September 4, 2024 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:03] I have started the recording. Okay, we're recording the September Landmarks board meeting is called to order. Welcome to the September 4, th 2,024 landmarks board meeting. It's 6. I don't see the time. but welcome. Marcy will review the virtual meeting decorum. and we'll show this slide. All right. Good evening.

[2:58] She doesn't seem to be okay. We'll jump to Chelsea and come back to Abby Chelsea.

[3:05] Yeah, I can hear you. Okay. In the call. Quick quick introduction. Oh, sorry. I couldn't hear. We, Abby and I both couldn't hear. Marcy. Sorry. Okay. I thought that. That's the name of. Well, we couldn't hear anything. But yes, Hi Chelsea Castellano Landmarks board member. Okay. Back to Abby. Hi! I'm Abby Daniels, the current chair of the landmark sport, and thank you to John for leading tonight's meeting. Renee. Rene Globeck Landmarks board Member Ronnie Ronnie Pelusio landmarks board member. and I'm John Decker, landmarks board member and acting chair this evening. Excuse me, John, before we go on. Can we take a minute to troubleshoot any audio issues so that those joining online can hear the staff presentation and other speakers. Please do

[4:08] Abby or Chelsea. Can you hear me using this mic? It's a different one than before. I can hear you. Yes. Claire, would you mind testing your mic before we? Okay? It's not working for you in the back. Okay, how's how's this one. We hear it. Yep. And then can you hear me at all in this one. Yep. Yeah, definitely. But not in the back of the room. Okay. sure. Switch seats. Let's just

[5:13] all right. So can you hear me both in the room and online. Not very well. Yes. You're you're very clear online. Okay. My my recent experience with planning board is I've always struggled to hear Staff on that side of the dais and when I go back and review the tape online. It's crystal clear. Okay, I don't know how to resolve it, but that's been my experience, and that staff has to really get close, real close. So I will. speak very closely to the microphone and also speak up. So here we go. Okay. We also have our

[6:00] visiting presence from the planning board mark, would you like to give a quick intro? Just Mark Mcintyre, the planning Board liaison, or whatever the correct term is non-voting person. Okay. we've gotten through those issues. Hopefully, everyone can hear me. We know that people who are here to participate may have some strong opinions about these projects. We want to hear you, and have found it more productive. If you are speaking to persuade us, rather than berating us, staff or the applicant. as with regular landmarks, board meetings, you may only speak at the appropriate time during the public hearing requests to speak outside of those times are denied. We request that members of the public who wish to speak in person, sign up using the sheet with Aubrey. Virtual participants will then follow as normal by raising their virtual hands

[7:06] as board chair. I will call for a roll call, vote, vote on any motions that are made. and the 1st issue tonight is the approval of minutes. Does anyone have changes or alterations to the August minutes? Okay, none appearing. I move that we approve these minutes. Do we have a second? I'll second. Okay, we will have a roll call vote. Abby. I. Chelsea. I. Renee. Aye, Ronnie, aye, I also vote. Aye, the minutes are approved. Which moves us to public participation for non-agenda items. This is the time when you can speak to an issue other than those that are on our agenda.

[8:07] Do we have anyone who wishes to speak during public participation. Aubrey. we do have one. Sorry. Actually, these sign-ups are all for public hearing items. If anyone would like to speak for general public comment, please raise your hand. Lynn Siegel. you may approach the podium for your 3 min. Just give me one moment to queue up the timer.

[9:00] Cued Lynn. We are no longer swearing people in for open comment. So you can proceed. When the timer is Lynn, you'll have to turn on your microphone at the podium. There's a little button, and it'll turn red. Okay, great, and I'll start the timer for you right now, and please state your name, Lynn Siegel. The the deal is. you've got to stop demoing places in Boulder, I mean, there have been 4 Demos in the last 2 Ldrcs. This is, do you know what you're doing, which 1, 302 Arapaho they're going to put in 1216, 4 million dollars condos. There, you know. Do you know what this does to Boulder. Do you know what you all of you are doing to boulder? Do you know you're driving yourselves out? No one's going to be able to port here. But, Elon Musk.

[10:01] seriously. this is utterly ridiculous. There's not even a number. They were going to call the police on me when I went up to look at 310, or what is it? 3. 0 2 Arapaho! That's where they're going to put Condo City, and there's already. Condo, condo, condo, condo, condo apartment apartment apartment. My dad left New York City to get away from New York City. That's you know. That's why I came to Boulder to get away from New York. This is a giveaway to the developers. each demo that you're giving them. You know. It was okay. The one up on Redwood, you know. It's on the flood plain. The city's buying it. Okay. but you know, 1324 seater cute little bungalow, perfectly fine could be just fine, affordable frigging, housing. What have we got? A problem of an international crisis?

[11:01] Affordable housing? You're not helping. 6, 52, 6, 58. Pleasant. beautiful Marcy, beautiful little place! You axed it today. You axed it. I'm sorry I'm not sounding all sweet and nice about this. You killed off that house. What's the name of that? California? What? The hippie architecture book? A tree growing in the house that's fine. Let the tree demo the house in its own time. That is a beautiful space for for you, right across from foothills on the corner. totally visible in the community. What's going to be there? Condos, apartments. Condos, high price, high end. This is what you're doing. You're paid off by the developers. You are all of you are paid off by the developers. I'm sorry I know it. Everybody knows it. You want happy talk, John.

[12:02] Then stop demoing these places. This is utterly ridiculous. Oh, fortune 5, 45 pearl big house, perfectly affordable the way it is. Demo. It's called the Demolition Board. It's not the landmarks board. It's not the landmark sport. How dare you? Sorry I'm not more pleasant, John. Just one quick clarification on process. the Landmarks board. When we review demolitions. It is only against whether the House is a likely candidate to be a landmark. Unfortunately, demolition is approved in other levels of city action we have nothing to do with approving demolition. We simply say we can't stop it for purposes of landmarking. If it's not a landmarkable process or property.

[13:08] it's it's the way it's set up. We cannot halt demolitions, regardless of what it's being used for, because it's outside of our purview. So change your purview. That's a different discussion. Okay, do we have anyone else who wishes to speak during public process. Project comment. Catherine Katherine, my name is Catherine Barth, and I live in Boulder, and I'm very happy to be here tonight, seeing all of you. and I'm going to be speaking in a very different tone.

[14:01] But there are some points. and some of the points are that we are losing a lot of the character of our town. and I don't know if if there there was a point, I think. probably in the 90 S. Shortly after I moved here where we just put. I think it was after maybe the 80, 8, or 89 crash. We just put a moratorium. and we stopped everything for about a year and a half or 2 years while we try to sort things out. And maybe we're at that point again. because we are losing a lot of character and a lot of texture in this town. and every time that 8 or 10 million dollar

[15:02] houses come up as a cluster they generally are, replacing what was affordable housing. And I am so happy and proud that I was part of the group that land that got a landmark for West Pearl. and we landmark that very modest early neighborhood that was outside of the of the boundary of Boulder. And, thank goodness, we did, because that probably would all be 1 million dollar homes and very fancy condos. So there are some. There are some real issues that if we want to save the character of our town. Maybe we better start thinking about it, and I don't know what

[16:00] what mechanisms, and and I certainly agree with you, John, that right now. There, there isn't anything to pause and step back and say, You know, what can we do? What can we do? Because if if another 10, 10, 3 million dollars. Townhouses, or 2.4 million dollars. Townhouses spring up. That does nothing to help with our problem of affordability. And it just kind of seems to make the problem worse. So I certainly have no solutions. But I'm just saying maybe we did have a moratorium in the late 80 S. Or early nineties, and maybe it's time to think of that again. Thank you. Good luck to all of you. This is, I'm I have to comment.

[17:00] and this may be, I know we have an agenda. But this. This is. as Lynn said, a global problem. This requires a broad, comprehensive discussion in this community. I've been calling for a review of demolition since I served on the board. but it cannot be done by us the way we are enabled. Period. It has to be citywide and involve the next level of authority. So that is going to probably take some kind of Citizen Groundswell to happen. So we should move on. Do we have any virtual potential virtual participants, Aubrey? If anyone would like to speak for public comment via zoom, please raise your hand now, and I'll give it a couple minutes

[18:01] or a couple seconds. All right, John. It looks like we do not have anyone who would like to speak virtually right. Okay, we are going to go to a slide. And do we have no discussion of landmark, alteration and demolition? There are no pending stays of demolition. Okay. alright. So we will move to our 1st public hearing. Item. which is, item 5. A. This is a public hearing and consideration of a landmark. Alteration, certificate. Application to construct a 17 foot by 17 foot greenhouse at the property north of 200 Gallardia Lane

[19:01] in the Chautauqua Park 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. Brc. 1,981 we do have a slide up, and Marcy is going to present this public item. Yes, Ronnie. Well, we want to do ex parte first.st Why don't I go through the quasi-judicial hearing process? And then I'll pause for any ex parte contacts. We'll do that all right. The hearing process begins when all members are are sworn in board members. Note any ex parte contacts, and then staff gives a presentation followed by board questions. The applicant then, has 10 min to present, followed by board questions, and then the public hearing is open for public comment at 3 min each we'll do in person speakers followed by online speakers, followed by any questions from the board. After the last speaker the applicant has a chance to respond to anything that was said.

[20:17] and then the public hearing is closed, and the Board discusses. A motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass motions, must state findings, conclusions, and a recommendation. And finally, a record of the hearing is available. And so I'll pause here for any ex parte contacts for this case at 200, Gallardia. Okay, we'll we'll go through ex parte contacts in roll call ardor, and we will start with Abby. There's just a slight change to procedure. Landmarks. Board is the only board that goes through each individual member and ask for ex parte contacts. So

[21:00] you know, in talking with other folks who advise other boards and things like that. I would say that starting today, the expectation is that if somebody does have an ex parte contact, that they need to disclose that this would generally be the time. But we don't need to go person by person and ask them that just. That's a different procedure that we are now trying to get in line with the other boards where we're just. If anybody has any aspartee context, they can bring them forward. But silence means there are none. Okay. so does anyone have ex parte issues. I just have one question to ask. When there is public comment coming in like comments on all the emails. Some of those emails are currently my clients. Does that matter like they're so I just want to. I guess I wanted to just be honest and say that out loud. I don't have.

[22:05] If you're not engaging with them in terms of conversation. Discussion, right? Those emails are generally getting sent to the whole whole board. Just because, you know, the people who are sending those emails doesn't present a problem, the problem becomes not necessarily ex parte, but more conflict of interest is, if the actual subject matter of the hearing, if you or anybody in your family, the company that you work for has some sort of a business relationship with the applicants. Then that is a potential conflict of interest. And that would be when you should call me okay? So no, I do not. Okay. I have a working relationship with the Chautauqua Association, in which, in the last 5 years, I have been the architect. In fact, the architect of record for a few improvements on their property.

[23:03] including the cafe pavilion and the recent efforts to make modifications and create green rooms in the auditorium. I have not spoken with them about this particular application. and I feel that I am capable of making decisions without the influence of those previous engagements. And I will make decisions tonight based on the facts that are presented in the criteria alone. Okay. so that is our ex parte process. and I'm I'm sorry to interrupt. So I did have a conversation with Member Pelusio about about this and I don't think a recusal is required here, but I did want to put that on the record, so that the applicants and members of the public just knew about that.

[24:07] But looking into it and examining the current facts of the business relationship. I I don't feel strongly that they're would need to be a recusal here, but there is a process where other members of the board, if they have concerns, could make a motion to basically force a member of the Board to recuse that does exist in the code. But I'm not advising that anybody take that action tonight. Okay. so anybody else. no one else. All right, then we will move to staff presentation. And Marcy, I believe you're presenting. Thank you. All right. Good evening for this landmark. Alteration, certificate application. The criteria for your review is found in chapter 9, 1118 of the Boulder Revised Code.

[25:05] and that's whether the proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does not damage our exterior architectural features of the property. that it does not adversely affect the historic architectural value of the property. and that the architecture, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and material are compatible with the character of the property, and that the Landmarks board will consider the economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporations of energy, efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled. In your decision. You have a few options in front of you tonight. You may approve the application, and that decision is subject to a 16 day city council call up period. You may vote to deny the application which is subject to a 30 day city council. Call up period. or you may provide the applicant the opportunity to withdraw the application. That's typically if the board is going towards a denial. In that case the application is withdrawn and the case is closed. In the event that the Board votes to deny an application, the applicant cannot submit a similar application for one calendar year.

[26:15] This application started with the city of of Boulder's historic preservation process back in June, and that was on June 26.th The Landmarks Design Review Committee, which was Abby Renee and myself reviewed the application and referred it to the Landmarks Board for Review in a public hearing. considering that new construction at Chautauqua happens very rarely, and that the application merited additional review and analysis to determine whether the proposed construction meets the design guidelines. On July 10th the applicant submitted revised designs based on feedback from the Ldrc. And that brings us to today. September 4, th for the Landmarks Board public hearing.

[27:04] The property is located within the Chautauqua Park historic district at 200 Gallardia Lane. and it's next to the bachelor ranch house, also known as Cottage 200 and east of 211 Gallardia Lane Cottage, 211, and at the terminus of Gillardia Lane. This site measures approximately 25 feet by 30 feet, and is relatively flat. An unpaved pedestrian path borders the site to the east, and mature trees are located on the south and west sides. Informal rock walls are located at the north edge, and a wooden utility pole is located at the northeast corner of the site. Historically, the site was planted with as an orchard as part of the bachelor ranch from 1,882 to 1,907, and after 1,907, many of the trees were removed, and the area was graded. Formal gardens were planted just east, which is now known as the Centennial Garden, and by 1,910 the area was used as a tent camping site

[28:11] between about 1,918 and 1,928. The area was used as a cut flower garden, and the area was kept as a lawn during the 19 forties through 1,977, when a fenced vegetable and flower garden was installed on the site. That fence was removed and approved by the landmarks board in 2,022. There are currently no permanent structures on the site. The rock retaining walls are documented to have been installed in 1,977, when the dirt road, also known as Garden place was removed and replaced with a pedestrian footpath between the community House and clematis Drive. The proposed scope of work in front of you all this evening is the construction of a 17 foot by 17 foot greenhouse at the property installation of crushed stone paths and a stone edge bridge over the existing culvert to connect the existing gravel path to the west of the property.

[29:09] We'll look at the project in terms of its site and setting key building elements and its materials. The key site and setting characteristics look at things like the setback orientation, spacing, and distance between adjacent buildings. The guidelines that apply are both the Chautauqua Park historic district guidelines, and the general design guidelines generally. The guidelines emphasize the lack of distinction between properties and the camp. Like character of the park property line should not be defined by fences or landscape material. It also reads the pattern of spacing should be preserved, and the overall character of the site setting character of the site, site, topography, character, defining site, features, and trees should be retained. and the pattern of spacing general setback and distance between buildings found within the district should be compatible, as should the proportion of built mass to open space on an individual site.

[30:11] The proposed new building is located 19 feet from the nearest building, which is Cottage Cottage 211 to the west. The east facade of the proposed building is 24 feet from the existing pedestrian footpath between the community House and clematis Drive, and this is consistent with the pattern of the spacing found in the district. The general setback in distance between buildings. There is no significant difference in terms of the proportion of built mass to open space on the individual site between the proposed site and others within the district. There are no fences or landscape material defining the site boundary proposed, so Staff considers that the lack of distinction between properties will be preserved. and the building is oriented to face east with an entrance path perpendicular to the existing pedestrian path leading directly to the entrance.

[31:04] This is consistent with the typical building, orientation and rectilinear path alignment. and the proposed hardscaping on the lot includes a 4 foot by 9 foot flagstone pad at the entrance of the building with approximately 4 foot wide gravel paths that go around to the north, east, and south sides of the property there is an approximately 3 by 8 foot wide buffer between the building and the proposed paths. The landscaping that is proposed within this buffer, and on the remainder of the site is not specified, and we don't review specific plant plantings through the Lac process. Staff recommends that conditions of approval would include identification of the mature trees, including those that are proposed to be removed. Detail of the protection of trees proposed to remain and to identify areas of planting beds or grass on the site plan, including a seamless transition to adjacent properties.

[32:01] Next, we look at the height, form, massing size and scale of the overall and overall proportion of the building. The guidelines. Include guidance to preserve the existing massing patterns in the park, and that new buildings should be compatible with surrounding buildings that contribute to the overall character of the historic district in terms of height, size, scale, massing, and proportion and respect the neighboring buildings. The proposed one story building has a very simple front gable form, the form, which is simple in design, and a small size of the proposed building, about 289 square feet, and low height, approximately 13 feet, are compatible with the overall character of the historic district, and staff considers it respects the neighboring buildings and the streetscape as a whole. the approximate 2 foot tall knee wall around the base of the building does not increase the perceived mass of the building.

[33:06] and then we move to the key building elements which include the roof form windows and doors. These guidelines talk about using window patterns and proportions that are found in the district. and windows should match the general pattern found in the park, and not occur between floors or in gable ends. That's mostly for cottages, and the relationship of solid to void should be compatible. Staff considers that because the proposed accessory building is to be used as a greenhouse that differs in use, and the design language than the more frequently proposed accessory buildings that we see in historic districts. The building is proposed to be constructed out of wood and steel frame, supporting large panels of glass that include cross structural supports. The building rests on a knee wall that surrounds the building on all sides, and is interrupted only for the entrance door on the east facade.

[34:04] The building form is modeled on the Chautauqua Cafe Pavilion, which was constructed in 2,022, and based on historic images. It uses a post and beam construction with steel structural supports. The proposed greenhouse is predominantly glass, and as such this ratio of solid to void is unusual and not found in the district. However, the building is very simple in design, and reflects the traditional forms of a greenhouse. The gable form with a moderate pitch is commonly found within the historic district. And the last aspects that we looked at are the materials and details, including the scale, proportion, texture, type, and finish of materials. These guidelines discuss preserving. Let's see, talks about the materials of windows should typically be wood and in scale, a scale, proportion, finish, and character to those traditionally found within Chautauqua. The colors should match the Chautauqua Association's palette, and the materials should be similar in scale. Proportion, texture finish and color to those found on nearby structures.

[35:17] Looking at the proposed materials, the stone veneer proposed is compatible with nearby historic structures. However, the stone, when used on buildings is usually on buildings of a much larger scale. These include the Community House Missions House, Academic Hall, and the Auditorium Stone is also found at Chautauqua, in the historic swales, as well as contemporary stone walls near the Auditorium restroom Staff considers that painted wood, siding or bead board, similar in scale proportion, texture, finish, and color found in nearby. Similar sized cottages would be more appropriate, and would contribute to the camp. Like character of the district.

[36:00] Other materials proposed include a single pane, tempered glass fire treated wood steel, the stone veneer, wet, set flagstone for the entrance, pad and bridge and stone edging and crushed rock pathways. The flagstone is appropriate, and is a material found throughout the district, and the edging type for the crushed stone is not specified on the plans, nor is the treatment of the setback surrounding the pathways. In addition to compliance with the guidelines, the standards for issuance are found in 9, 1118, and going through. These staff considers that the proposed construction does not damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the property or the historic district, because no structures will be removed from the site. As part of this proposal. Staff considers the proposed construction does not adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the property. As the proposed building is relatively small in scale, uses a traditional form and materials, and does not obscure historic features within the historic district.

[37:12] and staff considers that if conditions are met, the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials will be compatible with the character of the historic district. and with that staff recommends that the Landmarks Board approve the application. Finding that the proposal meets the standards for issuance of for a landmark alteration certificate, and is generally consistent with the general design guidelines, and the Chautauqua Park historic district guidelines stated that conditions are met, and so the conditions that Staff recommends is to revise the stone veneer knee wall to painted wood siding or bead board. and then details, including identifying mature trees on the plans and providing details about protecting those trees that are proposed to remain.

[38:01] identifying areas of planting beds or grass on the site plan, including a seamless transition to adjacent properties. detail of any guttering on the plans and providing details of the proposed doors and windows and edging type for the pathways as well as the paint, color, and exterior lighting if proposed. So with that I am happy to answer any questions the Board may have. Thank you, Marcy. Does anyone have any questions for Marcy. and it looks like Abby does. If Abby. Thank you, John, and thank you, Marcy, for that great presentation. I have a quick question, and I don't think this would apply to the general design. Guidelines. Do you know, are you aware, if the Chautauqua Park historic district guidelines have been reevaluated or updated since it was named a national historic landmark, which I think was in about 2,006.

[39:05] That's true. So the guidelines as a whole have not been revised or updated since 2,006. They've only been added to in terms of lighting, which was adopted in 2,018. Well, and I actually served on that lighting which was a fascinating and really rewarding experience. Okay, that was my only question at this point. Thank you. Anyone else have questions for staff. Just one quick thing. John. I hate to be a nitpicky person, but just a little bit closer to the mic. Okay. thank you. So awkward. That's not. That's a helpful thing, Aubrey. Okay. I'll pay attention to that. okay. with that we will move on to the applicant presentation. Do we have representatives here this evening

[40:06] to present on behalf of the applicant? Okay. it looks like we have Jason Hill. Virtually, Jason, I'll send you a promotion. Okay? And I will have to swear you in Jason. Okay. I mean. We could also let Good evening we could also allow Joel Smiley and Laura to also join as architect and builder. Okay. you are given, I guess. 10 min. we normally, Marcy, do we extend it to each person? 10 min each or no, it'll be 10 min for the applicant presentation. But if anyone from the applicant team wants to speak under public comment, they'd have 3 min each. But the whole applicant presentation should be within 10 min. Right? So

[41:17] at at the point of speaking, everyone will have to be sworn in. So, Jason, can you raise your virtual hand and swear to tell us the truth, and all of the truth. I swear to tell you the truth, and all of the truth. Thank you. Okay, and you have 10 min. So you may proceed. Thank you. Good evening. Landmarks, board members. Thank you for having us. Aubrey, you're you're in. You're in control of the slides there. We've got it over here so you can just ask us to advance, and we'll click the button. Okay. Sounds great. Thank you. Let's go ahead and advance. We'll jump right in.

[42:02] I don't often deviate from the project itself. When I'm in front of landmarks board for these sort of projects. But I think this particular project is important for us to explain why we're interested in building a greenhouse, and really a fire, wise garden, and greenhouse is what we're calling it. Well, for the past several years now Chautauqua has been spending a lot of time and resources thinking about and preparing for a wildfire mitigation, as as you might assume, being right on that urban wildland urban face is Something that is has been scary since the Marshall fire, but I think, been been something we've been thinking about for a long time and and this project is a part of that process. So we have been.

[43:01] you know. i i i really like to think of us as a leader, in in the State, and even maybe larger than that when it comes to historic sites that have such vulnerabilities like Chautauqua and in in how we think about our defense in in you know, in a wildfire scenario as a vulnerable site. So Chautauqua has for the last last really 4 years dug into things we could be doing. So there's execution of things on the ground that we could do thinking about defensible space and building relationships with our fire department and and and in the last 2 years we've developed 2 long very comprehensive wildfire mitigation plans. That were funded through some grant funding and actually through the State Historic fund shf and one of the many projects that came out of that that that planning effort was to continue to think about our

[44:08] vegetation, to think about fire, wise plants, and and find means to further research and think about what is best for Chautauqua. So here we are today. This purpose of this greenhouse is to experiment with a variety of native firewise flowers and plants. We're interested in understanding what plants are best suited for Chautauqua's micro climate. As we like to think about it and then also think about transitioning successful plants into the the larger landscape ongoing. We've been working with Csu extension for some time now a few years. And we're really interested in connecting with the community and sharing our findings through through ongoing conversations, classes with the community. And the greenhouse is a means for us to do that. So

[45:01] So we're really excited about this opportunity. And you can, you can go ahead and advance so we're, you know, Marcy. Laid it out very clearly for you all. We're talking about a very small greenhouse here 17 by 17 feet. We are interested in. The the hardscape is just really a bridge to get over to the greenhouse. And then that landing that was shown on the drawings that you reviewed the soft escapes which I understand is not in your purview, but I think is an important piece to this project. There, we're actually gonna have sort of like you would in a in a botanic garden or an arboretum. We're gonna have plant tags, and we're gonna have different plots around the garden is the idea. It will look like you know, a a garden like it always has been. But these these plants will be fire wise plants that we will rotate in there and have plant tags so that community members, anyone can come up and sort of see what what we're experimenting with

[46:02] next slide. I think we're gonna let's go ahead and advance a few of these slides, because it's just very clearly presented with Marcy. So this is the site right here, right next to Cottage 200 bachelor ranch. It's about a 30 by 30 area, and the greenhouse will be about about half that size and just for I I think it's helpful to the the cottage. Right behind there in the foreground is the is the cottage 2, 11. That cottage is a 2 bedroom unit. It's about about 560 square feet. So this this greenhouse is about half that size. a little less than half next slide. I think. I think we you saw these photos in the 1st presentation. So we'll keep going. We'll keep going. This is just more more photos of the site. Just wanted to make sure you guys

[47:02] could see, we'll keep going. let's keep. Let's keep moving. Thank you. So design goals. As as Marcy spoke about one of the most important things we we thought about. We do not need a large greenhouse. We think that something anything bigger than what we have proposed here today would would just be too too massive for the space. So that was a really big part of our discussion as a design team. Making sure that it's aborted to to neighboring historic buildings. And then, of course, more most importantly, we're not. The intention of this greenhouse is not to replicate or look like it is historic in any way. So you know, we're working here to avoid creating any false sense of a historic development with this structure and and the steel elements help with that as well. So we think that it fits in with the

[48:03] with the surroundings. And in the park, based on Secretary of Interior Standards. Section 9, depicts how you would go about adding or altering new structure on a historic site. So we really took those those guidelines at heart when when thinking about the design here. Next slide. again. I think I think you saw this slide and the presentation. So we'll keep moving just a couple more here. This materials. That's an example of the the flagstone bridge to get across the the the swale there and keep going. So community input process we have. there's been a Cca person, a portion to the community input process. So we held a town hall meeting in April. We posted links. To our website for folks to inquire about the project. And we also solicited emails from folks in the community to answer their questions. Of course we're here today, and we were also at Ldrc. Hearing for people to hear about this. This project has also been before the Chautauqua Board and the building grounds committee. Where there's also been information about the project

[49:19] for the public. So we feel like we've really gone above and beyond to make sure that the community was aware of this project and had the opportunity to to provide feedback if they would like next slide. So as I've as I've mentioned. This project is all about wildfire protection and and continuing to advance the work that we've done. Forward. It's an extension of the historic use of this space. And you know, I I think that it could be used for many, many years to come to educate folks about our wildfire mitigation efforts. and you know, we think it's most importantly respectful to Cca's design. Guidelines Federal design guidelines, as it pertains to adding new structures to historic sites, particularly national historic landmarks.

[50:11] And we think it's a creative and adaptive use for a space that has been a garden for a long time. It reminds me of the theme at the Saving Places Conference this year. We need to think about creative, adaptive uses for spaces at historic sites to keep them interesting to keep people coming. Keep people learning. Keep people engaged. So with that, I'll conclude. But I did. Wanna just quickly. Address a few comments that I know. You heard through email or I think through email, I I've seen a few You may have heard. This application was not completed, and did not adhere to the public process. This is false. We apply. We have applied for an lac for this project, just like we have for every other project we've completed at Chautauqua. We compared, compared to other historic districts. There's a quite a lengthy process for review at Chautauqua, and this project moved through that process. No differently.

[51:07] We. I think there were some some comments I've heard about this project sort of being some sort of covert operation that did not include engagement with other public entities, such as the State Historic Fund or National Park Service. This is false. I have written documentation with local representatives of the National Park Service from Lakewood Office, from May and June, and Shf. Was informed of the project. Both parties were happy to hear about our continued progress towards wildfire mitigation, and and saw this project as as a means of achieving those goals. I've talked to you about all the engagement that we've had with the community. We've offered many opportunities for people to comment to to provide feedback, and we took that with open arms. There's been talk about removing trees. There has never been any trees discussed to be removed, nor do we have any need or desire to remove any trees as part of this project. Yes.

[52:05] The limit of your time. Okay, can I make one. China. Yeah, this is my last last comment. there's been some concerns about this notion of incremental change. I I there has been no change to the fabric of Chautauqua. There has been exemplary stewardship that appears to be labeled as quote unquote change. I can tell you that a 25 year old. Property like Chautauquo requires an enormous amount of work, and we have been busy pouring every extra dollar we have back into the site to ensure that it's still standing as it is now for many generations to come. This is our job. Unfortunately, I think this earnest work has been politicized for reasons that are completely unrelated to this project, and there lies some of the opposition that you've heard heard from a select few members of the community every change that has a consequence to Chautauqua is reviewed by Chautauqua's Cultural Resource staff. Then the Building Grounds Committee, then the Landmarks Board. We respect every piece of that important process. And I will close with that. Thank you.

[53:08] Thank you, Jason. Does anyone have any questions for Jason? Yes, you know I actually appreciate Jason following up on the comments that were sent to us via email. And so. personally, I'd like to let Jason continue to go through anything on his list that might reference comments that we've received via email, because I have questions about some of them and maybe others in the audience do that, perhaps are the authors of those emails. So I wonder, Jason, is there anything else on your list? And and if my fellow board members are interested in hearing that, I think it would be really good use of our time. Ronnie. Oh, sorry.

[54:01] Yeah, I agree. I also think that also, like we're going to have public comment, and he could address them. Then, too, yeah, I I think that it should probably should be addressed in relation to the public comment. The reason why I think it's valuable now is because we have them in email. And this is my opportunity as well, Jason, to ask you questions that are in the email form. And so I just want to make sure they're represent. They have representation. So I think we'll hear from the public and be able to have a discussion with them as well about anything that might repeat or be new, but it just feels like a really good opportunity to daylight anything that might be either incorrect information in emails that we've received or components that we've heard that I definitely have questions about, and it sounds like he already has a list. Are there other things, Jason, on your list?

[55:02] I think I flew through most of them. There was one more. I think I had sort of been hearing and saw some emails about Cca. Needing to spend more money on wildfire mitigation. We we've we just did a full analysis and submitted for another grant where we identified upwards of a million dollars that we've spent on wildfire mitigation. Fire mitigation is an absolute necessity for Chautauqua, and you know this is an an opportunity to learn more about and educate the public. I think I went over the comments about National Park Service, the State Historic Fund completely false. We've had conversations with both of those entities, and I'd be happy to provide the documentation of that and I talked about the trees. Can I ask you a question? Then.

[56:00] I think that's all. Thanks. Thanks for recapping that. So in in at least one of the emails, there have been questions about the access to the parking area that is near the proposed structure, and whether or not there are safety concerns regarding vehicles, including fire department and emergency services getting into that space is that something you could talk to. Yeah, so completely unrelated to this project. Those comments. That is a a road at at the rear of th. There's never been a a road through where the proposed greenhouse is. I actually share those concerns. I think that Glardia Lane, you know, at the at the rear of this area that we're considering considering tonight is a safety hazard I have. I I think there's much better ways to think about moving traffic through there, and quite frankly, there's just the parking conversation that needs to take place. Probably shouldn't be parking cars diagonally on those streets. Keep in mind. The streets are not Cca's purview. There's they're they're city's own streets. They're city maintained streets. So this is a conversation with the city.

[57:21] But I. I would recommend that if if there was to be ever be through traffic, that you route traffic to the community house the issue with routing traffic through that area is that it's a heavily pedestrian. It's it's a pedestrian wall. It's 1 of the main, you know, through ways from the green into you know Cca. Chautauqua and and I I would just I it would scare me to have cars now intersecting at that path. I think that you need to divert traffic up to morning Glory. Or you need to rethink about the parking down there. So it's it's just a different issue than this than this project.

[58:02] but I think there was a community member that thought that there was an opportunity here. To put a road in in this area. I said, why, it came up. And then there was also a question of Cca's ability to have adequate budget to ensure the success of the project. Yeah, I I you know we we I don't know what to say to that, Ronnie, other than it's really it's not. It's Cca's business, you know. You know, it's not really the community's business to be telling us. You know we have. We have strategic goals that our board reviews and we put our resources and our our funds towards those goals in the stewardship of the property. And you know Wildfire, mitigation is a is a strategic goal right now for the organization. And this is a way for us to

[59:01] to continue to to drive that effort forward. As I've said many times tonight. So there is budget to do this. This is, we're talking about a 17 by 17 very small greenhouse. I think there, there is budget for us to to install this greenhouse, and there's budget for us to care for this greenhouse, so I'm not sure where those concerns come from. To be honest with you. Thanks, Jason, appreciate it. Anyone else have questions for Jason having Abby. Abby. Thanks, thanks, John. And Jason. Thanks for your presentation, and I know I got a sneak preview of this in June at the Ldrc, I know you offered to show us documentation from the State Historical Fund. I don't need that. I was curious. If you talked more to the Grants department, or like the Shipo, and that's just more out of my curiosity from previous years of working with them on various projects. I'm more just curious.

[60:10] Yeah, we we didn't pursue any grant funding for this project. so no. So was it the ship? Oh, you talked to, or other staff. At at the State. Yeah. I I was Anne Mcleeve that I spoke to. Okay, so what is that? Thank you. I know, Anne, that's great. And I appreciate it sounds like you did a lot of community outreach. I who try to stay attuned to things that are going on in town halls and things like that. I, personally wasn't aware about any of these meetings or surveys, or anything do you have? And I don't want to put you in the hot seat. Do you have any sort of rough estimate? How many people might have responded in various ways, venues and formats to this, like several 100, or I know that's kind of unfair. I just you know, we all the taco so much we feel like it belongs to us. So you know. There, there's a lot of people who there it's their affection for Chautauqua, where I do think we take that ownership so kind of personally. So I just wondered if you had a rough estimate.

[61:18] Yeah, which is a good thing, right? We we want people to care about Chautauqua. So rough estimate. You know, we we hold, Abby, we hold these. We hold town hall meetings usually. Twice. We've been doing them twice a year, and and it's you know, I think we had. We had a pretty good turnout at the Town Hall meeting, where this was discussed. And you know I would say 50 ish people. I didn't get a lot of feedback honestly. But, there was a couple of other topics didn't get a lot of feedback. We did get probably 10 or so, maybe emails with specific questions, and so we've been responding to those they're actually, I think we included them in our application for the Lac just to kind of document some of the questions that we're getting. I think, really, what's happening is, for some reason they are folks are less interested in asking me the questions and more sending you all you know, requests. But I I'd say we're in the like 30 to 50 range.

[62:23] Thank you. That's really helpful, because I know it's no surprise to you that Boulder citizens do like to speak out and speak up. So that's helpful for me. I have no more questions. Thank you, Abby. Anyone else. hey? I have a quick one. I'm not a botanist, but I and I think this sounds like a perfectly wonderful project. but the one of your key goals is to grow and select plants and evaluate them in light of Chautauqua's microclimate.

[63:03] and I'm not sure how growing something in a greenhouse environment informs the efficacy of a plant that would be not in a greenhouse in Chatauk was microclimate. So can you explain that to me? Yes, sorry if I wasn't clear. So the it's not shown well on your the diagram tonight, and I apologize for that. There's there's there are 6 test plots outside. Around the the garden space is about half the the greenhouse structure, I should say, is about half of that plot. and the other half. Where the the reason there are those walkways is because there are. There are 3 plots on either side. So the greenhouse was going to be used as an educational opportunity for us to engage with the public year round and also do some seed starting. So so where we have we're known for our flowers at Chautauqua. So there's a lot of Csu extension

[64:02] flowers on on their list that we want to start from seed in in the greenhouse, move them into the test plots, get plant labels so that the community could see what we're what we're doing. And then, if we have success transfer those into the field. I know that we might sound a little bit like too special to say that we have our own microclimate, but I'm telling you it's it's there's something about you down, you know, where you're sitting. There you might get. you know, 6 inches of snow. We've got 18 up there. And it's it's really interesting. And so we like to think of it as our own little micro climate. But it would. It would flow from greenhouse test plot field is the idea. But really it's about engaging the community throughout the year about what we're learning. And Csu is really excited to come out and participate. they're all jazzed about it, so I hope that clarifies. Great. Thank you very much. Thanks, Mark. I. I have one project question.

[65:03] since it is a greenhouse, and you're going to have environmental control of some type. How? How are you going to control and condition the greenhouse environment? And where is that equipment going to be residing? Or where is that I guess control coming from. Well, this greenhouse wouldn't be. It's not gonna be that fancy, as far as if you're talking about like. So we're we're gonna have fans in the greenhouse, you know, in in the summertime we have a sweet. So we have a a full time staff horticulturist. It's amazing. And he's been helping us throughout the design of this project. So it's not. It's it's, you know, it's It's not as fancy as some greenhouses that I've I have interacted with in my career to where we would have big vacuums and fans in there. But I would turn it over to to Joel, if he if there's anything you want to add, Joe, just about airflow and management of the greenhouse in regards to his question here.

[66:07] Okay. thank you. Joel. you need to quickly swear you can raise your hand, which you have up and swear to tell us the truth and the whole of the truth. I swear to tell the truth, and the whole truth. Okay. You know. I think I I think the you know the intention of the greenhouse is really a a season extender. so you know it's it'll allow it'll allow the the park to maybe push a couple of months past when you'd be able to do something, you know, out out in the wind. and maybe start a little ahead of you know, when you could start out in the wind and the weather. As as Jason said. There, you know there's there's at this point there's there's no intention of

[67:03] conditioning the space. I think the you know midsummer you know there'll be passive ventilation through through the gables to allow air to. You know the hot air to get out of there. so it's it is a a pretty basic you know, starter, starter space. Thanks, Joe. Great, thank you. Anyone else any questions for the applicant. if not, we can proceed to our public comment. phase for in-person individuals. Sign-up sheets are located on the dais next to Aubrey. please, if you haven't already fill this out and hand it to her.

[68:03] and of course, Those who are going to wish to do this virtually after the live process will go through the same process virtually. When Aubrey calls your name you will have 3 min to speak at the podium, and I will have to swear each of you And virtual attendees will either press Star 9 or raise their hand on their virtual I guess And then you'll state your name and begin speaking. So do we have people queued up Aubrey before we get started for the public participation. For this item, I did receive an email from someone who experienced technical difficulties during general public comment.

[69:04] Are we okay with hearing their comment after we hear from the people already signed up. It's it's an comment unassociated with this project. Yeah, we should probably table that to between issues rather than hear it. Now. Chris, that that works there's no rule prohibiting it. If the Board wants to allow it, it can be allowed. But in terms of flow, then then perhaps that would actually make more sense to sandwich it in between public hearings. Right? That would that would be my inclination. So everybody agree with that? Yeah, I agree. I think let's focus on this case and then come back to that public comment. Okay. I think that makes sense. All right. Thank you. Let's proceed. Okay. So for this item, we have Leonard Siegel, followed by Fran sheets, and then Katherine Barth.

[70:07] okay. And then we'll move to virtual participants. Evening, Lynn. Good morning. No, good evening, and I swear to tell the truth, Leonard Siegel, executive director of historic Boulder, speaking on behalf of historic boulder. Do I need to press this? Okay, you can hear me. Okay, all right. Historic boulder supports the proposed construction of this greenhouse. If it meets the high standards of its listing as a national historic landmark and a Secretary of Interior standards. After all, it's only fair to make that request, since Chautauqua markets itself in part as a rare example of a site that has achieved the status as a national historic landmark. The proposed building use as a greenhouse seems to fit within the historic district as something you would expect to find in a village historic boulder, however, wanted to call out a couple specific design guidelines, 6.3 point 1 and 6.5 point 2 that require new construction to be compatible with the surrounding buildings in order to contribute to the overall character of the historic district in terms of height, size, scale, massing, and proportions, and all

[71:14] knowing what the representative from Chautauqua said in terms of deciding not to do something historical in nature. Historic boulder has assessed the design, and believe that the proposed building looks industrial and lacks the arts and crafts, characteristics of the surrounding buildings, especially in terms of window patterns, details, and the roof ridge and the way the building meets the ground. We're not suggesting that the building needs to be a historical arts and crafts recreation. But the spirit of the craftsman details that you would find on the campus of that village ought to be interpreted with a high level of detail

[72:02] with regard to craftsmanship. The way materials meet each other, and the spirit of Chautauqua seems to be absent in the design character of this building, and we encourage the design to be rethought to be more in keeping with the spirit of this beautiful campus. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, Fran. Good evening. I am Fran Sheets, and I live in Boulder I you need to swear. Oh, I swear I'll tell the truth the whole truth. Thank you. You're welcome. I think that this is a really unusual request to build something like this in an Nhl. and I think we need to really ask ourselves whether this is really needed at all. In total. This

[73:00] adds to our incremental changes in the district. There's a difference between submitting this proposal as a new structure for the State Review and asking if the review would be required by Nps. As I think is claimed. and the Mps says, quote, if the agency official proposes a finding of adverse effect, the agency official shall notify all consulting parties of the finding and provide them with the documentation. I'd really like to see the documentation, because I also have a letter from the State that stated quite clearly that there should be no new buildings up in Chautauqua, and they were quite clear about that, and they were very clear about saying that. but by doing so, and continuing to to do so without their approval, that they put the jeopardy. They put the Nhl status in jeopardy. and as important as Chautauqua is to the larger community, I think there should have been more and wider discussion. I live in the community, and I'm fairly aware of what goes on like Abby is, and I wasn't aware of these meetings so, and there are a lot of people who have said the same thing to me who actually live in Chautauqua

[74:21] people who aren't there in April and didn't have a chance to contribute. The let's see. So why is this being pushed through? Now? I think there needs to be more review. I think there needs to be more open discussion. There are a lot of people who care a lot about Chautauqua, and felt like they were, were, despite what the representative said, felt like, they were not given adequate opportunity to actually express themselves, and asking a few questions, and being answered in writing is really nice, but it'd be nice if there were, as Boulder used to expect, some kind of open discussion, and not just being told what what is coming.

[75:09] and I, too, asked the question that if if you're into these plants in a microclimate, why are you putting them in a greenhouse. It makes no sense to me, and there's nothing wrong with having plots out there, but it makes no sense in a dark area with a lot of shade and not a lot of heat, and and not a lot of space to be putting up a greenhouse. Thanks a lot. Guys. Thank you. Okay, Aubrey. all right. I believe Catherine Barth is next. I didn't hear you, Robert.

[76:08] Well, guys, Catherine Barth and I've been. I've been. Oh, I will tell you the truth. And I've been worried about not worried about, but concerned and loving concern with Chautauqua for a lot of years, and it really went back to the the beginning of the arbor house. which was building quite a large house that was going to be where the picnic shelter was. and that and ended up involving the State Historic Preservation Office. And they said, No, you that's not appropriate to remove the picnic shelter which had historic significance of its own, and at that time

[77:00] the State Historic Preservation Office said, no new buildings really were appropriate at Chautauqua. so I'm not saying that this is not a good idea that firewise plants are not. you know, a good thing to think about, but I think we should really be involving the State Historic Preservation Office and bringing them out and having them very involved in what they think about. Now, when we after the arbor house, which was denied and didn't happen, and the picnic shelter is still there. The next issue that came up was, Should there be bathrooms, and I remember we spent several tours with people from the state of preservation office, walking around Chautauqua to find

[78:00] 2 or 3 possible locations for bathrooms, primarily for the concert hall. but at that time there were promises made that those bathrooms would be available to hikers, and that part never happened. So I just would like. before this gets set in stone, that there is more consultation. and that the State Historic Preservation Office is involved in. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, and I think fireboys, plants sound wonderful. But I was up there yesterday. and There's no sun that hits that site at all. I mean, so I don't know in my experience. My mother had a greenhouse. and she started a lot of plants in the early spring, but she had sun that hit her greenhouse.

[79:00] and it's kind of behind some very tall trees. So I'd like to see a shadow analysis of that building. And you know what what the situation is of shadows and sun, and you know how things really would germinate in that building. So I think there's probably some I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but there's more work to be done, I think. Thank you. All right. And our next sign up is Lynn Siegel. Okay, sounds good. Lynn Siegel, I swear to tell the truth. Okay, thank you. Sounds good to me. I already heard this all at the Ldrc. That I had to go to a meeting on addiction because we have an addiction problem from all of the.

[80:04] you know, homelessness associated with all the inflated costs of housing in boulder, and I wanted to know how to deal with it. So I had to take a break there. But I've already heard all about Gallardia and greenhouse in Ldrc, so yeah, it sounds like a good project to me. Great thanks for putting it together, and I hope that the public can be exposed to greenhouse growing fabulous. Okay, thank you. All right, and moving on to our virtual participants. If anyone would like to speak, please raise your hand now. All right. It looks like we have Margaret Ryder, followed by Pat Shanks and Peter Spear. You will each have 3 min, and I will allow you to speak

[81:04] in that order. All right, Margaret should be good to go. Hi! My name is Margaret Ryder, and I am raising my hand and swearing. To tell the truth. I am a a cottage owner in Chautauqua and 1st of all, I'd like to thank you all for your time and your commitment to preservation. And as we know any change or addition to a new structure, any change, or an addition of a new structure to an Nhl is a big deal, and it should really have a robust process. For instance, Cca. Did a remarkable job with the Parks lighting plan that was referenced earlier. That several years ago, and I wish this project would have had the same attention. Or even more attention, since it's the construction of a new building. There's concern also that this building will eventually become a venue for private events, and I would like for that to be clarified either way.

[82:14] But and there have been references to the Town Hall meeting, and, to be clear, there was a Town Hall meeting, but the subject of the greenhouse came at the end of a very long meeting which was which followed other very complex subjects, like the undergrounding of the power lines and the survey to determine property lines in the park. and any one of these topics was important enough. to have a meeting all up to its own, but the greenhouse was the 4, th at least the 4th item on the agenda and didn't have a lot of conversation. There's been no public board discussion, and when Cca was asked about that they were, we were told that they had multiple discussed it multiple times in committee meetings. But when asked to share those minutes we were told that it was too much for Staff to provide those, so we have not been privy to the conversations within the board or within the Board committees. I do applaud Cca's desire to learn more about fire wise plants, but as a gardener myself and I have a greenhouse, I know that a greenhouse is not necessary for what they're talking about.

[83:22] So I ask that you postpone approval on this, to allow time for a really robust and inclusive process that considers all stakeholders, and most importantly preserve Chautauqua. Thank you. Thank you. And Margaret before you go away. Was that the comment you emailed me about. Yes, yeah, I just. But I didn't. Yes, I just wanted to make sure I didn't know if there was a sign up list. So thank you. Great. Just wanted to be sure you got your chance. I appreciate it. Thanks.

[84:02] All right, moving right along to Pat Shanks. I'm Pat Shanks, and I'm raising my hand and swearing to tell the truth. And so I'm a member of the Chautauqua board. and I'm also the chair of the Sustainability and Resilience Committee and chautauqua has a number of committees and Jason mentioned building and grounds, and between building and grounds and sustainability and resilience. Those are the main committees that look at things happening on site and You know, Chautauqua has a strong commitment to preservation, sustainability, and resilience. They're key goals for us.

[85:04] And so I've been on. I'm starting my 4th year on the board, and I've been and I'm starting my 5th year on the Sustainability and Resilience Committee. So I've been around for all of these discussions about the fire, wise garden and greenhouse. and I can say, 1st of all. that the Sustainability and Resilience Committee strongly supports the idea of the fire, wise garden and greenhouse and obviously fire issues are critical for Chautauqua, especially after fast moving fires like Cow Wood and Marshall. and we have a uniquely difficult situation where Chautauquo owns 2 thirds, roughly, 66 of the cottages, and then private owners own the rest.

[86:04] So creating defensive space around those cottages is a really important goal. and it's sometimes hard to convince people. or to even take the step of removing vegetation from around the buildings. And so fire resistant plants are a key solution for Chautauqua. And you know, Csu extension has produced the firewise plant materials. Fact sheet 6.3 0 5. It has a list of roughly 80 plants for gardens around houses. about 30 shrubs. and about 25 large shrubs or trees. This is an excellent resource.

[87:02] but challenging to use, since there's so many choices. and Chautauqua is a unique environment because of its slope it's vegetation. its altitude, and so forth. And so the I think the idea that the fire, wise garden and greenhouse where plants can be prepared. are important and will provide important information. Goodness. thank you. Thank you. All right, thank you. And next we have Peter Spear. Can you hear me? Yes, Susan. Yes, I'd like to say another of our board members raised her hand. but was not recognized, and I don't know.

[88:03] How we can correct that before I start! Think I sent them a chat. Was that Trudy turvey. Yes, thank you. Yes, Trudy, all you have to do is raise your hand again, and that'll put you next in line. Thank you, Peter. You should be good to go. Thank you. I'm. Will need to swear you. Sorry, I swear. To tell the truth. I can. I'm chair of the Chautauqua Board of Directors. and I confess that this is my 1st Landmark Board meeting. and I'm very impressed with the process, and I really appreciate the care with which you approach all of this. The Board. 1st heard about this project in April of 2023, and we have 2 committees Pat mentioned them. There's the preservation, sustainability and Resilience Committee and the Building Grounds Committee, which over the following years had 8 different meetings at which they discussed this project.

[89:17] and I should mention that marcy has participated in those committees as Has Brian Oliver. So we also have some expert input during those discussions. the the community members on those committees. Or let me just skip that those discussions included consideration of 3 different greenhouse options and schematic plans. and also budgets. and the Board was kept apprised of those discussions over that time through committee reports and leadership reports to the Board.

[90:08] and we think that it's a wonderful project. It's a creative and adaptive use of Chautauqua space that furthers our goals as they relate to wildlife mitigation, which is very important for us. as Pat described. It's also a great opportunity for community engagement and programming in addition, our Finance Committee looked at the budget in detail and approved it, and the Full Board voted unanimously to approve the project as part of the capital budget approval in November of 2023, so the Board has been intimately involved in this and community members are always welcome at our board meetings. Margaret mentioned that.

[91:01] she couldn't get our our minutes from committee meetings. Those are posted right after the committee meeting. and then they're archived. and we invited her to give us a specific minutes that she was interested in, and that we would re that we would get them for her, and and we never got that information. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next we have Trudy Turvey, and then I see Margaret Ryder's hand is raised once more. All right, Trudy, you should be good to go. I swear. To tell the truth, my name is Trudy. Turn for the vice chair

[92:00] of the Cca. Board of Directors, just beginning my second three-year term. and I would like to address some concerns that have been brought up about opportunities for community engagement related to this project. I can assure you that there have been many opportunities, and I'm going to list them for you. In February of this year. The minutes of the Bng Committee Building and grounds which included a discussion and details about the greenhouse project were posted on the website for the public to view and comment on. After publicly posting the minutes. The full Board met 3 days later on the 12, th because we always include a public participation portion of the meeting where members of the public are invited to speak. That happened, and there were no comments on the greenhouse. In February, at our next board meeting on April 15, th again, opportunities for the public to speak, and no comments from the public came to us

[93:05] at the time. Shelley announced that there would be a town hall on April 24, th for residents and other community members where they would be solicitating, soliciting. Excuse me, input on the garden on April 24, th the Town Hall meeting occurred via zoom, so that residents who were out of town could participate. The purpose was to review the status of the project and to gather input from the community on the design of the garden and the greenhouse. The meeting was well attended, but there were no questions nor comments regarding the greenhouse between April and June staff solicited comments from the community via email. They were directed to send their comments, questions, and suggestions to info@chautauqua.com. Where they were channeled to the appropriate staff for response. We did not receive but one email with several questions from Miss Georgia Chamberlain, to whom Staff responded in detail.

[94:06] I believe this email, and the response is included in your application materials. Ms. Chamberlain also wrote to Peter Spear, our chair, who provided a detailed response. In addition to being able to follow board and staff consideration of the project by Reading Board Committee reports and participating at board meetings. Residents of Chautauqua have a representative on the Cca board and are encouraged to refer any questions or concerns to their representative. In summary the Board feels strongly that there has been ample opportunity for community input over the past many, many months, especially for the residents of Chautauqua. Thank you very much for your time this evening. Thank you

[95:10] all right, and to my knowledge. members of the public are only allowed to speak once under public comment. Is that correct, John, that's correct. All right. Well, thank you for your time, Margaret. Do we have any additional requests to speak? If you would like to speak virtually over? Zoom. Please raise your hand. All right. I think we are okay to move on. Okay. with that we will close the public participation portion of this. and the applicant may now have an additional 3 min if they would like to

[96:02] comment on anything that's been said during this process? Would we like? Would the applicants like to add or answer anything at this point. Very quickly, please. Okay. Jason. Thank you. Just very quickly. There's a couple of comments. I think it's already been addressed. Trudy mentioned that the Town Hall meeting was virtual. We moved to that a couple of years ago, and we heard, you know, a lot of people traveling second homes at Chautauqua. So we've made an effort to make sure they're virtual, so you can join me and and listen and ask questions. There's been a few comments about shade in the area, and I know the purview of the landmarks. Board is not whether or not there's shade there or not, but whether or not the structure is appropriate. There is actually almost no shade. Believe it or not, the way the sun falls in that area. If you look at the photos in the presentation. You can. You can see that and I've been astonished and stood there. My office is in the

[97:07] building next door, and I stood there throughout the day, and there is no shade in that area. And I think that's all. I just wanted to just a couple of quick comments there for you. Thanks. Okay. Thank you, Jason. Joel, do you have anything you want to add? I think I'm good. Okay? right? I believe with that we can move on to board. Discussion. we're now moving to that phase. I ask that everyone else mute your computer or phone for the duration of the discussion. We've allotted approximately 45 min. And. Aubrey, would you start our timer as a time check.

[98:03] and who would like to jump in and start this? We have 2 virtual members. It's an open invitation here. Abby. I keep not seeing the hand. That's okay. Thank you, John. so I'm happy to kick it off, and more because of some some of my thoughts. I I would like to lay them out there and hear from my esteemed colleagues on the landmarks. Board what you're thinking? Here are some of my concerns or questions or just food for thought as our deliberations evolve. I you know I'm just so cognizant. This is a national historic landmark, and I think that I know the guidelines haven't necessarily been updated. I even think the existing Chicago Park guidelines at some point. We've had issues over the years because I don't think the guidelines ever address new construction, because I don't think it was necessarily anticipated as something

[99:18] that would occur. And and I do think I'm looking through this with a different lens, as a national historic landmark. for example, 17 by 17 is modest. It doesn't seem very big. but then, when I heard Jason say that that's about the size of a 1 bedroom cottage, that I know that we would probably not move forward with allowing something like that in this space. a couple of the things I want to hit on. I I totally agree with Staff's conditions, and would probably even add a few more of my own, I do think.

[100:02] Despite the elegance and simplicity of the design, I do think it could be more in keeping with the voluntary simplicity. That's part of Chautauqua's. I? But I don't think it's in their mission statement. I think it's in their value statement. I I think that needs to be explored a little. And what I'm struggling at like with the wonderful success of the pavilion. Between the cafe and the dining hall we had historic photographs for that. So for me, that was a lot easier, more joyous thing to to pursue and to support. I think that not being a botanist. I'm not clear. How a greenhouse really facilitates the real understanding of something growing out in the open. I saw that one of the things about materials to be design to be included or discussed or reviewed.

[101:00] If this moves forward is lighting, and then I'm thinking, Oh, well, that will have impact. And having been fortunate enough to serve on that whole lighting stakeholders group, you know, that was something that kind of caught my eye. I it's hard because it's it's it's small. But also that area has throughout its history read as an open space, and even with all the glass that would be present in a greenhouse. I still think it. It's going to change that view corridor and change that feel of open space. And that's kind of I'm kind of struggling a little right now I I totally applaud the concept, the idea. I I love the collaboration with Csu. I know one of my favorite cottages at Csu was designed by a woman who actually taught their cottage. I believe it's college 29, the Quintheian cottage. And so I love that tie over the decades throughout Chautauqua. But I just feel I look anxious to hearing from you guys, because I

[102:10] I still have some concerns. Okay, thank you, Abby. who's next? I guess I can go. I'm in general in support of the application. I do think that this is a little complicated in the kind of base question about building any new structure on the campus. But I do believe that Staff's report. you know, summarized the ways in which it is not impactful and consistent with the guidelines. I think the size of the structure and the general form of the structure, as well as its distance from adjacent buildings, will make it compatible and not detract from

[103:06] the historic campus. And then I think. the fact that this building is glass. also, interestingly, makes it such that it's not an Ops. A visual obstacle, as other buildings might that are predominantly wall. I do have some comments about the building's detailing and I guess I could share those with you guys right now, unless you want to talk just about kind of the basic premise. First, st I you can. You could go ahead and do that now. Okay. I. I do agree with Abby and others that have spoken tonight about the character of the building and the detailing, and I think Staff even talks somewhat about materiality in their

[104:02] staff report. I again. I think the size, location. and shape of the building is consistent and approvable. But there's a couple of things I just think we need to perhaps refine. One thing that's. I think, referenced in the application is the alternating material between the bays of the structure, between metal and wood. and I recognize that this is meant to reference with. you know, materiality as well as the cross, bracing some of the design features in the cafe. But I don't think that's necessary. In fact, I think it gives a little bit of a distorted truth, and could be a demerit to the cafe. The reason that the structure at the cafe alternated between wood and metal was because the original construction of the cafe, which was the 1,900, early 19 hundreds. Construction was wood, and then the current intervention, which was a reconstruction, but required additional structural support.

[105:16] placed metal in the vacant bays in order to give the building the rigidity and structural support that would allow it to meet today's wind loads and snow loads and etc. And so I think that the purposefulness of the alternating of materiality on the pavilion tells a bit of a story about history. And today, so you can look at it and say, the metal stuff is today. The wood stuff was back then, but they still are referential and compatible. That being said, I think that we might cloud the truth if we try to do it on this building. And so I think that this building would be better served if it was one material

[106:00] and then a couple other materiality things. it's well, let me just say, it seems that the vertical orientation of the proposed openings, which are the windows on the building are consistent with the general character of glazing and openings in general on Chautauqua's campus and just historic buildings in general, typically they're more vertical. But the 17 by 17 dimension shows 4 foot bays. I'm sorry. It shows 4 bays, which is roughly 4 foot wide panels of glazing, and I think that one of the aspects of this building that might allow it to become like in better character, as I think some, you know, community members were describing with small buildings and historic buildings would be to reconsider the proportions of the divisions that are the vertical divisions on the building, such that they become smaller and more consistent with not only the scale of the building, but also the scale of general windows, which I think you'd be kind of hard pressed to find windows that are 4 feet, maybe even 3 feet, often narrower.

[107:20] So I think more divisions, vertical divisions on this structure would make it more interesting, and it would also make it more compatible, and it would look not quite as simple and modern. The simplicity and the modern in this case, I think, are kind of going hand in hand. I think a general evaluation of the structural base that would help convey the window and proportional dimensions that I'm describing would make this more successful, and I would recommend that if we move forward with an approval, we include that in the conditions. And then I also think it would be nice to look at some historic greenhouses, to even consider further how the divisions of glazing work, even within the subset of the larger oversized frames, and often, you know there are divided lights in some cases, not that we need to be reproducing something that we find in a historic image, but I think that those referential pieces might be helpful.

[108:23] I also believe that there's probably more structure than what's shown on this building. I know that we've got an X-ray support that connects all of the vertical structural divisions. But you know a lot of times, and I don't. I just don't see it in here yet. But a lot of times. You'll get a ridge beam, for example. And it looks like there's some structure that's missing in the proposal that you know. They will serve a structural function. but they will also allow the building to have all of the visual cues that are just the innate visual understanding between person and some something that we've built that stands

[109:09] that is the structural integrity of a building, a simple building, demonstrating how it holds itself up. And so this one, I think, might have more glass than probably. You know a true. I'm sure you could build it with glass some structural glass, but I think that if we want it to be more in character, there's a little more structure. So at a minimum, I imagine there's a ridge beam. But maybe there's a trick. Historically, there would have been a ridge beam, and so I think that would be a good route to pursue. And then I'll just one other thing is, I think we should have a discussion as a board, and with the applicant about what I see is the base of this building, and I know that Staff was suggesting that it be built out of wood. But as I've looked at the drawings, there's actually retaining happening on the site. And so there's a topographic change from one side to the other. That looks like it might even be a foot or more.

[110:12] And so I think that we should understand what the parameters are of the site conditions. To understand. Better, understand what the character of a foundation for a structure like this might look like, and how it might be doing more than just cladding the base, and it might be doing something to retain earth. and you know bearing would wouldn't be the best solution. And if we end up going down a route where we say, Hey, masonry might be appropriate. I think we should make sure we're picking the masonry. That's the most appropriate. And so I think the applicant proposed masonry. But the character of the masonry that's shown looks very 2 dimensional, whereas, if you were to go, look at other masonry foundations on the site, the size of the boulder and the size of the material, and the

[111:07] let's just say coarseness of it is an important characteristic, and it's of the language of the campus. If you go look at an old building on campus, they're going to be pretty big. If you go look at the gates, the gateways to the campus. They're pretty large and monumental, and I'm not saying that necessarily has to be the point of reference, but I will say that I could see an approach where, if my colleagues agree that we place some conditions on the some of these design elements that we explore at The landmarks board, and I could see an approach where we actually approve options for the base. I could see a stone base being appropriate if it were detailed in a way that, you know, is more representative of the characteristics that I'm describing, and I also think on that note. If we do think a stone base is adequate way to deal with topography and other things that have to do with the enclosure at the ground level, which is where a lot of things come in contact with it. You want to damage glass

[112:13] that the columns should sit on top of the wall, which is the stone wall. And I think there's a couple of things happening in this image that are hybrids of technologies which make it a little far removed from the historic qualities of construction, of the era of significance of the campus that might make this really sing a little bit better. I've got some other ideas about details, but I think you know in general, those are my comments about the character of this. but I do think that the proposal to have it, the size, the shape, its distance from other buildings, and the fact that it is transparent in nature make it unique and approvable at a minimum and the conceptual level.

[113:02] Thank you, Ronnie. Renee. So I have a bunch of notes that I've scribbled down. So I'm just going to go with my concerns. My biggest concern about the approving the project is just the community outpour of emails that we got about how? You know the the people that live in the buildings live in privately owned cottages have outpoured, you know, saying not that they necessarily oppose the project, but yet they want a little bit more time to be able to be involved in the project. even though they might be. You know, 1 3rd of the whole association of you know Chautauqua Cottage up there. I feel like they should be able to say to the Association, to us, Hold on

[114:01] like, can we review this? I understand that there was these meetings. I, Jason, is telling us that there were these meetings. There are these times where they were allowed to speak up, but even if they were allowed to speak up. And this is now their time. I think that the emails to us have appropriately said that you know the community is telling us to hold on so. 1st and foremost, that is a big issue for me. The other thing I wrote down. That is a big issue is you know, someone of a lot of knowledge in historic background, you know, states, would we lose historical status by adding new buildings to the site. And so I'm not as well versed into this you know, into the national site to understand if that's a problem. And so, you know, I don't. That part to me kind of bit of a bit of a red flag.

[115:03] So I would like, you know, like the other Landmark Board, to help me address that. And then a couple other notes was, you know it's not as small as you know, 17 by 17 is kind of a big building. It's almost 300 square feet. you know, and I think Abby put a good point to it is it's almost the size of a small cottage, and I think he was saying, Jason was saying, it was the size of half the cottage. and if you look at the pictures that he put up the cottage to the west of it is actually, I think, yeah, to the west of it. It is actually half the size of that cottage. So it's not a small feature. And if the the land that it's sitting on is a 30 by 30, and this is 17 by 17, we're actually taking up half of that open space for this greenhouse. So again, I think that it deserves a bit of a pause.

[116:00] I also want to address the fact that is this 100% needed. you know, like, we're talking about fire wise. And I know that might be something that we're not privy. too. But we talk about in other historic projects. You know, someone being able to have the head height or being able to enjoy their space. And us, you know, rechanging a little bit of a house, a historic house, to allow for them to enjoy their property, and also, you know to meet code and things like that. So is this needed on a historic landmark site. And then I also proposed the fact that could we have a greenhouse elsewhere in boulder that could allow for firewise. You know, taking on a little bit of I I think that we you know we've all been very stunned with the fact of a fire rolling into.

[117:00] you know Boulder and the possibilities of it taking out one of our prized possessions in boulder, and so I don't think I want to downplay the fact of what they're trying to do, but is for us to put a structure on there. and it to be used as a greenhouse is it needed? And they also mentioned there should be small plots around the building. So if you take up half the size of the building. Are you going to be able to put the small little pots around? So? I did a I kind of zoomed out. Ronnie zoomed in. I zoomed out and and then to zoom kind of in. I think that I do like what Ronnie's talking about like the steel and the big panels, and I also like the idea of it being instead of bead board being it being rock. I also want to build something if it's going to be built. It needs to be sustainable. It doesn't need to be rotting with wood next to the ground.

[118:08] So I would want to talk about that. But at this point I'm a little apprehensive about approving a project on a landmarked site when some of the community members don't want it there. Okay, if I could just interject, just want to remind the Board about, you know the criteria. whether or not, you know. we like the the greenhouse, or if it's its, you know, purpose to to do the you know the planting. If we don't like that purpose, that's not really the the criteria to consider, I'll just direct the board to 9, 1118, which has the has the criteria. And just if we can, just, you know, focus on whether or not. This project meets that criteria and try not to

[119:06] bring other things into it. Okay, thank you. Chelsea. Hello, everybody yeah. So something that spoke to me was hearing about all of the different uses that this plot of land had since its inception and throughout its history. And so that that really spoke to me. And I and it kind of it, made me feel like not allowing this area to evolve into something new, would actually be incongruent with how this space has been used over time. And so I I definitely agree with the staff recommendation. That's in our packet. I also just want to note that

[120:02] it's the irony is not lost on me that people are here tonight at a public meeting, giving public comment, complaining about not having enough public process, and I hope that everyone felt like they were able to give their testimony on how they feel about the this proposal here tonight. because this is a public process, and this is part of the public process. It sounds like, there was ample opportunity for people to provide input into a public process over a long period of time. And I think it's just important to understand that just because a small group of people aren't satisfied with an outcome doesn't mean that there wasn't public process, or that people's concerns weren't heard. But it sounds like. There was a lot of thought that went into this proposal, and a lot of agreement of the board and it sounds like this. Space will be used by

[121:01] a lot of people and getting a few emails to me, does not speak to an overwhelming objection to this project. But I do want to look at the criteria to answer the questions of whether or not I'll be in support, and so so in terms of if I think the application preserves, enhances, or restores and doesn't damage the property. I agree that this proposal enhances the property right now, this area is not really utilized by anybody, and this will activate the space and give opportunities for more like a unique demographic of folks to learn about this little e ecosystem that we have and to just enjoy that

[122:06] work in this lovely environment? So, and then does the application adversely affect the character. I do not believe that it does and I don't think there's any evidence that would speak to that and then the architectural style. I agree with the all of the conditions that Staff recommended, and with those I believe that it does meet that requirement. So I think it meets the requirements and the conditions that we have. Thank you. Okay. comes to me. I'm in general agreement with this proposal.

[123:00] I find it. I find it useful to discuss this from. I know this is where I'm not supposed to go, but I'm going to just have to say that the use is one of the arguments for why this is occurring. Especially in that it does involve adding a new building into an area where it's been stated because of the conditions of its definition as a national historic resource. that new construction is not appropriate, although. to come back to one of our kind of guiding theories in what we examine in in historic preservation is that some amount of of change. an alteration to individual buildings, and possibly to urban districts, or in this case, a rural district.

[124:10] needs to occur to preserve its usefulness and viability in the in the community fabric. And I think this this is a proposal that meets. I think that it's going to provide a valuable purpose from the standpoint of Wildfire being one of the biggest environmental challenges that we're facing. and the the kind of focus of study of of this particular kind of landscaping that can tolerate wildfire or that can help to repress wildfire is is important work that being said and being left behind because it's not our basis.

[125:02] In terms of the appropriateness of this of this structure in Chautauqua. It's kind of a greenhouse if you're going to put a new building into a I guess building fabric. A greenhouse is probably the most non building that you can put into it. It's essentially a contained environment. That is transparent. and the visible portions of it are are the skeletal structure. It's usually not particularly present. unless it is a truly industrial greenhouse, which is wrapped in mechanical equipment and painted white to keep the excessive sunlight out of it, and is kind of actually, increasingly in examples I've seen outside the country. It's made out of inflated

[126:04] polyethylene and is kind of like these indoor tennis centers. And there's rows of them and rows of them, and it's not exactly a positive presence in an urban fabric. This is a singular kind of object that has potential kind of art object presence, if it's handled right, and if it's garden embedded. and I think there are some design issues, I think Len alluded to some interesting points about its its character and quality. Ronnie made some very interesting comments about picking up elements from another building that had meaning that had to do with the time that it elapsed since the original version of that building was there, and modern codes and performance

[127:04] qualities that have to be met. and I think there are some, I guess, massaging to this design that could be done that would bring it more into character with what might be more craftsman, consonant or so on. So those are issues. But they're not. I don't see them as necessarily fatal issues to allowing this project to go forward at this point. so I am willing to support this with conditions, and probably some expanded conditions. and with that anyone else? I I'd like to just add one more aspect of design that would be really good to get information on, which is

[128:03] if we were to move forward. And this does go to the Drc. I think it'd be pretty evident that we we would need to see, not just the materials rendered in black and white, but we need to see what the colors are and how this might fit into the context. So I think the proposal is at a point where you know that that could happen pretty quickly at a future meeting? Okay. interesting. Is there anybody who wants to venture a motion? This point? I do think that if I'm willing to make a motion I did a lot of talking, and added some stuff, I think, to what would be the conditions that I would support. So if I were to make a motion, I'd want to include those. And I think perhaps Marcy's writing some of that down right now.

[129:04] So I'm speaking slowly and buying her time to get it documented. Thank you. Can I redo my handwritten list? And you can tell me the general direction of this is what I heard. Okay. I heard from a multiple board members of striking the condition about revising the base material from wood to stone, so that the stone would be kept narrower vertical divisions. for example, referencing historic greenhouses for the proportion, not necessarily copying the design. show the necessary structure in the renderings and elevations, for example, ridge beams. This stone you had a note about referencing the scale or other stone used in the campus.

[130:05] having a single material to express the structure. and having detailed rendering, showing the color, the proposed color and materials. I think that's correct in terms of the single material. I think it's a little more nuanced than that, so I would hate for the applicant to be withheld from having some really creative design. but I think the alternating of structural material is inappropriate in this case. And that the applicant could propose a single material or if multiple materials are proposed, that they're doing very explicit things that are purposeful to what the material is capable of.

[131:02] and then it should. I know you can't write all this down. but you're listening out there, you know, but the material can easily convey why it's there. And and again, I think that the concept just to this isn't a thing for the conditions. But, like I, I think that the concept's a great one. I think that referencing the pavilion is like a very worthy exploration, and I I think it was a creative way to try to find a reference point to propose a new building that has a lot of similar qualities in terms of its openness. And I so I compliment the applicant for that. I just think, in this case it may not be the best structure on campus to reference. but I can make a motion, Marcy.

[132:03] if you if you'd like. Yes, let me pull up this slide and just read it before you read it out loud. Sure. and sorry. Bear with me here. It's not quite updating yet. No. because it's this slide 61. Well. do you want me to come over there? I can read it off your screen. No, I'm thank you. Okay.

[133:05] I think this might started pretty far down. Nope. okay. take a look and read through this and before you make the motion. Yeah. and really, an extra minute is worth a lot when we see these as conditions in an Ldrc meeting 2 months from now. Yeah. So I think for the 1st one to a a narrower vertical divisions, example, reference, proportion, and I would also say, size of openings in historic greenhouses. or buildings on campus. and then, I think B is pretty straightforward.

[134:05] And then C is pretty straightforward. and bigger. B. Good it. It would also be helpful. There's a number of types of stone used throughout Chautauqua Park, of the more rubble of the swales and the entrance. You know, kind of markers. And then there's the more flat flagstone of the modern walls. Do you want to be more specific? My my sense is that the flat flagstone is probably the least appropriate of them. But honestly, it's kind of hard to evaluate. you know what the the best stone is? Because I think that we still don't know what the design of the structure is, we have a general idea, but once we see what the materiality is and how they're making contact with other aspects. But you know, I think, that the rustic nature of stone on campus is probably the right direction, whereas the cut stone that is like of a higher style of detail and architecture, would

[135:18] be less appropriate. Okay, so I've just added rustic. And this slide is still updating. But that one would read stone detailing that references character of rustic stone in the historic district. Okay, that sounds good. That's great. And I think we're the second C is, it's actually like a design. So it's not so much the drawings. But they're kind of one in the same right? Like, yeah, the design should exhibit the necessary structure. you know. That's kind of of the era of significance.

[136:02] And you know, I I know that this, if this does get approved, that at the Drc. There will be really great conversations about this and trust in that. The applicant will. You know, if there's a creative component to this, that we're not quite getting right, you know. I I hope that. you know, we can explore it at Drc. okay. I may need one more review of the bullet about the structure. So would necessary revised design showing necessary and traditional design of structure. For example, ridge beam. Yeah, that sounds good. Green. Okay? So as soon as this slide updates, I think we will be ready.

[137:04] Marcy, you know. Sometimes we allow the applicant to give us just a head nod. If there's or is there anything crazy that we're proposing here in conditions. I would like to be able to ask the applicant if there's anything that is like a terrible handcuff that we're about to put everybody in is that okay? it's fair. Joel Jason, Laura. We can see Joel. are any of these conditions? Creating significant issues that maybe we haven't brought up, and we're not prepared for. Hi, Ronnie, no, i i i appreciate the thoughtfulness and the feedback and and no, I think it only adds to the project and and thank you for asking. We're good.

[138:03] Okay, great. I mean, the worst thing is when we go to Drc. And then we've codified something at the board level. It's hard to pivot from that in particular. If it's like, I said, some significant handcuff that we didn't. Daylight here. That's the purpose. That's not the purpose of this. But no, I. The only thing to point out to me is just the sizing. You know, we're we're a 30 by 30. Space is about 900 square feet, and this structure is less than 300. So there's been some confusion, I think, on its size and scale. Within the space is. I think, smaller than what I'm hearing just I just wanted to make that that point, but I think the conditions are as proposed, makes sense. Thanks, Jason. Okay, I move that the Landmarks board adopt the staff memorandum, dated September 4, th 2,024. As the findings and conditionally approve a landmark alteration certificate to construct a 17 by 17 foot greenhouse at the property north of 200

[139:06] Gallardia Lane in the Chautauqua Park Historic district, as shown on plans dated July 9, th 2,024. Finding that the proposal meets the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate in chapter 9, 1118 brc. 1,981, and is generally consistent with the Chautauqua Park historic district guidelines, and the general design guidelines for boulders, historic districts, and individual landmarks, providing the stated conditions are met. Second. Well, we gotta state this is. Okay. Thanks. Chelsea. Down. Tight. Okay. I'll read the conditions. Condition one. The applicant shall be responsible for completing the work in compliance with the approved plans, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. Prior to submitting a building, permit application and final issuance of the landmark alteration certificate, the applicant shall submit the following, which will be subject to final review and approval by staff to ensure the final design of the addition is consistent with the general design. Guidelines. The Chautauqua

[140:11] Park historic district design guidelines, and the intent of this approval. Okay. Second. I was gonna read this, too. I think I should. Oh, my sorry! I'll ask for it. Chelsea. The reason I'm staring at Marcy is because I thought that this would go back to Drc. Oh, yeah. And so did sorry. Did the motion say, staff, yeah, I feel like I need to. Shall I finish this and then correct that? Or shall I fix that now it's on the previous page. It says here, approval by staff. And Ronnie would like that to be approval by the landmarks. Design review committee.

[141:04] Yeah, you can just make that point now and clarify the motion. I'd like to clarify that point and reread condition number 2, substituting the previous condition to with something similar but different stating prior to submitting a building, permit application and final issuance of landmark, alteration, certificate, the applicant shall submit the following, which shall be subject to final review and approval by the landmarks. Design Review Committee to ensure that the final design of the addition is consistent with the general design Guidelines, the Chautauqua Park Historic District Design Guidelines, and the intent of this approval. Conditions. A revised design showing bullet point one narrower vertical Divisions. Example, reference proportion and size of opening, of historic greenhouses or historic buildings on campus bullet point 2. No alternating wood and steel structure. Bullet. 3 stone detailing that references character of rustic stone in the historic district. Bullet point 4 necessary

[142:09] and traditional expression of structure. Example ridge beam, B detailed rendering, showing materials in color C identify the mature trees, including those that are proposed to be removed. Detail the protection of trees proposed to remain D identify areas of planting beds or grass on the Site plan, including a seamless transition to adjacent properties. E detail any guttering on the plans. F. Provide details of proposed door, operable window window and door frames and edging type for the crushed own pathways. Paint, color. exterior lighting. Do we have a second Chelsea. Sorry I got distracted. Second.

[143:00] Okay. the motion has been moved and seconded, we will proceed to a roll call vote. Starting with Abby. No. Chelsea. Aye. Renee. No. Ronnie, Hi. and I vote aye. so it passes 3, 2. Okay. that brings us to the space between the hearings. Aubrey, do we have someone who wants to address? Okay, that is no longer an issue. So we will move to Item 5 B. And this is a public hearing and consideration of an application to demolish a commercial building constructed 1,957, through 1,964 at 7 7, Broadway.

[144:04] a non landmark, property older than 50 years old, person to section 9, 1123 of the Boulder revised Code 1981, and under the procedures prescribed by chapter 1, 3. Quasi-judicial hearings Brc. 1,981, and we are in the right order here. So we will move to this public hearing. all right. And where are we? Thank you, John. So we are going to do our staff presentation. We are okay. I'll I'll go through the quasi-judicial hearing procedures first, st all speaking till to this item will be sworn in and board members will note any ex parte contacts I'm going to give the staff presentation. After that the Board may ask questions.

[145:05] The applicant will have 10 min to present to the board, and the Board may ask questions to them. We'll then open the public hearing. After all, members of the public have made comments. The applicant may respond to anything that was said. The Board will then deliberate. Our motion today requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass motions must state findings, conclusion, and recommendation, 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 sooner. The Board usually requests that. That we note who reviewed this previously at the landmarks design review committee. and although I need to have a discussion with Chris about whether we need to do that. Still, as this building was constructed after 1,940, however, Staff referred this application to the landmarks board, so it was not reviewed by the Ldrc.

[146:06] So back to you, John, for ex parte. Okay, at this point I'll just ask. are there any board members who have had ex parte contact on this issue? No ex parte contacts? So we can proceed. Claire great. So the criteria for review is outlined in the Boulder Revised Code under 9, 1123. The purpose of reviewing demolition applications is to prevent the loss of buildings that may have historic or architectural significance by providing time to consider alternatives to demolition. The criteria that can be considered are the eligibility of the building for a designation as an individual landmark. In other words, whether it has historic or architectural significance. The relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood as an established and definable area.

[147:05] the reasonable condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or repair, although not deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect. the options for the Board tonight are to approve the demolition, request, or place a stay of demolition, to allow time to consider alternatives, and a stay would not exceed 180 days from the day the review fee was paid, so would expire on January 20th of next year. The applicants submitted. for concept, plan, review, and historic preservation. Demolition, review. Concurrently the concept, plan, review, and comment process requires staff review and a public hearing in front of the planning board comments made at the Planning Board. Public hearing are advisory comments for the applicant to consider prior to submitting a detailed Site Review proposal. The public hearing for planning board has not yet been scheduled.

[148:09] The Department accepted the concurrent application to demolish the non-designated building on July 10, th and, as I said, due to the age of the building staff, completed the initial review and referred the application to the Landmarks board. In this public hearing, finding there was probable cause to believe that the building may be eligible for designation as an individual landmark. The property is located west of Broadway, which is Highway 93, and east of 20th Street and north of Baseline Road. It borders 8 55, Broadway, 8, 20, 20th Street, and 8 1220th Street to the west. Those are right here. 720th Street, which is the new Vista High School property to the South and Broadway to the east, and the University of Colorado campus is across Broadway to the east. It is not within the boundaries of an identified potential historic district.

[149:16] The original part of the building was built in 1,957, by Robert C. Grayson. That is shown on the site plan here as this gray area. It. It was an L-shaped two-story brick apartment building which faced south and east. Hobert Wagner, designed, in addition to the original apartment building in 1,964, Wagner used the original L. And enclosed 2 sides with a carport here to create the interior courtyard. and added a two-story addition to the north side. The addition was also constructed by Robert Grayson period. This is the north elevation facing Broadway, the facade and the this is the northeast corner of the building. So you're looking at Wagner's addition, he used a pyramidal hipped roof as a prominent design feature.

[150:15] clear story windows in the attic space that create an illusion that the top of the pyramidal roof is detached and floating and deep, overhanging and asymmetrical eaves. These are images of the East elevation. You can see Wagner's addition to the north, with the pyramidal roof form and the the connection to the older building. Where the roof is lower. the right here the original part of the building is horizontally oriented with a hipped roof and and moderate eaves. and it includes horizontally linked balconies in set within the building mass.

[151:03] This is the rear of the building, and predominantly the original apartment building constructed in 1,957. You can see the the connection between the original building and the new addition, this was originally covered. Parking with a wall at the interior that enclosed the courtyard overall. The building embodies Wagner's use of the rustic modern style through its emphasis of horizontal forms, use of traditional masonry integration of the indoors and the outdoors, with the enclosure of the rear courtyard, and the use of little to no ornamentation permits on file with the department include the addition of exterior signage and fencing on the property reroofing in 1,984 and interior remodels. We did locate Wagner's original architectural drawings for the addition, and compared this to the existing building alterations to the exterior include replacement of many of the windows and most of the doors, including some modification to the window patterns.

[152:10] There's new wood at the soffits and changes to the railings and the parking bays at the connecting wall have been enclosed. So the criteria for review are outlined in 9, 1123 f. Of the Boulder Revised Code, which includes the eligibility of the building for a designation as an individual landmark, which is outlined in 9, 11, one, and 9, 11, 2, and the relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood we use significance. Criteria adopted in 1,975 to evaluate buildings in a consistent manner, and to be eligible. The property only needs to meet one of these adopted significance. Criteria commonly accepted practice is that a building should retain the physical features that allow it to convey that significance.

[153:01] We found that the building has historic significance related to past residents and employees of the residents. The Beta Gamma chapter of the Alpha Phi. Women's Fraternity was established at the University of Colorado in Boulder, in 1,924. The sorority commissioned the building in 1,964, with the plan to rent the apartments during the summers. When the sorority was inactive. the sorority held benefits in the building, including the hats for hearts, benefit in 1,965, the Alpha Phi. Heart Benefit Bridge in 1,966, and a heart and hat benefit in 1,970. In addition, Cleora Reeves worked as a cook for the sorority for about 2 decades from about 1,949 to sometime after 1,966. She 1st worked at 18 sorry 888, 13th Street, which was the original Sorority Building, and then moved to the new building at 7 7 Broadway.

[154:02] Cleora was trained as a teacher. but as a black woman. She was not allowed to work in boulder schools at the time she taught in Kansas and Georgia, but returned to Boulder around 1,946, and the only work she could find was as a cook for the sorority. Llewelyn Anderson joined Cleora at the sorority around 1,956 as a housekeeper, and worked there until 1,969. The pair were photographed catering the wedding of Mary Ann and Douglas Looney in 1,963. Mary Ann was a member of the sorority. She's right here. The sorority sold the building in 1,973 to agents for the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, which was founded by song, Myon Moon, in 1,954. In Seoul, South Korea. 777, Broadway became the regional headquarters of the church, and by 1,975,

[155:02] 25 members of the congregation lived in the building while renting the remaining rooms to Cu students, and by 1,978. The building included 44 residents, all congregants of the church. The church remained in the building until 2,000, when it sold the building to the present owners. Horizons International. The building addition was designed by Herbert Wagner in his signature, rustic modern style. Wagner was born in South Dakota in 1,921, and graduated from the University of Michigan School of Architecture in 1,944 in 1,950. Wagner and his family moved to Boulder, where he 1st worked with local architect, James Hunter. Prior to launching his own firm in 1,953, Wagner had a prolific career, designing more than 200 public and private buildings in the boulder area. and some of his most notable commissions include the atrium building at 1,300 Canyon Boulevard, the Green Shield Insurance Building at 900 and 28th Street and the Lebrat House at 800 and 19 6th Street.

[156:10] Each of those are individual local landmarks. The addition at 777 Broadway is characteristic of Wagner's use of this low pyramidal hipped roof design which Colorado architect called his signature pyramidal roof. He refined his design at his private residence at 70 60 Roaring Fork Trail, which was constructed the year after the addition, in 1,965, and on the Atrium Building. which was constructed in 1,969. This is probably the earliest example of the roof form in boulder. The property is not located within a potential or designated historic district. Multiple residential. Multifamily buildings were constructed in this area during the period 1,957 to 1,967,

[157:03] the 1,964 addition to the 1,957 original building was designed to accommodate the odd shaped lot which itself developed because of the proximity to the Colorado and Southern railroad right of way, which became Broadway in the fifties. The site includes mature trees which screen the rear portion of the building, but the building is still highly visible from Broadway because of the odd shape of the lot. and here it is outlined in yellow. The modern map from 1,952 shows the undeveloped land between 20th Street, which is over here, and the vacated color and Southern Colorado and Southern Railway right of way before Broadway was paved. The This is the approximate footprint of the apartment building, constructed in 1,957, shown as the hashed fill in blue.

[158:03] This image here is from 1,966. It shows the apartment buildings constructed on the site. And this is the current Google Earth image of the same general area in 2,024, showing the multi-unit buildings constructed in the area in the 19 fifties and sixties still dominating the corner. the outline of of Broadway. Oh, sorry. 7 7 Broadway. You can see it clearly here. and outlined in the yellow as unchanged. The multi unit, residential and institutional buildings constructed in the 19 fifties and sixties contribute to the character of the area, and this property is an intact representative of the area's past. The applicant didn't submit information on the condition of the building or the projected cost of repair, but the the applicants are here to answer any questions you may have on that

[159:08] staff's finding are that a stay of demolition for the building at 7 7 Broadway is appropriate, based on the criteria set forth in Section 9, 1123, in that the property may be eligible for individual landmark designation based on its historic associations with the Alpha Phi sorority, Alice, Clara Reeves and Llewellyn Anderson, and the Holy Spirit Association for the unification of World Christianity, and for its architectural significance as an example of Hobart Wagner's signature, rustic modern style, with a pyramidal roof form, and for its prominent location also that the property contributes to the character of the neighborhood as an intact representative of the area's past, and that it has not been demonstrated to be impractical or economically unfeasible. To rehabilitate the building.

[160:04] Staff's recommendation is that the landmarks board issue a stay of demolition for the building, located at 7 7 Broadway for a period to not exceed 180 days from the day the application was accepted by the city manager in order to explore alternatives to demolition. So that's the end of the staff presentation. This is a reminder of the next steps in the process. The applicant has up to 10 min to present to the board, followed by public participation. and then an opportunity for the applicant to respond to anything that's said, and then board deliberation. And the question today for the board is, if the building has historic significance, if yes, the Board will place a stay of demolition on the application to provide time to consider alternatives. If no, the Board will approve the demolition request. Are there any questions from the board before we continue with the applicant's presentation.

[161:05] Yeah, anyone have any questions for Staff Mark? Could you go back? one or 2 slides. There we go. No. One more. Item 3. Found in 9, 1123. It has not been demonstrated to be impractical or economically unfeasible to rehabilitate the building. Does that take into account? Okay, does that take into account the applicant's intention of what they want to build once should they be granted the demolition permit. and, in fact

[162:01] well, 1st answer that question. It does not, it does not. That would be prohibited. Yes, right? So if it's a criteria. whether or not. It's feasible to rehabilitate the building without the context of what they intend to do with the site post. Demolition is how I'm not sure. I understand how that could be a criteria without taking into account the subsequent use of the property. Sure. Marcy Gerwing here. So the criteria is focused on the building as it stands today, and the board cannot base their decision on what the future use or redevelopment of the property would be. So this criteria that talks about the economic

[163:01] feasibility of restoration or repair is focused on the current condition of the building. So one of the recent examples was an apartment building on Folsom. That was right. Next to Boulder Creek. and through the landmarks, boards, demolition review process there was evidence that showed the initial method of construction was failing because they didn't have the necessary structure for the lateral support. And then it was also in the flood plain. And so, in order to redevelop or make the building habitable, it would have to be raised, and that put quite a significant dollar amount on preservation of the existing building. So it's it is focused on the current building as it stands today in its current condition and is separate from potential redevelopment of the site.

[164:04] Thank you for that clarification. Okay. thank you for the question. so we will move on to the applicant's presentation. applicants. Principal presenter will get 10 min. and any subsequent members of the team could speak for 3 min, and I will need to swear you in, sure. so you can raise your hand and swear. To tell the truth. Thank you. And oh, okay, yeah. The red is that it's on. Okay, and you have 10 min. Why is it 9 min? Oh, okay, we'll add a minute at the end. You have 10 min. Perfect. All right. Thank you. Everyone. My name is Seth Saku. I'm here on behalf of the applicant for

[165:05] the proposal here in front of you guys tonight, a couple of items made just to start with, we do have a October planning board hearing scheduled. I believe it's October 4.th We can confirm that date. So that is scheduled just for the record there. So as we've gotten to know the site. And, you know, working closely with Claire, since she's put together the memo, you know the really, the story we've come to understand of the site is, it has always continued to serve the needs of the community. It was originally built as a student housing project in the L shape that you see to the west side of the property. and then further expanded into a sorority with what Hobert Wagner designed in the sixties from there it was used for religious purposes, and then returned to student housing again in the early 2,000 as part of the site. You know. Really, we come to understand what the overall community needs. And as the university grows we believe this site has more to its story to tell.

[166:00] You know, the structure was really built and has roughly a 50 year life to it, and we've exceeded that life. So we are looking at some large capital improvements to preserve the property or to move on from it. as the applicant. We are not in support of the landmarking process. I know Chelsea. You talked about this in the previous item. Here, you know. I think the story here for us is, what does the university need? And what does the community need to continue to support the students living in this area. as we've come to understand the significance of Hobart Wagner and what he's done for the community. We reviewed over 200 properties that I think on file at the Carnegie Library. A number of those properties have been landmarked, as you guys are aware. Also, a number of them have been demolished. The significance of this property, we believe, is minimal. The roof, in its pyramidal shape is the primary item that exists today. Alterations include the front facade. There were 2 stories of clear story windows that have been filled in with wood paneling.

[167:01] The south facade has been altered in a similar fashion. The windows have been replaced with wood, paneling, and smaller windows. The deck has been replaced and the carport has been infilled. Some of the existing conditions we understand about the site doesn't meet current accessibility items or accessibility code. And the energy efficiency code is not up to par as well. We don't believe the modifications that were required to redevelop the site. Exceed the needs. Excuse me. The modifications needed to improve the building do not exceed the need to redevelop the site. excuse me As we put all this together and just working with the team. we look forward to be collaborative with you guys in this process. Thank you. Thank you.

[168:00] Anyone else on your team wish to speak usually. Yes, right. And I need to quickly swear you. Yep, I swear to tell the truth. Thank you. Yeah. My name's Kyle Stubb. I'm the representing the ownership group horizons. International Horizons has owned the building since 2,000, and I've been managing the facility since the end of 2,018. So for about 6 years. And we basically provided a home for international students which we really enjoyed doing for the past, you know, 20 plus years. and from our perspective the building has reached its lifespan. which is one of the reasons why we are attempting to move on from the building. We have not made any significant improvements or renovations beyond just regular maintenance and minor upgrades.

[169:01] and, in my opinion, the systems, layout, and even the size of the building are no longer conducive for modern student housing. and we would like to see the tradition. As Seth mentioned, the tradition of serving students carried forward on this property and to serve the overall not only the campus community, but the overall boulder community, and which makes sense with its proximity to the campus. and we say the best way to serve the community is to move on for us to move on from this from that facility and for the applicants to build a new facility on that property. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. no one else. Well, I'm going to share something. Okay. They made fun of my pants earlier, so I had to pull them down. Sorry. Keenan Fitzpatrick. I swear to tell the truth, thank you. 1st of all.

[170:01] this has been a great evening. I really enjoyed this, texted my wife, and said we might need to come back next month. Really entertained. Appreciate your patience and your care for the city. Claire. Thank you for bringing this up. It sounded like you were a little upset, or maybe perceived that we were upset. that you went into the library and found interest in this. I just wanted to say, thank you. I think part of our the love that we have for this is appreciating the old and seeing the new. One of our team members was part of a really interesting historic project in Iowa, repurposing the old army barracks into affordable housing. And so I think we recognize that there are some buildings and components and design elements, as you mentioned. that really need to be preserved and carried on. So we have deep respect for that. Also. I met my wife in Boulder, went to school in Boulder. I think you went to school in Boulder

[171:00] had some of my kids in Boulder, and this is, it feels like home to me. Lynn. is that your name? Yeah, great. I feel like there. One unique component of this site is that it's it's surrounded by really tall, multifamily buildings. There aren't small historic cottages next to it. And and when you think about some of the issues that Lynn brought up of, you know, we just bring in the boulder just brings in a lot of expensive housing it's not thoughtful about. I heard some of the things she said. I don't agree with some of the things she said. But when you look at the site it is a great space for students to be concentrated. There's already a lot of multifamily and more industrial type buildings around it. We're not looking to take over some of the old cottage type homes in boulder and turn them into student housing. so I don't know. Kill 2 birds with one stone. Right? You you get to help students be concentrated in an area where it it feels and seems to be most conducive for them

[172:08] while also working with a group that has a deep friendship with the the past owners. My wife and I lived on the owner's son's land and farm on 75th and Arapaho. So we have a deep respect for what that church has done for 25 years. and we want to continue to serve the community and the university. So you guys probably didn't want me to say that. But I did thank you all. I'll be back next month, date night with my wife. Yeah. thank you. Any others. Okay, do we have questions for the applicant? I'm seeing a no, virtually. I have a I just have a question. Just

[173:01] out of curiosity. It sounds like it serves international students. Now. how many students can it fit? Just curiosity, not the criteria. I'm just asking more of a question. You should be okay. Thank you. And I have my composure. Now, roughly, 40 students live there today. Okay. I think just limited to the building that we're discussing or correct? Is it part of a bigger complex? No. So really, what's been shown on screen? So far, the original 19 fifties vintage in the front, 1960, s, vintage building. Okay. so only 40 students, 40. Yeah, correct. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Anyone else. Okay. we have no additional questions. thank you for the presentation.

[174:02] We will move to public comment all right. And in person we have Leonard Siegel, followed by Catherine Barth. Okay, and I will have to swear you each time for this, even though you've previously sworn. To tell the truth, we assume you will. Yeah, Leonard Siegel. I will promise to and swear to tell the truth again, representing historic Boulder tonight. Historic boulder supports the staff recommendation to put a stay on the proposed demolition, because the building meets the criteria as an individual landmark property in Boulder. I was the co-author of the survey of modern architecture in Boulder, published in 2,000. Our criteria at the time. To evaluate properties was to not include buildings like this that had been built with additions because we couldn't survey

[175:04] all those buildings. We had to limit our analysis at the time. In my estimation the Wagner portion, the Wagner design portion of the building would have been included if it was a standalone building. This creative artistic design is expressive of an important era in boulder, when innovative ideas in architecture, religion, politics, environmentalism, and education were more supported and prevalent. There are also historic and environmental aspects of the property that are notable, having a stay of execution will give the planning staff time to research if there are other people of importance who have lived here over the years. And finally, I just want to say that Boulder has an admirable high environmental standards in city government. The National trust for historic preservation is increasingly pointing out the linkage of environmental benefits, of adaptive reuse, of

[176:09] buildings and historic preservation as opposed to the damages of demolition. Thank you. Thank you. Aubrey. All right. Next we have Catherine Barth. Well, Leonard is definitely the expert on Hobart Wagner, and I've learned quite a bit about him over the years. Oh, I'm sorry I'm Catherine Bard, and I won't lie to you, I promise you I won't thank you. Here we go.

[177:00] in these in the 180 days that you'll have to think about this building. Leonard really is the expert, but I see I mean my involvement with Hobart Wagner really is the atrium building. and I'm so thrilled that that building has been saved, and it's a individual landmark. There are quite a few Wagner buildings in town, including his own home. the Atrium Building. There's a bank out on Arapaho. But I'm just thinking, maybe you guys can be creative. We have never done a non-contiguous district. and maybe this is the opportunity to think about a Hobart Wagner district. because there are enough buildings, and there are enough wonderful buildings. And let's just think about what is a non-contiguous district. And let's think about doing one with Hobart Wagner Buildings. I'm suggesting, not suggesting that all of this building be kept.

[178:06] but that creatively. The addition certainly could be a very important thing that could be creatively reimagined. So I'm sure, with your good guidance something wonderful could come from this. And let's not just let it go, so I hope you will put a stay on it, and we've got time to make sure something good happens. Thank you very much. Thank you. Catherine. all right. Would anyone else like to speak in person on this item. Horrible! All right. Next we have Lynn Siegel

[179:01] Lynn Siegel. I don't swear to anything, and I don't know what God is so and as far as the truth, that's very debatable. But the truth as I know it, I will speak to you now, this building really kind of peculiarly bothers me. because I'm very upset about the water in Law Fund building, going down very upset Broadway and Bassline, and in observing the area I noticed, oh, yeah. there's a sister building to this. and this is the very one that is being entertained for demolition. Now. I've had about 2,000 people at my house up to 17 at one time. a lot of them Cu students, a lot of them internationals

[180:03] on Airbnb from 2,010 to 2,000 2,017. I think I've been in this building. Many of my students have appreciated the space that horizons created for them in an international setting. I have one right now from Munich. Munich. Just for a semester. but I think this building should stay. I think there can be somewhat of creative reuse or addition to it that could accommodate more students. I'm not really big on Cu anymore. After Cu South got a lot of resentments about cu football team. Rah, rah! You know 37,000 people filling up my city every time I'm trying to get my bike

[181:05] around anywhere, you know too much of a good thing. So not really. I'm kind of gilded about you. My dad came here foresee you, you know. so I use it. I appreciate it. But this building is the Sisters building to the other one. and the other one's gotten demoed. and like the building at 6 15. I think it is Walnut Canyon, the only little house between all the town homes. I appreciate what this one guy said about the fact that it's different, because there's other dense youth in the area.

[182:00] But I have conflicting feelings because of the sister building that it is, and it's not the other buildings. Not a Hobie Wagner, I understand, but it was affiliated with the folks that were in the firm that Hobie Wagner worked with, and the same influence. So I feel like this is breaking up the family and one member of the family's been destroyed. It's like Gaza done. Okay. do we have virtual respondents. If anyone would like to speak virtually, please raise your hand. Now. I'll just give you a couple seconds. I'm not seeing anyone. I think we're okay to move on. Okay, thank you.

[183:00] okay, we will close the public participation portion and the applicant. if you wish. You have time to respond to anything that you heard stated by public participants. Okay, we trust you. Okay. alright. So we are moving on to our board discussion. and I will ask one of the Board members to jump in. Whoever wants to. First, st Abby. would you like to comment. I'm happy to I will be supporting Staff's recommendation this evening. I think that.

[184:04] And, Claire, thank you for your wonderful presentation. I think the staff memorandum lays out why we should put a stay of demolition on this building. It does give us time to explore creative alternatives to demolition, and I know it delays the process for the applicants. But I really do feel that if there's any building that's been before us recently to place the state. I do think this is one, because it definitely based on the compelling information we've received it. It definitely meets the criteria for individual designation. I agree with Abby. I also want to like, give Claire like this is a really good.

[185:00] If you found this much stuff in this short amount of time. I think that honoring the fact that we place a stay on this building, and especially because it's Hobie Wagner's. I do I am interested in recording it, you know, because this is the time period that we're get to do a little bit more digging and researching the site and knowing that it's a Hobie Wagner's architecture on it. I do. I'm interested in the fact that it was an addition instead of one of his original buildings. So I also want to make that as a note. But I agree that I think a stay is appropriate. Okay. yeah, I am also in agreement with staff. I think that a stay is appropriate to further investigate

[186:01] this building. I think Staff has demonstrated that there is historic, architectural, and environmental significance in their cursory evaluation. And so I do think, placing the stay will allow us to collaboratively review the building in greater detail to determine whether or not it is of significance enough to landmark. and I'm sure you'll hear more from Staff about what a process looks like during that stay. I'd also like to just say, you know, all 3 applicants spoke 3 people that were applicants spoke, and that was really great, and I know you kind of questioned whether or not you should speak, but I thought that there was value in hearing from all 3 of you. and I think you know, hearing the voice from each of you does give us some perspective, different aspects of the property, and I hope that if the stay does pass that we can talk like I had mentioned collaboratively about what?

[187:01] You know the property is today, and whether or not you know, preservation is possible. Thank you. Chelsea. Okay? yeah. I well, I some of the justifications for how criteria is met. I I don't find completely satisfactory. But I think this question of is there potentially any historical significance is always really challenging? Because I think the answer is. it's very hard for that not to be a yes, So

[188:02] while I don't see how this is a landmark? I think there is historical significance. And that can be reviewed during the stay. Okay. all right. With that, I'll make my statement. I just wanted to sure statement. Okay, you're you're allowed. Yeah, I am. If I'm going to sit through it. I'm gonna I'm going to think about it. Yeah, it's not just for the food you know, as as a planning board member. I'm struck by the timeframe allowed, and the potential delay for the applicant. and that, and that when I've been involved

[189:01] over the last year with potential stays of demolition. It! It seems as though there is. There's not enough weight given to what the ultimate decision will likely be, and I understand. gather data, make decisions based on data. That's been something I've tried to do all my life. However. if ultimately in your heart, you think you know what this probably isn't isn't going to make it. I think there is some courage in allowing something to go to demolition upon application. and I'm not saying this, is it? But actually, when I look at this building and its history and

[190:05] other Hobie Wagner buildings. I think, is this is this one to, you know, is this really the one to to preserve? And so my thought is, and the other thing, when I compare this process to, let's say a site review of a major project. We get the packet a week before. and we have our meeting, and we approve or deny that Site review. Now, Staff's done their work ahead of ahead of our meeting. but we have a week to review that package and and make it make a criteria-based decision. And so I'm struck by the length of time allowed for the for the review of a demolition process and the frequency with which

[191:01] it's applied. which seems to be a lot. So anyway, I'm struck by that, and if if I had a vote tonight I would I would. I would vote against a stay of demolition on this project. So that's my input. Thank you, Mark. it's an interesting point that Mark brings up. And it's 1 that we have explored some. We have actually placed shortened stays in a number of instance. But in this case I think I'm going to argue for at least placing the stay as to whether without being able to address what the outcome of that will be, because part of the process in my experience, and because I tend to like to participate in this phase of things. Are. The 1st applicant

[192:02] made the statement that they, the group, looks forward to collaborating with us, and this is really the only in the case of landmarks. At least, this is the only collaborative kind of opportunity there really is. Otherwise, we're simply reviewing and rendering a decision. in either Ldrc or in our meeting environment. In this situation we do actually engage on the site with the applicant in the building and discuss a range of alternatives, and we also get an opportunity to explore the building to really verify the the presence or lack of historic significance. And there has been any number of instances, at least, when I've been involved

[193:00] that the outcome of the meeting on site is that it's very clearly apparent this building doesn't have a proper foundation. This building has a ridiculous mechanical system. This building has ridiculous floor to ceiling heights. Things like that that make it pretty clear. There may be some value, but it's really hard to argue it beyond what it would take to bring the building up to modern utility. So that's 1 outcome. The other outcome is is sometimes we get very elegant solutions, because demolition and this is one case where I can argue about demolition and stay within my purview. Demolition is an unfortunate process, the way it has happened in a lot of cases

[194:00] it does alter structurally and permanently alter the city fabric. If it happens wholesale throughout the city. It's it's just a kind of fraught process. But it's also sometimes the only way to move forward this building. I think. based on a 1st reading of it, meets the criteria because of all the pieces of the criteria that we are given are met. It is a somewhat significant piece of architecture in the sense of who did it, and because it's the remaining sister, as it were. of a group of buildings that are fast disappearing. and it has significant people and events associated with it that relate very strongly to Boulder's recent Post World War Ii. History, and

[195:06] the kind of history of boulder being an exploratory and experimental kind of a place on many levels. human social, scientific design, etc. And it's also it's kind of an urban design, fragment of a whole different scale in the hill district that is very quickly being eclipsed and replaced with with a scaled and form and mass transition. And that's okay. That happens in cities. That's a process that needs to happen as a city grows and changes. But it's still this island piece needs to be looked at. It needs, it's due our our look at it, and being given the chance to look at it in terms of what its value might have been

[196:02] and might be. and to discuss that. So I support the State in this instance if I could jump in to Mark's comment. that's wonderful like, I really appreciate what you're saying. About the bluntness of this tool. It's the same tool for every building. and we have modified it to decrease the duration of time, which I think is one of the points that you're making. It's like that's a significant amount of time. and maybe your opinion on it would be a placing state would be different if it was a month. or you might say, Yeah, this is worthy of a month. This is worthy of 2 months, and we have modified it. One thing that I just wanted to point out is that the stay 6 month period actually starts at the time in which the fee was paid. So it's not 6 months from today.

[197:07] It basically, there's 4 months. If I've got it right? 4 months and 10 days, perhaps or so. 4 months and 15 days. So it's it's less. It's more tolerable than what 6 months feels like, but I do agree with you that the tool does feel a little hard and oftentimes it comes down to like what we can really manage as a board, but predominantly as staff. And I think we're gonna have a conversation after this about upcoming modifications to, you know our regulation. And while this isn't a piece that's on the table. We're at a moment of self-reflection about the tools and and how we perform. So let me, just for one, talk to staff quickly about that, like 4 and a half. There's 4 and a half months. If we were to place the State it looks like the straw poll has indicated that it's likely a stay would be approved.

[198:10] is there any reason that Staff might think that a shorter stay is appropriate or feasible? I appreciate the question for staff, so my advice would be, place a stay of up to 6 months on the application. You can always vote to lift it early, but as we ran into at 6, 13 Walnut the Board voted to put a shorter stay. and then the board and the applicants weren't available for 21 days out of the 28 days that we had to put together a site visit. So the intent of expediting the process can still be there without the constraints of really having to compress this

[199:00] conversation with a lot of moving parts. But the Board can vote at the next meeting to lift schedule a meeting to lift the State. It. It can't be immediate, but it can be much shorter than the 4 months that it would be from now or 5, whatever it is. I would support that. And so I'm willing to make a motion and mark thanks for the comment. okay. are we ready for a motion. I'm ready for a motion. I think Marcy's crafting, making a slight modification so that I can. or or Claire's making a slight modification so that I can. Maybe they both are. I think Claire is just pulling up this slide. Can you read that on the screen, or would you like us to make it a little bigger. I can read. Oh, sorry! I could have seen that.

[200:03] I move that the Landmarks Board issue a stay of demolition for the building, located at 7 7 Broadway for a period not to exceed 180 days from the day the application was accepted by the city manager in order to explore alternatives to demolition. I second, that. okay. We will proceed to a roll call. Vote Abby. Hi. Chelsea. No. Rene. Aye, Ronnie, aye. and I vote aye. the motion passes 4 1, and we'll have staff review next steps. Thank you, John. So the the Board has placed a stay for up to 180 days. To allow them some time to discuss options possible options with you, so we will be in touch to to schedule some site visits with with the board and staff, and would the Board please volunteer 2 members to be representatives during the stay. I I will volunteer

[201:24] all volunteer. Thank you. So John and Renee will volunteer to be the main representatives, and I will be in touch to see when we can set up a site visit. Thank you. Hey, John? Yes, I just wanted to make a quick comment. I certainly didn't want my comments to be construed by staff. As you guys take a long time. The work you do on these demolition permits is is phenomenal, and it's very in depth, and it's worthy of of all the time that's allotted. So I just wanted to make sure I wasn't

[202:01] putting anyone. Anyway. I think you guys do great work. I appreciate that. And I'm going to take the opportunity to share that. There are about 41,000 properties in the city of boulder, and we review about 150 demolition applications a year. So that's less than half a percent of the properties in boulder on an annual basis, and about 10% of those are called up to the board. So while the tool is used regularly, it's a pretty. It's it's the minority of projects that we do see, and we started out the meeting with an opinion that we were too permissive. So I think there's there's always, you know, we're always somewhere in the middle. So I do appreciate your comments, though. Yeah. And and I want to thank the applicant for your your comments tonight and for your patience with our process, and we'll be in touch. thanks to all the public commenters, too.

[203:08] Okay. item 5, C is our next one. So this is a public hearing regarding process, improvements for the landmarks, design review committee, and historic preservation staff consideration of an administrative rule to expand the types of projects that can be reviewed by staff and consideration of a code amendment to extend the time for initial review and project approval. Interesting, we're responding to some of the things that were discussed tonight. so we are moving on to a public hearing. and Staff will take it. Thank you. All right. So good evening. This is the final case for us tonight.

[204:05] and I'll give a staff presentation. We'll then open up the public comment if for anyone who would like to speak, and then we will go into the board discussion and motions. So the purpose of the review of this item is for the Board to consider changes to streamline the historic preservation review processes and the changes are intended to streamline those processes for property owners, applicants, staff and board members to reduce the volunteer time commitment for landmarks, board members, and reinforce the value of the landmarks. Design review committee meetings by really focusing its purpose. This project, timeline started last May, when Landmarks board Member Chelsea Castellano emailed the board a request to consider changes to the Ldrc. And at the October 2023 retreat. The landmarks board brainstormed changes to the Ldrc. And staff messaged at that time that we wouldn't be able to take them forward until after the civic area historic district process was complete

[205:16] that, wrapped up in let's see, April. And then the final findings were in May of 2024, and at the June retreat Staff present presented information on the process and the timeline for bringing these changes forward. Last month. At your meeting the board discussed the scope and the timeline of the proposed changes at a conceptual level under matters. And then that brings us to tonight for a hearing. So there are 3 changes being proposed. One is an administrative rule which can be adopted by the Landmarks board to shift what scopes of work can be reviewed by staff rather than the Ldrc. So the way that the code and the current administrative rule is written has a pretty

[206:12] finite number of projects that Staff is able to review. That includes reroofing, paint colors, restoration of existing historic features, landscaping rear side yard fences that meet pretty specific design constraints related to material spacing and finish, and at grade patio extensions, awnings and signs in the downtown historic district only, and both of these administrative rules were adopted in 1,999 and 2,000. So this is how the program has functioned for the last 20 4 years. The proposed changes based on the landmarks, board, feedback, and staff's analysis of what types of projects are regularly reviewed at the Ldrc. We are proposing the following items be reviewed by the

[207:07] but are able to be reviewed at the staff level. Staff would still retain the ability to take something to the Ldrc. However, that initial review would still need to occur within a finite finite amount of time. We're proposing that the following projects be able to be reviewed as staff sidewalks and or driveways, regrading hardscaping and or retaining walls, fences, porches, patios, decks, and or railings, trim and or siding, painting and or paint colors, storm windows and or doors. skylights, roofing, solar panels and or solar battery storage, mechanical units, commercial awnings, signs, lighting gutters, bike racks and E-bike stations, Ev. Chargers and historic preservation residential tax credits.

[208:00] So we looked at the Ldrc. As saying, what is the Ldrc. At its best and at its best it's a collaborative problem solving creative conversation with applicants and property owners. And there are a number of scopes of work that don't benefit or don't need a lot of problem solving or collaboration. They're they're pretty straightforward things like skylights or solar panels. The guidelines are pretty clear. There are. Oftentimes I've heard from board members where it's like, I don't know if this was particularly a great use of time. We looked at the statistics and estimate that for a case to be reviewed at the staff level, it takes about 30 min for the same case to go to the Ldrc. Between the preparation of the slides, facilitating the meeting, hosting the meeting, coordinating with the applicants, and then the board members and staff time to attend the meeting, and then follow up notes. That same case that took 30 min at the staff level takes 4 h at the Ldrc level. So really thinking about what's the best use of resourcing

[209:15] one of the moves is to shift more things to the staff level. Looking at a couple of the statistics today, 43% of lacs are reviewed by staff. 51% are reviewed by the Ldrc. And 6% are reviewed by the full landmarks board. On average, the Ldrc meets 40 times a year, and each board member serves an average of 16 meetings a year. In the last year each landmarks board member volunteered an estimated 29 h to review cases at the Ldrc. In addition to attending monthly landmarks, board meetings estimated to be about 36 HA year, not including preparation, time, site visits or retreats.

[210:01] An analysis of cases reviewed in 2,023 suggested that of the 75 Lac. Cases. 36 were Project Scopes listed above that could be reviewed by staff. If this administrative rule is adopted. This represents a potential 48% decrease in lac application review by the Ldrc. Or approximately 8 and a half fewer hours per board member per year. And just to be clear, the demolition reviews, which is pre 1,940 buildings at the Ldrc. Isn't proposed to change. The next change being proposed is a code amendment, and so this is something that the Landmarks Board would make a recommendation to the City Council on, and then the city council would pass it through an ordinance. The current regulation requires that the review of lacs and non-designated demolition applications occur within 14 days of a complete application.

[211:06] The code continues and says that for demolition applications, if we don't make a decision within 14 days. It's automatically approved, which is a very strong accountability tool. But it's also a lot of pressure and a lot of constraints in terms of reviewing those and scheduling meetings within a relatively short amount of time for Pre. 1,940 buildings. So the proposed change is to extend that initial review period for those 2 case types from 14 days to 21 days, and we would still schedule them on a rolling basis, and likely it would be reviewed within 14 days and continue. But it would give us the flexibility. Where, let's say, there is a landmarks board meeting that evening, or it follows a a city holiday, or there's only one case. We have a little bit of flexibility to schedule those Ldrc meetings.

[212:05] and then the 3rd change is, this slide title is wrong, but it would be to extend the approval period. So the code currently states that lacs are valid for 180 days, and can be extended beyond that if requested before the initial expiration for non-designated demolitions. Approvals are valid for 180 days and cannot be extended. let's see, I think I want to take a minute to pull up the stats for that one, because it was interesting to look at. Okay. So during the last year and a half 11% of applications for the non-designated Demolition Review needed to reapply as the approval had expired. Most of those repeat applications were within a 1 year time period, and so we think that extending it from 6 months to a year will decrease at least 11% of the applications, and be sufficient enough for people to follow through and

[213:19] finalize their deconstruction, permit application. So if these changes are proposed, or if these changes are adopted, the Board approves these tonight they kind of take 2 different paths towards finalizing. So the administrative rule, as I mentioned is something that the Landmarks Board has the authority to adopt. You would make a motion to adopt the administrative rule tonight, and then that would start our next step, which is to publish it in the newspaper for a 15 day public comment period. We have a online questionnaire already live. So we're going to take public comment for a month. Not just the required 15 days, but that 15 day public comment period has to be published in the

[214:13] daily camera. The feedback that the landmarks board receives anybody that fills out that questionnaire. We would compile those comments and bring it back to you all next month. and the landmarks board would then have the option to consider the feedback make additional changes, in which case it would go to another public comment period, or you can say, we think that it's complete as is, and it would go into effect immediately for the 2 code amendments. If the Landmarks Board makes recommendations to approve those. Tonight we would start to prepare the city Council Memos, and then it would go to a city council 1st reading, we are thinking.

[215:04] have that tentatively scheduled in November and then City council, second Reading, which is a public hearing in December, and so we would anticipate both of those changes would go into effect as early as October for the administrative rule, and likely the end of the year for the code amendments. So with that, I I would just want to acknowledge that there are some of our colleagues from the development Review team on the call today, and I don't need to put you all on the spot. But I do want to say thank you to Carl Gyller and Jeff Solomonsen and Charles Farrow. They are the mighty code amendment team that has been working on so many council priorities this year, and Jeff, who recently started with the city, is going to take forward the code amendment portion of these changes. If the Board approves them tonight. So thank you for being here, you'll also see them at the October meeting.

[216:13] So with that, I'm happy to answer questions that the Board may have. Okay, do we have any questions. I have a question. Can I go. Yes. Yeah, so it looked like there were 2 changes that I noticed from the list that we looked at last month versus this month of what would be newly included as the type of of application that could be reviewed by staff, and those 2 were. It went from windows and doors and their openings to storm windows and doors.

[217:04] and I just wanted to see why that is the case. Yeah, we changed that based on the Board's discussion. I think it was Ronnie's point about how impactful changes to windows and doors can be, and going back after the meeting and and talking about it. I fully agree, I think, that you can do so many things. 2 windows, some are historic, some are non-historic, some are on primary facades, some are on tertiary elevations that I think the the right approach to the ones that that we would recommend is continuing to review changes to doors and windows. Ldc. But leaves storm windows, indoor doors at the staff level. Isn't it true that in in this list of what staff can

[218:02] review that if there's let's say offense that you don't think necessarily is squarely within the criteria, or the applicant wants something that's different from what's in the criteria that you can still bring those items to Ldrc. Isn't that right? Yes, that's true, though it would still need to occur that initial review would still need to occur within 14 days under the current code or 21 days. If the changes approved. What? Wait so sorry. I don't understand the connection between those 2 things. So. Like, what? Yeah. Yeah. So for something that's not on this list. So additions, pools. things like that. We would intake at intake identify that it needs to go to the Ldrc. And start to schedule that on day, one or day 2

[219:08] for anything on this list that we would like to take to the Ldrc. We need to do our review, and then also have enough time to schedule it for an Ldrc. Within that 21 days. and so doors and windows and their openings didn't seem to fit the same scale of these other 18 items. Okay. okay, and then the other one that was removed was, the removal of non-historic features. Yes, so. Yeah, that discussion was, what are each of our roles and responsibilities on our staff team and at intake? It needs to be pretty clear from the application materials what the scope of work is, so that that person can schedule it for an Ldrc. Or route it to staff.

[220:09] and the removal of non-historic features requires greater analysis than the the other items on this list documentation that it's non-historic. Where is it located on the building? What's used to document its date of construction, things like that which again didn't fit within the scale of this or the role of that intake person. So is there an issue with the timeframe on the front end of the receivable of an application? Because it it sounds like one of the reasons why I think more things can't be reviewed by staff and then potentially go to Ldrc is because of that timeframe and that deadline. So is that a problem.

[221:01] It's a constraint, but I think it's a constraint that we're in support of. There should be a regular cycle of review for applications right now, we're one of the fastest application reviews in the planning department. In 14 days. We're proposing to extend that to 21 days, having 2 initial review steps which we have designed this for that not to be the majority of cases may be a challenge to fit that within 21 days. I think we can do it. But I would be very cautious to add scopes of work to this list that require a lot of analysis before we decide what level of review it goes to. and maybe and I know it's getting late, and it's incredibly hot in this room. But I do maybe just want to step back for a second and acknowledge the scale of these changes that's going that are going forward, and our effort to make these real changes. So this is the biggest change proposed to the Ldrc.

[222:15] Since probably it was established. And so we've put a fair amount of effort into really looking at the cases that have been reviewed and coming up with a list that we feel makes the program better, makes the Ldrc better, makes it a better experience for the board members and the applicants. and so I maybe should have started with that in my presentation. No, I I very much appreciate that. And you know, when I brought this up 16 months ago. I didn't think it would take this long. So I really appreciate that all of the work and intention and time that

[223:05] it has taken to come to this place. And I'm just asking questions because I didn't understand why things were removed. So thank you. And I hope that we don't wait so long to make changes to our programs to make them more efficient. Between now, you know and the future, we don't have to wait more than 50 years to update programs. So I hope that that's an intention that this board and the staff have to try to make this work for everybody moving forward. I really appreciate it. I just want to echo. Well. And at some point I'd like to come back to the timeline, because I think that's a little bit unfair, Chelsea, about talking about waiting and it taking a significant amount of time. But I

[224:00] would like to talk about that after we perhaps approve these, because I'm very proud of what is on the table, and Chelsea. I think you did a great job initiating the conversation later. I'd like to come back to what I kind of see as great successes. and I'm glad that there's other city staff on the call in the background, because if you hang out after maybe this, I just kind of want to do a little recap on some stuff that I'm seeing. that I think is working wonderfully. And so I support all of these things, and I think that this is a monumental moment for the board. and I think that if we wanted to talk about Number 7 windows, I have one thing to add Marcy. At the last meeting you did a great job kind of dissecting different types of window applications, and the easy, low bar application was like a refurbish or a

[225:02] replace with a like. you know, like a recreate. And I might be saying these incorrectly but that those are the only ones that I could see if you wanted to add to this list. But otherwise, I think, as is, you know, I think that this will. This will be a really great step forward. Can I respond to that? So again looking back at, how do we implement this? How does it move through? I would discourage the board from putting window replacement on here because it takes some analysis. Is it a historic window? Is it on the front side, or tertiary elevation? So I think, adding window rehabilitation could work, but I would caution a lot against putting replacement on here, since the guidelines are so clear that replacement is rarely, rarely appropriate makes sense, do you? So do you think we should leave it? Just as is, I think, window rehabilitation? Okay? Would be okay. Okay. I then I would support adding that to the list. I think that seems pretty clear.

[226:07] Yeah, windows have a significant amount of impact on the architectural quality of a building and require some amount of architectural review if you get into any kind of manipulation of. And so those are, I guess. in a in a guideline pinch that would be a guideline as to when you should involve the Ldrc. As opposed to what can be simply processed. or more simply process. None of it's simple and I'd like to say, like these these proposed changes that we've been working on. I mean. we've been doing work. not me on the board, but as

[227:01] an applicant for a while, and so the amount of stuff that could be staffed. reviewed, and moved the process along a lot faster is significant in these 18 items, and also being on the board. you probably just removed, like 10 of the items that I've been dealt with in the last few months. So and and also having the Ldrc. Being on a Wednesday morning, and having these like a few of these 18 items off the list, and just for staff review, and then, if it comes a little Dicey. the staff is, I give them full to bring it back up to the Ldrc. But so I mean to say that it took a while, and I think that Ronnie will attest to it later. But I agree that these 18 items are really really significant. So

[228:04] I guess I'd like to move forward in. Is there a what do we do need to complete the process. And what? Going a little bit off script here. But since you are modifying the list, there is one additional item that has been in my mind since this memo went out, which is foundation repairs, and I think that I would propose adding that as well, because it it's relatively straightforward. I don't think it's a great use of the Ldrc's time, and it's not on the list. Currently I would support that on that note. I was kind of sitting on one, but wasn't going to say it. But here we go, window wells on non primary elevations.

[229:02] I can agree with that. And I also just realized. We are probably going into the board discussion part of things, but I also appreciate it, because then anyone who wants to speak during public comment can respond to an updated list. Alright. we should move to public comment. Thank you, Staff. We should move to public comment. Who do? We have? All right. We have 2 in person. Sign ups Leonard Siegel being 1st and then Fran Sheets. Second. yeah, the usual suspects right, and you don't have to be sworn for this. Yes, don't have to be sworn. No, okay. Speaking on behalf of historic boulder just quickly. The initial review period moving from 2 to 3 weeks, we think, is a good idea. The preservation approval period is a good idea in terms of the staff reviews of the landmark, alteration certificates, historic boulder recommends the following design, aspects still be reviewed by the Ldrc. Because there's more complexity about them, and that is front facing porches and front facing decks.

[230:18] Historic boulder wants to bring to your attention other factors to consider that that we feel could impact your decision about changes to the landmark design review process in particular. We have been recommending for a few years, now that the city government follow the general accepted practice, that all buildings, 50 years or older, be reviewed. When demolition permits are being sought. When Boulder adopts that nationwide standard, it will significantly improve the review process for eligible, significant properties. However, we recognize it will significantly increase the number of properties that the city must review, since there was so much growth in Boulder in the 19 seventies and sixties, and just to make our recommendation clear related to the Ldrc. We recommend keeping the number of people the same as now for the Ldrc. Reviews, and also keep them weekly. We feel it's not wise to lessen the reviews, even though we recognize the need for staff and volunteers to reduce time

[231:15] commitments. The likelihood is that the city will need to hire more staff to handle the increasing work volume. A couple more suggestions that historic boulder recommends that there should be changes in demolition permits, demolitions shouldn't be allowed until a building permit is achieved. A case in point is the demolition of Fruhoff's with no benefit of a building be constructed. The building could still be standing and used. and there should be a time limit on demolition permits. Demolition permits should not be unlimited in time. Chelsea's comment about how long it has taken to process. The changes that you're viewing tonight is frankly very disrespectful of the total amount of other preservation work that is being done by Staff. So there's a lot, you know, that goes on besides this particular issue. And I think we need to cut

[232:10] staff some slack and recognize that. Finally, I just want to say that the boulder we appreciate and love did not just happen. Historic preservation has been an important factor in creating the remarkable place we enjoy today. The work of the landmarks, board, and preservation planners is critically important to keeping the spirit of boulder alive. Thank you. Thank you. Hi! Again, Fran Sheets, I won't bore you with repeating. I stand by what Len just said from historic boulder. But I will say that Ldrc. Can, and I stand by what your suggestions are, for the most part.

[233:02] with 2 exceptions which I'll get into. But I also think that Ldrc. Has been crying for a review for a really long time, and I I mean, we were always so busy that we would make suggestions. But we just didn't have the human capacity to to make any serious changes, whether it be code or just in the regulations. So I really admire you guys for finally getting to it. There were a number of things that really bothered me when I was on the board and on Ldrc. One example is that it needs to be opened up, I think, to to neighbors. There are some issues that really do affect neighbors, and they're the most impacted by Drc decisions. And Denver does it. Denver hears from their community as well.

[234:00] and 2 issues lighting and signs. I think that they ought to stay at Ldrc. And there are good historical reasons for that. Chautauka would be a very different place if some of the lighting changes had not come to Drc. They were getting incremental. It just changes here and there, and there was no real cohesive plan or coordinated plan, and as a result of a year and a half. mind you, of a lot of hard work in the community with Marcy writing it, and we worked really hard. But if it hadn't gone to the Drc. I don't think Chicago lighting would be as it is today, and or nor would I feel secure about it, and signs was pretty much the same thing. We had incremental little here, there, and kind of signs coming to us with no real coordinated effort, and because it came to the Drc. And we did use another subcommittee. We came up with improved

[235:03] plan for design. Guideline, I guess, for signs downtown, and I think it made a huge difference with what people can do downtown, and it's much clearer as a result. so the the other things, I think it's almost a can of worms. There are other issues that I really support. A 50 year rather than 19 forties on the demolitions. We've missed so many iconic mid century buildings in town and houses because they're under the 1940 rule. And I suggest some discussion be made that Ldrc, you have to make a decision for 15 min, and some really big decisions are coming down. And that's not what the Ldrc was planned to do, and that's not what it was designed to do. It was designed to give quick responses, much like Staff is doing planning to do now, so that people didn't have to wait a long time. But Ldrc. For for all these reasons, is seeing some big

[236:12] big designs now, and big plans, and that's a lot of pressure for people to have limited amount of information coming into them and a limited knowledge. Some of us are not architects and pressure to not call it up because there is so much pressure. There's so much work on staff and and board members when things are called up that more things are going to Drc. But we can't make a lot of those decisions in 15 min. And so that needs, I think, to be looked at closely, because a lot of those decisions that I made on Drc. When I look back on them were not good, and some of them were just plain wrong, and you don't get all the information. So it's something that needs to be looked at. And I think you've opened a really nice can of worms. And thank you.

[237:11] Thank you. All right, Catherine, would you like to speak? I don't think I'm on the list or anything. I'm telling the truth. Katherine Barth. Drc, was always kind of It's changed. It used to be kind of informal. I remember, like once we saved the building. That's now the Boulder chop house. and we just saved it by going and talking to the guy who owned it, and the guy wanted to buy it, and we met in front of the building on the sidewalk and said.

[238:01] You don't want to mess with this building. You've got to be able to figure out something to do with this building, and it wasn't in the formal setting of I know. I don't know a hearing or anything. It was just standing on the sidewalk. Now those days are probably gone, but I mean, if there was some way to to have some communication informally like. you know you don't want to go there. This building really can have a future, and it does. It's there it is, there it is, this little wonderful little remnant of something, and I'm so glad it's there. But that was like you really don't want to, you know. Go forward with this any farther. So it's the staff just has a real burden. But we always, if the main people that we were trying to

[239:01] reach. I was always trying to reach the the construction guys. You know, they were coming in early before they went to work, and the owners. And and so if we ever needed to move things around. We'd move it earlier. We'd come in at 7 30 in the morning just to accommodate everybody. And so I don't know what kind of flexibility there is. But you know, donuts and coffee really early, maybe. But I'm just saying I know it's a really difficult job. But I don't know. I'm always happy when you're around, Ronnie, because you can give very practical solutions and and wonderful design solutions, and you can just kind of solve it all. So anyway, I would not recommend

[240:00] going to, you know, less than once a week. and if for some reason, you know, the interest rates stay high, and there isn't much building. Then you can cancel them. But I wouldn't. you know, for the structure of the landmarks board in the city. I wouldn't have less meetings. I just would, you know, keep the meetings once a week, and if you're lucky and you don't need one, then say, Okay, we're not going to have one. but don't go like oh, we're only going to have 2 meetings a month, and then all of a sudden you get slammed when the interest rates go down. So thank you for what you do. Thank you, Marcy. Thank you, Claire. It's a can of worms always thank you for that compliment. I really appreciate that. It's a little inaccurate, but it landed. Thank you for the compliment nobody else shows up with. That's nice. I want that back

[241:03] all right. Would anyone else like to speak in person? Lynn Siegel? No swearing. no swearing. Okay. Lynn Siegel. Full board site visits on all potential demos. landmark board for all Demos record. LDRC. Never allow Chelsea and Bill Jelic to vote down a Hunter house that's fireproof. 7 7 0, circle in an Ldrc. That is unconscionable.

[242:03] You had no architect. Bill's a photographer. Chelsea's a bedrooms are for people no way that was so unacceptable. No density bribes like at wra you do the demo before. If a city has a general regulation that kicks up the density in a place can tell tell the city that they can't execute those density bonuses until Demo has been considered on any properties like that. I don't know how you do that, but that needs to be done. L. Western resource advocates was a sin

[243:00] to demo that that was so. Not okay. Oh, we can't put in the parking for all this extra density. Where? Where? Consider Pre and post value for a demo consideration. When you hear a developer say. I can't sell my property for 3.4 million this morning at 5 45 Pearl. Maybe his price is too high. No, he's just seeing the dollar signs. He can subdivide it, or he can build a bigger thing. There. that is a perfectly good house. 5, 45. I couldn't even find it, because 5 20 across the street and I was mixing up, you know the odd and even numbers. And I realized, Oh, yeah, that demo

[244:00] right across the street another unconscionable demo and 7 70 circle went up from 6.1 million to 8 million after the chandeliers were ripped out. After that whole thing. moratorium on Demos and the millennium. That was horrific. It was 256 rooms. and now it's 930 from landmark properties. The irony of the name from Atlanta that had been in Berkeley and got kicked out of Berkeley and jumped onto Boulder. Time's up disgusting. thank you and John, before we move to the board discussion, could I just clarify 2 statements. I heard from the public comment, I heard that the an understanding that we don't review all buildings over 50 years old, and we do. We review everything. 1,974. And before it's just the level of review that's different. So the Ldrc reviews primary buildings built before 1,940, and then staff reviews.

[245:23] buildings, 1,941 to 1,974 in accessory buildings. over 50 years old. And then the second statement I heard that I just want to clarify is demos, not no unlimited time for Demos, and the demolition, approval, for historic preservation expires after 6 months and can't be extended. This change would extend that to one year that couldn't be extended beyond that so just wanted to clarify the current regulations of of what is required. Thanks, Marcy. Okay.

[246:01] we are moving to board discussion. And does someone want to start? Can We asked, like the we talked about public talk about the lighting and the signs. So, Marcy, if something comes to you and it doesn't meet the criteria in the in the guidelines. Do you automatically refer? I mean, I think it's not so black and white. But would something with lighting and signs come, if it wasn't black and white, would you then bring it up to the Ldrc. Like? What's these are to be able to be reviewed by Staff? But if it's not in the if it's not, you know by. If it's not black and white, then you will bring it up to the Ldrc. Is that correct. So we'll have the option to bring it to the Ldrc. And so signs is a really good example. Where, right now

[247:07] the administrative rule says that staff can review signs in the downtown historic district that are of a traditional form and location. We've interpreted that to say externally illuminated, and within a traditional location either projecting or on there. So when often a corporate office applies for a sign downtown and it's internally illuminated. we'll call them and say we can approve an externally illuminated sign at the staff level, or we can schedule a committee review for this internally illuminated sign because the guidelines discourage internally illuminated signs. and a lot of times they revise the design, and, you know, have a different model in their

[248:00] corporate portfolio to apply. And so that's an example of one where the design kind of changes based on the level of review. So what? Because we're listing this signs for staff level, what does this change. This means all signs. all signs would could be reviewed at the staff level. So not just in the downtown historic district, but also on individual landmarks like on the hill museum of boulder. It would also be both internally illuminated and externally illuminated. It would just say, signs can be reviewed at the staff level, and then we would either approve them, ask for revisions or refer it. Yeah. Okay. Who's next?

[249:01] Abby Chelsea comments. Okay. Sure I'm happy to. I just wanna also clear some things up because apparently I've been reprimanded for my previous statements. I just wanted to again be clear. I simply stated how long this project took, and how I didn't think it would take that long. I also said I appreciated the thoughtfulness and time that went into this, and when I said I didn't think it would take that long, I wasn't saying it took too long. I was just clearly that I underestimated the time it would take. So it was my naivete that went into that statement. So I apologize. If that was unclear and I just also don't appreciate being called disrespectful for simply pointing out how long a project took. Those are just the facts. It took 16 months.

[250:03] And that was just that. I just felt I needed to respond to that and But thinking about this project as a whole, so when I think about, like myself, my friends and colleagues who work at nonprofits all throughout the city and the State. My past colleagues who work at the Federal scientific labs, my friends, who work at some of the largest employers in our community. None of them could join this board because of the time, commitment, and schedule of the Ldrc. And so my goal for this is so that the board makeup is representative of the community that we serve, and I believe that this project, while it may not go as far as I would have liked on my own does bring. It, does bring us a lot closer to meeting that goal, and I really am incredibly appreciative of that.

[251:07] So I just wanted to thank my fellow board members and the staff again for being supportive of this initiative and for helping to make it happen. And then one other. No was around benchmarking for success, and like how we'll know if we are succeeding in making this a more equitable board to serve on, and I think for me that would look like if Ldrs. If we could guarantee essentially guarantee that the Ldrc commitment is no more than an hour every week. I think that's when we'll know that it's at least

[252:02] getting to the place where more people could commit to being on this board, if if it was only, you know, however many we have to do a year, if that was only a 1 h time. Slot and I hope that this will allow us to get there. But I think that that's what we should aim for. In in our work and our continuous improvement to make this board more inclusive. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else. Abby. Well, that's kind of a hard act to follow Chelsea. Your remarks and your You know your compelling reasons for for why this conversation even started, and while we may not be there, this is progress. I do think that. You know, I think

[253:05] what Staff has done with this is amazing as well as the input from the rest of my colleagues on this I think it's a great step forward, you know, sadly, things don't always happen as quickly as we would like. But I I think what I find most fascinating to me about this. This could kind of serve this whole conversation, this progress. Even how efficient! And time saving it will be for staff. I really value. But I think that this almost to me kind of serves as a launching pad for what I hope we might look at next in our copious free time on this board. But is that it's about how to make preservation relevant. And that was really called out at a session at the Cpi Conference in January of this year, and I think that this could be a way to kind of start having those conversations, and it's so easy to keep perpetuating things the way they were done. And this is the start. This is the beginning of saying, hey! How can we streamline it?

[254:15] How can we make it more convenient to add people who might be interested in serving on this board, but right now. you know, 3 or 4 h on a Wednesday is difficult for some and but I do think that kudos to Staff and I I'm glad we're here. I know there's always progress that can be made. But I think this is actually quite a quite a large leap. So. looking forward to seeing what the reality of it is, once this is starting to be put in place. Thank you. Okay. One question for again, all these questions, out of these 20 items that we have proposed to us. Do any of these items feel overwhelming to the staff.

[255:08] it not overwhelming. I think that we've given it a lot of thought about what are the implications, and I think. I think we don't fully know. I think that this is a pretty significant change, and it's a change in the right direction. But there are going to be some kind of a learning curve and and adjustments as we go. But we really combed through this list. We like expanded it. And then we like way shortened it, and then we, you know, landed on this at a nice round 20 items. And any one of these, as I read them again. Fresh tonight. Seems like that does to to us seem to belong at the staff level rather than having a committee meeting. Talking about commercial awnings or mechanical units or skylights, things like that. So we've, I think, thoroughly vetted this

[256:05] list, and and are comfortable with the proposed changes. And I'd like to also state that the you know, like you. You guys are a little bit of an expert on, you know, historic preservation being that school. And you know that you have done this quite a bit. So, giving you a little bit more, say, in so-called these 20 items, and I think we look to your recommendation when we follow through with the Ldrc. And in the board meetings. So I feel comfortable in. And that's why I asked you guys, because I think that it really is going back to giving it to Staff, and I think that a staff has evolved to make the historical. You know your guys's board, and the people at the staff level are really well educated in in providing a really good

[257:02] outcome. So we have great confidence. Yeah. I I had one question. It was, it's about Len's comment regarding porches, patios, decks, and railings on front elevations. I can do it. Steph didn't respond to that specific item predominantly. When I look at that, I think about porches. I'm not sure. I just know. Sometimes when I look at porch applications, even if it can be tedious. I'm noticing things in their drawing sets that aren't quite what they should be. And that's the only thing for me. On this I I don't know what that's meant to encompass, but after hearing Len say it. I remember how many cases come through where I look at those front porches. And I'm like man. That's not the detail. That's not how porches go together and curse on a cursory level you look at. And you're like man. It's okay. And then you're like.

[258:07] I just don't know. What do you? What do you think my thought on that? I would be supportive of removing porches and decks. If that was the way the landmarks board wanted to go with an argument that porches are character defining features of a house, and, like, you say, often like the handrail just yeah. Dies in in kind of an odd place like it really does come down to the details. And then the design guidelines are very clear that decks are rarely appropriate. Yes, and if they are proposed they should be at the back of the building, integrated into the structure. And so I think that is a a valid edit to remove those too, but I would recommend removing them rather than specifying what side of the building they're on, because again, at intake, we need it to be as simple and clear as possible, so that we're not getting caught up.

[259:08] you know, and saying, What is this proposal? Yeah. to me? I think it would just be porches, I think railings. I think the rest could stay on there. Well, porches in particular. Would support that change? Yeah. Many porch projects do we get. Well, we in certain building types, in certain architectural types, porches are significant features and or form giving or I guess character giving elements. Particularly true in craftsmen style, and some more recent styles where the expressive elements, like railings, do have a lot to do with the architectural character. So I think that, like windows and doors, it should stay on

[260:09] the Ldrc review side to the degree it can, because it's kind of an expert view kind of a thing. I think this list looks great, and I would be up for moving forward. I believe we need to make a motion. We do, and I'm going to maybe maybe 2 motions right? Well, I'm going to make a quick, summary statement here. I support what we're trying to accomplish here. I support the fact that Chelsea initiated this, and the reasons that she did was to broaden the inclusivity of our program and this board, and I think that this is a very good step in that direction. Without commenting on

[261:00] the reality of what it takes to man, populate or man to populate and orchestrate. I'm trying not to do that. a a board like this in a program like this. it's a daunting task for a city to put together something like this, and maintain it and be as successful with it and buy it as the city of Boulder has been with this program. And so I think that things that we can do to optimize the program are very good things and things that we can do to broaden understanding of and citizen involvement in the program are also things that we need to be working towards increasingly. which takes more time

[262:00] and So I support us moving to a motion. Can I make it. Make. So excited. Okay, is it done being written? I saw it being written, let me know. Let's let Chris read it one more time to see if. Yeah. sounds good. Yeah, my, my understanding is, we just added a couple and removed porches. So if that accurately captures how it was edited by adding structural repairs and window rehabilitation, and then removing porches. Then it looks good to me. Good to everyone. Okay. I move the Landmarks board adopt the administrative rule included as attachment a adding structural repairs, window rehabilitation and removing porches to expand the types of projects that may be reviewed by staff.

[263:03] And then I keep going. Okay. And I move that the landmarks board recommend. Wait, no, those are different motions. Wait. Are we doing one at a time? Sorry. We should probably unless we have a straw poll that everybody supports each of these motions as they are. Yeah, I'm in support of them. Then. yeah, I mean, you could read them all, and then You know what I think. I feel comfortable. Let's vote. Let's vote on each one after you read each one. Let's not vote. Okay. Them all at once. Yeah. Okay, so. Well, I I second that. Okay, we have a motion and a second, let's proceed to vote roll. Call Abby. Hi. Chelsea. I. Renee. Aye, Ronnie, aye, and I vote aye. So motion one passes

[264:02] unanimously. Okay, chuck. I move the Landmarks Board recommend to City Council Code amendments to extend the initial review period for lacs and non-designated demolition applications from 14 to 21 days. Okay, I second, that, okay, we have a second. We will proceed to roll, call vote, Abby. I. Chelsea. Aye. Renee. Aye, Ronnie, aye. and I vote aye, second one passes unanimously, so. All right. Option. Go for 3. For 3. I move the Landmarks Board recommend to City Council code amendments to extend the expiration period for lacs and non-designated demolition applications from 180 days to one year for landmark, alteration certificates and non-designated demolition.

[265:01] There's supposed to be another word there. I don't know but. Review applications is off the page. Okay, review applications. I second that. Okay, we have a motion and a second roll call. Abby. I. Chelsea. Bye. Renee. Aye, Ronnie, aye. and I vote aye! The 3rd motion passes unanimously wonderful. So the next steps very exciting. The next step is for the list of things that could be reviewed by Staff. We will get it through the process to publish it in the newspaper once it's published the 15 day comment period will start. And like, I said, the questionnaire is already

[266:02] active on the code amendment website. And so we'll get that rolling and then we'll return at the October meeting with a compilation of those comments. and then for the 2 Code amendment recommendations, we will draft the ordinance and schedule it for City Council review. So thank you. Excellent. Okay. can I? I know we're going to reschedule. But I just want to say something before it's kind of a little wrap up. Oh, nice if I can, because I know we've got some other city staff on. and we've got people in the audience. I just want to say I feel like this has been a banner. Evening like this was a really great board meeting, and I just want to also just point out a couple of things here about people that are in attendance. Catherine Barth. Fran Lynn. Len Siegel.

[267:00] come to all of these meetings. You guys are a backbone to the program. and it is I just admire the fact that you keep at it, and that you come to these meetings and you contribute. It is just so wonderful. And tonight we got to do that. We got to see that I think the program is in a really great state, and I know maybe there's other things to do here. But I really just want to point out that a lot has happened. Covid happened. And look what we did successfully again tonight, we have managed online an online meeting which I think went pretty well. We had a major transition with our lead staff, and fortunately, here is Marcy, and in the time in which Marcy has been part of the program we've dealt with some huge issues, including the civic center. And I want to come back to that, because really it was at the end, the conclusion of the Civic Civic center that we picked this project up. and so that timeframe is something I just want to come back to. And then I also wanted to say, you know, Christopher, Chris

[268:08] and Brad have been coming to these meetings. We all. We didn't always have that, and I, in fact, get to have dinner with them most of the nights beforehand, and it is meaningful to have you guys here, and that's a big character change. I feel like there was greater separation at a point, and I think that makes us stronger. I feel more connected to the city today. I reached out to Chris to talk to him about my ex parte relationship with Chautauqua, and he immediately got back in touch with me and gave me really great solid information. Marcy did the same. There are things that are happening outside of these meetings, and I'd also like to compliment Aubrey. What a wonderful asset to our team! And I will say. in the last year Claire has done an incredible job taking on this role, and I think you heard it tonight about her staff report. And I think we have a program in place that is very strong right now

[269:13] so compliments to everybody. I have been on the board for a while, and I know that some of you in the audience have been on the board, but I feel really great about the status of things. I think we've gone through some times, but I really feel like today was exemplary, and for me. I really got to experience that marcy a personal compliment to you, as I know you've done a lot. You've had a child, whether it's part of the landmarks board. You have managed to get this program in a really wonderful and stable position, and since April, between April and June you put the 1st draft in front of us. Between June and August we got to do a review, and then here we are in September like that is pretty darn quick. And so I think this is a huge stride, and also Chelsea. You did a great job writing, instigating this like. I went back and have reread your letter every time it's come up, and I think it is so articulate, and it requires something like that in order to instigate these talks, and I know. Sometimes they're heated. But you had such a wonderful letter. It is so clear it's well written. I think it motivated this.

[270:24] and so I just wanted to compliment everybody. Because I think this is the team, you know, including those folks that attend and participate, you know, during public comment. So, Marcy, great job. yeah, thank you. Alright. That being said. we are brought to matters. And do we have any matters? We have upcoming conferences? Yeah, we just have the shortest kind of discussion under matters not even a discussion. The 1st one is asking if the Board or the majority of the Board members could reschedule the October Landmarks Board meeting, which I think is scheduled for the second

[271:14] which is, during one of the holy high holidays. If we could schedule, reschedule that for a virtual meeting on October 9, th so we don't all need to pull out our calendars right now. But I'll ask Aubrey to send out a email tomorrow for the for the board. Unless, Aubrey, do we need that decision tonight? Maybe we'd need a decision tonight? Okay, let's take 3 min. Would. Could everybody check their calendars and see if you'd be available for a virtual meeting. October 9.th I am. I am. I am, I likely? Am

[272:04] I heard? 2? Yeah, no, I'm I'm yeah. We all okay. I am as well. Okay. thanks everyone that makes it so much easier. One last email for you. Wonderful and then we just wanted to highlight some upcoming conferences. There's the Cpi on the road which is happening now in Steamboat Springs. We're not there. The National Trust for historic preservation passed forward. 2024 is next month in New Orleans. and there's a local one, the center of Colorado Women's History, 2,024. Symposium is this fall, November 16, th at the History, Colorado Center in Denver, and that one could be interesting. So just wanted to highlight some of these, and then, looking a little bit farther away down in

[273:05] either January or early February will be the Colorado Preservation, Inc. Saving Places Conference. The last 2 years it's been in Boulder. It'll be in Colorado Springs next year, and we will be able to fund the Board's attendance to that. So start thinking about that one. It's usually a pretty good conference. Alrighty wonderful! And that is all we have anyone else have anything? Okay? Then the September meeting of the Boulder landmarks board is adjourned. Marcy, did you say? October 9? th Yes. and how many condos.