspect is Everett. Ziegal has another aspect of importance in that they became Oz architecture. They merged and became Oz architecture. One of the most significant companies in the architecture world in Boulder. So I think that might be good to reinforce how that history is important. And I would I would actually say that this building is lighter than air, that it's not heavy, but it's light that you see this concrete almost impossibly floating in the air and hovering. And that's part of the beauty of this era of architecture. And so I just want to say, thank you to Boulder House, boulder, housing partners to Coburn and the city of Boulder for taking this project on and

[37:25] and bringing it to reality. And as a former instructor of design at the architecture school of environmental design. Hopefully, this building is inspiring the design of the new buildings, that there's some character aspects of this building that are brought into the new design, so that it becomes a neighborhood of cousins, not necessarily twins, but cousins. So that would be something I would charge the designers to do, but not necessarily from a preservation point of view, but from a brotherly, fatherly advice from a fellow architect. So thank you. That's all I have to say.

[38:10] Thank you, Leonard. Is there anyone else in attendance tonight who'd like to speak to this? If so, Amanda has sign-up sheets. and if not Amanda, we will move to see if anyone on Zoom would like to address us. Yes, since no one else would like to speak in person, we'll move to virtual participation. So, Lynn Siegel Lynn, you have 3 min. and, Lynn, you will need to swear to tell the whole truth and state your full name just for the record. Thank you. Lynn Siegel ice. I don't like to swear, but I'll tell the whole truth, and not to God. It's like my truth, the truth as I know it. And I agree with Lynn and but I don't agree with the function of boulder housing partners and the Lightec funds that get used for projects like this and the growth that is pushed from the Federal Government. Now I grew up in a place

[39:18] that has its own borders, because it's an island, Mercer Island. And so we didn't have the problems that Boulder seems to be creating of sprawl. And this is one example of that sprawl to the extent that this is an island. This is like a Ghetto for the people that live in it, because there's no internal component to the the place, and if there was, it would be more sprawl like like weather vane, or and it enables things like the millennium to be converted to high high end student housing, because for every lower end housing that happens in boulder there's 10 or 20 high end places that

[40:09] happen. or at least the price is raised in those proportions by the land value, because the market is saturated. and these kind of sprawling effects of taking care of the poor and putting them in ghettos like this. It's a very nice building and all, but it's not. It's isolated. There's no grocery stores nearby. There's no library. There's no services. Services have to be extended for a project. This big Coburn gives a very beautiful argument for how nice it's going to be, but I think you have to go to some more planning board meetings and understand what's really happening in Boulder, that the split between the rich and the poor is being extended with everything that goes through planning board, every subsidy, every every person that's saying, oh, we're getting all these Federal funds. Well, the Federal Government loves it because they love growing population

[41:19] and Boulder doesn't need more population. My dad thought it was too much in 1,948, at 30,000 people. So please go ahead and landmark this place. but I don't support the use of it. I would support more commercial use in spite of the fact that you know we have this changeover since Covid. this building. And this situation is too isolated. Thank you, Lynn and Amanda. I'll give you a moment to see if any other members of the public joining us by Zoom would like to speak to this.

[42:06] No, we don't have any other members at this time. Thank you. So we will officially close public comment for agenda. Item 5 a. I don't know if you gentlemen have anything you'd like to add. Thank you. So this will bring it back to our board for deliberations, and I don't know if there is anyone who would like to start like maybe, John. I turned my microphone on. I should have maybe waited. I think this is a very interesting project. The 1st comment will refer to the building itself. This is a building extremely worthy of preservation. I'm really happy to see it preserved in such a way that it is being repurposed. and that it's being brought into a utility that will ideally benefit another set of buildings that's going to be added to the project.

[43:07] the issue of housing that was just brought up. at this point, and I've been observing it all over the United States. housing, and I guess, underbuilt or underdeveloped. Housing units in in communities is is a nationwide need right now. So Boulder is not going to be spared of needing to help satisfy that. because the rest of the metropolitan area also needs it. It's going to be demand that is going to flow into boulder from elsewhere continuously until there's some kind of equilibrium reached. The issue of like commercial deserts. I don't think it's

[44:00] so directly applied to a site like this. And the reason I think that is because this building was on a site that was essentially part of a movement system network that can easily be adapted to, I guess a broader transit structure, if that occurs that would eliminate some of the issues of, say food desert, although it's not completely true. A couple of blocks from there to the west there is redevelopment happening. There's no longer the grocery store that was there. I don't know what's going to go in there. But as housing develops, and as the demand goes up, there is going to be more delivery of commercial that is appropriately directed towards that housing. it would be interesting if the development community kind of

[45:00] integrated with each other, to begin to provide these things in relation to like groups of developments or so on, which was the organic process when cities developed. So these are just thoughts. I do think that this is at this point, probably the most appropriate reuse of this area. I've been observing in any number of markets a lot of commercial that has outlived its usefulness. Has exceeded what demand there was for its existence, and is now just taking up space, and will probably, in a lot of cases, require demolition to repurpose the land. so I think that it's more appropriate to provide housing at this point in time on a site like this that

[46:00] is better located than many other sites that have housing on them right now. And so I'm I'm very supportive of this project, for all the reasons. Thank you, John Raleigh. Yeah, I agree and fully support the project and the proposal. I obviously, I think, for all of the reasoning that's already been stated. The building is exemplary, and it's wonderful that it's being preserved. Thank you for doing that. This property is 6 blocks away from Safeway. So there's plenty of amenities nearby. I'm thoroughly confused by the food desert statements, although it's not really applicable. But one thing that I did want to bring up is the site plan. I'm wondering if we could just pull up a slide of that. I know it's slide 19 in the memo but maybe there's another image that you have that we could take a quick look at.

[47:07] Yep. I think you you flip past it. And so one thing that I see on the site is, there's actually significant topographic change across the property, which is pretty interesting. the thing that I really wanted to point out here is, I think, in addition to preserving the building, there is something sensitive that's happening with the placement of buildings at the planning level. That, I think, is very respectful of the historic structure. I think there's a lot of room around this building outside of the yellow line. That's the landmark boundary. That helps to give views to all sides of this building, and this does really seem to me, from what I've seen to be a 4 sided building, and I think that the shape making of adjacent buildings takes cues from the geometries of the historic building and their right angle formation on the west and on the east.

[48:18] and then, I think, building C, which is at the southern end of the page, I think, is doing something interesting to reflect the street geometry, but also creating a meaningful kind of equally sized to the historic building courtyard. And so I think there's something really wonderful happening at the Site Plan level here that I just want to compliment the applicant for, and I plan to support the designation of the building. Thank you, Ronnie Renee or Chelsea. I fully support. Thank you. Simple.

[49:00] I'll second that. and and I'm delighted to be supporting it, too, while use is not under our purview. I'm personally very excited about this adaptive reuse for this, and before we go any further in our deliberations, I want to give a chance for our planning board ex officio member to speak to this the liaison? Thanks. Yeah. I was privileged to see this at Site review and excited about the entire project, and whether the this building gets designated or not. I'm really grateful that it's being preserved. There's a tremendous amount of embodied carbon in there. It's a building for the ages. And so I think it's wonderful that it's being preserved and reused. So thank you. Thank you, Kurt. No, this is exciting. And I remember being excited when we saw it in march at Ldrc. We don't have many. and I don't know if it's a matter that we've lost some, but we don't have many brutalist buildings left in boulder, and I think some we have lost. But I am. I'm just really thrilled. And and I was struck by Leonard's comment that even though.

[50:08] despite the material this is made of. It does look like it's floating. So I think this is really really cool, and I don't know if my colleagues have anything else to say, or if there's anyone who would like to make a motion. I'll make a motion. please. Okay. the Landmarks Board recommends to the City Council that it designate a portion of the property at 3,300 Penrose Place as a local historic landmark, to be known as the Geological Society of America, finding that it meets the standards for individual landmark designation in Sections 9, 11, one and 9, 11, 2 Brc. 1,981, and adopt the staff memorandum, dated August 7, th 2,024, as the findings of the board. Thank you. Chelsea. Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you, John, on a motion by Chelsea, seconded by John, we'll do a vote, Renee.

[51:07] Aye, Ronnie. Aye, I vote. Aye, I vote aye. Hi Chelsea, so the motion passes unanimously. Claire will go over next steps. But I just I have to sneak in this one personal remark. I want to applaud boulder boulder housing partners, for I think becoming involved with Golden West, which I think is a tremendously cool, cool building that is near another landmark, 1st Christian Church, and I think the church was involved with that being built about 1,959. So I heard that rumor and I'm really excited to see what happens to that building, because, having a brother that lives there, it's a cool building on the exterior. So okay, I'm done. So, Claire. The next steps, please. Great. Thank you, Abby. So the landmarks board as we'll recommend this to city Council to become our next individual landmark.

[52:02] there is. There will be 2 agenda items scheduled. The 1st is on the consent, consent, agenda, and the second will be a public hearing within a hundred days of today, and if City Council agrees and approves the the application. The building will be designated, and we will provide you with a plaque, and you'll have to find somewhere in between all the other cool things to to put the plaque on the wall. So thank you very much as well as above the microphone. So since it's on. I just want to say we're we're humbled by the really nice words. So thank you very much. It was really kind, and we're happy to be here. Thank you so much. We'll now move on to Gen. Agenda. Item 5 B. And John will be recusing himself from this.

[53:09] So agenda. Item 5 B is the continuation of a public hearing and consideration of a landmark. Alteration, certificate application to remove 3 historic windows, modifying the opening and install 4 windows in the front dormer of the building, located 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 1, 3, quasi-judicial hearings. And that's also a reminder. Anyone speaking to this, including the applicant. We will swear you in this evening. and I believe Marcy's doing this presentation. Yes, thank you. And good evening. Since this is a continuation of a public hearing. We won't repeat the presentations or the public comment for this item this evening. We'll go straight to board. Deliberation. I will tee up the case, though, by going through the quasi-judicial hearing, including ex parte context. So if you had any conversations about this case since your last meeting.

[54:25] now would be the time to disclose them. Or if you watched the video since then you'll go through that. But wait till the end. So the quasi-judicial hearing process, actually, since it's a continuation, we will just skip to the board. Deliberation after ex parte contacts the Board discusses, and a motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass motions must state findings, conclusion and recommendation, and a record of the hearing is available after the meeting. So I'll pause here for ex parte contact since the last meeting.

[55:04] So I did watch the video of the last meeting. I have none. I have none. I have none. Thank you. And Christopher Reynolds, with the city attorney's office, is joining us virtually this evening in case there are any questions about process. So the criteria for your review is found. Sorry, Marcy, can I just interrupt real quick? Yes. I just wanted to. And Hi, everyone sorry I can't be there in person tonight. Just wanted to confirm with Member Globeck. You mentioned that you watched the video of the last meeting? Can you confirm that you saw the staff presentation for this item. the applicant presentation and the public comment. Yes, I saw each part of it. I watched the meeting from beginning to end. Okay. Thank you.

[56:03] All right. So the criteria for your review is found in 9, 1118, and that's the proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores, and does not damage exterior architectural features of the property. that the work does not adversely affect the historic architectural value of the property, that the architecture, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color and materials is 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. Your options this evening are to approve it, which would be subject to a 16 day city council, call up period, deny the application which is subject to a 30 day city council, call up period, or provide the applicant an opportunity to withdraw the application, in which case the application would be withdrawn and the case would be closed. You do have another option if the Board is unable to come to a three-person vote because one of your board members is recused, you would make a motion to request that city council appoint a former landmarks board member, so that there would be 5 voting members there, and we have that motion prepared if that is the case.

[57:16] So the application process started back in September of 2,019, when the previous request to modify the Dormer was reviewed by the Landmarks Board, and that request was withdrawn during the meeting. In October 2,020. A revised design was conditionally approved by the Ldrc. And the Lac. Was issued in April of 2,021, and in March of 2,024 there was an Lac. Issued for changes to the building, but the Ldrc. Referred the changes to the Dormer to the Landmarks board. and in May we received complete application materials, and then, on July 10, th the Landmarks Board held a public hearing. At that July 10th meeting we gave a staff presentation, with a recommendation to deny the Lac. Finding that it did not meet the guidelines or criteria for review, the applicant gave a presentation, and then the public comment was open. One member of the public franchise spoke on behalf of historic Boulder, Inc.

[58:16] And then the Board asked questions of Staff and the applicant. The board deliberation. Then began, and a motion by Ronnie, seconded by Abby to deny the application, failed, 2 to one with Chelsea, and opposed Rene absent, and John recused, and then a motion to continue the hearing passed 3 to 0, and then, as we mentioned board, Member Renee has watched the July 12,024 hearing. So with that, we have the criteria for your review for reference, and then offer this as a way to structure your discussion of. does the project, meet the standards for issuance of an Lac. Application.

[59:01] So with that we will jump back into the board deliberations, and I apologize. I misspoke earlier, just out of wrote that, because this is a continuation, there is no applicant presentation or public comment. So my apologies about that. So we are now back as if it's board deliberations like we were on July 10.th I don't know if there's anyone who would like to start the conversation. and I know, Renee, you. You spent the time watching it, and I don't know. You might have a question or 2 from I don't kind of wanted to get into more of a discussion. So about the proposal to remove the 3 windows versus the 2, the removing the 3 and putting in the 4

[60:02] So. my, I watched everyone's comments. And you know I appreciate that she that they're they're doing a good job of, you know, turning it into 2 living units, and I think that's great for being on the hill. I don't see that the 3 windows are hindering the process of having a bath, 2 bathrooms there, like. I think that there could be a little bit making this a smaller bathroom on one side, or or on the other side, to allow for those the window to be in the middle, and then the firewall being on the right or left side of the middle window. So, and I think it's important to retain that language of these 3 windows in the dormer. So I mean I jumped right in to let you know my opinion. So no, that's what we want. That's what we're

[61:06] yeah. Yeah. So I think keeping the existing pattern of those 3 3 windows is important to the Dormer. So you, at you're supporting Staff's recommendation, supporting Staff's recommendation. Ronnie Chelsea. Yeah, I continue to support Staff's recommendation. Regarding the window composition. And I. But I also like again compliment the applicant for their efforts, and I know that they're well intended with their plan choices. But I agree with Staff's recommendation in this case. Thank you. Chelsea. Yeah, I I haven't changed my mind. I continue to find that having the 4 windows does not

[62:00] hinder the ability to see the value of the historic property. I think if there were 4 windows there now. you wouldn't question if it was for windows originally, I just. I don't see how it detracts from the building as a whole, so I don't find it necessary to reject the whole project based on that. I just was looking for some clarification on that point, like the rejection of the whole project. I want to just understand what Chelsea means, but I'm mostly like wondering if Staff could jump in on that, and that would be helpful, because my understanding is almost like 90% of the rest of the request have been approved at Ldrc. Yes, and that approval would sustain that's been separated into a separate line. Mark alteration certificate, which includes 2 additions. The addition of the carport changes to window and door openings on the back and construction of a dormer. So the rest of the project is approved.

[63:14] It's it's just the front dormer windows. but the ability to like the whole configuration of the inside the interior is sort of dependent on that configuration like it being approved the way that it is so, the whole interior. the way that it is now would have to be reconfigured. That would be a question for the applicant in terms of the interior piece, which is well based on what they said at the last meeting. That seems to be true. It's Staff's opinion that this building could be adaptively reused into a duplex, and with a firewall demising between and keeping the 3 windows.

[64:05] I that that's fine, I mean, I assume that if the applicants found that to be true, that's what they would be proposing. So yeah, I don't. Kurt. I wanted to give you an opportunity if you wanted to speak to this. No. thank you. and I I still will be supporting Staff's recommendation primarily because it's such a character defining feature, and because of the pattern of the 2 sets of 3 windows on the lower level, and it the existing 3 windows just make it a whole, and and I think that it I think it would. You know so so many things lie in the details, and I think it would be.

[65:01] I think it would diminish the integrity of the building in this historic district. and I I believe that there was a question about materials as well that I honestly it's unclear to me. It was on the list. of items that were continued. or did I misread that are the proposed materials appropriate? And and while they're looking that up, because maybe it's a thing. Maybe it's not you know. I think you know, there's a difference between preservation and compatible design. and you know we see those things at play, and we regulate for them. We have design regulations that show us when

[66:01] you know you can put a new building in a historic district, and ways to make it compatible with historic districts. I think that the proposal to have 4 windows is compatible in nature. With many homes that you know could fit into historic districts. I think it's atypical to do that in a gable end. I think it'd be challenging to find that. And so, on the one hand, I like again compliment the applicant team for their ability to design compatible components and additions to historic buildings. But I again agree with Staff on this, as one of the primary features that is in like the hierarchy of decision. Making of preservation is about window compositions, and this happens to be like the figure window composition in the figure

[67:06] roof gable, and so I just wanted to make the clarity clarification. That I do think that there's a compatible design component to this, but I don't think it meets the preservation goals for the structure. Did I buy you enough time, Marcy, to find the thank you. Yes. So that question about materiality is, if the Board found it to be an appropriate change. To remove the historic windows is the proposed material. The new windows appropriate any more questions. Our comments, Kurt. I realized I do have a question of staff, Marcy. You said that it was Staff's opinion that a design solution with the 3 windows

[68:03] existed. Did you have a specific in mind for how that would work internally? Or yes, so I want to be clear that that our criteria, the Board's criteria, is focused on the exterior of the building and and preservation of materials. But as we went through our analysis, spoke with the applicant and and the architect, and looked at the floor plan of the existing, and proposed we didn't feel that it had been demonstrated that it was not possible. because the demising wall goes halfway through the building, and then jogs to the right. That, and then meets between 2 windows that it couldn't similarly jog through the middle, go to the middle jog to the left. and meet between the existing windows so similar to what Renee was saying earlier. Yeah, it's 2 2 differing opinions. And of course I would always defer to the owner and the applicant the design team, who really know the ins and outs of what makes a project feasible

[69:08] in terms of the proposed change. It hasn't been demonstrated in our mind of why the wall. Couldn't jog left rather than right. Thank you. 3. Hear from the applicant on. Why, that couldn't be. That's up to the chair and to the board. I think, Carrie, or or if you're either of you are willing to answer the question. or and I have something for Marcy, too. So, and this might help the applicant like a part of me. You know, I think, that we're also looking on. It's obviously a 3D structure. And so we're looking at this on 2 different planes and a 2D if you know. Obvious. If if the vote was to take right now, we would have, you know, a 3 to one, and so then the applicant's willing to either withdraw or go with the what the Board says?

[70:08] Are they able to come back. and another, if it's withdrawn, can they come back and and provide documentation, or a walk through through this place to indicate why, 3D. Is the, you know, like the height restrictions for the way the you know. the head height of the shower cannot go on this wall because of this, because at last time that was the conversation. That was why that on the left hand side, that that shower got a little bigger for for me moving the demizing wall is like the most expensive thing to break up and jog like that. So like, she said. If you're willing to jog it one way. You're probably willing to jog it the other way, and if it works, if the shower works on the right hand side of this building.

[71:00] then it should be worked on the left hand side like it should flip-flop. So I feel like the head. Height the head height on. What we're given. It should be easily obtained to get head heights in there. But again, like we've said we have. I haven't been to the space. Don't know if there's structure or things like that. But is there a way for them to come back if they don't have significant pictures or things like that. Marcy. Is it true that if the Board, if there was 3 members that voted to deny this, anything similar could not be resubmitted for a year? That's correct. If the board denies it, then then there's that one year kind of moratorium, and it's the Board's practice, and totally up to the board. But the board typically provides applicants an opportunity to withdraw the application. If you're heading towards a denial, and they can either withdraw the application or allow the board to go forward with a vote.

[72:02] and I want to be very clear and very careful that if we invite the applicant team up, that we only ask them and have them answer only kind of factual questions and not get into kind of it's so easy to want to get into the design and and redoing it from up here, which is not appropriate. So I I'm I'm happy to have them come up for any kind of just factual questions about the project before we conclude our deliberations, so I will have to swear you in, Carrie. I don't know, or and I know Chris will help keep us on track to to not cross a line with letting the applicants actually participate in our deliberations, but rather answer more factual questions. And, Carrie, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to. I know you know what I do right, but I don't know, you know, and and but and state your full say you'll swear to tell the Board answer the questions truthfully, and that state your full name for the record. Carrie Whitman. Swear to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth.

[73:16] Do you? Do you want to state your question again? I think the question was. why couldn't well. was there a reason why you didn't? I don't know. The words, just put the wall in a different place, so that so that you didn't have to cut the wall wasn't bisecting the windows. My biggest problem with that is that you have a firewall is about a foot. You don't have a foot in between any of those windows, so you're going to have a wall, regardless if you jog it or not, that is going to show through those windows.

[74:01] So and from the outside, I understand. I mean, I'm okay with 3 windows if it works. But from the outside it's gonna look ridiculous. How am I gonna have? What am I gonna do put like a mirror thing on there, or you know some kind of finish. So you don't have enough room in between the 3 windows in order to put a 1 foot firewall, regardless. If it jogs. Can can I ask a follow up question about that? It looks to me like you are proposing to do that? It's just in the center, on the proposal on the right, like the space between windows, is equal to in both proposed and existing. And so I think that just for clarification. When I look at this and I look at the plan, it seems to me that there's a firewall solution that's been proposed that does meet at a dimension that appears to be identical to existing.

[75:04] Just so, I'm so I understand. that because on on page 21 as well, which is your plan, page. It looks to me like there is a detail that does some unique condition that comes to a smaller point. Yeah, it's hard to zoom in. And and, Carrie, I think you're right in. In that case, if that is a detail that's executable and meets the fire code that you would, you could potentially see behind you know, through glass some sort of structural element that sits back in space, which I think you were saying. Yeah. yeah, you can, you can see it, but if there's 4 it doesn't look weird in the middle of one, and you have a little bit on each side, but also the pitch on Unit B, I'll call it, which is the one on the south. That is so. I have to keep the headroom in. There is so low.

[76:04] and I just when we laid it out. And if you want to talk you can. It just works so much better with 4 windows. And I I really don't. I've spoken to multiple realtors because I'm going to sell one side and keep one side. But the I don't. I know that, Abby, you had suggested. Oh, just make it, you know, couple units and do it like a top floor and a middle floor. But it's just to put this much money into a building that is in really bad shape. It would not be worth the money for me to be honest with you. I mean. Originally I had showed another one that had a space for the party wall in the middle. And that was like, really nixed. So I was trying to say, Okay, if you have a half of a full window, a full window, and then the middle one doesn't be basically completely gone. I just think it looks better if there's a little bit on one side and a little bit on another side than putting it right in the middle of the middle window. If that makes sense.

[77:00] Okay, thank you. Are there any more questions? Thank you. Ladies. so now it is. We'll come back to the board. I I still will be supporting Staff's recommendation. I do. I think you understand that if this is looks like it's going to be denied, you will have the opportunity to withdraw it and come back, if you know, with more time to look at other creative alternatives. To this I don't want to stifle any conversation or dialogue any other comments, thoughts. At what point do we offer them the opportunity to withdraw? Can I just jump in? What would the purpose be so that they couldn't come back for a year to request an alteration to the composition of windows in the gable end.

[78:00] But I feel like that is the decision on the table, and so I'm not sure what the value of the withdrawal would be other than maybe they'd come back and suggest a different window configuration. That's exactly like like that. We would. We would contemplate yet a different window configuration. Well, or they could reconfigure the interior configuration. But we won't review that so? But but they would bring it back with 3 windows. But then, in that case we wouldn't need to see it. It's already approved with. Okay, so then we they would just withdraw, and if in the case that they do have to come back. then they could. So no, Ronnie, you're right. The proposal, and maybe I'm asking Staff this. So the proposal is also to remove the old windows and put in 4 windows. Is it also? if they're going to re, are are they removing the windows, no matter what?

[79:02] And then putting in 3 versus 4? So there's like 2 questions there like, are we putting new windows in? And then the I think what's on the table is to put 4 new windows in, not 3 new windows in right? So what you're responding to is the removal of 3 historic windows in addition, and adding 4 new windows as shown on the plans. I think that you're where you're leading is, you know. If the application was denied, what is a substantially similar application. Is that where you're going? Well, I'm wondering. Yeah, like, I'm wondering that. Well, if we deny it today, can they put in 3 new windows? No, that would be an new application. It the the code talks about a substantially similar application. And so this is removal. That would be the reason for us for them to pull. It is that they come back, and they say they want to remove the windows and put 3 windows in, because I think they also don't want to have

[80:08] the windows, the existing windows there now. So we're debating on. We like it for. But we're also debating on the fact that they're bringing in new windows. So I think the point is withdrawing gives the applicants the greatest ability to come back with another or for proposal if they decide to. And so yeah, that would be their prerogative. If we offer that I am up for offering that, but I think the clearest thing to do would probably be to vote on this aspect of the application cause. I don't think there's value in them coming back for me for us to review a different window composition again, but to review 3 windows that are new because they we would still have to, or staff would have to

[81:03] say that they're allowed to have replacement windows. Okay? So so maybe Staff can speak to that. Is that correct? The newness component would is would be substantively the same. And so a denial of this proposal would disallow them. To come back in a year. I think it provides the most flexibility to provide the opportunity to withdraw. I think, in the record, when a application is withdrawn at the hearing. It's understood that the Board was heading towards a denial, and that's on the record. But I can't be put on the spot to answer what exactly would be a substantially similar application with theoretical other options that may come forward, so I can't answer whether they wouldn't be allowed to apply for something in the Dormer in the next calendar year, and Chris may have a. I jump in just real quick.

[82:01] So the Board normally offers applicants an opportunity to withdraw. When a straw poll indicates that a denial may mean that they can't come back within a year, so my my advice to the Board would be to do what it normally does, which is, offer the opportunity with to withdraw, and then it's totally up to the applicant whether or not they they decide to withdraw, or they then decide not to withdraw, and then it goes to the board for a vote. But my advice is to do what the Board normally does, which is after a straw poll indicates denial is to off. Offer the applicant the opportunity to withdraw. Just so that we're treating Similarly situated people. Similarly. Thank you so much, Chris, so I do think we should take a straw poll vote. and that way the applicant will know. So, Renee. Well. I'd want to do hands raised. Yes, I'm in favor of a denial.

[83:03] I'm in favor of a denial. and so is the other hand raised here, Renee. so the application would be denied, based on the 4 of us attending here tonight. So this is your opportunity to withdraw this application. But I have a question. It doesn't hurt the rest that was approved. Everything that has been approved. Okay, that's it. There. thank you, Carrie, is that all we need? Marcy is just her just making sure, since the mic isn't over there, just confirming that the owner withdrew the application. Okay. thank you. Thank you. Bye. So I will go see?

[84:01] Yeah. we'll have John come in. Can I go get some water? Yeah. possible? Yeah. Well, here's why I have seen. I have a flight. Oh, jeez, yeah. we welcome you. I won't do this.

[85:02] but then I can't. But I'm still going to have right. I'm going to sit here. I know you don't have to leave at my yeah, she has to leave. Oh, where are you going? DC, oh, for something fun! Soon as Chelsea gets back. We can just go reading from each month. Yeah. no? Well, I'm sorry to hear about the Memorial Service. I'm sorry to hear about the Memorial service. It's the right thing to do. Living is worse than death. This, was it? Yeah. just waiting for Chelsea.

[86:53] Good evening. I'm John Decker, and Abby is going to have to depart, possibly, and in this hearing. So I am going to take over from this point.

[87:05] This is item 5 C. and I am the acting chair. So this is a public hearing and consideration of a landmark, alteration, certificate, application to demolish the existing material building and construct a new 2,800 square foot house and 1,000 square foot accessory building at 5 20 Pearl Street. It's a non-contributing property in the West Pearl historic district, pursuant to section 9, 1118 of the Boulder revised Code 1,981, and under the procedures prescribed by Chapter 1, 3. Quasi-judicial hearings. Brc. 1,981 so in the Powerpoint presentation.

[88:00] we'll move on to the 1st public hearing. Actually not sure what that is so. The 1st thing is that board members assume the right order. Yes, it is the 1st thing is is that board members will review their or reveal their ex parte context. So I'll start with Renee. I have none. Ronnie. No. Abby, none. I have none. I have none. Okay. So the baguette. Well, actually, I need to go over the quasi-judicial hearing process all speaking are sworn in. I haven't done this for a while. Okay, it's not needed. I think we know. Okay, right? Right?

[89:02] staff presentation will begin. Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you, John. All right. So this is a landmark alteration certificate. So the criteria for your review is found in 9 1118 of the Boulder Revised Code, and that is that the proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does not damage exterior architectural features of the property, that the work does not adversely affect. The historic architectural value of the property. the architecture, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color and materials is 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. The options in front of you this evening are to either approve the Lac application. That decision is subject to a 16 day city council call up period, or to deny the application subject to a 30 day. Call up period, and if you're heading towards that direction, it is the Board's practice to provide the applicant an opportunity to withdraw the application.

[90:10] This application process started in March, when the Lac. Application was submitted. The landmarks board held a hearing on April 3, rd of 2,024, and provided feedback to the applicant. But since there weren't votes to approve the application that evening the the applicant withdrew the application and submitted revised designs just over a month later in June, and that brings us to this evening, August 7, th for the landmarks board hearing. and I will pause there to just say thank you to the owners and the applicant team for taking the landmarks, board and staff's feedback to heart in in the revision. And though this process can be long, I do really appreciate the effort. So this property is located at 520 Pearl Street. It's on the south side of Pearl, in the West Pearl historic district.

[91:04] The existing house no longer looks like this. This is a historic photo. It was originally constructed before 1,883, and appears in the 1,887 map, and staff considers the building to be non contributing, due to the extent of alterations the section of this presentation goes through, but I won't repeat it too much in that. The Board did review this in in April, and generally considered the building to be non-contributing, and thought its demolition would be appropriate. So going through here are current photos of the building from Pearl Street and then the West elevation. and then the previous determinations that were made about its contributing non-contributing status. There were previous proposals for additions that are shown on the screen which would

[92:00] bring us to the proposed work in the Site Plan. So the proposal includes the demolition of the existing building and construction of a new house and accessory building on the lot. This is the previous proposal that the landmarks board reviewed, both in rendering and in elevation. and for the garage. At that time the current proposal has the same scope as before, but with a revised design of the project. So going to the north elevation of the house, it is similar in terms of its character and architectural detailing, but the revised proposal responded to staff and the Board's comments about the mass and scale of the building, and it, in Staff's opinion, now reads as a 1 and a half story building rather than a 2 to 2 and a half story building. The fenestration on the front of the house reflects that in the

[93:01] found in the historic district, with traditionally scaled double hung windows, and then vertical wood siding covering the building. Dormers extend along both slopes of the roof. This is the east elevation, as you can see with the front porch on the right hand of the screen. There's a chimney towards the front of the house, and then a variety of window shapes on the 1st level, and skylights and double hung windows. On the second level. On the west elevation there are 2 dormers, a gable roof, and a kind of offset shed roof, dormer, and then an inset porch at the rear corner of the house. Moving around to the rear of the building. The deck was reduced in size, responding to the previous comments, and it provides a balcony above the covered deck.

[94:00] and then the garage you can see on the right hand side has a steeper pitched roof and 2 garage doors rather than one large garage door. The proposed material remain that vertical wood siding that's stained or painted a stone chimney around the base of the building, metal roofing and clad windows. There's a few views of the building in 3D. Rendering, as you approach the building, walking west along Pearl Street. and you can see some changes to the porch as well to kind of ground it, and kind of integrate it into the design of the building, and as I mentioned the changes to the windows on the facade and then moving to the garage, we've covered the alley elevation with the pitch of the roof, and then dormers that, in Staff's opinion, are secondary to the overall character of the roof, and then the guidelines talk about 2 smaller scale garage doors being appropriate.

[95:07] Moving around to the west elevation. There is a single shed roof Dormer on this side of the building, and the inset entryway. The north elevation which faces the interior lot is simply detailed with 2 windows, one casement, and one double hung window. and then the east elevation mirrors that on the west, with a shed roof, dormer, and single opening on the 1st level. And here's a rendering showing the garage kind of from a bird's eye view from the alleyway. So Staff is looking at the key design guidelines for the house, and so that would include the roof forms, including dormers. Structures should use a roof form found in the district or on the landmark site, which this proposal does with a traditionally traditionally sloped. Gable roof.

[96:02] Dormers should be secondary to the main roof and lower to the overall roof. Line. and dormers are intended to be elements of secondary importance. The size and scale of the dormers should be compatible with existing ones, and new ones should be as small as possible. The design guidelines encourage front porches and read that it should be compatible with massing and details to historic porches in the district, and should be appropriate to the style of the House and Key building. Elements also include skylights. Skylights which are installed on the historic portion of the building should be unobtrusive, so it encourages flat skylights that blend in with the roof are most appropriate. In talking about the windows and doors. The guidelines encourage that the design, design, the spacing, placement, scale, orientation, proportion, and size of window and door openings in new structures to be compatible with the surrounding buildings that contribute to the historic district. While reflecting the underlying design of the new building.

[97:02] select windows and doors for new structures that are compatible in material subdivision and proportion pattern, and detailing with those found in contributing buildings. and that windows are character, defining features of historic buildings, and generally the fenestration patterns found in the district are regularly spaced and punched into the interior. Exterior walls. Windows are vertical in proportion double hung, and generally one over one or 2 over 2 windows in a new building, or in addition, should reflect the fenestration patterns in the district, and picture windows. Large walls of glass, snap, and mullions and prefabricated bay windows are generally inappropriate. Moving to the guidelines for materials and details. Materials should be similar in scale, proportion, texture, finish, and color to those found on nearby historic structures. maintain a human scale by avoiding large featureless surfaces and by using traditionally sized building components and materials.

[98:00] Brick, stone, woodlap, siding, stucco, and wood shingles are historic buildings found in the West pearl historic district, and although historic accuracy and roofing materials is not required. It will generally be most appropriate to preserve the type and unit scale of the original roofing in new construction do not replicate historic elements which creates a false image of what is and is not historic in the neighborhood. and where modern materials and technologies are used, historic proportions and finishes should be matched or emulated. and porch railings and balusters should be wood wrought. Iron porch elements are inappropriate in the district. so staff recommends conditional approval of this landmark, alteration certificate, and with the following conditions, revise the design of window and doors on the house to have regularly spaced pattern a cohesive language and reflect traditional size and proportion. Lower the height of the porch roof on the house to be consistent with traditional porch design and scale.

[99:04] revise the location and quantity of skylights on the house to provide for appropriate placement of future solar panels, revise roof material on the house, and garage from standing seam metal to asphalt shingle, to be consistent with materials found on contributing buildings in the district. and then the rest are details about indicating where the existing trees are, and then noting material of the patio, hardscaping and details on mechanical lighting and gutters. So with that I am happy to answer any questions that the board may have the scheduled roughly. 90 min for board. Deliberation and question would be, does the project meet the standards for issuance of an Lac going through. Whether the demolition is appropriate, going to the mass scale and location. The roof forms the placement and location of windows and door openings, and then the proposed materials

[100:05] that wraps up my staff presentation. We'll then turn it over to the applicant for their presentation, followed by public participation. After the final public comment is received, the applicant will have a chance to respond to anything that was said, and then at that point the Board deliberates. So with that I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Marcy. Does anyone on the board have any questions? I had a question. Okay, Marcy. I know I should know this, but I've heard a lot of design guidelines. So I don't in particular, for this have we? Do. We have regulation that describes the width of dormers. We do not. It's more they should be secondary. They should be as small as possible. They should, you know. Yeah, start below the ridgeline. But there isn't a specific measurement. And for this particular proposal

[101:05] did Staff have any feedback about the cross gable, Dormer, the dormer that I know that the applicant heard us, by the way, so I don't want this to be too much of a distraction or worrisome point for anybody. But I just want to, because I think that this is a really like strong application. and we'll get to that. But just to put your mind at ease because I'm going to ask some questions here. I was just wondering if Staff had any feedback or analysis on the dormers that are gabled. That are part of the proposal. You know, there is a variety of dormer shapes, like a combination of shed and gable. Where typically, you see one. you know, roof form. But that wasn't because they're traditionally

[102:01] their traditional forms that didn't stand out to us as something that that didn't meet the guidelines in the previous proposal. We did point out that the dormers on the garage were not secondary, and the dormers on the house, I think, were also larger than what the current proposal is okay. Thank you. Any others. Okay, we will proceed to the applicant presentation. I will have to swear whoever is going to speak. and you will then have 10 min, so you can raise your hand. Say you swear? To tell the truth. my name is Michael Noel. and I swear to tell the truth. Thank you. You have 10 min. Okay, thank you. And also thank the board and the staff for feedback, which really allowed us to rapidly turn this application around and improve the application in our opinion, obviously.

[103:04] does have a pointer somewhere. maybe. No. Okay. So this is our application from myself and lawn, the owners and Jeff and Matt, who are architects. So the basic project motivations. And I'll repeat some of what we went over at the last meeting are the physical state of the current home. Despite attempts to maintain it, recent floodplain changes, wildfire concerns obviously energy, efficiency and sustainability and increasing the living space and that additional adu living space. the constraints. Obviously the flood plain forces us to lift the home up approximately 3 feet because of the new flood plain. And then we're in that one and a half story, Max Building, that Marcy mentioned earlier. And so we wanted to put in those dormers. There was a question from the board in regards to the various types of dormers, and that's really to allow suitable living space on the second floor.

[104:08] So we took to heart the various aspects that the Board presented to us, reducing the mass. I'm not going to go through every one of these, but essentially we feel that we've addressed all of those we did maintain the standing seam metal roof. And I'll talk about that, because that is a common feature in many of the contributing homes as well as landmark homes. And I'll show images of that shortly. And we've also there was issues about the the porch, so we've reduced the aspect of that made it a true porch element. So this is just doing a comparison between the prior application and what we have today. So you see that dramatic decrease in the height. and also the fenestration was altered appropriately. We lowered that skirting and made the porch a more prominent element. So it's a real porch element. And then we added that cross gable, and part of the reason to have that cross gable is to sort of put part of the house behind the front of it, so the sloping of the roof makes it sort of appear less massive, as opposed to those large shed dormers that we had previously.

[105:20] And so, in regards to the adu again, we essentially modified everything as requested by the landmarks board. So these modifications include adding a 2 car garage as a 2 door car garage as opposed to a single door. making the dormers subsidiary to the main roof, making the fenestration more traditional, and removing that balcony element in regards to the proposed exterior materials, as mentioned, wood siding, the stone skirting and porch elements and the metal roof, which I'll talk about shortly.

[106:01] The wood siding and stained painting is similar to current homes as well as contributing homes in the area. This is just showing the actual home, and then 439 Canyon In regards to the sea metal roofing, we maintained that for a number of reasons, so one is that while there are a number of homes with as asphalt shingle roofing, this home was built long before asphalt shingles were available, but metal seam roofs had been available since the 17 hundreds. and there are a number of homes in the area that have this metal seam roof, including 8, 15 pearl, which is an individual landmark building which has a metal seam roof. And that's why we maintained that in regards to the stone there are homes similar that have this type of stone coloration. Some of them are the complete home. These are the 2 examples shown. And then, specifically, in response to the staff comments, I'll just go through that.

[107:00] I know one board member needs to leave quickly, so I won't use all my time. So revised the design of the windows. So one issue with. This is some of the window locations and styles are restricted by interior design. Can't sort of move the windows outside of where certain elements are, and they're primarily located on the east and west of the structure, which is not observable to a passer by, either in the alley or on Pearl Street itself. Nonetheless, we'll certainly work with Staff to move that through the Ldrc. Approval pathway, lowering the height, the height of the porch on the house. We agree with that, and we will revise that and work through the Ldrc. Approval revised the location and quantity of the skylights of the house. So in regards to that. So those are not located on a south facing roof, which is where you want to have solar. And so it's not really the best place to put solar. And in addition to that, with modern solar technology and microinverters, you can have a non contiguous solar array. Regardless that doesn't impact

[108:11] those skylights. So you can basically build your solar array around that, even if you wanted to it. But that's not the ideal location. And so the ideal location would be on that south, facing roof of the gable roof, the cross gable in the front as well as on the adu so, and and it's an important interior element to the house, those particular skylines. The next point was to revise the roof materials on the house and the garage, and, as I mentioned, we maintain that a standing seam metal roof is consistent with contributing homes in the district as well as individual landmark homes. And that's why we maintained that. And so we? We asked the board to approve that aspect of it, the metal seam component. and then the last 3 items obviously won't work with staff to finalize those and ensure that we meet those conditions.

[109:07] So in summary, non-contributing structure, we're going to demolition, rebuild with historical features design elements of both contributing homes in the area as well as the prior home. We've dramatically reduced the mass and scale. So it's substantially less, not only to our prior application, but other contributing structures just a few doors away, and we are obviously more than willing to work with staff to finalize that and get Ldrc approval. And with that be happy to answer any questions or take comments as well as Jeff. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for the app? Okay, Ronnie. I had a couple of questions. Thank you like it. You, I believe you truly have. like, listened to our comments at the last meeting. And you know I just am grateful to see this really strong application, so I have a couple of questions for you, though.

[110:06] I don't know if this came up last time. But when I see the Site plan and I don't know if we have an image or viewed it in your slide deck. It. I'm just curious about the building setback from the front property line. And if that is what, what is the determining factor for the building setback? Because it looks like this building is pushed further back than all adjacent buildings. Sure, we'd love to move it forward a bit to get more space in the back, but it's 25 feet is the code. So we're sort of restricted by that unless there's a particular rationale from landmarks. But I don't. And you know I haven't looked at this in a while, but I think that there's an averaging of front setbacks. Opportunity does that only work if you increase against increase it as opposed to decrease it. I think that if we move. move forward, if we're get approved, then that's something we bring up at the planning department, I presume, but maybe

[111:07] the planning department can answer that question for us, since they know everything. I don't know the answer. The applicant the architects would know better. I've I've heard of that rule. But I don't know the details. Yeah, I think that that's something that I'd like to bring up later. And maybe it's out of our purview. But the way that I believe it is in our purview is that I think it would be more consistent if the building were brought to a frontage standard that's consistent with the historic buildings and adjacent buildings in the district and setting the building back, I think, is actually a demerit for the district itself. Creating larger front yards is a pretty suburban move. And I think it also, as you have said, could be more desirable for the applicant to have a little more backyard space. So I think it makes sense to pursue. And if there's an opportunity for us to comment on that in our notes I'd like to make that point, that that would be greatly appreciated, because we would like to move it forward. And then I had a couple of other questions. If you could go to the front elevation, what is the pitch of this primary roof? Form

[112:21] 4th language. My name's Jeff Van Sandwich. I'm the architect, I swear to tell the truth. Oh, oh, excuse me. Oh, okay, he did. Sorry. Paying attention. It's a 1012 pitch. It's a 1012, and then follow up. Question the secondary roofs that are the the gabled dormers. Do you know what the pitch of those are? Those are also nearly 1012, and they may have been put in at eights or nines. I don't remember offhand. Okay. and then if you could go back to the front elevation.

[113:02] How large are the windows in the gable end? What size are those individual windows? They're 2 and a half feet wide and 5 and a half tall. Sorry. I'm just gonna write that down. So 2.5 by 5.5. Roughly, okay. and are the windows on the lower level, also 2 and a half feet wide. Yeah, yes, I believe so. Yes, yes. great those are all the questions I have. Okay, anyone else. So to follow up with Ronnie's question, which will help us talk about the existing house. What is the relationship between the existing house and where you placed this location of this house to the existing, not to the neighboring properties. But what is it I can't from this, is it? It's it's basically at the same position.

[114:06] The same? Yeah, the front. yeah. In in that image, you can actually just make out the roof line of the front porch sticking just forward of the front porch. So we are slightly further back. So it's slightly farther back. So the front porch actually. is like we could. The front does our front porch match the existing? No, we're about 4 feet further back, 4 feet behind. Yeah, okay, okay. thanks. Okay. I. I had a follow up with mine. I don't know if you're gonna close it. Yeah. You guys, if you want to go first, st anybody who has a question, I just wanna make sure they didn't close it on me. Cause. Then you have to sit down and get back up in a pain on that front elevation. If you could just flip back to that. The windows in the gable end. What is the it's hard for me to know. Do do you have a

[115:01] sloped ceiling. In the upper portion rooms portions of the upper rooms are sloped so that dashed line above the windows? Does that reflect the ceiling. Height in portions of the house. Yes, at the front gable. Yes, okay. And what's the sill height on those windows? Roughly 30 inches about 30 inches. and so sorry. I mean, this might get to easier. I know you said it's 30 inches. But what's the what's the floor height? What's the ceiling height in that room that I see there? I think we might be 9 feet on the upper floor, but I can't read it on that screen, but I can probably read it here. Yeah, I I think it got cropped out of the oh. it's a secret 9 foot one underneath. Have you found it. I I looked when I was when I had this at home. I couldn't find it. I think it just got cropped out of our set. What did you say? It is? 9 foot one. It's 9 feet. So that dashed lines at 9 feet. Yes, okay, great.

[116:10] That's it. Thanks. That's all for me. Okay, I have one quick question. On without discussing the reasons for demolition, because I think we already discussed that pretty thoroughly when you do deconstruct the building. The existing building is. do you see, reusing any of that material in this project at all? Just primarily, the stones that are in the cellar. There's a number of old stones in the cellar that we want to repurpose. We haven't figured out what to do with them, but that's the main thing. Okay. Thank you that I believe. Chelsea, you don't have anything. Okay that that closes the applicant presentation portion of this, and we will move on to public comment.

[117:01] In public comment. The people who elect to speak get 3 min and must be sworn and state their name. And do we have anybody present who wishes to speak. Yes, I think Leonard would like to speak again. Great. So, Leonard, once again. I don't know the seal. Leonard Siegel, and I swear to tell the truth, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on this. I live in Mapleton, just nearby this neighborhood, so I really appreciate the work that you've done. I think the building feels like it fits appropriately into the neighborhood. So I think it's a really nice. It'll be a really nice addition. And I do know the building with its rough siding, and it feels foreign. It feels actually a time warp of the 19 seventies almost. And one comment I would make, though you know, I think there's details that you're all talking about that are appropriate to talk about, but one overall comment that I would have is, I think, the building feels too dark

[118:12] the color of the building, and I'm not sure if there's a in the particular West pearl historic district. There are guidelines about color, but it doesn't, and I know you made reference to another building in the neighborhood that was relative to that. But I think in general, if you look at canvassing the neighborhood, it just feels like Gee, it's 2024, and we're going to do a really dark charcoal building, and it doesn't feel like West Pearl. So I would encourage you to consider lightning the palette of that not making it white necessarily, but lightning it in some way. And that was the end of my comment. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Leonard. Anyone else do we have virtual people who wish to speak.

[119:00] Yeah, let's see here. Yes, Lynn, Siegel would like to speak. Okay, Lynn, I will. Are you? Are you there? Yeah. I, you will have to swear and state your name, and you have 3. I don't, I don't swear, but I will tell truth to my knowledge, to my understanding. And I know there's at least 2 other houses with metal roofs. I I saw they put up the one on 5th Street. There's also the one on Mountain View, 2 houses in from 4, th and there's the one on across from the Academy at Mapleton. and metal. I just prefer metal, and I think it's a lot better for longevity and for the fact that if the solar panels

[120:01] go out at a different time, you know you have to replace the roof well with the metal, you seldomly have to replace the roof. The other thing is the house on spruce and 9.th Isn't that it? Yeah, it's on spruce and not Kim's friend. I forget her name. that the purple one, the lavender colored one that also has a metal roof. and I I really I didn't think the house should have been demolished. Of course, you know I try to save everything, and of course this most of this is not going to be reused. and it could have been reused if they kept the house. It has a sister house to the east. That's very similar kind of this open ranch, feeling on the porch. That would be really nice to continue that feeling of the architecture of the house which I don't really see that much in the in the new house.

[121:16] I I mean, I appreciate the that that the architect did a good job and everything, but I really feel that it could have been incorporated into the existing house. and done a really beautiful project, too. and I recall seeing the other iterations of it as it went along. let's see. I think also that it should come Closer to the street with a less suburban feel. And

[122:00] the and the lighter color here at Elso. that's also better for cooling in the summer. let's see. or like the porch design. And it it feels like it. How's it good. fairly good cohesiveness with the neighborhood, but I do like. Thank you, Lynn Lynn. thank you. and thank you, Amanda, for Fielding Fielding, that I don't think we have any more. No, it doesn't look like we have anyone else online. Thank you. Do any. Do the applicants want to make any response to anything? Said. you have 3 min. If you would like to. We don't have any specific responses. We're willing to look at different colors. I mean, that's obviously, but we can paint over whatever we put in later. I guess. So. Yeah. And as far as the reuse of materials we did mention

[123:12] using the stone that's in there. But if there are any. We're hoping we might find a nice beam or something to put in there. But I don't know if we will, because it it's basically was converted into an office space. So we don't really see what's up above there. There is one major beam that we may reuse, which is in that forward facing gable of the old home. Great. Okay. Thank you. That brings us to board question. I mean, board discussion and is there anyone who feels like opening on this one. I just can I ask a question? Sure, for the condition suggested to revise the design of the windows and doors on the house to have a regularly spaced pattern, a cohesive language, and reflect traditional size and proportion? Are there specific

[124:06] windows and doors that you're speaking to? Or is it all windows and doors, or what's the scope of that condition? Yeah, I appreciate the question because the clearer the conditions are the easier it is at the Ldrc. So we are referencing the West and East elevations. But then leaving it open for the Ldrc. To determine, you know what's appropriate to meet that condition of approval. and the design guidelines in the west. Pearl historic district say that generally fenestration patterns are regularly spaced and punched into the exterior walls. Windows are vertical in proportion, double hung, and generally one over one or 2 over 2, and then the other. One is maintain a human scale by avoiding large featureless surfaces and by using traditionally sized building components and materials.

[125:03] Okay. thanks. Okay, someone. You'd like to, Abby. Well, the main reason I'd like to is because then I'd like others to kind of weigh in on just a couple of things. I'd just say, 1st of all, thank you so much. I feel like you really responded to comments, and both from us, and and it sounds like from staff since the April meeting. So I really appreciate your willingness to do that, and I'm generally very supportive of this moving forward and remanding a lot of things to the Ldrc. But the one thing I'd love to hear from my colleagues are is I appreciate the interest in the metal roof. my actual experience, especially in our historic districts and neighborhoods. There really aren't that that many we did within the last couple of years have an original metal roof that someone actually wanted to take off and replace with another one, and we did ask them to keep the metal roof. But but I know over the past years that those are things that we've normally not approved.

[126:11] And so I I welcome other people's thoughts when when you take your turn to speak, and I do appreciate, I I think I heard your willingness to maybe make it a little lighter. You know. I know these dark colors are kind of in vogue now, and in certain places they really fit. I don't know if I personally feel it is that compatible in this particular historic district. So it already sounds like you're amenable to that. And then I loved what Ronnie said about the setback in the front yard because I struggled with this at the April meeting, and I know the house very well. I've walked by it thousands of times is that it did because the current house is set back. It did have a more suburban feel with the expanse of lawn. So I think that's those are kind of the 3 things for me. The metal roof discussion, the color which it sounds like you're already willing to entertain, changes to that and the

[127:09] front setback. Okay. thank you. Who's next? I can jump in and just piggyback off of the setback talk for a second. I think this building should move forward. And so I think it should be explored. I believe that Chapter 7. The form and bulk standards of the municipal code. Section 9, 7, 2, subset a. You can go. Listen to that. But it's 9, 7, 2, a of chapter 7, says front yard setback reductions. The front yard setback required in the section above which is the bulk standards that you looked at may be reduced for a principal structure on any lot. If more than 50% of the principal buildings on the same block, face or street face do not meet the required front yard setback, and then it talks about the measuring technique.

[128:10] which is very permissible, and I believe that the project should pursue that. I don't know how. We not only encourage it, but it sounds like you want to do it, but I I think you should do it in order to maintain the integrity of the historic district. And so I'll leave that at that point. I know it would need to be explored a little further than just my quick reading of the Muni code. But if it's possible. I would love for it to be part of the conditions. And if there's initial additional support that's required, you know, I would just like to provide that. So then I'll just talk about a bunch of stuff. I agree with Staff. I think you know you've heard me compliment you so I agree with Staff.

[129:04] I think that this proposal is approvable, and I think that Staff's recommendations are the recommendations that I would support. I wonder if we could go to the recommendations just quickly or the conditions. There was a different version of this that I think was the topics. But I would just say the the big thing that I think will be most impactful will be the lowering of the porch roof. and I know that you know that. And that was, and you're agreeing to do that. But that was my 1st read kind of of this version of the proposal. And again, while I think it is a beautiful proposal as is. I think it'll be more compatible if that roof drops a little bit. And then I think if we could go look at the front elevation more or less. All of that stuff. I think we understand.

[130:05] okay, I think that this is a strong front elevation, and I agree that there's some work for us to do at the Drc. Level about windows, and we'll figure that out. One window thing I just wanted to point out is as the porch roof drops, and I understand you have adjacent roofs. So this isn't as easy as I'm going to make it sound. There's an opportunity to make those upper windows potentially a little wider. Not that they need to be but I do think that if they were wider, that the aspect ratio of window, the vertical versus horizontal proportion, might be a little more in the nature of historic windows. They're predominantly vertical but I think it might do something that's just a little more consistent with what you would normally see on the block. I think it's approvable, as is, though. But you might find that

[131:03] a little bit of enlarging of the width and keeping the depth. And I know you. You talked about the sill height, and all that math makes sense. So then, the other thing, I think, is the cross gable Dormer, which I know we talked about in a previous meeting, and I think it's a great move. I would like to talk about that a little bit. But I would prefer, if we came back to it because I think it would be a point of discussion. And I would prefer to let others talk about the bigger picture items before honing in on a small detail like that. But I think that this is an approvable application. Rene. I this this application is really well thought out, and it I I found the heights. So they're in here. They're not just cut off

[132:04] so but it. It just goes for us to like, you know, like honing in on specific details which I think Ronnie's going to get to. But I also think that we can make them a little bit more broad and then work out the details in the Ldrc I want to. I want to go back to like maybe stepping back out of the details and look at the massing because when I look at the front elevation of this, it feels hall like there's and I don't know if there's a way like you know, it's hard to see this the scale, you know, like. but it's 10 foot ceilings on the main level, I think. and and then 8 foot ceilings 8 foot or 9 foot ceilings, and if it's sloped like if it's

[133:01] vaulted in the inside. so the reason I'm going about that is, it's like it feels tall compared to other, you know. like that would not be a normal historic features having these real tall, I mean, I guess we do have tall ceilings in some of the buildings, but it feels like then the second floor kind of compensates for that right? Like you get to the second floor. And then there's like this, Dormer that you're like right up against right. And and because they preferred to have 10 foot ceilings on the 1st floor. You know. It's not usually so. I don't know why like, that's my 1st feeling on it is that the massing feels big, and so the windows, I mean the windows on the front are 6 inches from the floor. and so like in a in a in a historic structure, they would be a little higher. So I don't know if we if that's a discussion point, or if everyone else is on board with it, liking

[134:02] the height and the I have some comments at the end about a few of these things. So so like, that's my! That's a little bit of a read like I feel like you might be able to. You could even lower the the plate height on the main roof and not lose any of the height Renee could just clarify. What is. Is the feeling of tallness? Are you getting it from the entire mass, or are you getting it? Just from the street facing gable portion that might clarify how you're yeah, I feel like I well, I feel I get it from the front side, the the street side. Okay? And then my other feeling of mass to scale is the adu in the back.

[135:05] It's hard because we're we're gonna approve 2 buildings here, and I feel 2 of them deserve. you know, a a discussion on both ends, because the back, the back building like, I want to bring the adu in, and I think it's great. But maybe normally we would have wanted to see like a like a roof to the the scale of the alley, it not being so tall again. So I mean, those are my initial thoughts and feelings. But it's not. I'm more or less. That's what I'm getting like across of, like the scale of it. Just being a little bit okay. Chelsea. I just get concerned when we have big discussions about these projects, and we had this big discussion last time. And now we're here again with the new Review, and it's like a new

[136:04] hurdle like a new issue that wasn't brought up the last time. So I just have. I don't. I feel I don't feel like that's necessarily fair to the applicant. but and I don't feel like it's tall. I don't. But anyway, I had a question about the skylights, because it seemed like in the applicant presentation that the skylights were important. And looking at the guidelines, it says that as they should be as unobtrusive as possible, and not visible from a public street. and I believe that the skylights in this proposal wouldn't be visible from the street. But I don't know. Can someone else confirm that

[137:02] seems like they wouldn't be. Don't think they will be. Yeah. So I wanted to open that up for discussion. Since that seemed like it was important to the applicant, and it seems like, according to the guidelines. there are ways for it to be compliant under the guidelines. and maybe there's a way to continue to have the skylights, but in a different format, if that's required. But according to the guidelines, it seems like it would be appropriate. Okay. thank you. I'm going to go through a few comments here in in response. 3 of us are architects on this board, and consequently we can't avoid having some amount of these discussions, we can't look at things without seeing

[138:02] elevation lines and graphs, and so on. So 1st the roof. I am not personally troubled by the metal roof. There are other examples of it in that district, including on the most historic house on the street. on the Tower, at least. And it it's slate. Oh, it is Vermont that's late on the Arnet. Fullen House is found in one valley located between Vermont and New York. Sorry. Well, no, no, it's late. That's important, because I've looked at it. And I thought, Oh, it's metal, hey? But to further the issue of the metal metal is a highly sustainable material. Once it's in place, it's resilient to a degree, especially in our increasing hailstone environment. As climate changes. I think that it is, I think, that it is appropriate, and it it doesn't trouble me. There are various colored metal systems in addition to a more, I guess natural finish. So you might consider those

[139:14] on the issue of color. I do think I have no problem with the Hue family that you're using, but I do think you want to lighten up the value? Bring it up a couple of shades to be more, I guess, in character with other things in that neighborhood, particularly along that street. on the issue of frontage. And this is kind of spoken from urban design. The tendency in the absence of an a specific standard as to how to calculate it is to do averaging. And you're in a situation where you have one building on one side that pushes way into the setback zone, and then you have a building wall on the other side that's created by a series of houses. So if you were to average between those 2 conditions, you could actually come out in front of that building wall.

[140:17] or the bulk wall, I guess you would call it along the rest of the street to create more of a gradient between the more extreme peace and the rest of the street. And that would be what I would advocate for. But it's not necessarily a fixed condition of this discussion. The the cross gable is very interesting, and I understand why you used it as a mechanism, but it is per Renee's comment. It does kind of exaggerate the overall mass of that front view, at least in elevation, in in actual perspective view from the public realm. It may not be quite as apparent, but it creates in essence a square wall viewed from the public realm, and it might actually be worth exploring.

[141:13] How the original kind of shed roof dormers. even though you feel like they're very large, would look because they kind of depress that tendency for that to read as just one kind of cubic mass. and that's all I've got. I support this project. I think it should go forward, and you've done a great job. Anything else. I'll just add. I also support the metal roof. Maybe I'll jump in on the metal roof. I I do think that there's precedent for metal roof in the area, but I don't necessarily think it's appropriate to use metal roof here. It is the uniqueness of the metal roofs on those few historic buildings that is part of the character defining features of those buildings that make them just so special.

[142:09] So, you know, I think that's while it's evident somewhere else I think it would detract from the specialness of those few buildings that have it. That's kind of why, it's such a character defining feature. So I think that it's cool. And I agree. It's. you know, has some great qualities. and I know it's not inexpensive. I'm sure it would look great, but I just think, in terms of the preservation standpoint. I think you know, it makes more sense to me to kind of be consistent and to try to be a more compatible building. That's a little bit more of a background building. Instead of doing the feature thing that a historic building has that made it different than the others. So yeah. So maybe it's my turn to talk about the cross gable thing. I think, John, what John was saying about the verticalness of that wall that it creates, I do think.

[143:10] contributes to the tallness of the building. And I think that tallness isn't a new thing. By the way, we did talk about that the last time, and they did respond to it. And they brought back 2 images that showed the comparative way in which they made the building less tall. And so I do think it's okay for us to still talk about tallness. I don't. I hope you don't perceive that as a new topic. Because I think that was like the big thing. I think you did a pretty good job with the tallness. I think the width of this building in an interesting way, is part of the reason why it feels so big because the width makes it consequently taller, because that roof gable is just going to go and go and go.

[144:01] But I I think that you know you did address this. And I again, I think it's approval. We can talk about ways to reduce the tallness. So if you, I think that it's approvable. But if you were interested in continuing to reduce the smallness and maintain the cross gable. which I think is a strong move at a minimum on the non chimney side of the building, although I know it does some great chimney things on the other side of the building, so say both sides in a weird way, one, I think if the roof pitch was the same as the primary gable, that would be pretty good. but if there was more roof. it would be better. And so if you go to a side elevation of this building. This is kind of why I was talking about the the width of dormers earlier is like

[145:00] again, I think, that this is approvable, but a cross gabled, or a gabled dormer that lets its roof form come down lower will, in my opinion, make the building look shorter. and I don't think that a cross gabled Eve needs to match the dormer or needs to match the shed dormer at eve. and so like, I guess. What am I saying? That little thing that's poking out on the right hand side of the dormer or on the right hand side of the chimney. There's a couple of ways to do it. I'm just gonna do some dumb thing that you're not gonna do just this version of it. If that roof continued forward on the plan almost to the alignment of the front wall. Even if there's uninhabitable space back in there it'll look more like roof and less like wall, and it'll look more like what historic gabled dormers are doing where they're springing from a point that's like buried in the roof instead of springing a point that's like way up high on the roof.

[146:16] I mean another move. Radical move would be to make it as wide as your total dormer here, and capture the doubled windows on the left. As long as you're making the ridge line subordinate to the Major Ridge line. Now, mind you, I know you got a lot of stuff happening in there. There's a closet, there's a bedroom. There's all that stuff, and you're trying to get a consistent ceiling plane, perhaps. But I think that that tool on this face. And then if you go to the other face. and on this face, which could be like well, actually, you might make that one a little wider by letting the roof form at its current point, or a little higher. Just come down further, I think, would strengthen the proposal, and I think it would be more consistent with dormer languages.

[147:02] And then, if you go back to the front elevation? I agree with my colleagues and the public comment about the buildings. Color. I think that's a little subjective. I think if you're open to exploring that that it would please a lot of people. so you know, I guess those are. Those are my primary comments. I'm not sure how others feel about what I'm describing about the gable, but I think that if there's opportunity to explore that at Drc. That it would be welcomed by me. And I think it would reduce the height. And and I guess the very last thing, while not necessary to do is that the vertical nature of the siding.

[148:00] also highlights verticality, you know, vertical stripes, horizontal stripes. So you could consider modifying the orientation of material. I don't think it'll have too significant of an impact. But if it was desired by the applicant, I would also support a reorientation, although I don't think it's necessary. Okay. anybody else. I just want to add quickly to your perhaps radical ideas about the dormers. It's not being one of the architects on the board. It's always amazing to me that some changes like that. even if the building has the exact same footprint, and I know that that we don't know what the programming is behind it, for sure, but that it it lightens the mass and scale, you know. And I it's it's I don't know if it's a trick of the eye. I don't know what it is, but I do like that. Being explored.

[149:04] not necessarily required, but explored, might take some of that feeling of kind of the mass away. Okay. anybody else? I do about the metal metal roof scenario. I don't mind that. It has a metal roof. I think the metal roof is sustainable. It's also fire rated. so I'm not opposed to having the metal roof. I think it would be a lot of the houses that were shown. Some of them had asphalt shingle, and then the metal roof on the front. So maybe there's a compromise between I'm fine with the metal roof. the whole section. I don't know. I I guess I would look for to Staff to ask. You know what? Why, the metal roof is not something that's historic, but I do think it's

[150:02] something to discuss, because it is fireproofing and it's pretty sustainable, you know, and then my other thing about the massing of the height, like I love the way Ronnie is discussing, bringing more of the roof form without having the walls in there. I also think that you don't have to. You wouldn't really lose a lot of height if you kept the. Maybe you took the slope of the roof, the main roof. and the way they've punched the way they have. The dormers are very purposeful for getting height in the The stairwell and the bathrooms and things where they are required. But even if you maybe got a steeper pitch on that main that might help with the the length, and I noticed that in April, if you're looking side to side to that. They had brought it in a little bit, and so that helped with

[151:03] the the it being feeling that way, too, like bringing up the massing. So I think it's an improvement meant definitely. So, okay. it sounds like, we're getting close to a pretty unified opinion here. the it is, by the way, perceptual things like that that. They're somewhat scientific things in terms of how you respond to mass and massing. And I do think, as Ronnie is saying, that the cross gable need warrants some discussion, but shouldn't hold up what we're doing tonight. I think we can approve. I feel like this is can be approved with the condition that conditions added at the point of of the motion that somebody is going to make. will be resolved in a Drc environment, and there is certainly nothing even close to fatal on this

[152:08] quick jump in on the back side of the building. I forgot to say that I think that the adu, as it's shown, and as it's scaled. Seems, I understand again, because it's got a narrower base. It appears tall relative to that roof form, but I think it's appropriately scaled and formed. I think it's I. It's an interesting kind of quasi miniature on the back side of the house on the alley side, and I think it does what it's supposed to do as a completion to the property. So I support that pretty much as it's shown. can I have it? Yeah, you can. Well, so on this, the the this 8, this back accessory structure, the thing about it, like these dormers are wall dormers, you know. So the the dormers going up so it's less likely a roof dormer. And if we see it on the side, you know, it's it becomes

[153:10] yeah. I mean, it's almost like the full length of the the building is the dormer. I think that again the places where you need the height you're putting the dormer there right, and it's like there's a triangle at the top. If the plate height is 8 feet and that line is 8 feet, the triangle at the top is useless. you know. So like, if you bring again the main, the main roof structure down. it would lighten up that that it wouldn't feel so tall, or even if you if you again maybe made the slope steeper right? It wouldn't feel like the mass being so big. But yeah, I mean, I think it's something that maybe could be massaged in Ldrc. It's oh, people agree that it's I will

[154:07] remind the Board that it's a it's a quasi utility location on the site. It is at best a secondary elevation, even though it's along the alley which is public realm. and the part that faces in towards the house is tertiary. So it's not quite as critical. It could be virtually anything and be allowable from that argument on the alleyway, you mean. Yeah. As long as it, you know doesn't vary wildly from other things that are along the alley. Yeah, I mean, I just feel like we've we've taken. you know, accessory buildings and made something like this feels like we've it has come before, and we have done what we're doing now is kind of dissecting it to make it look feel smaller the fact that again that there's this front building and this back building. And we're trying to

[155:08] look through this. I almost looking at it. Think. seeing what you're seeing. that some kind of graphic detail between the floors could do something to the elevation that would be as effective perceptually as as all the other things were discussing. But. Renee, could you just say one more time what it is that you would recommend? They do like, I guess I was just confused. Are you suggesting they modify the dormer, or they modify the primary gable. Well, like I think it's the same as the as the front side is that it feels like it's a wall, a wall, right? And so if you can if if the pitch of the roof became steeper right then the the ends of the wall would be shorter. And so then it wouldn't, you know, it would feel more vertical, and maybe not so squatty if that's the, you know, like not technical terms. And then the

[156:16] it, I just yeah, I mean it. You're not everything, is. It's 9 foot ceilings. And you know it's meeting the zoning guidelines for the height. So I don't know if this is just. We've looked at previous accessory buildings, and it it feels like this is a larger one on the alleyway, and I know it's not the prominent public site, but and maybe that everyone else feels, then it doesn't have to go in the notions. So I mean, I think a a part of the condition

[157:02] could include considering reduction of the plate heights at the dormers on the accessory structure. and I believe that's what you're saying is that it'll come down a little bit, and there'll be less. Wall, that's viewed. and so I think if we conclude something that's a consideration of modifications that helps consider reducing the height that would be good if I'm capturing what you're saying. Yeah, I mean, how wide is the building? You know. I guess. Chelsea, can we? Because can we compare? Where's the image of what it was before? Oh, yeah. So that's helpful.

[158:01] Yup, huge improvement. Yeah. So I feel like the applicants really did address the comments that were made. And we have to remember that somebody's got to live in there. so as long as it doesn't fall outside of the guidelines, I feel like it's a little nitpicky. Sometimes we get nitpicky as a group. I do. No, yeah, I think, looking at these 2, I think you're right. It's definitely an improvement. I love the fact that they did the set of a 2 car garage door. It's 2 doors. And I like that. They lightened it up with a window. Like. I almost wish they would have kept the plate height of the main roof on the left, and just raised that pitch up a little bit, so that, like it just would feel differently. But I'm i i guess she's talking, and I I do understand why I'm looking at this

[159:04] this because I wasn't at the April meeting. So. hey. I hear what Renee is saying, and I think it's when when Ronnie brought up on the east and west elevations about the wind, the the dormers, and everything for me. Where I see massive scale is the wall, the exterior wall voids, you know, and that's why I think you were saying, maybe something not ornamental, but some break somehow. Does that. But and, Renee, I hear what you're saying about things. I am looking at this as because it's not like a new adu. Say on a contributing designated house. I think I'm looking at it with a little bit more latitude. I think, too, I don't know why I know this alley so well, except maybe for my dogs, but I think this alley has a couple of taller buildings. There's

[160:01] at the to the west. On the other side is a 3 car garage that has an adu above it. So so I think I'm kind. I'm bringing that kind of vantage point in knowing that where I think in this particular alley for this particular property. that that I'm not as concerned as you might be with that. But I might like, if it were Mapleton Hill, and or something. Does that make sense? But I know this Ali really well, so I think it could work as proposed. Do you, Ronnie? Can you see on there if the those doors are 9 foot doors, 8 foot doors, 7 foot doors, garage doors. Yeah, I do. Let me take a look if I can, or the applicant might be able to show a fingers. Is it a 8 or a 9. I think it's 9. Yeah, I mean, I I get them all. I thought it was not okay.

[161:06] So it's been, it's been clarified. It's 9 foot. So so again for me, like a 9 foot door in a historic neighborhood, feels large, like I feel like we. If we had a if there was a person standing next to it. I think that we are not decreasing the usability of the upstairs or the downstairs garage. We can lower the plate height of this building and get it to be. Not so. But you walk the alleyway. So maybe well, yeah, but I'm 1 person, and but but I I mean, but I do think it's okay to say, let's explore that or consider that, you know. Well, I think there should be agreement that we should all consider. Yeah, I would be for considering or exploring that I well, I'll say this to kind of wrap up.

[162:05] I think that this design has come. Great distance. I think that, as presented, it's fully approvable with conditions. The conditions will put it into Drc process, which will be optimization process. not radically changing or altering what's already present, and has come a great distance to get to this point, and I'm going to call for a motion I would like to do that. I support us moving on, but I just wanted the the roof conversation. the roof conversation. I think Renee had asked Staff to comment about the metal roof and why the guidelines might say otherwise. Okay, I thought that would be beneficial for us to just kind of wrap that one up. Yeah. Well, that's the beauty of this process is that the guidelines

[163:04] are interpreted by the Volunteer board members with a recommendation from Staff. So where the design. Guidelines talk about using materials found on historic buildings in the neighborhood, and that are characteristic of the historic district. Metal roofs are found historically in boulder. They're very rare. They're special, but it's not a foreign material to put on a roof. I do want to make one clarification, because there seems to be a misconception that asphalt roofs are not fire rated and they are. They're class a roofs so asphalt roofs can be as fire resistant as metal. There's many other reasons. That metal is also great. So it's open to interpretation. So there's no hard guideline in here that says you may not use metal standing seam roofs. That's a open for interpretation.

[164:00] And can you remind me what Staff's recommendation was for that? Not to approve the metal roof or to explore ours was to not approve the metal roof and revise it to asphalt, mostly in being consistent with past applications. But again, the program evolves, the interpretation changes. There's no hard and fast new. Can I suggest that we do the straw poll on the metal roof so that we craft the motion that will likely pass. Would I be able to make one thought just on this context? It seems to me that part, maybe part of what is problematic or well, sorry. I'm not saying this very well. When the the applicant showed a number of examples of metal roofs. There's 1 right around the corner that where the metal roof is really a character defining feature, and it's a light blue.

[165:00] And then a number of the other roofs are quite silver. So my feeling is that a metal roof would be quite appropriate in this location if it were lighter, and that's what I said. Color should be carefully considered right, and in particular, on the roof. Right? So that just one thought, there, yeah, I like Ronnie's idea. Let's do a quick yay, or nay, starting with Renee. What if we just do raise your hands. Okay, raise a hands. Work. Raise your hand if you're gay. How about that? Yeah. If if you can allow the metal roof, raise your hand. If you do not like the metal roof razor, I like metal roofs for the record. Leaning towards the metal. The lobbyists are going to come after me the metal roof lobbyists.

[166:00] But then. yeah, the alugabond guys are going to show up at your house about the skyways. I I didn't have any problem with those in terms of, can we do a shruple in the skylights about allowing the skylights? Sorry, allowing the skylights that are not visible from the public street. Yeah, let's let's do that. The same way. Those those who can allow the skylights essentially is presented raising so one question on the sky. I'm gonna make it pass, is there? We're allowed the skylights in the rear and not visible from public view. But they're not supposed to be visible from the public right now. But is the you? You indicate the quantity? So I feel like the quantity of the skylights like, do you? Actually, we actually have purview on the quantity of the skylight. Nope, and again, the guidelines talk about, you know, not prominently visible from the front. These are located towards the back. We just often see solar panels be an afterthought that then limits the location to a less

[167:23] appropriate locations. So we're trying to think ahead. But also learning from this, hearing new information. So again. your decision, okay, structural hands hands to allow the skylights. I mean, I would vote for it, although I don't think we've ever seen this many skylights, and it's pretty freckled because they're not from the street. You may be able to grow cactus in that room, so you might, you might consider reducing them from an environmental standpoint. That's what I was wondering what the guidelines said about the quantity of

[168:07] but raise hands if you're nay, no. okay. So still. Yeah. Leaning, leaning to allow we ready for a motion. Oh, my gosh. sure! What about the cross gable talk. Is that a that's going to be resolved? Yes. So typically, we work through these conditions. And then you make a motion. And I know we can get there. Abby needs to leave it in 10 min. and I know we can get there. So here's the slide that we're working on. So I these are the staff recommended conditions with the 2 ones that you just straw hold on erased. So the 1st one is about the window and door patterns.

[169:04] The second one is about lowering the height of the porch roof. and then the next 3 are the details. These are ones that I heard through the conversation that could be conditions of approval, or might not make it to a condition of approval. One was about revising the proposed color of both the roof and the wood siding to be lighter. Ronnie had a comment about the proportions of the windows in the facade, which I understood to be in the gable end that those might be wider. extend the gable roof of the northernmost dormers to reduce the amount of side wall. explore horizontal orientation of siding. Consider reduction of the plate height of the Second Level of the Accessory building. and then you can't require the applicant to apply for a variance or for the

[170:00] planning department to approve one, but you can encourage the applicant to pursue a setback averaging to locate the building closer to Pearl Street, and in alignment with the adjacent buildings. so I don't know if you want to lightning round straw poll each of these, or if you want to withdraw any of them, or if there's general consensus that these should be conditions, I support all of them. I do too well. They're considerations, most languages, but some of them are not can we just clarify which ones are explore versus required? Yeah. so revise the color would be required. Changing. We'll need a verb in there. But changing. The proportion of the windows on the facade would be required unless you added explore extending the I mean, you can decide which ones are explorer, right? Okay or approved. So I would feel comfortable with the color being required. But I I believe all the rest should be explored, since they see more

[171:20] like the other ones, seem more structural and like they could have implications that I don't feel comfortable, requiring without the applicants input into the design. Well, I mean, I agree. However, I see that explore horizontal orientation of siding. That's an explorer. That's not required. Right? Yeah, the other ones weren't. Consider. That's that's explore and encouraging that we've we've discussed. And I believe you're amenable to that, anyway, because you would prefer to be closer. So okay, yeah, now, I think she just added those

[172:01] important words beforehand. So yeah, that I agree. I would I. The 1st one would be the so mandated one, and the others would be explore, so are we requesting that the color of the roof be changed because we have asked about the metal roofing like. and if they go to an asphalt one, they can have any color they want. No, I think that the issue about color applies to whatever yeah. But we're required. So you're saying, because the metal roof was talked about, it being lighter. So that was nicer in the, you know. So I was just wondering if you know. it's funny, because I almost thought that the color was arbitrary. And so that, you know, I feel like if we're telling them to explore the color of the material. but requiring it. We're asking that now we get to say on what color of the building should be right, and I don't, without a palette or some other instrument like that. We don't really have a basis to require a color

[173:08] right? So we can require a quality of a color we can require require, because that is in the guidelines or a different Q. Or you can't. We review, we approve the pink color of the final design. That's just usually done as the very final details. But color is something that's in your criteria. Okay. okay. alrighty. Are we ready? Yes. I move that the landmarks board adopt the staff memorandum, dated August 7, th 2,024. As the findings of the board and conditionally approve a landmark alteration certificate to demolish the existing building and construct a new 2,800 square foot house and 1,000 square foot accessory building at 5 2 0 Pearl Street.

[174:08] a non-contributing property in the West. Pearl historic district, as shown on plans dated June 12, th 2,024. Finding that the proposal meets the standards for issuance of a landmark, alteration certificate in chapter 91118 brc. 1,981, and is generally consistent with the West Pearl historic district guidelines, and the general design, guidelines for boulders, historic districts, and individual landmarks. provided the state and conditions are met. Then you do have to read the conditions. Yes, conditions, a. Revise the design of windows and doors of the house to have a regularly spaced pattern, a cohesive language, and reflect traditional size and proportion. B. Lower the height of the porch roof on the house to be consistent with traditional porch design and scale.

[175:02] E. CC. Note location and proposed removal of mature trees on site, plan D, note, materiality of patio parking area and other hardscaping to demonstrate permeability. e. Provide detail of any exterior material, mechanical systems, lighting and gutters. Okay, aff revised, proposed color of the roof and wood siding to be lighter. G. Explore the following. revising the proportion of windows on facade and gable end, making them wider, extending the gable roof on the northernmost dormer to reduce amount of sidewall, revising the wood siding to a horizontal orientation, reducing the plate height of the Second Level of the Accessory Building. The Landmarks Board encourages the applicant to pursue setback averaging to locate the building closer to Pearl Street, and in alignment with the adjacent buildings per

[176:08] 9, 7, 2, a. Got it, got it? Do we have a second? I second it. Okay, let's proceed to a vote, Renee. Aye, Ronnie, aye, aye, Chelsea, aye, and I vote aye, the motion passes unanimously. and congratulations. You did a great job yeah, all right. And I. And you're going to a plane. You know what? I'm so glad I heard the conversation in case I met on. Drc. yeah, exactly. Yeah. So this is where we usually follow up with the next steps. So I'm going to scroll down to those real quick here

[177:02] before you leave. Nope. Okay, so the applications unanimously approved. It'll go to City Council for a potential call up if they choose not to call it up. Then we'll see you at the landmarks. Design review committee meeting. Please don't change the design beyond the conditions of approval for a smoother process. and thank you so much for your time right here. Thank you. Have a great evening. Alrighty. that moves us to matters. Can I request a 2 min break? Oh, yeah. 2 min. Sorry. No. of Washington. yeah. Do you want one? I'm good. Actually.

[178:06] yes. $7. How you doing over there? Amanda? Lot of balls in the air right now. Yeah. yeah, thank you for. Yeah, thank you for coordinating with Asia, Australia, yeah. Accessible working comments. Dress up. friends. Yes.

[179:14] you know, I heard I did something to you. Yeah.

[181:37] all right, let's finish strong. All right. I mean, we still have. We're all here. It means this is one more item ahead of us. Okay, we have matters go ahead and the matters is going to look at the update on the Ldrc. Proposed changes.

[182:00] Thank you. All right. So the purpose of tonight's discussion is to introduce the scope and process of the proposed process improvements to streamline the historic preservation reviews. We're not asking you to take any action tonight. Ask questions. The goal is kind of to ensure that we're aligned before we start this multi-step process that we would have to rework if we weren't aligned with the scope and the changes. So the project goals for this Ldrc adjustment is to streamline. The preservation review processes, increase flexibility for application. Review. Reduce the time commitment for Volunteer Board members, and see this as an opportunity to really reinforce the value of the committee reviews. This project was requested by the landmarks board, but really started with Chelsea's email last year about making changes. And it is also consistent with the department goal of operational excellence which looks to standardize and streamline our process and provide efficient service.

[183:18] So what problems are we trying to solve? The Ldrc. Which is a staff member and 2 volunteer board members must review all lac applications. With very few exceptions, this means that relatively minor or straightforward applications require an estimated 4 h of time, collective time to review that scheduling, facilitating, attending the meeting notes and follow-up communication compared to 30 min at the staff level. Additionally, the code requires applications must be reviewed within 14 days. As a result the committee must meet, even if there's only one agenda item. Historic preservation approvals are only valid for 180 days. Lecs can be extended for an additional 180 days. But this repeat this results in repeat applications adding time to the application process, uncertainty for property owners and community members and increased time to the Volunteer board commitment.

[184:19] So what are the changes proposed? It's to expand the types of projects that can be reviewed administratively, extending the initial review period for Lacs and Demos from 14 days to 21 days. and then extending the approval expiration period for both Lacs and Demos from 180 days to one year. This is a table that looks at current state and future state. So for the initial review period from 14 to 21 days, and the expiration period from 6 months to a year, pretty straightforward looking above the Landmarks Board Review. And what would automatically come to the board wouldn't change, but the biggest change would be what could be reviewed by staff. So right now we have a pretty limited list of things predefined list that was adopted in 1,999. We can review reroofing, paint colors, restoration of historic

[185:17] existing historic features, landscaping. rear side yard fences that are less than 5 feet high, and have a minimum of one inch spacing between the pickets at grade patio extensions or railings in the downtown district only as well as awnings, as signs in traditional forms and locations. Also, just in the downtown. What we are proposing to expand is those currently listed, plus all window and doors, as well as changes to their openings, solar panels, skylights, mechanical units, removal of non-historic features, hardscaping, all fences, all patios and railings, awnings and signs. That's what I'm hoping for some feedback on. Along with everything else.

[186:03] These changes have 2 different avenues to be implemented. The time, period, and initial review requires a code amendment with review by the Landmarks board making a recommendation, and then it's City Council that amends the code. However, the Landmarks board has the ability to adopt administrative rules, and that is the mechanism to expand the list of what could be reviewed by staff. The timeline. These 2 changes can go kind of step in step, and then they'll kind of depart when it comes to the public comment period and then on to city council. So this August 7th meeting is to confirm direction with the landmarks board depending on how the conversation goes. We would then step into the analysis and understand the impacts. We would draft the rule and the landmarks, board memo, and send it to the city attorney for review.

[187:01] We would then come back in this September 4th meeting, and hold a public hearing in which the Board could adopt that administrative rule and make a recommendation to city council. If the landmarks board votes to adopt the administrative rule. The public comment period follows that so it takes a little bit of time to publish it in the newspaper and then have a 15 day clock that runs. We collect all the public comment within that time, and then bring it back to the landmarks board at the October meeting. and that's a requirement. If we get one comment or 500 comments that you all have to convene, look at what was suggested, and then you can decide whether to add to the administrative rule or change it, which means starting back at the public hearing part. Or you can say, we're happy with it as written. We're not making additional changes, and it would go into effect the next day.

[188:03] The changes to the initial review period and the extension would, after the September meeting. go on to the council track, where there's 1st and Second Reading council dates, as you might suspect, is a little tricky to schedule, but we have tentative dates in late November and early December or mid December, for for those initial review periods in the expiration. If these are all approved. We would then wrap up the project by updating our forms in the website and having internal and external communication to explain the changes. So we offer a couple questions. If the Board would like to provide feedback in this format or otherwise, which goes through each of the changes? Does the board support expanding the types of projects that can be reviewed by staff.

[189:02] Would the Board support, extending the inertial review period from 14 days to 21 days support extending the expiration date from 180 days to a year? And does the Board have any concerns related to potential changes to the historic preservation process. And then this is a slide that just has the kind of starting list of what might be considered or reviewed at staff. However. this there is also going to be a public hearing. I just am hoping to get alignment and to get this kind of get us in the right direction, so that at the public hearing the board kind of understands what the scope is and what the the changes are. But you're not voting on it tonight, or just providing feedback. Thank you. Who would like to start. I'm happy to start are there any other project types other than the ones that were listed

[190:07] that you considered including. But didn't. I'm just trying to figure out like, what's the full menu of options? And how much is this narrowed down? Yeah. So our process here was to start listing very specific things. following kind of the model of rear side yard fences that are less than 5 feet high and have a minimum one inch spacing. And then we're creating very defined buckets that if that fits in, there's staff review. If it's outside of that it goes to the Drc. We got to a list of about 35 items, and then thought. in a year or 5 or 10 this is going to be incredibly difficult to administer, because at the initial application intake the project Coordinator would have to look at the application and say, does it fit into one of these 35 buckets.

[191:03] or does it not? And we want this to be simple and standardized. So we looked in. And there are categories. and those are the ones on the screen. What we didn't include. And Claire had a nice list that I'm not sure I would find things that would require review by the Ldrc. Would be additions. pools. and a handful of I have 2 that I'd like to add, Okay, one is retaining walls. Oh, let me finish this thought because this would be things that would continue to be reviewed by the Ldrc. Would be new additions, including decks and porches. a recreation of a feature from historic images. So if a porch were removed or a tower were removed, the Ldrc. Would would look at putting it back.

[192:04] New freestanding construction, smaller than 340 square feet bigger than that requires full board review and pools. Those are things that would stay at the Ldrc level. So I was going to add 2 things. One is retaining walls, and I know that I think people might be saying as part of hardscaping. But I know we have 2 different guideline sections that talk about hardscaping versus retaining walls. So that's why I just feel like should be included. If it's not, and then the other one that I would suggest is the review for the compliance with tax credit criteria, and while I find that to be interesting. I would much rather just hear it having had happened at the Board level to know that we're doing great things, and money is being spent in good ways, but I don't feel like I'm contributing when I'm just looking at somebody's receipt lists.

[193:02] I appreciate that because it gets to the kind of redefining the value of a committee level, and often it is walking through those details. We may be constrained with State law on what level we can review those but open to making those a bit more streamlined. But I think that's an example of often it feels like an audience of 2 in those reviews or maybe those could be put on like consent. For a board meeting. Even if it doesn't have to be Ldrc. i'll learn more from the state on those. But I think that's a good idea. I think that there there might be hybrid conditions where and an example would be in a case where a person wants to make a material change or a material substitution that is not expressly

[194:03] covered by the guidelines, or is not expressly prohibited another one would be another kind of a change, like with windows or doors for energy performance reasons, or for exiting, or something like that where it may require a little more. I guess, input from from the board. If it's again, if it's something that isn't expressly included in the guidelines, or can be handled. Yeah, easily by staff. Yeah. The one thing on here that I question is actually the windows and doors like that's 1 of them that I think there's a lot of different types of windows and door applications, some of which I think are obvious to me, that can be reviewed by staff, others of which

[195:04] should really come to Drc. Like, you know, we spent a half an hour talking about them tonight. right? And that comes back to there are. There are some discussions that we have needed to have for a long time. that require a little more, I think. analysis or review by the board that have not been made yet. Windows and doors is a big one, and certain other and certain materials and certain issues with energy performance. And so it's probably something that the Board wants to do at some future retreat point, or something that could make it more streamlined in this process. If we had those discussions. Well, is it the windows and doors like

[196:00] like, they're changing the openings. Maybe it's more or less like. like, what's the approval? You know what I mean like. If you're changing the openings, doors, and windows, then obviously, that needs to come to the Ldrc. I would think. if you're but the question is, they really can't be replaced if it's in a contributing building. So there's that sort of I feel like that that one. But if it was a pretty straightforward like this is the window. It's a wood window. We're putting it in. The other one is cracked and broken. Does it need to go to the Ldrc. No. right? Like I. I feel like, if you're, you know, having the appropriate material it needs to come through. So I don't know. I don't know how the intake person understands like you know. Like, if if there's like a check the box when I fill out the applicant as an applicant, and it says. replacing with like material in the same opening.

[197:01] then I check that box and they'll know that it goes somewhere else, you know. Yeah, we could refine it down to like, replacement of non. Historic windows can be done at the staff level. Yeah, rehabilitation or restoration of historic windows can be done at the staff level. You know things that are clearly consistent with the design guidelines. Yeah. And and then another important point is that staff will still retain the ability to take something to the Ldrc. And I think it gets to the value of the committee. You know, if something's a little borderline, or unique, or would benefit from, you know the 3 members. Then we could still bring things, but we want to make the rule as clear as possible to like. Which chute is it going into? And then, on the other hand, if the applicant doesn't agree with Staff, can they bring it to the Ldrc. In 1st and then go into the board member. Right?

[198:01] let me get back to you on that one, because yeah, Staff can't deny something. The landmark. The Ldrc. Can't deny an application, but if Staff says this doesn't meet the design guidelines and then brings it to 2 board members, and then it gets called up to the full board, then that it has potential to create an ex parte contact or a prejudgment of it. But I'll make a note to think through the appeals process. Yeah. because you wrote down like all fencing and all this and all awnings and all signings, and like, it's always saying number, or always like it's that's. I think, isn't. The assumption is that as long as it is clearly falling within the scope of the guidelines that it can be approved by staff, and if something is proposed that's far outside the guidelines, then I think the expectation is that it would be brought to Ldrc, I guess I was thinking, like tonight, Staff

[199:04] was on the impression of the metal roof. Right? Yeah, well, and some decisions will be made without our input. And I think that's okay. Yeah. And I was just saying, if the applicant doesn't agree with that, like they're coming forth with a roof, a metal roof, and Staff says, Oh, we're allowed to review this. And they say. Yeah, I don't think that's on there, though, because it's not all roofs. It's just it's re roofing. So I think that would come to and say, it's a fence right? I want a wooden fence that's 5 feet high. It's clearly in the Guides. But I don't want that spacing. Yeah, you know, when they deny it, can I? Can. I then go to the Ldrc. And say. that's what I mean. Like, if if staff level denies it, can I bring it up? I think that's what John yeah, is saying, too, that like, I think those that that there are certain things that we need to address from some of these guidelines that were written, you know. 30 plus years ago, that we need to address the actual guidelines. So the guidelines better reflect

[200:04] our like current thinking on policy, so that it's we don't have all of these like requests. But but my argument, my argument, was that instead of addressing them on a case by case basis, and not having a kind of standing resolution at some point. We need to address these things in some forum as a kind of general review. so that then we can decide where they slot. And I'm not really saying that I'm just. I'm just suggesting that it's staff goes one way, and the applicant doesn't like that. Do they have a chance to appeal? Yeah, they can. They can appeal. They can apply for a board review, can they? No, I think that's yes, that's what I'd like to explore. More is there's absolutely an appeals process, because just because it's a staff level doesn't mean it'll be approved. Yeah. But the question, does it go to the Ldrc. Or does it go to the landmarks board? I'll talk with Chris and the team about it. What about accessory buildings?

[201:08] It's not on the list. Well, we were proposing that, except like new freestanding construction, would stay at the Ldrc. Okay, as long as it like fits in the code and fits in the guidelines like if it's an 8 by 8 shed, or whatever that doesn't require a permit. Well. we we have to like, do the shoots of like, what's the project type, and then the next shoot is, does it meet the guidelines? So the question is, would accessory buildings less than 340 square feet, because those require Full Board Review be reviewed at the Ldrc. Or staff. and I would say those would be Ldrc level. Right? I I guess what I'm getting at is things like the trash enclosure at Chautauqua that turned into an extended discussion because it hit the materials line and everything else.

[202:04] course, that was a board review. So right? I know you're going to research this. But what currently happens if an applicant is denied at staff level? Oh, they come to the board. Yeah. So we should do that. Yeah. I mean, there, there have been times where we're like, well, this is what Staff considers. Let's go to the Ldrc. Because if the 2 board members think it's totally appropriate, then we'll save everybody the public hearing. But like the metal roof at 9 10 spruce. That's a staff level review reroofing from metal to asphalt. And we said, That's a historic metal roof and brought it up to the board. Yeah, yeah. which makes sense to me that Staff would be able to bring things to the Drc. Or the board. But I think the appeals process for an applicant, which is what I think, Rene was saying. It feels like we should just. I'm sure there's going to be a legal position on this, but if we just do what we're doing just goes to the board right?

[203:11] Or but you've said that if there is disagreement, then you do bring it to Ldrc. What I'm saying is, we've been inconsistent, all right. Well, keep being in. Be consistently inconsistent. Well, I think that that had come up in another conversation about this is that we don't want to create the Drc. As the bad guys of like. If it's staff review, it's an approval. But if you, if there's disagreement, then you come in front of these 2 volunteer board members. That doesn't sound like a volunteer board. Many people would run towards. So it's already not a board. What would happen is is one of those 2 board members is probably going to kick it up to the board. Right? Yeah. So this. This is a good discussion topic to highlight, and we'll we'll figure out like what we can do legally and what we would recommend and bring that back in September. But the answer is in the past. We've done both, and it would be nice to get clarity on

[204:10] what the process I just don't want like the Skylights situation, but I don't want something simple to come straight to the board. If it's not, I don't want more things to come to the board if it can be at the Ldrc. I agree with what you're saying. I just did. I don't. I? Yeah, I just well, I think we can table it and move on because she's going to research it. Let's go down this list again. So kind of parsing out the windows and doors, because those are, you know, that's a lot that encompasses a whole lot, sometimes really easy, sometimes super difficult. Solar panels wouldn't have been on this list 1015 years ago, but it seems like that's kind of where the we're heading.

[205:01] Skylights, mechanical units, removal of non-historic features. hardscaping and retaining walls. and then fences, patios, awnings. I would say signs right now. We have signs in traditional forms and locations so often in downtown. There's National Headquarters that come in, and they say, this is our sign. It's neon, and it flashes. And we say. that doesn't meet our design guidelines. If you revise it to an externally lit or yeah, externally lit rather than internally. We can improve it at staff level. Otherwise it goes to the Ldrc. And 9 times out of 10 they. you know, change it to meet the guidelines. So that's something we might consider keeping, because it does result in more a consistent compliant with the guidelines, sign design.

[206:05] and then tax credit applications if allowed. What about the awnings like? Is it cloth awnings? Are we just any kind of awnings? I think there are some metal awnings. Yeah, there's rigid awnings can be historic. But all awnings. We're gonna downtown. Well, that's current state, is we currently review all awnings downtown. And this would be. I mean, it's it's probably downtown in the 2 buildings on the hill, for the, for the windows and doors like the way that we've separated it or gotten more specific about what we want to include in the expanded list. I wonder if we can just add to that if there's any window and door. windows and doors in their openings that fit squarely within the guidelines like. I guess I just don't. If it if it meets the guidelines

[207:05] spot on. Then I don't need to see it right like we don't need to see it if it's meet the guy. No, there's other situations where they could meet the guidelines. If it meets the guidelines, we really don't need to see it. If it's because it's it's essentially a by right action at that point like, if it's an Lyc and it's everything's within the guidelines. Well, I think that's what the I think she's trying to make it super specific, because if it was changing a historic window and a historic opening. if it was replacing a historic window that would automatically get kicked to Ldrc. Because it's not in the guidelines. right? And so. yeah, I think I think we'll take this feedback to heart and then come back in a month with a more refined thing. So I'm balancing the the 2 things of being as broad as we can, and then, knowing that the intake process

[208:12] can't have judgment on whether it meets the guidelines or not. That's outside of that person's role to be like. I think so. So I think there's a way to get there, because the guidelines are pretty clear, like replacement of historic windows rarely appropriate. That would be a good Ldrc discussion to say, well, where is it located? And what's the condition? And and all of that? So I think windows and doors it. That's maybe too big of a bucket. So so just defining that one a bit more. Absolutely. They're going online soon. What about are there any additions that would be appropriate to review at staff? Or is that a large enough change that. and complex enough that it would benefit from a committee review. What about public art?

[209:02] What about public art? Because there was noise about that once before, where art got installed in a historic district on yeah, West, Pearl and Board didn't get a chance to look at it. That's a great like public for the record. I didn't have any problem with it. I like it. Yeah. So things like, yeah, let's go like public infrastructure. There's public improvements like sidewalks. The sidewalk program comes in every 5 years to the Drc. And we look at the exact sidewalks that they're going to replace, and we tell them each time. What cure of concrete to you like. do we need to bring that public art in the same way, like those illuminated? What do we call them stone monuments. Yeah. And then there was the Memorial at the Boulder Museum Museum of Boulder that came to the full board of. Is it appropriate to have. You know

[210:01] we do see public art. you know, regularly, I would say. would that be something that you'd recommend at Staff Level or Ldrc level? And then sidewalks being the other one. I think the sidewalks make sense for staff level. Yeah. Sidewalks at staff level. I think public art probably should be looked at by the board. but maybe she's like a single square, like a square footage of like if it's I think the public, the public art, so few like it's not going to do a Major dent in the workload. I feel like we should review it right, but in a better world there will be more of it. Okay, okay. I think Marcy's question about additions like, I don't know like, that's that's like, that's a good one to. Well, can you think of a scenario since you've been on the board longer, not really of a place where

[211:02] they came. And you're like, Oh, yeah. Why am I even looking at this, I've seen some really good ones, but I don't. I like I think it'd be hard to identify what the characteristic is that would let it just go through a staff level approval. I mean, I think the size of an addition is one characteristic stuff that happens immediately at back of house that's smaller than the primary. It's just, but it's so hard I don't know what kind of net you'd cast over it. It feels really challenging. Yeah, I would, you know, hearing you talk and thinking about it, I would advocate that addition, stay at the Ldrc. Because it's not. It's mass and scale. It's dormers. It's windows. It's materials. It's all of these things that when I think about, you know, staff level reviews on average, take about 30 min each and compared to the 4 h collective time that will increase. The staff review is going to take a little bit longer, but to do a full review of an addition without the benefit of the back and forth with the applicant.

[212:08] you know, we could call them up and talk through it. But the Ldrc format is really built for that, that I would keep additions at the Drc. yeah. And then one other thing that just occurred to me is issues, infrastructure issues like pedestrian lighting, which can have historic implications like the acorn lights in Los Angeles. And things like that. Okay for staff review, or for well, who normally decides that. Does that come from planning? Does that come from streets? It comes from public works. And the Chautauqua, you know, lighting project a couple years ago was a big ordeal. Yeah, but I cannot think of another lighting installation public lighting installation that we need some in some places. That's why I'm bringing it up. Yeah.

[213:06] And would you advocate that via Ldrc or at staff? I think if it if it's in a historic district, I think we do want to look at it. Yeah. 19, yeah, I think we want to see those. Yeah, cause they come in with an ultra modern Swedish design that may not work on Mapleton Hill. Yeah. And I don't think street lights are in our purview, just like signs. Street signs are. But if there are like the lantern light pedestrian lighting. Yeah, I mean, public or pedestrian lighting is things like the gas lights on Larimer. And yeah, which I worked on. And things like that. Did we talk about pools? Oh, sorry. That was something that we would recommend. Stay at the Ldrc. Okay.

[214:04] those are pretty infrequent. Why, new free sending construction under 340 square feet. Why is that? Over 340 comes to the full board? Oh, okay. 3, 40. I think this is great. I do, too. Cream. And since this is an administrative review like this part doesn't need to go to council right? Right? So if in the future we see things that cause. I feel like I'm trying to think back at all of the Ldrc. Things where I've thought Steph could have done and I think in the future we can just be more aware and take note of things that come before us where it feels like.

[215:02] We don't need to be reviewing it so we can always add things in the future. Yes. yeah. There's many times I've gotten that feeling. Yeah, when I review something seriously that. Yeah, it wasn't something we necessarily needed to look at. And I also think it's some of the times that I feel like that happens is when staff has. And the applicant have really worked together. Yeah, exactly do something. And then it's like they're fine. Yeah. But then it it is a matter of like still discussing it. But I think sometimes Staff does a really good job of bringing something to even Ldrc that we're like, well, why do we do this again. But but it's the process, too. Right? Yeah, it is. And and it makes the applicant. And on the applicant side, like, we've gone through this whole like the you know the additions or things like that. You go through staff. And then it's not just staff stamping it. It's like, Oh, you know, like there's.

[216:05] you know. it just gives a reason for all that work. And that's that's the only argument of bringing things. It's 1 the biggest argument for bringing things to Ldrc is for the applicant. It can be a very beneficial process. They get input that they wouldn't get otherwise from from any kind of, or any level of the public review. at least in our part of it. What about I forget why you all decided not to include this. But what about projects where staff plans to vote to send a project to the full board? I think we decided that would be a code change. Okay, rather than an administrative rule. Okay? But it kind of gets to the appeals process

[217:03] right? Because we need clarity on. Does the code say we send it straight to the landmarks board, and we're just choosing to take it to the Ldrc. Or do we eliminate that step? I mean, you probably operate from a set of criteria, and if you meet all those criteria, it doesn't go before the board. But if you break one of them, then well, right now we we literally cannot review. We cannot approve anything other than what's on this list on the left hand side, right, like roofing and paint and some fences. It's so limited that everything goes to the Ld. Right? But my point is is that if there's, I think there's a lot of times where Staff brings forward something where they want to hear what the Board members have to say, and there's sometimes where Staff bring something forward where they come in, knowing that they're going to send it to the board. So for those instances where it's going to be sent to the board because Staff has reviewed the project and knows they're going to send it to the board. Why have

[218:11] the extra step of the Ldrc. Well, that's the code change. It's a yeah requirement. But that's not. But we're going to the City Council for code record code changes. So we could include that though the scope of those code changes has to be minor where we are hitching our wagon to the Code amendment team who has it in their work plan. It feels minor no? Well, so, as we were writing the list of 35, we were like, well, what if we just really turned it around and defined what goes to the Drc. And everything else goes to staff. and that would be not a minor code change one. It would require a code amendment 2. It wouldn't be minor. But I hear what you. I hear what you're saying. I think in the past, when we've brought something to the Drc. And say, here's what they're proposing. We're calling it up feels like a waste of time. Right?

[219:11] The other times that we bring something we say. Here's what they're proposing. We give the applicant a chance to explain what the proposal is. The Ldrc members ask questions. We have a conversation, and then one of the members calls it up. Even if it's staff. Feels like a good use of time. So I also hear there's the facilitation part of like just scheduling a meeting and then saying, This is going to the full board isn't a good use of that avenue, and and something that we're mindful of. Here's a question these these minor code changes. How do they go through counsel. Is it a consent process, or do they have to go through the whole 4 readings, the 2 readings, one on consent and 2 as a. The second one is a public hearing. Okay, there always has to be a public. But yeah, the portion we do. We have a public hearing.

[220:06] and and then it's you'll make a reference called up. It's gonna just be done for for the administrative rule. Yeah. Yeah. And Council doesn't call them up like it's really in your it's your court. So yeah, you'll you'll put what you want on that list, and then we'll have the 15 day public comment period, and then we'll have another public hearing to review what the public comments are. And then you decide, do we want to keep changing it? And if not, then it goes to into effect with no additional steps. Okay. yeah. Can I ask? Just as staff like, how often do you. when you know that you want to call something up to the board

[221:00] like. do you ever change your mind like I guess I'm just trying to figure out the purpose of not just sending something to the board. If you know you are going to send it to the board. Yeah, like, there's, I think that it's sometimes beneficial to the client to the applicant like to get some feedback from the Ldrc. Before going, because there is a whole. When you submit for the Ldrc. It's a little chunk of work right? And then she's look, there's looking at it, and I know it's staff level. And then the Ldrc. But there's a little chunk of work for the applicant to like talk to maybe some board members right? And then I guess And then at the Ldrc. There's a conversation back and forth, and then maybe it gets called up, and maybe it doesn't. But in that meeting there can be a conversation as the applicant I get to talk to some board members and get a little bit of feedback before I make this. But the only problem with that is is, once

[222:01] when it goes before. Ldrc. If it gets sent to the board, there's no feedback, there's no discussion. Yeah, there's no no, you can't talk about. You have to decide it. Basically after the staff presentation. So there really is no discussion. Right? It's just a basically, we're just, I think most of the time we've like, really crunched. We crunched down on that really, really put a lot of structure around it to to have a slide that says. can this be reviewed at this level, or we should call it up. We're loosening that a little bit, because I think it cuts off some valuable discussion without going too far into into it. So there's like a little like we're continuing to learn and and adjust at the Ldrc. But you know the vast majority of applications are approved or approved with revisions, and the ones that are called up, I would say, are like 15% or less. And some of those projects just don't go forward. Some of them withdraw and then come back with something else the ones that go to the board, I mean, that's like

[223:09] maybe 2 dozen cases out of the. You know. it's more than 200 for lacs. It's a pretty minor, so like in terms of the impact to an Ldrc meeting, the ones that get called up is the minority, not the majority of those reviews. I get that. But it does. I mean, I feel like I've been a part of many Ldrcs, where that's been the case like it does feel like a substantial time component of time. And if we have this opportunity now to like slip in something that'll help reduce the amount of time. And it it basically, I hear what you're saying, that now we're a little bit more flexible in what we can talk about, but we also have to weigh the benefits of like people have to work during the day. And

[224:04] is, you know, it's like, what is the balance of the level of service we're providing to people versus the requirements that we have for volunteer board members so to try to balance that. Is there a way to look at? If I mean, if you were more lenient, which is what like the couple times we've been on some of them where. you know. Maybe Staff felt like it. We had a conversation. There was one time where we we're like we should call this up to the board, and then it kind of shifted. you know, and then it was like, you know, there was. There was some feedback that was given, and it was productive. So And I, I also want to. We're we're creating like 2 separate things. So I don't know if maybe there's just a conversation. And then maybe some documentation that was brought forth next time. Because

[225:04] I do think for the applicant you're you're limiting the people who can. Then if Staff's going to bring it up to the full board. You've now limited it. those people that can then apply, because maybe they would just turn away. And now they have to sell their property, and now they can't live there. And now you've just created another. the gap between, you know, someone that is is not Uber rich living in historic society, you know. Like, if they want to have a conversation with the Landmarks board member about some of the things I just. I don't want to limit it, because it does take a lot to get to the landmarks board and what's required to get there. Well, depending on the circumstances of having a conversation with a landmarks board member. The member may have to recuse thereafter, which may do them a disservice in the Ldrc. Meeting. It depends. I don't know about the Ldrc. No, I'm talking about ex ex parte.

[226:04] I I do have an example based on what you said is, if if Staff referred a case directly to the Landmarks board without going to the Ldrc. Then what could happen? And what has happened once or twice is that the staff thought it didn't meet the design guidelines, and then the board unanimously approved it. Finding that it did meet the guidelines. So for the applicant, it added, probably, you know, 6 to 8 to 10 weeks of process, for, like pretty clear approval again, that's very rare, very rare, that that happens. But by going to the Ldrc. You get a bit of a check of. you know, either unanimously calling it up, or a split vote, or something like that. And again, I think we're honing in on, like, maybe 2% of the applications we do offer.

[227:04] you know, to applicants pretty regularly. We can approve this at this level. If you want to pursue it, go up to the full board, and that could sound like a referral. But it's it's giving them options, and often they choose to stay at the Drc. Level. But I have it down for further discussion on this idea of staff directly referring applications to the board and then figuring out, what's the legal mechanism to do that? I I I don't know. Okay. I wonder if there's a way in which, at the Drc. We could get more expeditiously to that decision, you know, like, I think you're doing a great job. 1st of all, like, I do see the additional structure that's like that has been added. That's about us making the 1st Level criteria decisions like, should this go to the Board? Or shouldn't it?

[228:12] I wonder if there's something else that's like that that could happen at Ldrc. That's like a green, yellow, red kind of hierarchy that lets us, because I think we do a pretty good job exploring aspects of an application at Drc. That are beneficial to provide feedback on, but knowing that it still goes to the board and allotting the right the correct amount of time for that. while expeditiously. Cases that just need to go to the board go there at like, you know, they get the red or whatever the green or the red, right at the beginning. And maybe it's just a matter of how we construct the Drc talk. you know, like, sometimes I feel like you guys do a very good job at letting us be decision makers.

[229:03] You know where I think in some cases it's helpful for you to more proactively be a decision maker. and you guys both do a good job at at the right point stepping in. But that's more. I I could see us adding a little bit more of that type of structure to these types of more nuanced discussions that maybe are more directed by you if that makes sense. I think, yeah, I like that yeah, just if if you're planning to recommend that it goes to the board just having a much shorter presentation with the key facts. And then we can make that like, I don't think we need. typically when it's very clear that it should go to the board. It can be clear within like 3 min. Yeah, as opposed to 1015, 20. And I also wonder this Chelsea. I was kind of thinking like

[230:05] man. I don't want to get lost in this, but like here's the application. It's a massing. It's a window, and it's a demolition piece. These are the 3 topics in this conversation. This is the application, and I like that. By the way, like, even when I read the staff. Memos, I'm like, what the hell is this? I better go to? Page 20, yeah, you know. And I'm like, Oh, my God! Like, oh, like this met this criteria it didn't like. Okay, that's what the thing looks like. I feel like. maybe there is a way to structure the talk that's like, Hey, these are the 3 big things, or whatever it is. These are the 6 major things some of these things seem. I don't even know how to phrase it. But like are the Reds, and some of these are the Greens, just to be, generically speaking, and we should. And I think we should, start by talking about the these 2 things

[231:02] I don't know. There's just a way to dissect it a little bit, that's like, Hey, here's the big picture. We need to stop on red on point One. Because of this, or like this. This is one contentious topic that looks like it's non criteria. It's not meeting the criteria. These are others that we think could beneficially receive review. Not every case will have that nuance, and I know we get to it in different ways, but that might let us. What about do it quicker when it's a red red? What about if it was at the end like, if Staff thinks it's a if it is a full board, right? And they're like, Okay, this is, you know. one Mapleton should go to the board. That's what they're thinking right. So instead of allotting it, the 30 min at the front of the meeting, maybe it's, you know, 10 min at the back of the meeting that just says at the very end like. And it's just between like, it's just the conversation with Staff.

[232:00] you know, and the Ldrc meeting like it's just like, okay, here at 1 0, 1 Mapleton. you know the staff findings is this, and this we think it should go to the full board. What are your initial feelings. and I think that could get you like your temperature. What you were talking about, or it could be like, I think it could be reviewed next week at Ldrc, and then it could be on the schedule. And I I would ask to put yourselves in the applicant's shoes in that one of like you could, Renee, would you would do it? You'd be like, I'm scheduled for 10 min. That's not gonna go. Well, here we go, you know, and and you know, like scheduling takes time like there is a customer service to part of this where I hear you. It's like this could be a 3 min discussion versus a 15 min discussion. I think 15 min is a reasonable time to give to somebody to explain our rationale. We're not going to narrow this down to like such a mechanism, to say red, light, green light, you know, which I am not hearing. That's what you're saying. Yeah, but there is also

[233:07] like a service part of this, that there is benefit to the applicant hearing from multiple people why, this is going to take 8 to 10 weeks longer, and for Demos cost $1,500, and when I 1st started we didn't always invite demo applicants to the Ldrc. And my job was to cold. Call somebody and say. your building has been found to be potentially eligible. That's unwanted news. They're like, we're going through this whole emotion on the phone. Okay, it's going to cost $1,500 that landed like a lead balloon every time. And it's going to add 8 to 10 weeks. How does that sound delivering that message versus like? Here's you know, here's the project. Here's the thing having the board members and the staff weigh in.

[234:04] It's a conversation that that will pay off dividends through the 6 month process, because it's that 1st impression that makes sense. I think the one red light that I think, could work really well. An aspect of an application is not compliant an aspect. If Staff comes out and says immediately, this is why it's not compliant. They go through the criteria, and then they make the statement rather than Hey, Ronnie? Now, what do you think? And I'm like, oh, man, you know this is what, Abby, what do you think? And we're like, demolish every house like like we just got a Nope. You just step in there and you avoided me babbling about architecture because we don't have to. That's a win right?

[235:04] We could do it. We could do that. That's like there are some of those elements and cases that at the Drc. Level we could. you could come out. And you don't need me to be the one to say it. You're better. This is super helpful. Other thoughts on what Drc. Versus staff. We have 2 more public hearings on this over the next 2 months. I also want to get your feedback on the timing. So any final thoughts on this part of the conversation. I think it feels good. I think also the things that we're talking about about how to structure. Ldrc are things that we can evolve over time and aren't necessarily restricted like this process is sort of different from that. But conversations we can continue to have to make it more efficient. And still provide a nice customer service, but also know that maybe the applicants don't want like a super long let down. Maybe they would rather us to rip the bandit off. Yeah, cause they're paying. You know, our clients like they're paying for their architects time, and I don't know if they appreciate long extended meetings.

[236:14] But I had a question about the permit for the extension from 6 months to a year in the new updated. I know there's a bunch of updates that were recently made. How long does a permit. Typically last, is there? So there's like the building permit. And then the development review ones are are like the ones that I think were just extended. And those went to 3 years, and then those can be extended by staff for additional years. And would you like me to share our rationale for our one year. Yeah, okay, so we looked at that. We want to be consistent with other approvals. But the Development Review is such a larger scale

[237:12] like the Millennium Harvest House Hotel, right? Once they had Site review approval. Then the financing comes in. Then the real estate transactions happen, then all of their titling and all of that stuff happens, and then their building permit happens. And so the the process is years and years and years, whereas the historic preservation piece is like one step to the next process which then has its own expiration. So for lacs or Demos. we're proposing that applicants have one year to apply for a building permit to make a move or an act on that approval. and if they don't, then start over, but most applications will go forward within 6 months or a year, and then they'll have

[238:02] 2 to 3 years to actually build the thing. So I think 2 years might be a bit too long, because for a demo that could mean that the landmarks board makes a decision, and then it's not demolished for 5 more years, which seems like a longer time, because you're piecing together the historic approval, and then the deconstruction permit approval similar with buildings. So a year felt like a reasonable amount of time for somebody to move forward with a project. 6 months just seems to be a little too short for some people. Yeah. But if it was too long, the entire city council can change. The entire tone of preservation can change different boards. So yeah, yeah, it should be kept within a reasonable envelope, like like Denver has kind of a backwards

[239:01] thing where they have a certificate of non-historic status, and it's good for 5 years, which is incredibly valuable for somebody who's thinking about developing or redeveloping a site. And a lot can change in 5 years. You know, in terms of historic buildings, how we look at history, what is important. It's maybe right on the cusp. But, like you think about reassessing something every 5 years. That's a long time between those determinations. 6 months is too short. What's going to change in 6 months in the building is a hundred 2 years old for the for the permits that have been approved for 6 months. And they come back typically for an extension. Do we know the typical time frame that it takes like, I just wanna make sure, if we're doing this, we're bringing this. It's gonna go through this code process like, I wanna make sure what we do now is built to last like, would it make sense to do 18 months or just to make? Because otherwise, then we have a similar problem. And I think construction is just gonna continue to take longer and longer.

[240:18] So I'm just trying to make sure we're like right sizing it for the future. But I think the like once you apply for building. Permit it? The it. And you've met your yeah, the requirement. Yeah. You met the requirements of the the. So all you have to do is it? Doesn't. You don't have a year to build and be into the house. You just have a year to apply for building permits, right? So, but that could potentially it could potentially take a little longer. It sounds like, I'm just saying for the few if we're getting, because these code changes happen right like, when's the last time? This changed so like decades and decades ago. So I want to make sure that what we do so what we do before I was born. So if you do a year, what's the extension?

[241:07] Yeah. So the lacs have code language currently for extensions that the Board will have to decide on a recommendation of whether to take that out or to continue to allow it. And between now and the next time we see you. We're going to pull statistics of like how many lacs applied for an extension? How many demo permits were repeats, and then that'll give us a better. Better idea. whether. Yeah, one year, 18 months, 2 years is appropriate. Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. I do think we're on the cusp of some pretty radical changes in how construction happens and how materials are made because of things like 3D. Printing. And so we probably should keep reasonable extensions on these things because things

[242:05] we're we're going to have a lot of change in next 5 to 10 years, I think. Cool, Marcy. There was a slide before this where there are 4 bullet points that I had one comment on. Number one. Yes. I've got 3 yeses, although one comes across as a No. Number 2. Yes. number 3 want to come back to that number 4. No, which is a yes. so number. That's just like, because these are questions. That's how I feel about them. Number 3, number 3. or did I get that wrong? No. Number 2 is the one that I have the issue with. I like number 2. I'm a yes, but the nuance is this for me personally it's much easier to meet

[243:00] more frequently on Wednesdays for shorter periods of time than to meet for 4 h on a Wednesday. It's very hard. And so, while I think that will give us some flexibility to gang some together that may have been some stragglers we're like, we're not going to meet for one case today. I would much rather meet more Wednesdays and have shorter commitments. It just lets me live my life a little easier. You like those one item. I like them when I can get done in an hour or 2 h. But when I basically am blocked out from it used to be from 8. But like from 9 to noon. that disrupts the whole system. Yeah, I've had a lot of 9 to noons in the last year, and it's probably just because we've had a big volume or something. So I support it. But like. that's my just. you know. Yeah. And that can be something that we work with. You know. With the board of that the code change would give us flexibility.

[244:07] you know, and I would I would say, we don't quite know what the impact will be by shifting these cases to the staff level of how much the volume at the Ldrc. Will decrease. It won't increase and so yeah, I I think it's just generally longer. Meetings are not better meetings, and working with the board members to say, you know what what works. So I hear that. And and like right now, even though we have 14 days most are reviewed within 7, which I will just say is lightning speed at the city of Boulder. That is good. I totally agree with Ronnie, but I think it's, and it goes to my a question I have about how we are going to measure success and benchmark that success, and for me at least

[245:04] one measure of success would be that our Ldrcs are not more than an hour, because that's just too much time to take up of volunteers during a work day, 1 h. It's like you can tell your work. I can't be here for this 1 h, but a 4 h block is just unreasonable. So I think that would be a good goal to know that we're we're succeeding in making this more efficient. I love that question, and if you come up with other potential success measures. bring them to the next meeting. Because I think I we do want to do a point in time, sort of like, what is the current state, and then come back in 6 months and a year and say what's different? And so that could be. Things like. you know, the the volunteer time commitment, overall, the frequency of meetings, how long the meetings are. But there are other things, too, that I could use help brainstorming.

[246:09] And you know we talk about the 1 h for me, too. It's like having this. 1 h is easier to do it, and I think that I had talked to Marcy about being flexible with the people on that day right like you know, I like for me on Wednesday. 10 o'clock is perfect. you know, for you from 9 to 10, and then I can jump on from 10 to 11, right? So maybe the volume is there. But maybe we switch up the board members from 10, you know. Do they switch? Do they switch at that time? So that's really not in this board discussion. But I do. I do like that feedback of being able to like. Okay, I don't have to be on for 4 h tomorrow, but I could be on for one, and then all you know.

[247:02] you know, and I mean I. Abby's not here right now, but she does pick up a lot of yeah. And I think that's a great idea. And the only problem I can see with it is it puts burden on staff to slot people in. It's a little more scheduling work. But I I think I I would say, yeah, I'll take the 10 o'clock slot one week and take the 9 o'clock the next week. And yeah, that's 1 way to that's definitely one way. I don't know if it's more of just dealing with. Who's on the board at that time, you know, so that it does become more workable for different people. I think that one thing that you've always done really well is, try to keep continuity in multiple review situations. And I think that that's important for the applicants. So that's something to try to preserve to the degree that you can well, like. We have hard stops, you know. I mean, like I think that's a good.

[248:03] No. What I mean is, if you got an applicant coming through the system, and it requires 3 reviews that Ronnie is on all 3 of them, or I'm on or you're, you know. I think that that continuity is the lack of that continuity can cause open catch fire kind of things in a negative way. Well, it sounds like, maybe we're wrapping up, and I'm going to make an offer related to the comment about I've sat in meetings and thought. this is not the best use of my time. This is not the best use of this committee review for this project. Would it be helpful if we ran a report of the last year of cases. case descriptions to jog anybody's like memory, or give ideas to hone in on this list, seeing that this is an opportunity. Yes, administrative rules are easier to do. But you know, every few years is probably reasonable, for how how often we do them is that something you'd be interested in seeing or a No, thank you, and Staff will continue to refine this list based on the conversation.

[249:24] How easy would it be for you to pull that just a few clicks. Okay, and help and help. I think that would be helpful. I think it would be helpful if it's just a few clicks, I think, going back 2 years, cause I can't. I feel like. yeah, I don't know. I feel like 2 years is a really good sample size. what is it that we're? What is that that you're saying? Like, I, I feel like you guys could go through and just be like, Hey, these were the topics we pulled or what we could. Yeah, we could. And we will do that between now and the next time, just to

[250:02] You know, there's such a variety of changes in an historic district, and we tried to bulk them. But maybe we'll read it and be like, Oh, my gosh! There are way more fill in the blanks than we realized. Yeah, if you wanted to, it'll be by they'll be by case types. So Demos will be separated from lacs. But you would have to create a more detailed filter to go addition windows. Okay, so it's not just automatic query sets, or whatever yeah. I think that would be helpful. Yeah, I'm up for looking at any of it, if you think it's helpful. But I feel like if a person went through it, and then just was like, Hey, these are the things it's probably, or if you're if you're good, yeah, or if you're gonna pull it anyway, just attach it in the documents, and so we can look at if we want to.

[251:09] There you go. No obligation. But yeah, I have it in my mind. This is an opportunity we don't wanna we want. We don't want to adopt it, and then be like we should have thought of this. You know, we want to be thorough, but also yeah. all right. Well, thank you. So much for your good conversation on this. I feel like we have good direction to then come and return to next month very fast. Can I bring up 2 more just administrative, simple things? Yeah, they're small. in the memos. No. in the agenda. There are. I don't know what the heck I'm trying to say. What I'm what is really the point is this, it would be great if there were direct links to things, and I think we heard that from others. But like

[252:07] I I'm like, Oh, man, I gotta go 2020. 0, here's 24 month is August, and it's all there. It's like, I agree next month's on here. Why is that? But whatever yeah, links just click in it, and you get right there. And the one reason why I'm bringing that up now is because a community member brought it up to me. And she was like. I can't find this stuff. Why is it? And I'm like, Yeah, that does me have to bring that up. No, I had that today and then clarification before we move on to that. So are you talking about in the email that you get that? Says the upcoming board member. Go to the archive, and then you have to wait for it to load past 2012. Yeah, scroll down. Yeah. you would like just links to say, like, yeah, it takes you right to where you need to go to perfect. It's just a different link. Okay, I will. And then this is, you guys hate me, for this has been. It's been years that I bring this up, but like.

[253:07] because sometimes we do it. But we fell off the rails. It would be great if in calendar invites that the links were available in the calendar, invites for the Drc. Zoom Meetings and the agenda material that then would have the links to the other stuff for the board meetings. So it's in. It's all in the calendar. Well, it's it seems it wasn't in the beginning. And then I've said it a billion times, and then it was, and then it went away, and then it came back, and it went away again.

[254:02] No, because I think Zoom updates continuously. Yeah, they had to change it for some reason. I don't know about the Ldrc meetings, but I know that these meetings are different every time, and we don't create those links until just before, like 24 h like 24 h before. Is that problem to make it just like when you schedule a meeting like. here's the zoom. Well, we do our. We send out those calendar appointments for an entire year. So I think that's why maybe it wasn't done that way. I it. It would be good to have a conversation. I think, with Aubrey as well, because I think we adjust the we do the full calendar year of appointments and then adjust them, based on how long we think the meeting will last. And so I hear you. Maybe we can put the link in there when we adjust. Yeah. But I think what we update the appointments is what I'm saying. They were trying to avoid happening again.

[255:10] Somebody hacked a zoom, and you went to the link and it took you to. We would like to avoid that that demolition group. I, what is this? Yeah, right? Well, I will say, the land, the city website is very slow to load. you know, when it's like a minute till the meeting starts and you're going for the zoom link. I think we've all been there. So true. Alright! Okay, anybody else. Any other final shots an elephant. Alright. Something that I don't know is a good idea is, if we could get the slides for Ldrc. In advance, like part of me thinks if we have them in advance. we'll just dig more into it and have more preparation to go longer in the meeting, but I also feel like it might be helpful to be able to review things

[256:09] so that we have. We're not looking, because if we're looking at things for the 1st time, it's hard to respond in the moment with good ideas. Yes, and I, personally am still creating the Powerpoint at 8 30 on Wednesdays, yeah, 8 59 on Wednesdays, you know, because the deadline is 7 days before Marin will create the Powerpoint starting Friday. Finish it like Tuesday, you know, collecting all the things, and then Claire and I will meet, and with her, and like adjust it, and then I'm still making things. So I never mind. Then, you know it's a quick turnaround. But you know, is that something in the future? If now, Drc. Meetings are every 2 weeks because the Caseload is so much

[257:00] slower like, I think that. Yeah, I think that's something to consider. If we had a little more time. little more time. and then we talked about, and I don't know if this has happened. If it has, it's great. But I still really rely on the Internet. So like Google Maps and all that stuff like are those in the can we use those now in our meetings? We put them in our, we put a link to Google Street view in our memos. Now. So that's part of the record. Great. Yeah, it's only a boulder company. Yeah, all right, is that it? Guys, I want to say this, I want to say this, it's 1019, and this meeting is adjourned actually pretty early for us, that is early. But I wanted to make sure it did stay.