November 6, 2024 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:02] Thank you. The November Landmarks Board meeting is called to order. Welcome to the November 6, th 2024 Landmarks board meeting. It is 6 Pm. Before we get started this evening Marcy will review the virtual meeting decorum. There we are. Okay. Can you all see my screen? Yes. wonderful. Great. Okay. Welcome. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board and commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives. More about this vision and the project's community engagement process can be found online on the link showed on the screen.

[1:15] The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder revised Code, and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld. During this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, or other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited, and participants may raise their hand to speak during open comment and public comment periods. During hearings, individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. And currently only audio testimony is permitted for online speakers.

[2:00] Here is a few reminders for how to raise your hand. If you are on a PC. There's a shortcut for Alt y, or option y on a Mac or star 9. If you're calling in on a phone. Otherwise, if you're in the zoom screen, the raise hand function is under the reactions. Tab back to you, Abby. Thank you, Marcy. I want to acknowledge that we do have a full quorum this evening. A recording of this meeting will be available in the Records Archive and on Youtube. Within 28 days of the meeting we'll do our real quick roll call and introductions. I'm Abby Daniels, the current chair of the board. Chelsea. Chelsea Castellano Landmarks Board, Member. John. I'm John Decker, Landmarks board member. Renee. Rene Galovik Landmarks board, member. Ronnie. I'm Ronnie Pelucio Landmarks board member.

[3:02] And Kurt. I'm Kurt Nordbeck. I'm the liaison from planning board to the landmarks board position, which may be going away soon. Yeah, well, we're glad to have you with us this evening, Kurt. Thank you. We know that there are people attending this evening virtually, who are here to participate, and may have strong emotions about particular projects. We do want to hear from you, but we 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 will be denied. We we're not meeting in person, so we don't need to have people sign up on the sheets, Aubrey, but you will help me facilitate that. When we have any public comment as board chair, I will call for a roll call. Vote for any motions made this evening.

[4:06] So the 1st agenda item is the approval of minutes of the October Board meeting, October 9th Board meeting. I move that we approve these meeting minutes. Is there a second. I'll second it. Thank you, John. On a motion by myself, seconded by John. We'll do a quick roll call. Vote Chelsea. I. John. I. Renee. Bye. Ronnie. Hi. And I vote aye, so the minutes pass unanimously. So next we will turn to public participation for non for items that are not on the agenda. We do have 4 public hearings tonight, so now is the time for any members of the public to speak to anything. Not that we will not be

[5:02] having a public hearing on. You'll have a chance during those individual public hearings, to speak as well. So, Audrey, I'm going to see if you see anyone who's raised their hand or indicated they'd like to speak. So far we have 2 raised hands. I'll just give a moment. Okay, I'm seeing 4. So let's get started. Okay. in order. We'll do Samuel Austin. Then Patrick O'rourke Fran sheets, and then Lynn Siegel. Okay, thank you. And all members of the public will have 3 min to speak. So we'll start with Sam Austin. All right, Sam. Just give me a moment. Couple clicks. I'll be ready for you. Okay. Can you hear me? Yes. CC, and green. Okay.

[6:00] I don't. I'm waiting just I just don't know what I'm doing is all I'm waiting for my portion, so you can nix me so sorry if she comes up. So we'll hear from you later this evening. Yeah, I'll just talk. I mean, I'm there. I'm there on a project. I think I'm second on the agenda. So yeah. But okay, at least you're you're here and ready for when that comes up. Thank you. Yes, thank you. I'm relieved that you can hear me and carry on. Of course. Do you have any questions? Before I mute you again. No, I'm fine, I think. Okay. Great talk to you soon. So Patrick O'rourke. Okay, Patrick. Whenever you're ready I'll get the timer started for you. Thank you. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay, thank you, because I've had trouble with my computers. 2 items. Number one is, last month I spoke at the Landmarks Board meeting requesting a letter of support to the National Park Service regarding the Boulder County Courthouse designation.

[7:11] and I just was hoping to get a status update on where that letter was. I also spoke at the city council, and Erin Erin got back to me and said that city council would also be issuing a letter of support which is. which is terrific. So across all areas of boulder, I think we have that covered. Recently, we received an inquiry regarding easements on we have a several conservation easements in the community, and what I wanted to do is start a dialogue with the landmarks board on what your perception should be on how we treat certain conservation easements that we're we're going to be dealing with specifically our

[8:00] the property that we have on the corner of. Oh, shit! I forget the address. I apologize. I had it right here. 1733 Canyon. So I want to just just get out in front of it, and see where there, if any proposals come before the landmarks board that we're notified of of those proposals immediately. Thank you. That's it. Thank you, Patrick and Aubrey. I believed you, said Fran. Sheets was next. Oh, that is correct. Sorry for the delay. Okay, let's move on to Fran. Hi! Can you hear me? Welcome, Fran! Hi, everybody. I just have 2 issues tonight that I hope to bring to you in 2 min. 1st is about changes in facades in general, of landmarked houses and contributing houses in historic districts, and the windows in the street facing facades we all know, include, and including the front porches, are defining features, and in general we have always left them intact.

[9:20] Changes can easily impact the buildings, and in its status as a landmark the changes in secondary facades are traditionally up for discussion, but even there minimal changes have always been encouraged in tertiary facades. Of course, in the back is where the most appropriate changes are made depending on the exposure to the street or the sidewalk or the alley, and I can think of few applications where exceptions have been made to this longstanding precedence by a few homeowners. But in the last 10 years, since I've known the Board and preservation in Boulder, I really can't think of any exceptions to contributing homes, especially when the changes affect the home's integrity.

[10:07] or it could impact the landmark status, or I don't know, and porches and facades can be brought back to the original, which would make for changes. But if this exception is made in the Ldrc. Or at board meetings. one time, approval of major changes to these primary facades and porch will, I promise, open a can of worms for everyone. There will be more requests by neighbors for primary facade changes, and the applications, I promise will bring examples of one exception of the one exception that the Board made. We see this over and over again with fences. particularly in Mapleton Hill. The second issue for me tonight. So just think carefully, please. The second issue for me tonight is rubber stamp. Approval of expired Ldrcs or demolition applications, the reasoning

[11:04] being that the Board Staff or Ldrc. Approved it before, so will automatically approve it again. And, in fact, I read that code today again, and the process of approving begins again with a new application, and rubber stamping is not in the code. You need to take the whole application and look at it as it's new. According to the code, an expired application approved in the past must be resubmitted, and go through the same process and examination as if it were new. It's not a rubber stamping that I've seen happen many times in the past. Those are my 2 issues, and I hope the Board will consider your decision making capacity. And and because things do change, the code has been changed. 4 times. I was surprised in the in the last few years. And so so changes happen. But we need to really be thinking about what is in the code and what isn't in the code in decision making. Thanks. You guys.

[12:06] Thank you. Fran. All right, and up. Next is Lynn Siegel. Hi Lynn. 5. Speaking of code. I have to have a hot water heater put in behind my refrigerator. On the other side is a living room wall with a huge entertainment center with your old fashioned, but the only things I can afford an old TV, a reel to reel tape recorder. Like all of this music that I love and haven't been able to hear for 25 years, because I can't afford to. I'm at landmark board meetings, or if it's not landmarks board, it's water resources, advisory board or open space board of Prestige or city council or Transportation Advisory board or Housing Advisory Board.

[13:03] or Israel Palestine. So I can only hope that one day I can listen to music and watch old videos, I guess. but a hot water heater that's very efficient air source. heat, pump, hot water heater has been put in, and I have to have my whole living room and my entertainment center, which has not been moved in 25 years ripped out, and all of the stuff somehow put somewhere. These are little old houses, these these spaces you're dealing with mean a lot to people these landmark things. Now, mine isn't at that point yet. but this is just an example of it. Would you know there's $50,000 worth of stuff being put into an energy retrofit in my house. and I don't have any choice about it.

[14:01] No choice. My brother has to coordinate everything because the the county gaslighted me after I expose them for what they had done 12 years ago with an energy retrofit with me. and as a result. I'm now stuck trying to keep my house the way it is trying to keep it from not being totally destroyed, like the masonite is falling off on the side of the house. It just there was a long before I moved in here. The gutter was aimed towards the house, so the house is eviscerated on that side, the windows almost totally destroyed. They're giving me air source heat pumps. They're giving me a mag induction stove, a refrigerator and a hot water heater, but they're installing it in an enclosed space in which I have no no, input. In, because I was gaslighted by the county. Now, what happened with the county was they weren't doing a solar install that the vendor didn't want to do, because it was adverse conditions, and would have violated their

[15:12] warranty and subjected them to liability. And I exposed that. And therefore I'm gaslighted 12 years later, just saying, this is what happens to people that try to live in these old homes. Lynn, I'm so sorry, but your time has expired. Thank you. And then, Aubrey, do you have any additional people that have indicated? They'd like to speak this evening. Alright. If anyone else would like to speak. Please raise your hand now. We'll wait a couple seconds to give you the chance. Okay, I'm seeing one more. please excuse my pronunciation, I believe, Margaret Moritz.

[16:06] and just one moment while I get you situated. Okay? And I accidentally made you a panelist, but you should be able to speak. I'm sorry. Okay. Probably. Okay. Okay, I'm I'm on the agenda, for later. I just raised my hand for that. Okay. Great. I didn't know if you wanted to comment on anything else. No, no, no. Okay, great. We'll we'll save you for that time. Then. Okay. And if anyone else would like to speak, just raise your hand. I don't think we have anyone else. Give it a couple seconds.

[17:05] All right, Abby. I think we're good to move on. Okay, thank you, Aubrey. We will now close public discussion for non-agenda items this evening, and I don't know. I do want to say one very quick thing to Patrick O'rourke's comments about easements, and I don't know if Staff has an update about a letter of support for the National and Marcy's nodding for the national historic landmark that's pending. So so, Patrick, thank you as always for coming and sharing with us this evening, and and I personally know. It's a challenge for a small nonprofit to manage the 11 or 12 easements that I think historic boulder still has. I know the last one. That historic boulder was given was for the Hannah Barker House, and I know that that what made the most sense and was the best for us is to have that easement held by the Colorado Historical foundation. So just ask something before I forget to to follow up and let you know this. That is, may

[18:09] maybe something you want to explore is having the Colorado Historical Foundation hold easements, either current ones or future ones. And, Abby, if you're interested, I can give an update on the letter. And yes, so we are working with the city manager's office and have drafted a letter of support for the national historic landmark nomination of the Boulder Valley or the Boulder County Courthouse, and one question for the board is whether you would like to send a separate letter from City Council, or if you feel that a letter on behalf of the organization talking about the building significance and support, for it would be sufficient. So I would be interested in knowing if the Board is interested in

[19:05] having their own letter or combining with the city council, one. And Marcy. Would we discuss that now, or now, or wait till matters. We can wait till matters. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Great. And then, Patrick, I'll follow up with you about easements. It was one that Abby had planted that in my mind probably 8 years ago. And so when I met with potential buyers of 1733 Canyon, I said, you might double check that. There's not an easement there, and there is an easement on that property that historic boulder owns, so we can coordinate of about our awareness and translating that to the owners. Thank you, Abby. Thank you, Marcy, and don't go too far, because I think the next agenda item is a discussion of landmark, alteration and demolition applications issued and pending.

[20:03] Thank you. We have 2 pending stays of demolition. Currently. The 1st one is 777 Broadway. And since there's a public hearing on your agenda tonight. I'll save any conversation about that one. And so that would make the second one the accessory building at 2119, Mariposa, and at your last meeting on October 9th the Board voted to place a stay of demolition in order to explore alternatives, and we have a site visit scheduled next Wednesday, November 14, th I believe, from 4 to 5 Pm. With the owner, and correct me if I'm wrong. But I think Abby and John are the Board representatives for that one. We are. That may actually be on the 13, th Wednesday, the 13.th But we'll figure that out.

[21:00] You're right. It's Wednesday. The 13.th It's Wednesday the 13.th Yes, sorry. Our slide is wrong. And so that's the extent of the update that I have now. But we will have a special meeting November 20th that we can give an update after that site visit. So. Thank you, Marcy. We will now move on to our 1st public hearing this evening. This is agenda. Item 5. A. It's a public hearing, in consideration of an application to designate the property at 31, 68, 6th Street as an individual landmark pursuant to Section 9, 11, 5 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981, and under the procedures prescribed by Chapter 1, 3 of the quasi judicial hearings. and, Claire, you will be doing the staff presentation this evening. Right? Am. Thank you, Abby. So

[22:00] just to quickly go over the quasi-judicial hearing process. everyone speaking to the item will be sworn in, and that includes me. I'm Claire Brandt. I'm the historic preservation planner, and I affirm that I will tell the truth. Board members will note any ex parte contacts. I'll give the staff presentation, and after that the Board may ask questions. The applicant will have 10 min to present to the board, and the board may ask questions of them. Then we'll open the public hearing, and, after all, members of the public have made comments. The applicant may respond to anything that was said. and then the Board will deliberate. The motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass, and the motion will state findings, conclusions and a recommendation. A record of the hearing will be available in a couple of days as a video recording, and the official record will be added to the Records Archive within 28 days, although usually a lot sooner.

[23:02] So this is a designation. Hearing the criteria for review is outlined in the boulder Revised Code under 9, 11, 5 C. And the options today are for the Landmarks board to approve the application and recommend designation to city council. The city council hearing would be held within 100 days. or the board may disapprove the request, and this is subject to a 45 day call up period, and the owner would need to file a notice of appeal within 21 days of today. So the owner, Marguerite Meg Murtz, who is here tonight, submitted a designation application. There's a requirement for timing in the code that the hearing is scheduled between 60 and 180 days, and so we scheduled the hearing for today, at Meg's request. This is the property.

[24:02] It is at 31 68, 6th Street, located in northwest of Central Boulder in the Newlands neighborhood. Right here. It's on the east side of 6th Street, between Forest Avenue and Evergreen Avenue. There's a a unnamed Allie to the east, and the property is not within a potential or designated historic district. So the house was designed by James Leach in the modernist style, and built in 1969 for the Leach family. His intent was to design the house around the existing grade and keep as many trees on the lot as possible. He flipped the house plan at the last minute. In order to save another tree. So that's what it looks like today. And the idea was that the house be elegant and deceptively straightforward.

[25:06] It's a frame house has an asymmetrical facade and an inconspicuous entrance. The design incorporates a low pitched hip roof on the on the south side of the facade that kind of creates an illusion that the house is one story. And actually, it's 4 different levels inside. It has wide overhanging eaves, and the soffit continues under the eaves and becomes the interior wood ceiling on the inside. and the the deep heaves, and that continuation of the soffit and structural members from the inside through to the outside exemplifies the modernist style. The building retains a very high degree of historic integrity. Character defining features include the low pitched hip roof, which you can see here, and the the flat roofs which are more hidden

[26:01] the painted decorative block work that's on the northwest corner, the north wall and the chimney the wood ceiling and soffit and the inconspicuous entrance, who should give a prize to anyone who can see it right here behind tree and the also the surrounding landscape landscaping with this integrated arbor on the outside, which you can see here, and then just a little piece of it right here. And then also the block walls which extend to the the walls on the outside. So around 1979, a sunken hot tub was added to the rear deck area, and this was removed between 1980 and 1987, and a steel and glass solarium was conducted was constructed at the rear. Right here. This is a very modest addition, and is subordinate to the house, and does not impact

[27:08] the integrity of the design, the form, plan, space, structure, and style of of the original all still there. as I mentioned, the house was designed by Boulder, architectural engineer and developer, James, Jim Leach, and constructed by Leach and Arnold construction. Jim graduated from Cu Boulder in 1964, with a bachelor's degree in architectural engineering and business management. He then attended Stanford University to attain a master's degree in construction engineering. He started Leech and Arnold construction with Fellow Cu alum Gene Arnold. In 1965, and in 1966. He also partnered with Bruce Downing to create Downing leech

[28:00] architects and planners who are focused on designing custom houses and developments with a strong emphasis on design, and the the partnership actually designed Boulder's 1st planned unit development at Apple Ridge Park in North Boulder. And this is the the brochure, and Jim pulled it out and and discovered that one of the one of the design options was actually this house. Okay? So For our historic significance, James Leach built the house for his family. He met Louise Brunel, Brownie Saunders Leach, at the University of Colorado, and they married on March 23, rd 1963. He designed the house with a formal dining room and living room that they used for entertaining, and it was inspired by simple Japanese architecture. We met with Jim and Brownie at the house, and Brownie

[29:05] remembered that they they had. They actually hosted some Japanese students, and thought that it was really appropriate that they had a tea ceremony in their in their living room they sold the house after the birth of their 1st child in 1972, when they realized that all of the stairs on the inside were somewhat impractical. and they didn't realize it at the time, but they sold the house to Joseph, Joe Fiddler, Walsh, and Stephanie May Rhodes. Joe Walsh might be a name you recognize. He recorded a couple of albums that he says were inspired by his life in Boulder. and he joined the Eagles shortly after he left he left Boulder Joe and Stephanie sold the house after their daughter was tragically killed in a car accident, and they left Boulder. The house was home to David Felton in the 19 seventies, who recognized the Japanese, inspired design completely, independently of knowing how Jim had intended it to be.

[30:10] And then Barbara Mussel, who is the head of Johnson, Publishing's book, division, and owner of the printed page bookstore. And then Meg Moritz, the current owner, recognized the importance of of the house to the development of the local modernist architectural movement, and she can tell you more about why she fell in love with the house. But she's been a careful steward since 1987 for architectural significance. We found that the asymmetrical facade with low pitched hip and flat roofs, the wide rafters. The decorative block work and inconspicuous entrants are typical of custom ranch houses in the modernist style. the the deep eaves and the continuation of the soffit and structural members from the outside

[31:04] into the inside exemplifies this architectural style. and the site characteristics still include the the gardens and mature trees that Jim planned the house to preserve. So Staff's recommendation is that the Landmarks Board recommends to city council that it designate the property as a local historic landmark to be known as the Leech Moritz House. Finding that it meets the standards for individual landmark designation in Sections 9, 11, one, and 9, 11, 2 of the boulder revised Code and this is the proposed plaque language it details that the house was designed by Jim Leach for his family, the house showcases, playful interior volumes and is thoughtfully integrated into the site. Leech is known for its neighborhood developments that integrate residences into the environment and focus on community.

[32:03] Meg Moritz has been a careful steward of the property since 1987. The proposed boundary would follow the property line. and the proposed findings are that the designation is consistent with the purposes and standards of the historic preservation. Ordinance will protect, enhance, and perpetuate a property reminiscent of the past era of history, and preserve an important example of Boulder's historic architecture. and will maintain an appropriate setting and environment for the building and enhance property value, stabilize the neighborhood, promote tourist trade and interest and foster knowledge of the city's living heritage. So that's the end of the staff presentation. The next steps in the process are here. We'll ask Meg if she has anything to add, and then we'll move into public participation and then board deliberation

[33:02] and just -oh! Mossy. No, I was just going to say I'd like to add, Thank you, Claire, for the presentation, and as Meg is getting promoted to speak. I would just like to extend a heartfelt thank you for Meg, for bringing this property forward for landmark designation. Every year a property owner or 2 comes forward often longtime stewards of these houses that have just a deep appreciation and stewardship, and it has been such a joy to get to know Meg, and walk around her property with Jim and Brownie, and hear about the design, intent, and the history, and how much care they have for this property. So just kind of piggybacking onto Claire's presentation. But I just want to extend an extra note of gratitude this evening. Thank you, Marci. And or we also are lucky enough to have Jim with us today. So

[34:05] yeah, any questions for me before I pass it on to them for their comments. Okay. Aubrey is, is Meg promoted and and ready to took. Oh, I'm here I was. I'm sorry. Meg, welcome, welcome! But 1st and foremost, I do need to ask you to raise your right hand, even if we don't see it, and say you swear to tell the Board the full truth. I swear to tell the Board the full truth. My name is Meg Moritz, and I'll be talking about the property that I own at 31 68, 6th Street.

[35:00] Okay, please proceed, and you'll have 10 min. Okay. well, I don't. I don't think I have 10 min of of things to say, but I have this. I do have some comments. So starting with wanting to thank so very much Claire, Marcy, Aubrey, and the whole team at city planning and development, and it certainly was a joy for me as well, particularly the the day that we had at the house with Jim and Bunny, and and going over some of that history which was really remarkable. So to the team that did the report. I think you did a very thorough and professional job, and I really appreciate that the whole idea of documentarying the history of the property, its architectural features, and its suitability for landmark status. I learned a lot along the way, and of course I have to thank Jim for envisioning the house and crafting a beautiful place to live. I've found it a wonderful home for many years. I would say. It's a modest house with great architectural style. It's made of simple and affordable and durable materials, and it very much fits into the Newlands neighborhood and boulder itself.

[36:22] I've had many visitors over the years, and they often will come in and remark on the warmth and style of the house. I have done some remodeling over the time I've been there mostly, I would say, under the heading of Decorating, but nothing that changed the basic structure of the house as Jim designed and built it, and that's what I kind of fell in love with when I saw the house, and and I have to say I like it more. more and more every year. So I know Jim may be talking about this, but he he

[37:00] very much described his intention as a young architect to improve the quality and aesthetics of Boulder's housing stock, and I think in this property, for sure he succeeded in that goal. So Just wrapping it up to say that it's been a great refuge for me and comfort to me, and lots of good memories have been created in this house. I'm happy to answer any questions, and I would also add that several people in the neighborhood have come by. They've seen this sign, and they've, you know, kind of uniformly expressed their support for landmark status to the extent that they knew what landmark status was. But, anyway, thank you again, thank you for hearing the case, and I look forward to your discussion. Thank you so much. And, Jim, we'd love to hear from you. If you'd like to speak I would need to swear you in, and, according to my little timer, we have, you know, just shy of 7 min. If you would like to join the conversation.

[38:03] I yes, briefly, if And, Jim, please, if you'll just swear to tell the Board the whole truth, that would be awesome. Thank you. I swear to tell the whole truth. Thank you. I'm there's only 3 or 4 people on the planet that actually are doing that anymore. All I wanted to say is, I'm I really appreciate the board looking at this house, and as a landmark, and especially appreciate Meg and what she's done to kind of shepherd it along. I I can't take claim for how it was used through the years. And I it's a really good example of what there was a group of young housing professionals, architects, and designers and builders that I was part of in the sixties, and and it was all part of the kind of the sixties movement we need to do something better. We can do better. Anybody over 30 doesn't know what they're doing. You know that kind of stuff, and we started creating examples. I think Tom and Carolyn Hoyt with Mcstain were part of that group, Carl Worthington, you know. There's a number of us now that have aged out to the point where we're almost all gone. But

[39:26] I really think it's great that the city can landmark some of these houses and preserve them, because it's such a temptation to rip it down and put a Mega mansion on it. So that's I think all I have to say. Hey. Thank you so much to both of you. And just so, you know, we'll open it up to public comment for members of the community, but we also will give you an additional 3 min if you have any other comments, or anything especially based on what might be said during public comment

[40:02] before we start public comment. Do any board members have any questions for Jim or Meg? Don't see or hear of any. So, Aubrey, let's open it up to members of the public. Sounds good, Abby. All right. If anyone would like to speak on this item. Just raise your hand now. and I'll give just a couple seconds to cue up those hands. All right. So far we only have Lynn Siegel. So let's start there. Lynn. I'll give you permission to speak and then start the timer just momentarily. And Lynn, we will need to swear you in for this, since it's quasi-judicial. I swear to tell the truth, as I know it.

[41:04] Okay, please. Proceed. Now the truth. There's only the perception of the person that's speaking. This house looks fine. I only wish that Jim Leach had been as considerate of historic spaces as he was of this house with Washington school, which I ardently thought for years from being redeveloped into housing. cohousing. I think that school. Lynn Lynn, I'm gonna have to jump in. I'm sorry to jump in on your time, but I think your comments should stay specific to this particular application. House. This house and his History of turning down Washington School to be kept as a school form follows function. This house has great function. But Washington School had better function as a school than a house.

[42:03] and that's all I have to say. I'm I support this house being landmark done. Thank you, Lynn. Thank you, Lynn Aubrey, have any additional members of the public raised a hand or indicated? They'd like to speak to this agenda item. I'm not seeing anyone right now, Abby, but let's give it a couple seconds. If anyone would like to speak. Just raise your hand alright. I'm not seeing anyone, so I think we are good to move on. So we will close public comment for this public hearing. And again, I just want to make sure. Meg and Jim both know that if there's anything they'd like to speak, they're welcome to an additional 3 min. and if not, we will proceed to board. Board. Deliberation.

[43:04] I have nothing further. Okay, thank you. So let's go ahead and return this to the board for our discussion tonight about this application for individual landmark. Hey Abby. Yes, sir. Maybe you were about to head to this, but I think we may have skipped the ex parte component of this hearing. And so I just wanted to bring that up. Maybe we'd circle back to that. So I have none. I I have none. Ronnie, what. Ronnie. I thought we had discussed, or had instruction from our legal advisor that we only needed to bring up ex parte. If there actually had been something ex parte, otherwise we could just proceed without formally addressing that. I believe I recollect that.

[44:06] No, I think that's totally true. I just don't think we opened the floor up to do that. By the way, is my audio fragging. I hear John's. Is it mine as well. Hear you more clearly, Ronnie. Okay, yeah, John, yours was Fuzzy. So maybe I just missed the opportunity to do it. So yeah, I just wanted to point out that I do know Jim Leach pretty well, and I consider him a friend, and I've in the past for Jim, in fact, on co-housing development in the community, and you know, think of them in high regards. I, haven't done work for Jim in many years. I think it's been close to 10 to 12 years, and I but I do believe that my experience and relationship with Jim will not impact my decision making tonight on this case. But I do feel like it's important for me to bring that up, because I did at 1 point do work with Jim on development projects. But much time has passed since then.

[45:09] Okay, thank you, Ronnie, and thank you for bringing that up before we head into board. Deliberation is there? Go ahead, John. Since Ronnie brought that up. I have. I know Jim Leach also know more of him was one of the people involved in recommending the Washington School project to the city and actually acted to defend the project. Because I had served on a city task force to select that project from other projects submitted for consideration. So I guess that's ex parte. Since it became topic of the discussion, and I have a great admiration for Jim's work, and his presence in.

[46:06] And John It won't interfere with my objective review of this particular project. Great John, your audio is difficult to understand. It's very staticky. Would you mind troubleshooting your microphone source as the board deliberates because it's I can hear what you're saying, but it is difficult to understand. Okay. And it's not the volume. It's the static around your voice. Thanks, Marcy, so I don't know if there's someone while John is is attending to that, who would like to jump in and kick off this deliberation. Sure I mean I I feel comfortable doing that. You know. I am in agreement with Staff's recommendation, and in general as Meg has reported kind of the community that has come to her and supported her application. And so, Meg, I did want to compliment you on, you know.

[47:12] thinking about this and bringing it to us, and consequently bringing it to the community. I do think that Staff's report accurately reflects the architectural qualities of this building that do make it qualify for those components categorically. But I do also think that the person of you know the person that is highlighted for me in this project that is the most meaningful is, in fact, Jim Leach. I think, his contributions to our community, both for this particular home, other developments in our community, and in particular the community-based thinking that has come to be associated with him. And co-housing is something that we collectively we should be proud of. And I think you know he has national recognition

[48:06] for his knowledge and contributions, not only in Colorado, but in other locations, and continues to practice in that realm as an advisor. And so I am very, very happy to support this application, and also the recognition that it comes for him and his legacy, and I'm hopeful that there's more to come for him because it's well deserved. And then I also think, this particular home and its uniqueness, simplicity, and as it's been characterized as a home that is worthy of preservation and not demolition, is something for us all to be proud of. Thank you so much. Ronnie Renee or Chelsea. Would you like to go next. Sure, I'll go Ronnie, I think that's you you said in an excellent way. And I just wanna I wanna thank Meg, too, for bringing it up. And you know, preserving Boulder's Mid Century Modern Heritage this shows just the thoughtful integrity of the project, and.

[49:08] Let's keeping. Unique architectural story alive for future generations. So I think that. Thank you, Meg, and you know thanks, Jim Leach, for you know, designing such a thoughtful house, and for its architectural thoughtfulness, and the enjoyment of people living in it, and wanting to preserve it. Thank you, Renee. I don't know, John, if you want to go next, or Chelsea. Well, let's let's test. The audio right now is, how does that sound. A lot better. Okay, that worked. I'm my comments will be brief. I think that this this home is a kind of remarkable opportunity in the area of mid-century modernism for us to

[50:04] be able to preserve something with a it's. It's in such, I guess, a perfect state of of preservation in the sense that it was maintained through its life with very minimal alteration, and was so well and expertly considered. Initially, it's also a unique and interesting property in Boulder because of the place it played in Boulder's Human History, and that includes kind of the design vanguard group that was represented in some of this work in that period. and the people who then chose to live in the house or own it. Joe Walsh being one of them.

[51:01] And so I just this is just. This is a great opportunity and a great example of the mid-century modernism that more characterized that that style where it occurred in and around Boulder I'm very supportive of this, and very happy that it got brought to us. There's also in in the memory of Joe Walsh's daughter who was unfortunately killed. There is a fountain on the corner on the I believe it's the northwest corner of North Boulder Park. That is a memorial to her. It has a plaque on it. and it's a memorial to Emma, I believe, was her 1st name, and it's just an interesting little piece of that history in boulder that ties back to that this house. So just saying that I'm very supportive of this, and very happy to see it.

[52:06] Thank you. John Chelsea. I agree with my colleagues and support the staff recommendation. Thank you so much. And, Kurt, I wanted to give you a moment. If there's anything you would like to add. Thanks. Yeah, I don't have much to add. This house actually is quite close to where I live, just a few blocks away, and I've walked by it many times, and had no knowledge of the significance. But either architecturally or the association with Jim, who I've gotten to know a little bit over the years and my admire greatly. or with the other people. So it's great to learn that the one thought that I had was, and I realized that space is limited on these plaques. It would be great if both the association with Joe Walsh and with Barbara Johnson.

[53:02] mu- muscle, or whatever her last real. Her married last name was not real West married last name was, I mean. Both of those are prominent people in Boulder history in their own ways, and it would be great if the plaque could also reference those. But I realize that there may not be space. Thanks. Thank you for that, that feedback. And I'm sure Staff heard that. So and for me, this is a celebration of a variety of things. A. It kind of shows me, both through the staff memorandum and the presentation that celebrates our great preservation staff in the planning department. It celebrates the stewardship of a person who not only loves this home, but but who wants to see it saved for future generations, and it celebrates. you know, a gentleman who has made myriad contributions in the community of Boulder, as well as you know, having a really really good for this particular house. Just such a wonderful design sense, and I think it's important to honor that I think this is the 1st landmark that would have been designed by Jim Leach, but I doubt it will be the last in our.

[54:18] And I think one of the things, Jim, I so much appreciate about your contributions to Boulder, and especially your co-housing developments that in a time when I think it's fair to say our country's a tad bit divided. You've worked so hard to bring communities together, neighbors together, and for shared experiences and shared housing. And I just think that concept is just so wonderful. And I think Boulder community is a beneficiary of this. So I'm delighted to be supporting, recommending that city council landmark, this. So thank you, everybody. This is just one of those really fun things I know we all love to rally around. And it's also that chapter in history that we've got to capture and could be vulnerable

[55:07] down the road if it's not protected. So with that. Does any board member want to make a motion. Sure I'll make a motion. I move that the Landmarks Board recommend to the City Council that it designate the property at 3,168, 6th Street as a local historic landmark to be known as the Leach Moritz House. Finding that it meets the standards for individual landmark designation in Sections 9, 11, one and 9, 11, 2 brc. 1981, and adopt the staff memorandum, dated November 6, th 2024. As the findings of the Board. Is there a second. I'll second it. Thank you. On a motion by Ronnie, seconded by John. We'll do the roll call vote Chelsea. I. John. I. Renee. Bye.

[56:01] Ronnie. Aye. And I vote aye, so the motion passes unanimously, and I know Claire will share with us what the next steps are. But again, thank you, and congratulations. Thanks everybody. Thank you very much. Yeah, thank-. Thank you, Meg. I will. I'll be in touch. We will schedule some city Council hearings. There's actually 2 within a hundred days, which is before valentine's day, February 14, th 2025 and then it, city council will hold a public hearing. And we'll create an ordinance with the designation and get working on the bronze plaque as soon as City Council agrees that the Board that the building should be an individual landmark. So thank you very much.

[57:04] Okay, thank you. And now we will proceed to the second public hearing this evening Marcy will be doing the staff presentation. And, Marci, if you will just clarify again how you want us to handle for ex parte context, we might or might not have. I think we only need to speak up if we do have an ex parte rather than going down the list of Board members. But I'll leave that to you. This agenda. Item 5 B. Is a public hearing in consideration of a landmark alteration certificate to modify the front dormer and entry of the house located at 2041 5th street in the Mapleton Hill Historic District. pursuant to Section 9, 1118 of the Boulder Revised Code. and under the procedures prescribed by Chapter 1, 3. Quasi-judicial hearings.

[58:00] Alright. Thank you, Abby. so we will start with the quasi judicial hearing process, and we have made a slight process change where I will just pause after number 2, and then just speak up if you have an ex parte contact. But if you don't, don't feel like you need to say that it's a shift to align with other boards, but it's also easy to miss. So thanks, Ronnie, for catching that and adding yours for the last case. So this hearing will begin with all speaking to the item are sworn in, including myself. Marcy Gerwing, I affirm. To tell the truth in my presentation board members will then note any ex parte contacts. This is for 2041 5th Street in the Mapleton Hill historic district, and I'll give you about just a couple moments. If anybody has an ex parte contact. hearing none, we will then move to the staff presentation, followed by board questions. The applicant will then have time to present, followed by questions from the board. The public hearing is then opened for public comment, and the Board may ask questions of anyone who speaks to the item. After the last person has spoken, the applicant will have a chance to respond to anything that was said.

[59:22] and then the public hearing is closed, and the Board discusses. A motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass. and motions must state findings, conclusions, and a recommendation, and finally, a record of the hearing is available. Following the meeting. the criteria for your review this evening is found in 9 1118 B. And C of the boulder revise code, and that is whether the proposed work preserves, enhances, and restores. and does not damage exterior architectural features of the property, that it does not adversely affect the historic or architectural value.

[60:01] and that the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials are compatible with the character of the property in the historic district. and that the Landmarks board will consider economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of energy, efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled in your decision. The options in front of you this evening are to either approve the application. That decision is subject to a city council call-up period. You may deny the application which is subject to a 30 day City Council call-up period. Or if you're heading towards a denial, it's typically the Board's practice to provide the applicant an opportunity to withdraw the application. After that the case would be closed. If the board denies an application, a substantially similar application cannot be submitted for one calendar year. We reached back far in the timeline back to 2,003 in doing our research, and found that a landmark alteration certificate was issued for a very similar request to extend the front wall and reduce the step of the depth of the porch. That also required a bose variance at the time.

[61:16] though that work was never completed. The current application was 1st reviewed by the Ldrc. That was Abby Rene and I. In September of 2024, and the scope of work is to modify the front dormer and move the entry wall of the house and the Ldrc. Referred this application up to the full Landmarks board for review as they were changes to character, defining features on the front of a contributing property, and that brings us to this evening at the Landmarks Board. Hearing this property is located on the southwest corner of 5th and Spruce Street, right on the southern edge of the Mapleton Hill historic district. The house is a classic craftsman bungalow, and you can see it has a dominant side gable form, with a craftsman porch at the front, off, centered. From the facade of the house

[62:15] there are divided light windows, half timbering and stucco detailing, and we do consider it a contributing building to the Mapleton Hill historic District. The proposed scope of work in this application is to modify the front dormer and modify the front entry of the house. I'll go through the front, dormer first, st and then the entryway. The proposed work for the front of the house on the east elevation includes taking the dormer away and then reconstructing a similar dormer just slightly to the south on the roof form, in order to accommodate an interior stair that meets the life safety and building code requirements.

[63:02] The proposed dormer is similar in design, in that it has a low sloped shed roof and 2 divided light windows, with simple trim surrounds and overhanging or exposed rafter tails. It's the same width, but it's slightly taller. In order to meet the head. Height. Requirements of the interior space moving around to the north elevation you can see the slightly different pitch of that shed roof, Dormer, and see that the dormer continues to come off from the ridge of the main house. There are no proposed changes to the setback orientation, spacing, or distance between buildings for the dormer, and no mature trees will be removed as part of the application going to the mass scale and location of the Dormer. The general design guidelines talk about the importance of existing dormers in that they are important character, defining features of a building, and should be preserved, particularly those that are most visible from the street.

[64:08] and that the existing dormers should not be enlarged or altered in any way that changes their secondary relationship to the main roof. and that dormer ridge lines must be lower than the main roof going to just the mass scale and location staff considers that the proposed work will not significantly change the overall mass and scale of the contributing building and the existing dormer. While a character defining feature does not dominate the facade, the proposed dormer is compatible in size and scale, and does not change the secondary relationship of the dormer to the main roof and staff considers that the proposed new location of the Dormer offset approximately 7 inches is necessary to create an interior stair that meets current minimum life safety guidelines. Here are more detailed shots showing how the dormer would be detailed, considering and based off of the existing dormer, with flat trim around the sides, and there's a very narrow trim beneath the windows at the bottom.

[65:18] moving to the key building elements. The general design. Guidelines encourage, maintaining the dominant roof, line, and orientation of the roof, form to the street. that the existing historic windows are retained and preserved, including details like their frames, sash, glass sills, etc. And windows and additions and new structures should reflect the window patterns and proportion of the existing structure and the district to utilize similar materials for elevations visible from public streets, the relationship of solids to voids should also be compatible. So staff considers that while the design guidelines encourage the preservation of character, defining features, especially on the facade of a contributing house. In this case the proposed replacement of the dormer is appropriate in that the applicant has demonstrated that shifting the dormer and increasing its head height is required to meet code requirements.

[66:17] The changes to the dormer are a result of replacing an interior stair with one that meets the life safety requirements of the building code. The applicant has demonstrated that alternate solutions are not feasible within the scope and the budget of the existing project, and that was included as an attachment to the memo. and that the proposed design replicates the characteristics of the existing dormer, including its roof, form, material and detailing. and the proposed windows reflect the window patterns in proportion of the existing structure, including the relationships of solid to void on the facade. One of the conditions of approval is to provide additional details about the materials and detailing, and I'll cover those at the end

[67:04] and then moving to the second component of the scope of work is related to the front porch, and the images on this screen show a dashed line of where the wall would be extended forward, there would still be the relief of the corner on that front porch, and then the stucco would be replicated to match the existing, but the depth of the porch would be decreased. and here are a few elevations showing the change between the existing and the proposed. So there's a 1 foot inset of that porch wall. and then the door is proposed to be widened slightly and move forward, and the trim either reused or replicated in the new door opening. and the door is proposed to be replaced as well. There are no other openings in the scope of work for this porch.

[68:07] looking at the site and setting the modification to the front wall, will change the setback and reduce the depth of the porch by about half, however, Staff considers the change, will have a minimal impact from the public right of way as the porch is maintained as the prominent feature of the facade. I will note this work will require a zoning variance and part of the request. If the board approves, the lac is to also support that bose variance. Going to the mass scale and location of the porch. The guidelines talk about construct new additions, so there's the least possible loss of historic fabric, and that the character defining features are not destroyed, damaged, or obscured. and then it's not appropriate to construct an addition that will detract from the overall historic character of the building or site, or will will remove, require the removal of significant building elements or site features.

[69:08] And then the Mapleton Hill historic districts talk about porches being predominant visual elements of houses. So Staff considers that the proposed modification to the wall providing approximately 3 feet of additional interior space is necessary to create an interior stair that meets the current minimum life safety guidelines and will have a minimal impact on the building's overall mass and scale. The modification of the porch is consistent with prior review by the Landmarks Board, and the findings in the 2,003 Review found that the Mapleton Hill guidelines stressed the importance of retaining historic front porches. Porches should be open, read as an appurtenance to the house rather than an integral part of the structure, and it may be possible to shift the front wall forward to allow for internal stairs. however, a usable front porch should be retained. Staff finds this consistent with the current application which proposes to retain the front corner, allowing the porch to continue to read as an inset pertinence, and retains the usable portion as a porch.

[70:15] Moving now to the Key building elements. Another portion of the changes to the porch is to extend the decking over the existing stair and staff finds that that is not an appropriate change that would meet the criteria or guidelines, because it does change the traditional character of the knee walls coming up on either side of the stairs, and then would require stairs extend beyond those masonry walls. And so, as the guidelines do emphasize the importance of the front porches in those designs staff recommends that a condition of approval be to revise the design to keep the existing stairs

[71:05] for the key elements. The guidelines continue original porches should be preserved and preserve the original location of the main entry and walk. and that front doors and primary entrances are among the most important elements of historic buildings. The original size and proportion of a front door, the details of the door, the door surround, and the placement of the door, all contribute to the character of the entrance. so Staff finds that the location of the door is not proposed to change, and the relationship between the main entry and the stair is not changed, however, the door, which is a divided light in the upper portion, appears to be the same as what is shown in the 1949 tax assessor Card. Removal of the intact historic door and trim at the facade to accommodate a wider door is inappropriate as the size and proportion of the front door in relation to the details, contribute to the character of the entrance.

[72:00] So Staff recommends that one of the conditions include verifying the age of the door with the intent of retaining it. If it is historic, and then matching the door, size, style, and trim, if the door is not historic and providing details if the condition of the door and trim makes reuse infeasible. and then I've covered Staff's consideration of extending the porch, decking over the existing stairs and introducing new stairs significantly changes the historic character of the porch. The masonry walls step up from the sidewalk to the porch, and creates a transition from the walk to the house and staff finds that this modification would not preserve the original porch, and would negatively impact the overall historic character of the of the building. and then I'll go through the other conditions related to the material later on. and I've woven these into the presentation already, so I will jump ahead to our recommended motion staff recommends that the Board conditionally approve the application

[73:08] to replace the front dormer with a new dormer and move the front door wall of the house at 2041 5th Street, and that the conditions include, demonstrate that if the bathroom cannot be feasibly relocated and must be under the Dormer revise the design to minimize the changes to the window pattern on the facade. And you know I actually am going to pause and make sure I'm reading the most up-to-date conditions, because I think we may have done the Powerpoint a little bit out of sequence. So I will end my presentation here actually, just give me one minute to pull up

[74:01] here and tell you that our conditions include some changes to the design of the roof, Dormer. So overall our recommendation is to approve with conditions, but to extend the shed roof of the dormer forward, so that the trim above the window is less visible, reduce the width of the trim below the window to more closely replicate the historic condition and provide details. To show dormer windows match existing material which is wood operation and design verify the age of the front door, retain the existing door and trim. If the door is Pre. 1946, and if it is non-historic, match the door, size, style, and material, and then provide details of the stucco to match the existing and texture, material, color and finish and revise the plans to preserve the porch roof along the north elevation. There's an extension beyond, and then revise the plans to remove the porch extension over the stairs and the construction of new stairs, so to revise the plans, to maintain the existing porch, decking, and stairs.

[75:20] So with that I am happy to answer any questions the Board members may have. E. You were just reading off some of those conditions, and I recognize you were like looking for the right material. Do you have that that you could put it up right now? Or is that the thing that you're hoping to get worked out for us to look at momentarily, or like? Maybe after a deliberation or something. I got I'll I'll update it right now. They are the same as what's in your packet and in your memo. But our Powerpoint is not there, so let me see.

[76:01] here they are. Okay. Without the the top part that says the work will be done per the approved plans, and then the Ldrc will review these things prior to issuance, so happy to spend a little bit of time on this slide for you all to soak it in. I had a couple of questions, but and some of them are technical about the feasibility studies which I think will maybe better to hear from the applicant for bringing it back to staff. But one thing that I was curious about here is about the replacement of the historic windows on the Dormer. It's looks to me. I I just was wondering if you could speak to that topic. Yeah. So I think there was. There's 2 ways to look at the dormer piece. One is as a modification of the dormer, and the other is an addition on the front of the building.

[77:02] And so we began to look at it as what's the loss of historic materials and the window. Guidelines say those original materials should be preserved, and so we explored. Well should those windows be reused in the new dormer. But where we landed was, the new dormer has a different proportion, and it's more important to have the a similar proportion of those windows within the dormer rather than the existing windows, which would look much smaller and have much more solid area around it. So our recommendation is more about the trim around the windows, but to allow the replacement of those or new windows to be put in the dormer. And then the front door. I just wanted to confirm that the current front door, I think, if I remember, what I read the other week is 3 feet.

[78:04] and that the proposal is to increase the door width to greater than 3 feet. and that there is maybe precedent in the image. That's a historic image, that the door was wider. No, that the door appears to be the same as what's in the historic image. So we would need verification documentation that that door is not historic in order to recommend that it be replaced, and that that door be widened, the door open. and a and a piece of that is that whether the trim and the relationship of the proportion of that door is able to be replicated with the wall coming out versus widened, and then new material that that replicates the profile. It would be preferable if the historic material were reused, for the door.

[79:03] Got it cool, and I I like, I said. I will have some feasibility questions that I know that staff was a part of, but I'll hold those off until after that applicants. Presentation. Okay. Thank you. I just have one question, Marcy. Can you elaborate on the setback intrusion issue? What element was it that intrudes into a setback that requires yes. I do know the architect is planning to speak to this, and I don't think we put a site plan in here. So it's a front setback construction in the front yard setback, I believe. But I will. Actually. Why don't we ask that question? Following the applicants presentation? Because I think he is planning to to clarify it. Okay, that'll be a standing question for them. Then. Yeah. Hurt. I just had a quick question. Can you elaborate on condition 3 F. Revised plans to preserve Porch Bro along the north elevation? It wasn't clear to me.

[80:10] Those to be changed. Yes. and let me go to the north elevation here. and you know that. So we're talking. And can you see my cursor. Here. Yeah, we can see it. Yes, so you know, the architect may have actually changed that since our original discussion, but we felt it was important that this portion of the porch roof be retained, even though the the wall is coming forward. So the result is that you'll have this extension over the solid wall, whereas before it was the over the porch, so you would still have some evidence of the original depth of the porch. But we can go ahead and remove that condition because those drawings have already been updated.

[81:10] Okay. Thank you. Yeah, thanks for catching that. Marcy, if I recall we were on this we were on this before. Did we have floor plans before? I don't see any in this packet. I do not. Actually. I do not recall. I don't. I don't think we did at the Ldrc. There may have been some in the attachment that talks about the all the alternative designs that were considered. But Claire and I did make a site visit prior to writing our memo, so we were able to get a good understanding of the internal constraints and the scope of the project, and I'm happy to answer some of those questions, or those might be best answered by the

[82:13] the applicant. And Renee, I think on page 34 of the memo you can find the actual proposed construction documents. and then shortly thereafter, on page 43. There are other drawings that show the different you know, alternative designs that were explored. Yeah, okay, I just had to scroll down to the, you know, 100th page. Okay. I thought we had him before. And so I remember seeing something, and I just wanted to get wrap my head around it again. So thanks, Ronnie. Yeah. Yeah.

[83:02] No more questions for me. Okay. Hearing no other questions, we will update the motion, and then we've got our findings. And then, if the board finds it helpful of a way to frame the discussion. We have this slide after the applicants, presentation and public comment. but I will turn it over to Sam. And and, Sam, we will need to swear you in before your 10 min begins. And it looks like Shaw. Thomas is also here, Aubrey, if you could also send him a promotion, he's the owner of the property. All right. You both should get those promotions shortly. like you may already be in. And if you both will be speaking, I'll ask you both to state your full names for the record, and swear to tell the board the full truth.

[84:08] and I don't know who's going to kick it off. Okay. Can you hear me? This is Sam. Yes. Okay, I'll kick it off I swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but it. Okay, as best I can. So I'm not. Gonna I'm not going to belabor what we're trying to do. We're we're trying to do. Well, I will. I'll just briefly state we're trying to do the minimal amount of work in terms of changing this architecturally significant house. To create a you know, a code compliance stare. The stair is currently 2 and a half feet wide and very steep. And to go back to one of Ronnie's questions about the dormer. One thing that wasn't. I think it's in the

[85:00] in the wording of the you know your guys presentation. But another thing that's not to code is we have a 9 0, sorry. 5 foot 9 ceiling up in the bathroom that that dormer is in, and so the goal was to have a normal 8 foot ceiling. Part of the bathroom is 8 foot, and part is 5, 9. And so that is what has caused those windows to elongate, because the way I did it, Ronnie was. I have the window of the dormer starting in the same place, but I've lessened the pitch so that we can get in at that standard. 8 foot plate and that so that was a code issue as well as the stair that we were hoping to resolve and, like. It was stated before. The shift over 7 inches is to get that 3 foot finished

[86:00] stairwell in and we did go well. Staff went out and looked at it, but I also had the had several stair proposals looked at by an engineer. And for various reasons none of those stair placements really work the house. It's very efficient. And basically the stair wants to start where it's starting and end in the new location. Which, by the way, when I went back and and closely reviewed that 2,003 presentation. They hadn't moved the wall out as far as as we did. and so I read a little deeper into that. And then I because I was trying to make sure I hadn't overlooked something to see if I could like. Let's say, not push the wall out where I had it. and I realized that the code in 2,003 permitted a deeper rise and a narrower tread.

[87:02] and if we apply the current code. It requires a slightly. the with the the wall to be in the position where I've shown it. so I don't know if that helps with that question, but I wanted to bring it up. let's see. Oh, and I can also speak to the setback question right now, which is, I'm not sure we have a setback issue. But I have. I have reached out to Brian Holmes, and we have reviewed that. So if we do. The the only reason we would have a setback issue would be in the moving of that front wall. We we have a noncompliant side set back. Okay, it should be 12, 6. And it's really like 10 foot 3 or something like that. And so we're adding square footage on the porch in that area. Okay, it's like 2 square feet or something.

[88:04] and you know, it falls into the administrative approval. Ability. But I I just was asking the question is it? Is it really a conflict to Brian? And if it is, we'll get that we'll get that in front of the city and and get that variance, or will apply for it. And so let's see anything else on my notes. I do have floor plans. I don't know if they're in the the package or not, but I do have them and they do kind of go with the other stare things that we looked at. I looked at and rejected maybe 5 other alternatives or something like that. So anyway, I guess I guess that's my presentation. And and, by the way I will say

[89:00] I don't have any any objections to the conditions that were placed on this recommendation. I think that one thing I'm not exactly sure about is, you know who and how I submit those detailed drawings, but I think that we can comply with everything, and you know, when I went back and looked at it. I felt like Staff's recommendation on the front porch. Depth made sense. You know, I'm just always looking for everything, that's all. I just want it all. Yeah. But it all. It all made sense to me. So. If there's any questions, I guess I'll save the rest of my time, unless Shaw wants to make any statements just for answering questions along the way that you might have in your deliberation, or whatever. Thank you, Sam Shaw. I don't know. I think you have just shy of 5 min. If you'd like to add anything, and if you do, I will swear you in.

[90:00] Okay. My name is Henry Shaw, Thomas, and I swear to tell the truth to the committee and the board. Thank you. And I just want to start off, really. And my my comments will be short. I just want to say that we really care about the historic neighborhood and our and our community. and we have taken great effort to correct these issues with limited changes to the exterior. And we've worked very closely with Sam, and in discussions we recognize this issue has not been resolved for 110 years, and it's clearly a safety issue. And it's challenging to get up and down those stairs. So we very much appreciate Marcy and Clara coming out, and their diligent work on putting together the detail for this. and we are also in agreement with Sam that we, we are in concurrence with the recommendations to to modify the request. And so we're we're okay with those recommendations. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen, both so much, and as you've probably gathered from the previous hearing, we will come back to you for an additional 3 min. If there's anything you'd like to add after the public comment, do any board members have any questions for Sam or Shaw before we go to public comment.

[91:19] I don't see your. I have a handful of like technical questions that are about the plans. and so I could ask those now. It would be great if we could get the construction document. Plans pulled up that were part of staffs, report or just staffs report, and I can tell us what pages they were. which I know weren't part of the presentation. And so I have some questions predominantly about the dormer and before I get into that, because I got a bunch of technical questions. You know, I just wanna tell the homeowner like great job taking care of this cool, wonderful house. And then also, I want to tell Sam, like I saw the alternatives that were explored, and that's super helpful to look at. So thank you both, that's really great. So. What I was interested in looking at was the floor plan, if possible, to kind of start.

[92:22] and what I wanted to ask about is both the width change and the height change of the plate, and the easier one for me to ask about initially is the width change of the dormer, and I think it's best and easiest to understand that initially, by looking at the proposed plan and I know that that the way that it was presented in the memo. In fact, they were wonderfully presented, because a lot of the images were side by side where it was like existing and proposed existing, and

[93:00] like on one page. I didn't even have to flip around and do. Where's Waldo? So. I'll keep that in mind for future, Ronnie. My ipad's only so big when I'm like, you know, reading these things on the couch, you know. But yeah, this is really great. So if you can scroll forward more. more. Okay. Okay. So I think you know, this is, this is a with question to start with. So the image on the left. Reflects the upper level existing, and I believe that the dashed line Well, maybe I shouldn't. I shouldn't guess. But what I do know is this, that the existing stairs are too narrow. and so. Correct. That ex. Those extra inches are inches that allow for the stare to fit into a hole

[94:02] that allows for the head heights to work. Correct. Can can you hear me. Yes, we can totally hear you. Okay. Okay. So this is this is just a basic question. But like not completely understanding or knowing the windows, relation, existing windows, relationship to exterior walls kind of the left and right condition. But on this page, top and down, is there a reason why it needs to get narrower on the building facade. Couldn't it stay the same width and it just be over framed, and perhaps even unused area behind. What is. you know, whatever the fixture is at the end of the dormer. Well. so I'm going to answer that, and I I don't know if I can parse up my drawing perfectly, but or like I'm having. It's a, it's kind of small on my computer screen, actually. But when you so

[95:02] I I think what I would, I'm gonna I'm gonna start by answering, let's say that we kept the dormer as we were required to keep the dormer. As it is. Yeah. We would have to have a jog in the let's call it the plan north Wall, because the windows are are very close to that wall right so, and we'll be moving it over 6 inches right. Right. So it it causes it to be to be weird, and then we still have the the 5 9 ceiling. But I I think if I understand your question, we're wanting to move it over 6 inches, but keep everything essentially the same. maybe it is a little wider. I can't. can't really see the do. We have a dimension across the left? I I can appreciate what you're saying, and I know that this isn't the deliberation period. But like, I think there's a lot of logic in what you're proposing.

[96:05] Just trying to keep it straightforward and keep the dormer looking. Yeah, like the old dormer, you know, and and also, you know, in in my design. I'm trying to. Other things that we haven't really talked about is get the right depth and the joist member so we can get, you know. are 50 up there. Yes, oh. Totally. 2 by 12. Maybe maybe if I okay. So let me talk about the harder one just for a minute. Which is the what you were saying is like, you know how to make the least amount of impact on it. And so the keeping it, how it is obviously the least. And that's kind of just the thing I wanted to. Now just take a look at. So I just wanted to run through that. And you know, as I see it. This bathroom has 5 foot 6 clearance inside. Which makes a lot of sense. It does look to me like the what I'm just gonna say bottom of pages south. I'm assuming I don't know but.

[97:08] Yeah, let's just yeah. Yeah, I think it actually is south. But plan South is south. Yeah. Yeah. So the south wall of the bathroom shifts south per the demo plan. The north wall of the bathroom shift shifts south per the demo plan, and for the stairs. We've got 5 foot 6 clearance in the bathroom in a. you know. Not to say that you do this, but typical tub is 5 foot. So standard bathrooms. 5. But if you go to the section for a moment, Marcy. yeah, I I believe I understand this, which is very intelligent logic. So it's like, I think this makes a lot of sense. But Here's the I don't. I don't see the right section. I don't think. I think they're both up right now, proposed Section, and existing. So you might have something on your screen overlapping it.

[98:03] Oh, I see it. Yeah, yeah. Okay. So the left to right dimension in the bathroom in this image is also like. I mean, it's not expansive, but it is bigger than like compact the compactness. And I understand why you one would want the most that they can get. But I guess I just wonder. you know. is there a way to keep the dormer the way it is to allow for the dormer to remain where it is on both sides of the stair and on the north side for it to be an over framed condition behind whatever element is at the low end. And then, for you know the things that can fit under low ceilings to be as wide as possible under the existing low ceiling. Which I recognize. Currently, there's a toilet which is kind of the easiest right, because, you know, often you're

[99:02] you know it's low but like I. That's a bummer. Yeah, I just wonder, like, is there? Is there really? Is there really a way? Because the bathroom looks bigger left to right than a compact bathroom? Right. Well, the bathroom. So the left and the right wall, that being let's call the the left wall is the wall of the hallway. And the right wall is the wall of the dormer. Okay. those 2 planes exist in. There's a current bathroom in them. Yes, right? And I think also, if we were to go back to the plan, that south wall of the bathroom. Also is in that same. That plane also exists. I think the bathroom is getting 6 inches narrower in the moving of the wall. Yeah.

[100:00] Just to recap on that. I felt like staff report indicated that. But when I look at these 2 proposed plans, the existing dashed line that is, the south wall of the bathroom aligns with the existing door in the, and it looks like it's being removed. And in the. Oh, yeah, no, you're right, and I pushed it in. I pushed. I took 6 inches out of that bedroom. Thank you. That is correct to try and maintain the existing width of the bathroom. Right? Can. Can I answer your question in a different way? Sure. I feel like I might be introducing something here that I'm hesitant to introduce. But I Marcy, do you have that other plan that I did, you know. So I did, Ronnie. I did a plan. I had an idea that I could reduce it slightly. The minimum that brought that made the dormer slightly more proportional, but still got my 6 or 7 inches to the left move done if you don't, if you don't rebuild the dormer entirely. You end up with this room that has these weird facets in it.

[101:10] you know, like you end up with a jog in the wall, and and the maybe the tub hiding behind a corner. And you know this. you kind of don't really. I don't know how you frame around all that ceiling, but it's basically. you know, trying to get the dormer to work in in this. In this plan. it just kind of keeps the dormer like they did it historically, which is, it's it's the entire width of the bathroom without any. You know. It's basically a rectangle with a drop ceiling. I I'm not sure I'm answering your question exactly. You know, I feel like you were gonna have a deliberation moment, and I know that we have the flexibility to ask more questions of the applicant during that, although you know we pretty much, you know, want to ask them all now.

[102:06] that's my dog barking. But ask them all now. But you know we might come back to some of these, Sam, so I think. Let I'll I'll no more questions at the moment, but I intend to ask more questions, if need be, when. Yeah. And I and I want to ask them the best I can. You know the the way I did it. I tried to do it in a conventional, framing manner. That would be conventional stick, framing manner. That would have been the way they would have done it, which is very straightforward versus like trying to make the interior spaces fit, and one of the problems with keeping the interior spaces as they are. I'm sure I'll be see a solution for this when I'm out in the field and get a bunch of drywall torn off. But there will be. If when we shift, we create the space in the stair. If we don't move the dormer.

[103:03] there will be a strange piece of floor in the ceiling that'll have to figure out which will probably create some other facet, you know. Not a headroom necessarily bump, but a weird. a weird architectural. What I would think of as kind of weird architectural hickey in there that isn't it there in the original? So for lack of a better way to describe it. The solution I'm proposing keeps the interior architecture true to form as well as the exterior architecture, and I know the city isn't as worried about the interior, but this house is a nice specimen on the inside. and I'm trying to honor that by not having weird things hanging out of the ceiling or odd framing conditions.

[104:02] anyway. Thank you for that any more questions from board members at this point, and I know we do have an opportunity, during deliberations, to come back to you, Sam. However, during deliberations we try to make those more kind of yes or no factual things versus like this conversation that we can have now, and certainly have during our Ldrc meetings. So I want to see, does anybody else have questions at this point before we go to public comment? I don't see or hear anyone. So, Aubrey, I'm going to ask for your assistance in facilitating public comment for this agenda item. you can use the raise hand function if you would like to speak to this. And I believe it's press Star 9. If you're on the phone. All right, and it looks like we will start with Patrick O'rourke, followed by Lynn Siegel.

[105:05] Okay, and Patrick and Lynn, you know I'm going to ask you to sort of tell the full truth, state your full name for the record, and then your 3 min will begin. Thank you. My name is Patrick O'rourke. and I swear to tell the truth. thank you. This application is a tricky one, and so, Sam, thank you. My 1st impressions on on the project itself was that it was very sensitive to the neighborhood. The challenges that we had when we had a meeting for Historic Boulder Preservation Committee last evening. and, as Fran Sheets had mentioned before. the exteriors of the the buildings are important and modifications to them if they occur. need to be minimal at best, and the front porches and the windows are significant.

[106:03] The guidelines are clear and so moving forward. We just want you to be careful that you don't start approving a project that other projects in the area might come forward with the same idea past that I think the applicant did a fabulous job@firstst When I looked at it, I could tell you I had a challenge of determining what modifications were there, which is, which is a good sign, and that's what we have to say. Thank you. Thank you so much, Patrick Lynn. Do you need the swearing. I do please. I swear to tell the truth, the best as I know it myself.

[107:00] I think this would have been a whole lot more appropriate just going through staff. I don't see what to me it seems like so much nitpicking, and I don't know how they do this in other communities. because I can't go anywhere because I live in Boulder, and I can't afford to. But I suspect that it's not this petty. I mean. the guy wants a bit of hide in the bathroom. so the pitch to be lower on the roof. No big deal. You don't need to split up that pitch into composite areas. It's just like. so I hope that in my next life I don't have to come back as someone who has to an architect that has to do this kind of minutia.

[108:02] It's you know. The the appearance of this house is just fine. The roof decking can come up all the way. It's not, you know. These codes are just outrageous. I mean the code on my on my refrigerator with the other side of the wall. There's an entertainment center that will be living hell to move. It hasn't moved in 25 years, but that's supposed to be access space by code. It's utterly obscene. It's utterly ridiculous that these kind of things could ever happen to a person. and it makes me cry, as you heard earlier in the evening. because it's so pointless. And This is. This house is preserved just fine. So the porch is a little bit shorter in depth.

[109:00] What's all the fuss about? Seriously what? So the pitch is interrupted in the center, so that you, you know you can sit in the toilet, but you're standing in another part. Just raise the pitch a little bit. I mean, we don't need to preserve every little nitpicking thing that is just not necessary as it it just it. If if other communities are like this in historic preservation. And yet the same board. the Ldrc. Approved an 8,000 square foot, 6.1 million dollars flagstone house on the urban wildlife interface. That's where you need to be at landmarks board. This shouldn't even go through Ldrc. It should just go through a staff. It's so simple. Why, you know, I understand why people complain about Boulder so much. Lynn, I'm so sorry your 3 min have expired. Thank you.

[110:05] Aubrey. Have any additional members of the public raised their hand or indicated? They'd like to speak to this. Let's give it just a few seconds, Abby, and we'll see if you'd like to speak. Just raise your hand now. all right. I'm not seeing anyone. I think we're good to move on. Thank you. Then we will officially close public comment for agenda. Item 5 B. And now I'll turn back to Sam and Shaw. You would have an additional 3 min. If there's anything you want to add. otherwise we'll move on to board. Deliberations. I would just add that we have spoken with all of our immediate neighbors, and they have included letters in the package that they're in agreement and supportive of these changes. Thank you.

[111:00] I appreciate that. So with that, let's move it back to board deliberation. I think we've identified that to maybe try to keep this at 30 min or so, but we'll move forward and see what happens, Marcy. I know you had a great slide. That kind of itemize sort of the things that we should take under consideration. Part. I mean, I guess that's based on your recommended conditions. Okay, perfect. This is perfect. Actually, this is what I want it now. I don't know if someone would like to kick off this discussion. I'll do it. Thank you. John. although it's arguable that this could have been handled by either staff alone or at Ldrc. I think this was an important one to bring before the full board

[112:00] because of the issue of the district and the sensitivity of the primary facade. And I think that it's just when these types of decisions are made. I think it's important that it. I guess, is considered by the full board and taken forward from there. This this is very interesting house, and I echo Ronnie's comment of thanking the owner for their stewardship of this property. It's it's just an interesting piece of that district. I I'll begin by saying that I support Staff's recommendation, and I believe that this has been, 1st of all very sensitively considered by all parties, and it is a somewhat necessary alteration, at least, to maintain the usability of the property forward into time, and to improve or optimize

[113:13] features that are already there. But we're done somewhat substandard to our current understanding that that is what these codes are based on. I think that the the changes to the dormer in particular. Dormer in this building type in this architectural type is a very significant feature, and I think these changes are extremely subtle and done in a way that they would be. Certainly they're not going to diminish or destroy the architectural character of the building, and they are going to be for the most part not particularly noticeable from the public realm.

[114:03] even looking directly up at the Dormer. And, in fact. the the change to the kind of proportion of the windows might actually be a slight enhancement, in my opinion. even though it it changes from the original, I guess. Given character of the dormer. so I don't think it. I don't think it. It alters the character of the building, and I don't think that it diminishes the value of the building as a contributing, or his or a designated structure in this district. the other changes that are being requested. The the movement of the wall, I think, is allowable. In that it helps accommodate this stairway that is

[115:02] under 3 feet width is a life safety issue, and is definitely needs to be altered to again extend the life of this house further, so that it doesn't become a target of more, I guess. of a request to demolish because it can't be lived in anymore. so I think this is just. This is an important one for us to look at as the whole group. and to agree with staff on. or to take issue with it. If that was the case. The issue of the door, I think, is properly reviewed by staff, and I think that I support the motion and all the conditions. Thank you, John.

[116:00] who would like to go next. I can go. I agree with the staff recommendation, and I think that the architect and staff have done a lot of investigating and sounds like they've done several different versions of you know, possible ways to address the needs of the people who live in the home. And so I think, based on all of the due diligence has already been done. And the thoughtfulness of the architect and the owner. I think that this, the project that came before us is a really great outcome, and meets all the needs. So I agree with the staff recommendation. Thank you so much. Chelsea, Ronnie, or Renee. I can. You pull up the the con, like the contingencies that we're gonna put up there with

[117:05] the staff recommendation part. I I actually was like because I had seen this one before. So I think that you know the the dormer in itself and the the sorry, and the dormer, and the way it's proportioned. I like that. He kept the you know the the dormer as the same width. I agree it moving over a little bit, just to have the stairs to be code compliant. I was a little my where I was fighting back and forth is that when I look at the existing dormer to the new dormer it it it is different. But I have come to this agreement with the fact that it's it's actually better that way, because then we know that it's not

[118:01] the historic dormer. So I kind of like that. It has a different pitch, and that the windows are a little bit different in this dormer. So then, it starts to tell the story of this historic building. Like we're keeping it. We're keeping it with the aesthetics of the what the intention of the building was. But we're developing it to allow for the people within the house to actually keep using the house, but keep the aesthetics on the outside, and I think that's what you know landmarks is doing. But we're also acknowledging that this Dormer is going to be something new. So that was a long way to say that, you know I kind of agree with staff recommendation. I do also agree with the, you know, talking more about the door, size and style, verifying the age and things like that. But I am agreement with Staff's approval. Thank you, Renee, Ronnie

[119:01] and Ronnie. I know you may have some additional questions as well. Yeah, actually, Abby, I was wondering if you could weigh in since I've done speaking. Sure I'm happy to. So and I was at Ldrc when this was called up. Because and I think it was the right decision, and I think there, there's a couple of reasons why. Sometimes those changes to character defining features on the front of a house, I think, do warrant a full discussion of the landmarks board. I also think sometimes it's a disservice. If the whole landmarks board can't hear some of the issues that an architect or a homeowner is wrestling with, and so I'm happy. We did call it up here. So here's where I am with it, and part of this is, you know, I do look at kind of things we've approved before, or we're heading towards denial with other dormers in this district or other historic districts, and maybe an application got withdrawn. But we also have that luxury of looking at this individually before us. And so, you know, at 1st blush, I did not think that the proposed changes, while I totally and wholeheartedly understand why the owners want it really met the guidelines.

[120:20] and I agree with the speaker earlier this evening, Fran sheets that we have to tread very carefully when we start letting things to those character defining features be be altered, you know, either even in a minimal wave, let alone in a in a large way. However, what I see in this proposal tonight is that I think the architect has come up with some really creative solutions. It sounds like you've explored quite a few things before landing on this. And the other thing I'm mindful of is, I think this is about as well as can be done in this historic district. Mapleton Hill is one of the most prized.

[121:07] cherished historic districts, you know. I would even say in the whole State, let alone the whole region. I'm also cognizant. It's in a part of the Mapleton Hill historic district that got it added on to about 20 years after the original district was designated, and I think about the house that went through the landmarks board that was built across the street from this house, facing facing 5th Street, facing west, that went through landmarks board. It's kind of at the foot of that wonderful, delightful park at Park. and then I know that adjacent to the Park Pocket Park, and I think this would probably be kind of just north across Spruce Street. From this house, you know, was a whole brand new build, the oryx net 0 house. And then, if you go up few further doors down that street, going west, there was also another brand new build. And so I'm cognizant that there's been some changes allowed and permitted here. And I think, where I'm landing tonight. I also found it very compelling that Staff talked about. One of the reasons they were putting forth this recommendation

[122:21] are to apply with codes, you know, to make things in alignment with the city's own codes. So in that case I will be supporting Staff's recommendation with the conditions. But I did have to go through kind of a lengthier thought process than I, initially thought I, and I just got to say again. And, Ronnie, you and John have already picked up on this, Shaw. Thank you for your stewardship of this house in this wonderful neighborhood, and I can tell the projects in very good hands with Sam. That's great. Yeah. And so, you know, I rarely get to do this, which is cool, because I'm the last person tonight. But again. You know, I think, that this

[123:11] proposal is a strong one. I think that your team is a strong team. I think that Staff has evaluated the alternatives. I think you've heard from me. Some questions about whether or not it's necessary, and I still kind of sit in that place. I have to admit where I question whether or not the dormer change is needed. And so that's hard for me. Because I just don't feel like I. And this is nobody's fault, but like I just don't feel like I've had the robustness of the evaluation really demonstrated to me that it can't stay where it is I'm grateful that my fellow board members like

[124:04] think that it's approvable because I do want the applicants to be able to just move forward with something that is reasonable. I think that making you know we we have prevented people from making changes to dormers. In the past. If it is not feasible to keep this dormer. This application is approvable in my mind. I would support it. I think, having heard from my fellow applicant or my fellow members like. I am glad to hear that there's support. I think I'm going to be voting against this but I do also want to point out that. And mostly that's just because I don't have the proof of it yet. But I do believe that this is the rate set of conditions and the right type of modification, and of course presented by an applicant team that knows how to make those right decisions. That's like Sam and his architectural team. And so I think that those are, you know. This will be a good design

[125:14] in terms of the front porch. I think that the applicant team has also demonstrated why you would need to put the stairs in front of the house in order to make usable, meaningful interior spaces and maintain bedrooms, and so I think that is also like makes sense. But I would say I'm really grateful that there were some pictures. Of the homeowner, I think, sitting on the front porch in a porch in a chair. Because that is so important like, how are we affecting this? Well, it looks cool from the public realm. You get the porch, but the functionality of the porch is so important because it is about people sitting on a porch that makes it extremely valuable, because those are those semi casual encounters that you have in the semi public realm of the place that is, undercover outside your front door, where you can see a neighbor walk by on the sidewalk.

[126:09] And so the usability of it is important and typically like an 8 foot deep porch is like the sweet spot, but a reduced porch that still allows for chairs is important. If the whole thing was gobbled up, you know, I'd be extremely concerned. But I think that the life safety component that has been demonstrated by the applicant team justifies the reduction in porch depth. I think that the life safety aspect of you know how the stairs then impact the main level, and the upper level has been, you know, demonstrated by the the applicant team. But I do think that the premise of the modification to the Dormer puts me in a position to say that I don't agree with that yet, because I just don't have the robust understanding. So

[127:00] for my fellow members sounds like we're going in a direction. And I think if we believe in the premise. This is the right direction. So I support that and would leave you guys to, you know, approve it with these conditions. Thank you, Ronnie. Also thank you for bringing up the front porch, because, you know, the guidelines really do call out about front porches and retaining them, and and so forth. So I'm glad that that I don't know if it will be I don't know how much like someone walking by will sense the difference in the loss of of space on that that it's still very usable. I also, before we entertain if anyone would like to make a motion. Want to give Kurt an opportunity? If you'd like to say anything. Sure I'll just weigh in quickly. To me the the biggest issue actually is what you were just talking about, which is the depth of the porch, and I have concerns, as Ronnie said, I appreciate.

[128:03] and that the applicant included photos of sitting on the where where the new front porch would be, and I think it is. Sit above whether it is actually would be comfortable to sit in appealing an appealing place. To sit is a little less clear to me. And so to me, that is the biggest. the the most significant change from the to the exterior, more, a more significant, more prominent change, actually, than the dormer. I guess I have a slightly biased viewpoint here, because I personally am a sucker for these narrow, steep stairs inside, and I would love to have a stair that narrow and that steep in my house. But obviously that is That is not what the Code says, though the one thing I will follow up with about code is.

[129:02] I have concerns that we have this sort of creep in our code, and I don't know exactly where it stops, you know, when this house was built these stairs were considered appropriate and safe enough, I guess, and then the code has changed multiple times since then. Continuously requiring larger and larger stair spaces. And maybe we're done with that. Maybe not but I do have some question about the actual safety benefits of that so, anyhow, that's that's a sidelight but again, my my primary concern is about the reduction of the depth of porch. Thank you. And I think that is important. Are there any more comments or con? anything anyone wants to share before we see if anyone would like to make a motion.

[130:01] I might add just a deliberative comment to answer both of those previous comments. I think that I think that for me at least, and it it. The the section tells the story on the dormer in a way that it was. It was creating a space that was marginal at best if the if the spring point of that dormer on the interior was 5 foot 6. That does render a section of the space not unusable, but but somewhat marginal. and I can argue. I guess I can argue that you can have it both ways. You can preserve historic character.

[131:00] and you can change things to enhance or optimize them, because not everything done in historic time was done to the level of knowledge that we live at at this time, and to the level of need that we put our buildings under at this time. and that kind of goes to to Kurt's comment. Codes codes. It's not so much a creep. They're systematically reviewed and rewritten or changed over time. Based on kind of the science and social science of things that have happened and have been observed to be problems usually with things like fire, safety. or other triggers that have caused the regulation to be changed, to

[132:02] not create a situation that had been a life safety issue in a in a specific or number of events previously. So yeah, there is a change, but it is an enhancement of the code and what it governs, based on observed events and incidents. So you can live with things the way they were. But if you have the opportunity to make them better and preserve character and aesthetic presence of things. I think you can do that. And I think that's kind of what we're discussing or examining. Here. I also have the the owners made a question. I don't know where things go after this review. If we review conditions, then at least I have the the confidence that those conditions having been met.

[133:06] can be presented to staff and staff. can adequately approve or alter them at that point. So I I think that we're ready, probably for a motion, unless somebody else has something. and I'm prepared to make that motion. Okay. And and Marcy might be able to answer your question. John. And just. Yes, thank you. Just so. You know the motion is drafted that these changes would go to the Ldrc for final review. So you can substitute staff, if that's what you prefer. Yeah, it. I'm well, I'm speaking in context of the recent changes that we have recommended. that certain things go to staff once reviewed through board. Most of the things that are conditional can probably go to staff. In my opinion.

[134:04] It's the Board's choice. So if you, if you all feel comfortable sending it to Staff for final review, just change that one word in the motion. We're comfortable either way. Is everybody comfortable? Thank you, Marcy, and well. and also I just want to give a shout out to Sean Sam for saying that they were amenable to the conditions that Staff was requesting, and that it looks like we're heading towards. So now, John, do you want the question answered before we vote on a motion. If it should go to Ld. I just want instruction from the board at large as to how to state that if it's written as Ldrc. I'm perfectly fine. With that I'm not wedded to the change.

[135:03] I can see. I can jump in. You know, while I'm going to vote against this because of the premise, I feel like after the assumption. This is a great design and that the characteristics that are detailed in the conditions of approval seem pretty clear. and it might not need to go to Drc. It could be staff approved. So you know, just my opinion is, these seem pretty precise and manageable. and so it might not need Drc. Review. Well, and my understanding is that if we request it to go back to Staff, if Staff has any concerns or issue, they're always welcome to put it on an Ldrc. Agenda. so I would be comfortable with it, starting at staff, and then letting Staff use their judgment and discretion if it should come to an Ldrc.

[136:00] Okay, then I, Chelsea Renee, you have any comments on that. I don't think that they're going to stash. Okay. I was. I was thinking it could go to staff, too. Okay. Then we will do it that way. All right. I've changed the motion language on the screen, and then, if if the motion passes, I would also ask that the board vote on whether you all would express support for a Bosa variance if needed, and we'll cover those 2 in 2 motions. Okay? All right. I will move this. I move that the landmarks board adopt the staff memorandum, dated November 6, th 2024. As the findings and conditionally approve the application for a landmark alteration certificate to replace front shed dormer with new shed dormer and move front wall door wall of the house at 2041 5th Street.

[137:10] HIS. 202-40-0132. A contributing property in the Mapleton Hill Historic district pursuant to section 9, 1118 of the Boulder revised Code 1981, as shown on plans dated August 14, th 2024. Finding that the proposal meets the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate in Chapter 9, 1118 Brc. 1981, and is generally consistent with the Mapleton Hill historic district guidelines and the general design guidelines for Boulder's historic districts and individual landmarks. With these conditions.

[138:00] 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 the following to staff for final review, the applicant shall obtain zoning variances required. and 3 prior to submitting a building, permit application and final issuance of the landmark. Alteration certificate, the applicant shall submit the following, which shall be subject to final review and approval by staff to ensure that the final design of the addition is consistent with the general design guidelines. The Mapleton hill historic district design, guidelines, and the intent of this approval. Do we have a second. Well, actually do I need to read these into the record.

[139:00] Oh! The full conditions. I think I'd go ahead and finish it out. You got 2 out of the 3 pages. Sorry. Yeah. Okay. so the the specific conditions of approval. A extend shed roof of dormer forward. So the trim above the window is less visible. B. Reduce the width of the trim below the window to more closely replicate the historic condition. C. Provide details to show dormer windows match existing in material. Wood, operation and design d verify the age of the front door, retain existing door and trim. If door dates to pre. 1946, if door is confirmed. Non-historic match the door size, style, and material E provide details of stucco to match the existing in texture, material and color and finish

[140:02] and F. Revised plans to remove porch extension over existing stairs and construction of new stairs. All right. Okay. Now, can I ask if we have a second? Sorry about that, guys. I second it. Thank you, Renee. So on a motion by John, seconded by Rene, we will do a roll call vote unless there are any amendments or any additional discussion before we vote. I don't see or hear any. So Chelsea. I. John. I. Renee. Ronnie. No. And I vote aye, so the motion does pass 4 to one, and, Marcy, will you be kind enough to explain the next steps for the applicant?

[141:00] Yes, thank you. So the Board has approved the application. That decision is subject to a 16 day call up period by the city council that looks like it's scheduled for November 20. Second, if they choose not to call it up, you're welcome to submit those final revised plans for review by staff. and you'll do that by uploading those in the to the Css. Portal. But reach out if you have questions about that, and then, once we review the final conditions. We'll issue the Lac and write a letter of support. That was the second thing. Could we just do a straw poll if the board submits supports. If the board would like to express support for a Bosa variance if needed. I would. I would be, I would support that definitely.

[142:01] Yeah, I would support that. Okay, great. So that'll be one of the follow-up steps is that we will write a letter to that effect and thank you so much, and please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you. Yes. thank you, gentlemen and We had discussed with Staff at this point, taking a 10 min break. If that's okay with everybody, I see that we could also do 7 min and be back at 8 30. But it's up to everybody here. We were planning for a 10 min break before the 2 additional public hearings. I would suggest even a 5 min break since we're running a little bit behind, and we do have 2 more public hearings this evening, so I would recommend we'd be back at 8 28. Okay. Perfect. Thanks. Marcy.

[143:00] Thanks, everybody. Thank you.

[148:09] I like your break slide, Marcy. That's the 1st time I've seen that. Why, thank you. That was a nice, graphic. Okay, I believe we're all back. So we'll reconvene the meeting. An agenda. Item 5 C is a public hearing and consideration of a landmark, alteration, certificate, application to construct a new 715 square foot accessory building at 575, Euclid Avenue, a pending landmark pursuant to section 9, 1118, of the Bold Revised Code, and under the procedures prescribed by Chapter one. Dash, 3. Quasi-judicial hearings of the Boulder revised, Code and Marcy will be doing the staff presentation.

[149:08] All right, thank you, Abby, I affirm. To tell the truth, in my presentation to you all this evening I'll go through the quasi-judicial hearing process which begins with all speaking to the item sworn in. We actually do that at the time each person speaks board members would now note any ex parte contacts for this project at 575, Euclid. In the interest of transparency. I want to say that I went by today and talked with the owner and got a little tour and stuff. But I'm not a voting member. So it's not really ex parte. But I just wanted to be clear about that. Thanks, and I appreciate you taking the time to make a site visit. So we'll next go to the staff presentation, followed by board questions, and then the applicant will have an opportunity to present, followed by board questions. The public hearing is then opened for public comment, followed by board questions, and then, after the final public speaker has finished, the applicant will have a chance to respond to anything that was said.

[150:21] The public hearing is then closed, and the Board discusses, and a motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass motions must state findings, conclusions, and a recommendation, and finally, a record of the hearing is available. The criteria for your review this evening is found in 9 1118 of the Boulder Revised Code, and that is whether the proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores, and does not damage or destroy exterior architectural feature of the property. that it does not adversely affect the special historic or architectural value of the property, and that the style, arrangement, texture, color, and materials are compatible with the character of the property.

[151:04] and that the Board shall consider the economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of energy, efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled in your decision this evening the options in front of you are to approve the application which is subject to a 16 day city Council call-up period. You may deny the application which is subject to a 30 Day City Council call-up period, or if the Board is heading towards a denial, it's been the Board's practice to provide the applicant an opportunity to withdraw the application, otherwise a denial results in the inability to submit a substantially similar application for one year. If the application is withdrawn, then the case is closed. This application started at the end of September, when the Lac submitted, when the applicant submitted an lac to construct a new accessory building, because it is larger than 340 square feet, and it is freestanding. It goes straight to the Landmarks board for review in a public hearing rather than going to staff or the Ldrc. First, st

[152:12] however, board members may recognize the property because a separate Lac application was reviewed and approved by the Ldrc. That was Abby John and I in September, and that was to construct a rear addition, replace doors and windows as well as the skylight, and that brings us to this evening, which is the Landmarks board hearing. I will also note that this is a pending landmark, and so the code allows the landmark alteration certificates to be reviewed and approved in the building permit to be applied for. While that designation is pending, however, the owner is waiting to see what happens with the 2 lac applications before deciding whether or not to move forward with the designation.

[153:04] but if they choose to move forward with it, you will see it at your December. Hearing. This property is located at 575 Euclid Avenue, which is on the north side of Euclid, between Gilbert and 6th Street. Over in this Rosehill neighborhood west of Broadway. I will do this property justice in the designation, hearing in terms of talking about its architectural architecture as well as its cultural significance. This evening is going to be focused on the proposal for a new garage. But I just want to say, this is one of the most magnificent mid-century properties in boulder or in the State. It's also eligible for the National Register historic places. It was designed by Titian Papa Christu in 1959, and it is an innovative and beautiful design that integrates the interior and the exterior spaces. It's also eligible and very significant for its association with both of its long-term

[154:18] owners, the Woodmans and the Sorotkins. But this will just be a sneak peek before we really go into that at the designation. But here are a few fabulous photos of the House in 1959, showing the character defining kind of scalloped roofs with the overhanging eaves, and then on the right. This is the southeast corner of the house in 1960. So very innovative use of the roof forms that sit delicately upon these glass, and then Cmu block walls, and the expression of the material is really at the heart of the design of this building, where there are the more solid Cmu block walls, and then these very light infill panels of glass and plywood.

[155:15] So focusing on the proposal in front of us today, it is for the construction of a new freestanding garage, and we will go through the analysis of the guidelines of the site and setting mass scale and location, key building elements and materials and detailing the building measures 715 square feet in the footprint. and we'll begin by looking at aspects like the setback orientation, spacing, and distance between adjacent buildings. Okay. So the guidelines talk about it is inappropriate to introduce a new garage or accessory building, if doing so will detract from the overall historic character of the principal building and site, or, if it will require removal of a significant historic building, element or site feature, such as a mature tree.

[156:09] and that new garages and accessory buildings should generally be located at the rear of the lot respecting the traditional relationship of such buildings to the primary structure and their site. Other guidelines talk about preserving the original location of the main entry and walk, preserving a backyard area between the house and garage, maintaining the general proportion of built mass to open space found in the area and preserving existing, retaining walls. If they are historic and important to the site. paving driveways or garage access areas with asphalt or concrete gives a modern look and is generally inappropriate, particularly when adjacent to unpaved alleys. Flagstone, or brick wheel strips are the preferred alternative. So, looking at the site plan, the rectangular accessory building is located at the very rear of the lot, and within the rear yard setback, a component of this project. If the board approves, the lac is also a request for support for a Bosa variance for construction in the rear yard setback.

[157:21] One of the benefits of designation is that if there's an existing contributing accessory building in the rear yard setback, which in this case there is, then that square footage doesn't count towards the maximum building coverage in the rear yard setback. so, as you can see, the new building would be located at the northwest corner of the lot and accessed from a drive from the front at Euclid some existing retaining walls would be removed. I'll talk about those in a little bit. They are later additions, and the paving is proposed to be grass, Crete not solid concrete.

[158:06] and then a mature apple crab apple tree is proposed to be removed as part of the proposal. The floor plan is pretty simple. The building measures about 21 feet by about 34 feet, and it's located about 6 and a half feet away from the 2 existing buildings. The house, as I mentioned, was designed by Tish and Papa Christo, and then the other accessory building, which is a studio, was designed by L. Gail Abels. Here are a couple photographs of the tree that's proposed to be removed, as well as these flagstone walls, which are documented to be later additions. The tree is right in the middle of the site, and it would be difficult to put the drive around rather than integrate it into the grading which helps conceal the visibility of the garage

[159:12] moving to the mass scale and location of the proposed building. The guidelines talk about new garages are generally one story tall, and shelter no more than 2 cars. In some cases 2 car garages may be inappropriate, and that the roof, form, and pitch should be complementary to the primary structure and the proposed design. Here these are existing, and proposed showing the kind of approximate visibility of the garage from Euclid with the grating coming down quite across, so the view of the garage would be less than if it were on a flat site. The proposed roof form is very simple. The proposed form of the overall building, I should say, is very simple, and reflects the design of both the contributing studio and the house in its masonry construction, either cmu or stucco, and very simple, with a

[160:22] garage door on the south elevation, and then a flat roof with limited windows around the side. Here's the east elevation. So the side elevation. The front of the building is to the left, with the studio on the right side of the screen, with the garage behind. and then a photo rendering of the proposed garage from Euclid Avenue, showing the position and visibility of the garage related to the house. So it is set back pretty far, and then the crabapple tree has been removed through Photoshop.

[161:06] moving now to the roof form windows and doors. The guidelines talk about the symmetry and asymmetry, symmetry or asymmetry of openings should be maintained, the doors and additions and new structures should reflect the proportions of doors in the existing structure, and windows should be trimmed with material similar in scale, proportion, finish, and character to those used traditionally. And opening should indicate floor levels and should not occur between floors and for accessory buildings. They should be simple in detailing and smaller in scale than similar elements on primary structures. So again, the south elevation has a garage door that's proposed to be steel and glass, and then the east elevation has a single door, flanked by 2 windows that reflect the same proportions, a little bit same proportions as those found on the house and studio, and lined up with the opening of the door.

[162:14] and then moving around the north elevation, which will have no public visibility. There's 2 windows towards the corner of the house. There's a silver metal fascia proposed to match the existing, and then the material, as I mentioned, would be either painted Cmu stacked bond or stucco with the color to match existing. And then here you can see more clearly the reference of the window proportion and placement compared to the studio, and then the proposed new garage on the right hand side. and then going to materials. The guidelines encourage that accessory structures should be simpler in design and detail than the primary building materials should be compatible with those found on the site. Vinyl siding and prefabricated structures are inappropriate, and garage doors should be consistent with the historic scale and materials of traditional accessory structures.

[163:19] Wood is the most appropriate material, and 2 smaller doors may be more appropriate than one large door. and it is inappropriate to introduce features or details on a garage or accessory building in an attempt to create a false historical appearance. So with that I will move over to the recommendation which staff recommends that the Board conditionally approve. The Lac. Application for construction of the new garage and the proposed conditions of approval are pretty straightforward in. And I think we say these we recommend going to staff for final review, and that would be providing the details of the material of the windows and doors, including the garage door gutters and lighting.

[164:13] update the plans to show the use of grass Crete at the driveway, and then consider revising the garage door to a solid door, either wood or steel, to reflect the mid-century character of the property. We discussed with the applicant that the glass and steel is a bit more contemporary. We didn't find the width of the door to be inappropriate, but a solid door would be more in character with the mid-century property, but ultimately we recommend it, be a consider rather than a requirement to change it, mostly due to the visibility set back on the lot, but then also that it is a building of its own time, and shouldn't be too replicative of

[165:00] that mid-century style. So with that I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Marcy. Could you point out where the stucco exists on the like precedent structures? Yes, and I have made site visits. I am going to go to the I I am going to defer to the applicant on this, because I think these panels are painted. would. But I will let the applicant speak to that. I do think that the stucco is a similar material that would read, you know, within the character of the

[166:02] of the property. But the Cmu painted brick walls are a more clear tie to what's there already? Thanks. Hearing no other questions. I would want to welcome sherry bells, and then I don't know if Charlie, the owner, is here. Oh, it looks like he is, is also here. So, Aubrey, if you could promote Charlie Bond and sherry bells, please. Welcome to both of you. I don't know if you're both going to speak during the 10 min allotment, but I will need to swear anyone who's speaking in.

[167:04] Just a moment, Abby. It looks like Sherry got in. Okay, but still waiting on Charlie. Okay. Thank you. Okay, looks like he's on his way. Okay? And Sherry and Charlie, once you get situated, just feel free to test your mic or your camera. Mute. There I am. Hi! Sherry! Welcome! Sorry. No, that's fine, and and I think you heard that we will need to swear you in for this. Yes. And will Charlie be speaking as well.

[168:03] I will say things at the end. Great, so I need you both. Sherry. Why don't you go ahead and swear in? And then, Charlie, if you would be kind enough to. Someone swearing me in, or I'm just telling. You just raise your hand and. Raise my hand and say, I promise to tell the whole truth. Perfect. And then, Charlie, if you would be kind enough as well. I promised to say, to tell the whole truth. Okay, and then your 10 min will begin. Sherry. Are you going to kick it off? Yes. Yes, and. So I sent in my Pdf. Of the slides. Do I just say next slide when I'm ready. Yes, they're up on the screen ready for you. Yep, see that. Okay. This property, as we know, is one of Boulder's gyms, and I am lucky to have a client who wants to be a great steward of it.

[169:00] This photograph. I'm not sure of the date of it. But one thing I just want to point out real quick. I don't know. The big tree in the front. that tree is no longer there. And from the street view of Google the last time that a photograph was there in 2019. That tree was there. The tree that we are looking to remove is further to the back right there. So I just wanted to point out that one large tree has already been removed in the last 5 years. Next slide, please. While the home was designed and built for the Sorotkins in 1959 or 60. They sold it to George and Betty Woodman. Not long after that. In 1961 the Woodmans enclosed a rear courtyard into living space.

[170:01] and in 1968, a 542 square foot detached art studio was constructed in the rear yard setback, and, as Marcy already said, was designed by L. Gail. Abels. my client, Charlie Bond, grew up in boulder and was close friends with Charlie Woodman, who was Betty and George's son. He would ride his bike over and spend a lot of time at the house with the entire family. Charlie even received advice from Betty when applying to different college programs in the seventies. Next slide, please fast forward. Now, 50 years later, I was contacted earlier this year, when Charlie was considering the purchase of the home, he wanted to understand what he could do with the property in particular, being a vintage car collector cars of this era. He needed a garage to store and protect them and allow room to work on them. He was explicit about being respectful to the historic nature of the home, and not detracting from that.

[171:10] Currently the parking is either on the street or on the small gravel area in front, which is not even within the property lines. If you can see that all of that is without the property is without the property lines which you'll see in the next slide, please. and walking the property. It was agreed that the rear yard to the west of the existing studio would be the best place to site this garage. Unfortunately, there is no alley behind the house, even though it was platted. That alley way was vacated and became part of the lot. So to get a garage back there would require a driveway the full length of the property

[172:05] also. Unfortunately, the zoning code only allows for 500 square feet of accessory use in the rear yard setback. The existing studio at 542 square feet already exceeds that the drawing on the left shows where the desired area for the garage is and the drawing on the right shows where we could put a garage without getting a variance just by right. In doing that. There's a whole area there shaded on the left. It leaves kind of a hole in the rear right there. and does come up further to block the house, or or be more apparent from the street.

[173:02] Next slide, please. So I came across this gift in the zoning code. That says that the maximum building coverage in this zoning district, unless the party has been designated as an individual landmark, you could get a variance to get an additional 500 square feet of coverage in that rear yard setback. I'm not going to read the whole thing. so I called Marcy, and she agreed to come meet with Charlie and I, and to discuss our options and the process and timeline and we verified with planning that if we did landmark, the house that could allow us to get the garage and the rear yard setback.

[174:03] Charlie decided it was in the best interest of the property to follow this course of action, even if it slowed us up getting going on permitting. But it was also realized that if the house got landmarked, but we didn't get approved for the garage. It was like shooting himself in the foot, so we applied for the individual landmark. but asked that the application be put on hold until we went through this Lac. Process for approval of the desired garage next slide. So we worked to put the proposed garage to the rear. None of us wanted to see the entire west yard eaten up by a long, straight, concrete driveway, so we decided to use a more natural look that could be incorporated as a landscaping element. We are proposing either the grass, crete, or gravel, or a combination of the 2, as you can see in the front the bottom photograph on the right. There's already gravel that exists that goes up to the street, and that's the existing drive and parking.

[175:20] We also plan to maintain these round stepping stones that go from the street up to the front door. Next slide, please. As far as design form, and materials are concerned. I responded to both the house and the studio. I didn't want to draw away from the house and its sculptural roof. The studio roof has a slight slope to the north. So I reiterated that on the garage, basically, it reads as flat, but gives enough of a slope for drainage. Both the house and the studio use metal in a clear anodized aluminum color for the fascia. So the plan is to mimic that, and you can see those in the photographs.

[176:09] Well painted wood. So it's not stucco, Ronnie, to your point. It looks like stucco, but they're actually painted plywood panels on the the face of the house. along with the house, has 8 by 8 stacked Cmu. The garage has 8 by 16 running bond Cmu. So my idea for the garage was to use a stacked 8 by 16 Cmu. So you get the stacked look from the house, but the size of the Cmu. From the studio next slide, please. Well, originally both the house and the studio had tar and gravel roofs. At some point they were both changed to a white membrane. The plan is to utilize that roofing on the garage. You can see the

[177:11] the tar and gravel on the left. and then you can see the aerial photograph with the white membrane roof. next slide, please. figuring out how to respect my clients, wishes and needs respect. The property and work with the city codes has been like a giant jigsaw puzzle. Luckily for me, puzzles are one of my favorite pastimes. and I must say Marcy has been instrumental in guiding us through this process, and I thank her immensely, and we hope that you will approve our proposal, and we thank you for your time. Thank you. And Charlie, did you have something you'd like to add. You know. I think I think sherry covered it all

[178:00] As she mentioned, I did grow up with the Woodman family, and spent time at the house, and so when I 1st went in the house, it's pretty much identical to what it was then. It's well preserved. They never had a garage, and the 25 feet to the west of the house where we're talking about the driveway was never owned by the woodman's. When the house was originally built, they acquired that piece of property in the mid eighties as part of a bigger land deal, so when the house was originally built, it could have never had a garage. I'm not sure why they never built one, because it does get cold in Boulder, but anyway. you know, it kind of fits pretty well in that piece of property that was never really part of the original architectural design. And we will invite you guys back after public comment, if there's anything you want to add or say. But I do want to see before we turn to the public. If any of my colleagues on the board have a question

[179:02] or any questions for the applicants. I don't see or hear any at this point, so we will proceed to public comment for agenda. Item 5 C. And Aubrey. I don't know if you have any raised hands yet. At this point. Alrighty! If you would like to speak on this item, please raise your hand now. It looks like we have one hand up so far. That's Lynn Siegel Lynn. I will give you permission to speak and start the timer momentarily. and when oh, sorry. This is quasi judicial, so you will need to swear. To tell your truth. I swear to tell the truth as I know it. No

[180:00] done. Thank you. Thank you, Lynn. and let's give it a couple seconds. We'll let people think about this a little bit longer. If you'd like to speak on this. Just raise your virtual hand. and seeing no more hands, Abby, I think we're good to move on. Okay. So we will close public comment for this agenda item. And again, I just want to turn back to the applicants. If you have anything you'd like to add. We do allow an additional 3 min. or we can proceed on to our board deliberations. I don't have anything. Nope. Okay. So now we will bring it back to the board. I don't know if in any one of my colleagues would like to kick off these discussions.

[181:02] Sure I can do that. Yeah, I think that this is a strong application. I think that the location of the proposed garage makes sense in terms of providing some distance away from the historic building. Access to it seems like it was well thought out the materials that are the hard surface. That the drivable surface, I think, is an appropriate material because of its permeable nature, and I think that it also lends itself to something that is slightly more modern, matching the character of the house. I think that the construction materials of the proposed structure are also great, in that they reflect aspects of both the historic house, as well as the addition, in a way that makes it compatible but distinct. The overall form, I think, is representative of the forms found on the site.

[182:02] And so I think that this seems like a approve, a a proposal that I would approve, as is. Thank you, Ronnie. I would just, I'd also just say, like I would support the square footage to think. Looks to me like the lot can handle it as well as the Bose component. If we go that route. Thank you. Who would like to follow Ronnie. I will! Thank you. John. yeah, I think that I I concur with what Ronnie said. This is a very well considered application. I think that the it's it's a phenomenal property. It's it's one of those unique pieces of boulders, architectural history that that it's it's just exciting to have a chance to look at and to hopefully bring in the fold of of designation. This stuff is just

[183:05] disappearing very fast all over the country. I think that I think that the garage is appropriately located to the degree it. It is an odd shaped site. It's long and skinny. There aren't a lot of options that would wouldn't be disruptive to kind of the the viewplanes into and of the house. It could functionally happen in the by right location, in fact, that Leftover place that that sherry mentioned could be an interesting kind of secret garden place. But I think that it's more appropriate to push it back. Liberate all the space to address the the front side of the house, which I think was the original architectural intent. So I see it as approvable without

[184:09] conditions. At this point. Thank you. John. I would also I I'll throw in. I would also support the process of getting the variance that would be required. Renee, or Chelsea. I'll go. I just want to say that. What an amazing property! And so unique. And I do really appreciate that you guys have really thought about the location, and if you have it by right where the garage could be, and you kind of wanted it to be easy and less expensive, and you said, No, wait a minute. Let's preserve this so that the it sits farther back, so that the house is more prominent. And I really really do appreciate you guys, for you know, taking a little bit longer route to get to the end result.

[185:08] And I love puzzles as well. And I think you've done a wonderful job and so I just want to commend you guys on doing that. And it's such a it's. And you know I'm I'm excited to see that you're doing a pending landmark on the site, because it really is certainly a very unique building and super props to you guys. So I think to again allow for someone that is willing to preserve a piece of history in boulder and still allow to adapt into this new way of living, and allow you to have a garage on site without, you know, actually causing damage to the existing building. I think you've done a wonderful job, so I would approve this project. Thank you. Renee Chelsea.

[186:01] And I agree with my colleagues and with the staff recommendation. I approve. Thank you. So I just want to say what you know. You really do own a masterpiece. And I mean how lucky, too, that you also have a Gail Abel studio there. I mean, you know, 2 wonderful architects that we were so fortunate to have here in in Boulder, and I just. I think that this was probably handled as sensitively and as well designed in the perfect spot on the lot. Sherry. I'm glad you came across that that language about what might be allowed. If it does proceed to be a landmark, I think it would be be just a wonderful gift to the community. If this property does become an individual landmark, and I think it's in the most capable hands. And I think that I mean, I am interested when we get to it about looking again at Staff's recommendation, primarily the materials for the door. But but I just think this is is

[187:13] just such a great thing where where we can potentially save and protect the original house, the studio. And then I think the design of the garage actually adds more artistic beauty to this whole property. So I'm excited to see how this proceeds. Kurt. I also want to give you a moment to say anything. Thanks. Yeah. I agree with the board. I think that the design of the building and the siting on the lot are both appropriate and consistent with the criteria. The one thing that gives me a little bit of pause is design guideline, 7.2 point 1, which says it's inappropriate to introduce an overage. if it will require removal of a mature tree. which in this case it would, but on balance, I think that that is still

[188:03] that that the overall plan is in in on balance, consistent with the criteria. Yeah, and thank you for noting that as Staff did as well. I don't know what other conversations or anything else anyone would like to add before we look at a motion and conditions that Staff suggested. yeah, I would appreciate taking a quick look at the conditions. and then maybe come back to this

[189:07] quick question. Here, it says, and letter B here update the plans to show Grass Creek. I thought that was part of the proposal. It was either grass, crete, or gravel, or a combination of the 2. Okay. cool. I thought so when I was speaking about the appropriateness of that material. I remember seeing the image of the grass, Crete in particular, and thinking that. Right. Like the best route. So yeah, I to me these conditions seem appropriate as written. I would be willing to make a motion. Great. Could I also ask the board to express a preference, if you have one, about the Cmu block versus stucco, if you have, if you have one.

[190:05] Maybe I can talk about that for just a quick second. I mean, I think the Cmu block is a great approach. I think you know, Sherry explained how it might tie into the existing Cmu. If the applicant is interested in that, I think that that is a great approach. And that was my immediate reaction. Was the Cmu. A preference for that. But I don't have really strong feelings. I also agree that would be really nice. And I also sounds like John's gonna say something. I don't know. It sounds like my video quality is poor. So if it is, let me know. I did want to say that with those recommended motions does does the applicant have any issues with the 3 that we're proposing. or are they in agreement with them? Could you put them back up again.

[191:04] Marcy. I do want to say that I appreciate in your remarks that you were saying for item C, that that it was a recommendation to consider. not not necessarily a hard and fast requirement by any means. I have no doubt we'll be able to work through that. And if it's important to have the Cmu. I mean, that's not a that's an easy thing to do it, I agree it looks better. We we just wanted to have an option and you know whether we wind up with grass, Crete, or gravel, or something. I want it to be a very. you know, kind of casual look, that's, you know, doesn't feel like, you know, a big, wide asphalt driveway, so we haven't probably quite settled on the best way to do that yet. So I would suggest, if the board is comfortable with it, to remove condition.

[192:04] be, or modify it, to say revise plans to show final material at driveway, and we can work through that at the staff level. otherwise you could leave it as is to require the use of grass, green. Okay, I I think that's great. I I just wanted to throw a vote in for Cmu. I think that. It is more of a material consistent with the mid-century modern construction type. Stucco is kind of a it's a it's a catch. All material. And this this property demands something that just has a little more, I guess.

[193:01] Honest integrity to what what the form is, and and it's a I I just that's my vote. In fact, I'd even go with something like the square face Cmu aligned the way Papa Christo would have used it. The square faced, or the 8 by 16 like, is on a studio. Yeah. Is the is the studio aligned joints. No, the studio is running bond, but the house, and those are 8 by 16 running bond. The house is 8 by 8 stacked bonds. Yeah, okay. Kind of went 8 by 16 for the size of the studio, but stack the bond like the 8 by 8 on the house. Yeah, yeah, with with the aligned vertical. Right. Joints. Okay, that's that's my, I guess consideration.

[194:00] And I said, We're happy to do that. Thank you. And are the other board members? Look how Marcy has edited. See Revised Plans to show final design of driveway with combination of grass, Crete, and gravel. Is that okay with everybody? I I like that so that they can determine the Grass Creek could be quite expensive. and so I want to give them the opportunity to I I personally love the grass curate. So in the in the proposal, I was really excited about it, but I also want to acknowledge that these things could rise up the cost and cause issues later on, and they're doing a lot of due diligence in the design phase. So I want to give them options, so they don't have to return

[195:01] to figure that out. Thank you, Renee. Any other comments or things you'd like to see before we might move towards a motion. I don't see or hear anyone wanting to change anything? Would someone like to present a motion. Sure I can pick that up. I move that the Landmarks board adopt the staff memorandum. dated November 6, th 2024. As the findings of the Board, and conditionally approved the application for landmark alteration certificate to construct a new 715 square foot detached garage at 575. Euclid Avenue, a pending landmark pursuant to section 9, 1118 of the Boulder revised Code 1981, as shown on plans dated October 21, st 2024. Finding that the proposal meets the standards for issuance of a landmarks, alteration certificate in chapter 9, 1118 brc. 1981, and the end is generally consistent with the general design, guideline

[196:10] for boulders, historic district, individual landmarks. If you flip to the next one included with this the conditions that 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 a landmark. The landmark alteration certificate, the applicant shall submit the following, which shall be subject to final review and approval by staff to ensure that the final design of the addition is consistent with the general design guidelines, and the intent of this approval, a revise plans to show Cmu block as exterior material. B provide details of the materiality of the windows and doors, including garage door guttering and lighting C

[197:06] revise plans to show final design of driveway driveway with combination of grass, Crete, and gravel d. Consider revising garage door to a solid door, wood or steel, to reflect the mid-century character of the property. Thank you, Roddy. Do we have a second. All second. Thank you. John. Any discussion or amendment amendments before we vote. Seeing or hearing none. We'll do the roll call. Vote Chelsea. Bye. John. I. Renee. Bye. Ronnie. I. And I vote aye, so the motion passes unanimously. I know Marcy will go over next steps for Sherry and Charlie, and I do want to say. I hope we see you both in December.

[198:08] Okay. Thank you, Abby. Let me fast forward through all of these. So I also heard in the Board's deliberations support for a Bosa variance for construction in the rear yard setback. and your approval of an lac is what's needed to for us to write a letter to Bosa, expressing that so, with the approval. This decision is subject to a 16 day city council call up period sounds like that is scheduled for November 20. Second. If they choose not to call up the decision. Then you can go ahead and submit those final elevations, plans for final review by staff.

[199:00] and then we will issue the landmark alteration certificate. We will then also confirm and keep working on the designation application. As long as you still give us the thumbs up to do that, and then you'll submit the bosa application before your building. Permit application. Oh, I have a question. I did not think that we had to get a Bosa application. and it comes with the landmarking. I'm. You know. Fear, about that. Yeah, I don't want to misspeak. This is Brian and Robbie's realm of what's an administrative application. And what's the board application? So for the purposes of tonight. We will write a letter supporting that, but I am not the expert in what level the variance is required. Some of them are administrative and reviewed during building, permit. Other ones require a public hearing.

[200:03] It it. It's possible that the fact that it was expressly called out in the code as written, that it's more of a administrative or walkthrough. I've encountered something like that in reviews, else in other jurisdictions. We would. That's not possible. That's just I. I think that it is possibly not gonna require a full application. Because that would affect moving forward with the landmarking if they do not approve the the garage and the rear yard setbacks, so we should get clear on that this week. Yes, and so, for the purposes of tonight congratulations, you have a unanimous approval for the construction of this garage. And why don't we follow up tomorrow and just get clarity. I don't want to misspeak about other processes in planning and development services, and I also don't want to overshadow this Major Milestone that we've just crossed. So let's follow up tomorrow about the next steps, and thank you so much for your time and the care that you put into this application.

[201:20] Well, thank you for your help. It's been. Thank you all for your time. Yep. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you, Marcy, so we now will move on to agenda. Item 5 d. This is a public hearing, in consideration of a motion to adopt a resolution to initiate the process for landmark designation. Pursuant to Section 9, 11, 3 of the Boulder revised Code 1981, or alternatively issue a demolition approval. Pursuant to section 9, 1123. Boulder Revised Code 1981 for 777, Broadway

[202:04] and Claire. You'll be doing the presentation. I understand. Yes, thank you, Abby. This hearing is legislative in nature, so the procedure is slightly different than a quasi judicial hearing. The Board does not need to reveal any ex parte context. The rest of the hearing is similar. I do affirm that I will tell the truth. I'll give the staff presentation, and then we'll have an owner. Presentation or applicant presentation. The public hearing will be open for public comment, and the Board may ask questions, and then the board will deliberate. So for this one the applicant submitted a demolition application in July, which was reviewed by Staff, and referred to the Landmarks board, and the board placed a stay of demolition at their September 4th hearing.

[203:10] and then last month the landmarks board voted to schedule this hearing to initiate landmarks, designation, or alternatively issue the demolition approval. And in between there we didn't. We don't have that on the calendar. But we we did do a site visit the options for today are a little bit complicated. You, the board may initiate designation of the property as an individual landmark. the. There is a a resolution that goes with that. If that's the direction the board would like to go, and then a designation hearing would be held between 60 and 120 days. The Board may also not initiate landmark designation, in which case the stay of demolition would continue until January 20th next year, or the board may approve the demolition, application, and the approval for that would be valid for 180 days.

[204:16] So the criteria for the initiation review is in 9, 11, 3D. And the 1st items in 9 11, 3D. Refer back to 9, 11, one, and 9, 11, 2, to outline the purposes and standards used to determine if the Board has probable cause to believe that the building may be eligible for designation as an individual landmark. In addition, 9, 11 3D. Directs the board to review the application based on whether there are current resources available to complete outreach and analysis. If there is community and neighborhood support if the building needs protections provided through designation. If the proposed designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan, and if the proposed designation would generally be in the public interest.

[205:11] 9, 11, 3D. Is legislative, so the Board can consider any of the information heard. Yes. so this is the property. It's located west of Broadway, which is here and east of 20th Street, right here and north of Baseline Road. It borders a bunch of different properties. It's kind of nestled in. It's this odd shaped property right here. This is new Vista high school right here, and the University of Colorado campus is across Broadway to the east, and the property is not within the boundaries of an identified potential historic district. The building was constructed in 2 phases. This is the north elevation. This is the facade from Broadway.

[206:07] And the northeast corner of the building, which was designed by Hobart Wagner, and constructed in 1964, he used his signature, rustic modern style and pyramidal hip roof as a prominent design feature which you can see on this part of the building. These images are of the east elevation, so you still can see Broadway right here at the front, which kind of curves around the property. And this is Wagner's addition to the to the north of this, with this pyramidal roof on this image you can see the connection right here to the older 1957, part of the building where the roof is lower. and this original part of the building was built as a two-story apartment building, and you can still see that that design with the horizontally linked balconies at the back here.

[207:07] So this is the true rear of the building, and predominantly the original apartment building from 1957. And you can see that the connection right here between the original building and the new addition. And this was. This was this part of the building here has been modified even more recently. so the building retains some degree of integrity. Since its construction. It retains some of its historic materials predominantly. The brick, although many of the windows, doors, and wood paneling have been replaced. The setting of the building adjacent to the apartment buildings built during the same era has not changed the property's context, and in general, minor alterations have not impacted the building's ability to convey its association with its early residence and setting

[208:07] staff, found that the building has historic significance related to past residents and employees of the residents. The Beta Gamma chapter of the Alpha Phi sorority commissioned the building from Hobie Wagner in 1964, with a plan to rent the apartments during the summer. when the sorority was inactive. Wagner himself had a prolific career. He designed more than 200 public and private buildings in the boulder area. This this building in particular, is associated with both the sorority and also 2 members of Boulder's Black Community. After the sorority sold the building in 1973, they sold it to the to agents for the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, and the building became the regional headquarters of the Church.

[209:07] By 1978 the building included 44 residents who were congregants of the church, and that remained the building's use until 2,000, when the building was sold to the present owners. The horizons. International Staff also found the building eligible for its architectural significance. As an example of Hobie Wagner's signature, rustic modern style, with a pyramidal roof form and for its prominent location for our staff analysis on resources and support staff currently has limited resources to process application for designation of a property without the owner's input or community support and diverting resources away from other board and program priorities is not recommended.

[210:03] There also has been limited community interest in the building, since the application was submitted. there is an active application for full demolition of the building. If the landmarks board does not take action on the demolition application. Prior to the expiration of the stay of demolition, the demolition of the building would be approved imbalance with the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. The plan doesn't speak specifically to designation over an owner's objection. Staff and Members of the landmarks board met with the the owners and the applicants to discuss possible alternatives to demolition during the stay, but to date no alternative has been found. So at the site visit we discussed the unique constraints of the building and options to preserve character, defining features if the entire building couldn't be preserved. We discussed the odd shape of the site and the setback

[211:17] also a a city sanitary sewer, which I believe the applicant is going to go over. and also the construction of the construction type of the building, the style and the possible cost of rehabilitation and constraints. Like accessibility of the building. due to the condition of the building, the projected cost of rehabilitation, and the limited community. Interest in the building staff considers that designating this property own over the owner's objection would not present a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest.

[212:00] So while Staff believes that the building has historic and architectural significance, the staff recommends the Board not initiate landmark designation for the following reasons, the condition of the building and projected cost of rehabilitation renders the preservation of the building to be complex and likely and feasible, and there has been limited community interest in the proposed demolition with 3 people speaking during the hearings in favor of the stay of demolition to explore alternatives, but not much other interest. There are limited staff resources available to process applications for designation of a property without the owner's input or community support. And due to these factors, in recognition of the desire to draw reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving cities, cultural, historic, and architectural heritage, staff, considers the initiation over the owner's objection would not represent a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest.

[213:17] due to the significance of the building staff recommends that as a condition prior to the approval of the demolition application, whether that occurs at the end of the stay or by the landmarks board approving it. Tonight the applicant shall submit a site plan, measured elevations and photographs of the building for recording with the Carnegie Library for local history. That's the end of the presentation next steps in the process. The applicant has up to 10 min to present to the Board followed by public participation and an opportunity for the applicant to respond to anything that's said, and then

[214:00] board deliberation. So this is a a reminder of the Board's options tonight. and then, did anyone have any questions before we move into the applicant presentation. Claire? I had a quick question. I believe that staffs suggested motion is number 2 here. Correct. That is stuff's recommendation. Yeah. And I was just. I was just wondering if you could provide some clarity on that suggestion over the approval of a demol demolition, application. Yeah, it's nuanced. The the thinking was that the the building is clearly eligible for designation, although we wouldn't we wouldn't recommend initiating designation we also couldn't. Didn't feel like we could recommend

[215:05] the Board approved the demolition application, even though the result is the same as the building is eligible. If that didn't make sense, we can. Total sense. Thanks. Claire. Okay, any other questions? Or are we okay to move on? Abby. I think it sounds, and appears that no other questions at this point, so we will move on to the applicants presentation. and I don't have to swear anyone in And as Claire outlined you will have 10 min, and then an additional 3 min after public comment. And I have the the slides for the applicant here. If you just let me know whenever you want to forward through.

[216:14] And when the app, when I don't know if there's 1 speaker or multiple speakers. But if you would identify yourself, your full name for the for the recording. That would be great when you begin. I'm seeing both Seth and Keenan. and then a couple of other names. We'll start with Seth. and then Keenan is coming in as well. Okay, perfect. Can you guys hear me? Okay. Yeah, do you need anyone else to be promoted. Yeah, Keenan Fitzpatrick can be promoted. Great. And I don't believe. You've never given me a promotion before, Seth. Thank you. You're so generous. Hey? You're welcome, man, that's it! Wow! It's cause you're wearing pink. You're matching Abby.

[217:03] Love it all right, Claire, are we on the clock? Yes, I have an invoice. Normal timer started for you. Okay. I'll start. Some wolf. Restart. Thank you all for your time here tonight. When we 1st met back in September, I thought there was a nice healthy dialogue around just the site. And really the role the landmarks board serves. I think we propose we'd be collaborative. And hopefully, we've been at least that through this process. So we are happy to be in front of you again. You know this site, and I think Claire did a nice job of really highlighting its what it's meant to the community. In our very 1st memo, you know, it's served multiple owners and multiple purposes. But really its focus has always been to meet the growing needs of boulder. Whether that's been, you know, in support of the student housing piece directly adjacent to the University, or some religious affiliations. Here

[218:03] I think we were clear. And, Claire, you touched on this, that as the applicant and the owner, we are not supportive of the landmarking process. Shortly after the site visit on October second we submitted a little memo that provided more information on kind of 5 main objections, and that's what the presentation will cover here, so maybe I'll take a couple of minutes to move through that. And then, Keenan, you can enjoy your promotion. Claire. Thank you. Here. I think we just go to the next slide. Actually. all right. So 1st item, and this is probably the the biggest one that we've we've spent a lot of time really researching and trying to come to understand what it is. There's a city sanitary sewer main that runs under the Hobart Wagner edition that was built in the 19 sixties. The records we've been able to pull up is the sewer line is roughly 70 years old, and at some point it will need to be replaced.

[219:08] As most of you are probably aware. You know, if there was a new sewer main to go in place or modifications to this one. It could no longer exist under the building, and with the reroute that would be required. We'd also have to put in place a 25 foot utility easement. We've worked closely with our civil engineers. And frankly, there's just not much room on the site to make that happen. There's there's really limited space on the plan, east or west side of the buildings, and not the full 25 feet that's needed. So we'd be crossing over with that easement into adjacent property owners rights. We've tried to put a number to this, and frankly, it just has been a hard thing to PIN down with our general contractor, it does serve the properties to the west and north. So at some point this will become a much larger issue for not just our site, but also the neighbors adjacent to it.

[220:08] Clarify to the next slide. please. Perfect. Thank you. As in section 9, 11, one C. I'll just read this to landmarks, board shall follow relevant city policies, including without limitation, energy, efficient design. access for disabled and creative approaches to renovation. So what have we done. We've brought in a group of 3rd party consultants to really focus on some key components of the existing building. We've had them come in and do assessments on the accessibility. the building systems, the energy efficiency, and also the structure itself. In general, the building needs a lot and it doesn't meet most of the current code requirements across those 4 areas. We've engaged Taylor coors who's a general contractor that has experience in boulder both with new construction and remodel work.

[221:02] and you can see here just a snapshot of their cost estimates coming in just shy of 5 million dollars to address at least the items that we've identified through these assessments so far. Clarify. Go to the next slide, slide, please. As I touched on in the previous slides, the sanitary sewer, we've not been able to put a number to that. roughly speaking, and Taylor Coors was was uncomfortable. Tying a number to it. You know, we believe it's somewhere in probably the half 1 million dollar range to address the reroute of that. If we can get the easements put in place with the adjoining properties when it comes to the mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems and energy code. Basically, none of the systems are meeting current code. There's a natural gas boiler that provides heating only there are no air handlers for cooling, there's no mechanical ventilation. It would all just be natural through the windows.

[222:03] Generally speaking, the electric service is undersized for any upgrades we'd be doing to any of those systems that'd be the transformer and the panels. So there's a a lot that we need to go into the Mep side of this for accessibility requirements. The building, as you can guess, built in the 19 fifties and sixties and a number of you saw firsthand. It doesn't meet current Ada requirements. Just a couple examples. We point out there's really no accessible route into or through the building with both interior and exterior steps. So just some, some challenges. With that we also measured quite a few of the doors, and none of them are wider than 32 inches. So just some challenges there as well. The exterior of the building, you know, most of the non-mason masonry components are decomposing, and either need to be replaced or substantially, you know, just improved

[223:04] energy code would require us to do a new thermal barrier that would be applied below the facade. I think there's a lot of questions that that introduces on how best to meet energy code with this building. And there are a number of places where there's water intrusion that's causing it, causing issues. Claire, you can go to the next slide here all right. With section 9, 11, 3D. 6. You know, the proposed designation shall be consistent with goals and policies of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan, as outlined in the comprehensive plan. You know, the city seeks to meet housing demand by increasing residential density within certain zones and areas. The 777 Broadway site is located in the Rh. 5, zoning, which is one of the highest density, residential zones. And as we've touched on, it's directly across the street from the University of Colorado.

[224:01] you know, I think, from our vantage point, if there's a site that needs to. You know, really provide more student housing in a denser concentration of student housing. This is the zone and the area to really focus on here. Cu boulders talked about really their trajectory for enrollments. And and over the next 5 years they're expecting a 30% increase. So there are some big challenges that are coming. and I think the more we can focus and be proactive in areas directly adjacent to campus, you know, honestly keeps the pressure off of other areas within the city and go to the next slide. Here, Claire. one of the items that we've talked a lot about here is the pyramidal roof. That was a key piece that Hobart was known for Claire. I think you said over 200 properties. We did a quick read through of the library records. We got to 140, but I'll go with your number. There's a bunch of Hobart designed properties in boulder

[225:02] by our quick math. Here we found 7 other properties that had a similar pyramidal shaped roof. They're all in prominent locations, and frankly, they've been better preserved than the 777 property. 2. That you all are probably very well aware of are the Atrium Building and the Post Office. We also would point out here that the Hobart Component was an addition. You know, additions to existing buildings were not included in the original historic survey. Not that that undermines the historic fabric here. But we did, you know. Note that that was a prerequisite at the time for that survey. Claire. I think I have one more slide for us here. If I'm doing okay on time. Last piece I'll touch on here just briefly, is balancing the association with some of these historic occupants. You know the the sorority, Alice and Llewellyn, and then the historic, the Holy Spirit Association, and their group balancing that with the property owners rights. We've talked about this, I think Keenan spent some time with folks on site.

[226:10] you know, really getting to know the horizons International Nonprofit, this building and this property is a significant asset of theirs, and through the redevelopment process we do allow them to reach their their really Max potential for value here and keep them focused on their ministry, both locally and abroad. So those are our 5 Points and, Claire, I think I'm done with my slides, Ken, if you have anything else you want to share. I'll pass it to you. Aubrey, how much time do we have left. Just under a minute. Well, it seems as if I've been demoted now by Seth. I think I'll wait till the little 3 min section at the end, and I'll talk for

[227:01] just a little over 2 min at that point. So thank you. Seth, you did. Great! You're promoted. We'll we'll come back to you, gentlemen, after the public comment. Do any board members have any questions for the applicants at this point? I don't hear or see anything, so let's move to public comment for item 5 d. Alright, and if anyone out there wants to raise their virtual hand, I will give you permission to speak for 3 min. We'll just give it a moment, Abby. Thank you. Okay, so far, we have one hand raised. That is Lynn Siegel

[228:00] Lynn. I will unmute you and start the timer. I believe you do have to swear in too. I see. To tell the truth, the best as I know it. This is another example of see, like just what the developer said. Well, this will provide student housing, and we leave the rest of boulder. No, it does not. The more housing creates, more housing, creates more jobs, creates more housing, creates, more jobs, jobs, housing, imbalance is already imbalanced. We we need to preserve buildings like this in the prominent place. And why haven't they? You know they can't say, Oh, geez! We've it's the building hasn't been maintained. Well, why? Because they haven't maintained it, and then they use that as an excuse to not to be able to take it down and sewers, I went on the sewer tier lately. I didn't see you there, Seth, or any of you others the sewer tier, for, like the the large infrastructure of boulder, it's remarkable. It's really interesting. And guess what they have augers that go underground that don't disturb sewers go out all the time, you know, it doesn't mean you take out buildings just because of it.

[229:15] All of the older part of the building, the apartments in the back. Those could go. But this is a great Hobie Wagner, and it's a sister building to the other building that's being destroyed. You know. There's nothing left in Boulder to look at seriously. People landmarks, board. I'm sorry that you don't want to hear that, but that's the truth. you know. Trees going down. Oh, Crabapple, another tree! You know the tree in front of Arapaho. Oh, we're going to take. We're going to save the tree, so you'll give us the demo. You know this is outrageous. this attitude, and that, you know you put money into things to keep up your own property. You've got 40 spaces there be happy with your 40 spaces. You don't need 170. It's all for profit, and you know I'd love to give the Lebanese guy who owns the place, the benefit.

[230:13] you know, because of our destruction of you know the Us. Destruction of Lebanon, but I can't do it because I have to watch out for my own space here, right under the flatirons, this beautiful building, this Hobie Waggoner, and that that hasn't been maintained. Sorry you don't maintain your place, you know it doesn't get done. I don't maintain my place, and it's falling apart, and I hate that. But it's really expensive. And yes, it's really expensive for you, too, but I don't have a historic place. Not yet. Yours is historic, and it should be kept historic, and they should landmark it. and that, like I said, the apartments in the back could go out. But this is the perfect example of boulder cavitating to see you like the millennium. Oh, yeah, we'll give up our tennis courts. We don't have to have a South Boulder Rec Center. We don't have enough money.

[231:09] but we certainly have enough money to give the landmark property developer from Dallas. Lynn, I'm sorry. Onion. Your 3 min are up. I don't see on the screen, Abby, how can I know when my time's up? How can I know how it's being depleted. Lynn. We did have the timer up. Yeah. I don't. I am not seeing the timer. It. It's. Sorry if it's my bad, but I don't see any timer. What am I supposed to do. I'm sorry you couldn't see it, but that's why we do jump in when the when it expires. Well, yeah, but I'd like to know. So I can plan my comments appropriately. It's not really fair. It's it. Thank you, Lynn. Aubrey, have any additional hands been raised.

[232:00] Let's give it a few more seconds, Abby. I'm not seeing anyone right now. If anyone else would like to speak, just raise your virtual hand. All right. I think we're good to move on. Thank you, Aubrey, for facilitating that. We will close public comments for this agenda item and bring it back to the board for deliberations. Oh, wait, no, I apologize. You guys. Forgive you. Original 3. I'm so sorry. Oh, you know I didn't even consider it to be part of sorry, Keenan. Oh, you don't have to, hey? After that beating you just got you don't need to apologize. Yeah. Okay. But but but, Keenan, you are welcome to share what you'd like. Thanks, Abby. You handled that very well. Kudos to you. You have the patience of a saint.

[233:01] yeah, you know I don't. I don't hold the same opinions of you guys as Lynn. I I did think Lynn and I kind of connected on our site visit, so I'm hoping that we can reestablish friendship at some point. But you know I I just I felt like sharing one thing. It's a little bit anecdotal. but I felt like I spent 10 years of my life in Boulder. I had. We had 2 of our our 1st kids up there. And just the spirit of boulder. I wanted to share this, because I think one of the unique elements of Boulder is that it draws and attracts people from around the world who want to live in beauty and in a spirit that also thinks outside of itself. You look at the the role of the university forming and training students to go be leaders across the globe. And I think that an example that we're living out here is that there's a there's a group of owners, who, yes, are Lebanese, who, yes, are in the middle of a war, whether we want to call it that or not.

[234:03] and the relationship that we built with them over 10 years, is fostering the ability for them to refocus their efforts in a war torn country right now that it pains them to leave Boulder, but they know that it's the right thing to do. They want to entrust this space to a group of people who they feel like will leave a legacy for them, and that was afforded just by good relationship over a decade. And so I think, as you guys take this into perspective. I know the recommendation was to stay and and I I it. This was just, too, I would say providential to not share. But I was on the phone with one of the owners about a week ago. He's in Lebanon. It's like 2 in the morning because of the time change. And I now, I've known this guy for 10 years. He has several kids, and he's in his apartment in Lebanon.

[235:01] and we're talking about. What do we do if there's a stay, and there's some delays on payments to them. Or what do we do if this gets landmarked? And how did they come up with the money that we were going to give them to focus on their war efforts. And we were trying to be creative and and find solutions and be good partners, and as he's talking I hear a rattle in the background. And I said, Pierre, you still there? And he said, Yep, I said, what was that? And he said, Hold on! And I heard another rattle. and I said, What's going on? He said, we just got bombed. So I I happen to be on the phone with him. I know I have 20 seconds left, but I happen to be on the phone with him talking about this exact issue. How do we weigh the goals of keeping precious and cherished history in the city of Boulder, while also thinking globally about the bigger needs, and how we play a part in that. This guy. They got bombed twice while on the phone.

[236:02] And I encourage you guys to make the best decision possible. But the sooner that that this is able to move forward to provide housing to support the city, while also leaving a legacy for this incredible group that spent 25 years serving the city, and now wants to serve Lebanon. The quicker we can all do that the better. And I really appreciate you guys, hearing that. sorry for Ryan long. Thank you. Thank you. So now we will begin to board board deliberations. I don't know if any of my fellow Board members, if someone would like to kick off the conversation. I know some of you were able to attend the site, visit. I will jump in 1st unless somebody else wants to. That was there. I attended the site visit.

[237:03] and so I had that I guess I had the interchange with the group and got to experience the building directly. It's a very interesting building. It has a couple of extremely unique spaces in it. There's 1 kind of central singular space on the top of the building, in the peak of the roof that had some interesting features. And it it's when we consider these things and when we have to consider them. you're 1st struck by. I guess, the spatial architectural character of the place, and there, as I said, were some very interesting things. some of the things stemmed from

[238:01] the relationship between the original portion of the building and additions that were put on it, which created secondary spaces that were themselves very interesting. Others were changes that had happened like to the entry that had become glassed and had had some different character at some point in its history. It this is a difficult one, because it is 1st of all, it is Hobart Wagner. He is. His work is kind of a vanishing legacy in Boulder. There are elements in his buildings that are. I wouldn't say repetitive, but that that recur in different projects. And he was kind of interestingly, at least in my time, on the board I've seen a number of his projects.

[239:04] He had hits and misses. He had some that worked out better than others, and have more lasting quality than others. And I'm not going to brand this building at this point, this this project. But the constraints on this site are significant. and the goals of the ownership group are things that we consider. It's 1 of those situations where I'm not willing to say that this building rises to the level that would stimulate in my mind a attempt to designate over the owner's objection. I don't feel like that's our role

[240:01] unless it's just an absolutely stunning example of some historic type or kind. It's it's too contrary to private property rights, and to too, too, demanding of city and community resources for for I guess the level of benefit that it would create. Having this designated this is one of the most from the from the urban action standpoint, this Broadway corridor and the university. It's 1 of the most active areas in the city a great deal of development. The University is a significant resource in this city, and is a big part of why Boulder is the boulder that it is.

[241:00] And so blaming the university for the rate of change that's occurring here is is kind of like it's there are global factors at work in boulder that are inducing a great deal of the change. and this is not specifically on the issue of landmarking. But these are things that we encounter and have to consider. And there's also a policy issue at work here. That is a desire to create more housing and to set up a policy, environment that help stimulate and generate that. And then there are projects and sites like this that in that policy environment are underdeveloped. I'm not sure where this is going, but I don't think that we can in this instance

[242:04] take action. so I'll leave it at that. Thank you, John, who would like to follow that. I can. Oh, Renee. You go. Hmm. yeah, I can piggyback on what John's saying, John. You know there are aspects of what you said that really resonate with me, and I'm in general agreement about this not being a candidate. In general, because of the aspects that were described by staff in their report, as well as the you know, potential landmarking over the owner's designation. I do think that this building is interesting. I think that there's a lot of really kind of unique form components that you see on the outside that influence some very interesting spaces on the inside that aren't open and available to the general public, but we had a chance to see them, and I thought that the applicant team was gracious to walk us around and share their knowledge. I think that in general, like the diagram of this building, and how it is kind of a comprehensive plan that works with kind of the older piece of it.

[243:20] Creating a courtyard is very clear, and I think when you're in the building buildings, that there's something about that clarity of design that makes it even more special than just from the outside, seeing a big roof form that is characteristic of an architect style. I don't think you get to experience that as somebody out in the public realm, but was appreciative that we got a chance to see it, I think, walking the buildings, and then, as described in Staff's report and through information provided by the applicant team that this isn't a building that I would feel comfortable landmarking over the owner's objection, and I also think that the

[244:03] types of preservation. That could be like creative preservation that sometimes come about through a process of of holding a stay and visiting and seeing a building in person really aren't available on this project. I think that the way that this building sits on the site, the amount of land that it takes up, as well as some of the conditions that have to do with utilities make it pretty much infeasible to do kind of partial preservation approach in a meaningful way. And I'd like to come back to that kind of later after we hear others potentially share their thoughts. But I plan to support a version of what Staff's recommending in their memo. Thank you, Renee, or Chelsea.

[245:00] So I'd I'd like to just comment, I think. John and Ronnie, you've done a really good job. We did visit the site together. I think it was a a surprisingly interesting building from the inside, which is really neat to see. And they walked us around. And I think we all remember the people that were there. The the the one room was really really cool, and such a special place in saying that I think that, as John was saying, I like, he said. I don't really know where this going, because it is. It is torn, you know, we, as being on the Landmark Board. We do want to, and even though Lynn, you know, brings it up, we do want to save these places. We do want to not tear down. You know things that work for the clients and work for our city, and that are part of our city's history. And at the same time. It's it's torn because

[246:06] we really but we also want our city to grow and and we want to. And we want to preserve the areas that are meant to be preserved without causing such a rift. And so I am going to go along with my colleagues and not support a landmark against the owners. Will, I guess, if that's how you say it. So. Thank you. Renee Chelsea. I agree with my colleagues and the staff recommendation. Thank you. And So what I want to say 1st of all, I so understand and hear the plight of the applicants. I so get that. I hear that your presentation, and your your slides, and everything, I think.

[247:12] articulated in such a clear. well thought out compelling argument for why you are not interested, or why demolition is the only option you feel. I think, that what's hard for me is that we're starting to lose buildings right and left. I do agree with Staff that this is definitely there's probable cause that it's eligible under various categories in our code. I also hear Staff and understand their concern about that balancing of personal property rights and so forth. And but this is when there. There was one photograph, and I don't know when it was taken. But but and there may be it may be so out of context now. But one of the photographs

[248:07] I saw tonight was was the building with the flat irons behind it, and I just kept looking at that, thinking, you know. Oh, my goodness, what a wonderful dialogue that building has on that site with that roof form and the flat irons behind it, and it just sort of blew me away in that context. And and I think so. I lament some things this evening. I lament that this is such a a hard, hard struggle to to, you know, hear your concerns, and be responsive to them as well as you know, honoring, you know, some of Hobie Wagner's legacy, and some things are landmarked by him, and other things have been scraped off the land, and I feel like I think the thing I most lament this evening as we weigh this is that we haven't heard from any other members of the community, or there's been no no community support for this in in a past life. I've not shied away from

[249:07] holding an initiation, hearing to consider landmarking over the owner's objection, because that's just a 1st step, and sometimes by taking that step the conversation changes, and something happens whether it's a particular owner comes along who wants to, you know, do something with a particular project, or whatever I know. That sounds kind of. I mean, it's fascinating to me that the number of applicants that started over the owner's objection. I think the reality is only 2 in the city have ever actually been landmarked over, because there's then been a conversation or something, some groundswell in the community, some way is found. Some path is found, you know. Preservation is always where there's a will. There's a way. So I know I'm a lone voice, and I so hear what the applicants are asking, and it's fair, and it's reasonable. But for me tonight. I just would say that I would have supported an initiation hearing, and

[250:12] I'm going to stay with that. I've heard very persuasive arguments compelling arguments, but but I won't be supporting Staff's recommendation, because I would have supported an initiation here. Hurt. Thanks. I really appreciated hearing from Ronnie and Rene and others their perspective on the site tour, which I did not unfortunately get to participate in. I've only viewed the building from the outside, and having toured it from the outside and looked around and stood on Broadway with a bunch of traffic there and stuff like that. My conclusion is, it's not clear to me that this building is eligible for designation. Yes, it has a history, like all buildings. But the history to me is not particularly

[251:08] prominent. And so it's not clear to me that it has historic significance. And architecturally, yes, it's a Hobie Wagner building, and those inherently have a certain amount of significance. However, it just strikes me as a very strange amalgamation of this historic 1957, building in the the Wagner edition from 1964. I guess it was. And architecturally from the outside. To me it just does not work particularly well. And so, and I don't feel that it has particular environmental significance. So to me it doesn't it? I don't see it having eligibility for historic designation, and so I would urge the Board to approve a demolition of this building.

[252:01] Thank you, Kurt. so any other comments. Discussion. I know. Oh, thank you for putting up the the 3 options. Yeah, I guess I have one quick thing to say. Kurt. I thought similarly about the outside of the building, and how the oldest part of the building. Seems pretty unordinary, or. yeah, seems pretty ordinary. But I have to tell you when you go into what is the courtyard on the interior. The space that was made there is very special. And again, it's so internalized that it's not like really serving the general public but I think if you saw that you would be impressed and surprised like Rene said, I had the same feeling, which was, you know, of of surprise after, you know, being on the outside and going into that

[253:03] So yeah, if you get a chance, you should check that out. It's kind of neat. Yeah, I would love to thank you for letting me know about that. However, that's interior right? And and it could change at any time with 0 input from landmarks. And so I think that that should not be part of the consideration here, even though I I very much appreciate what you're saying about how special it is. Yep, I totally agree with you. so you know I am in agreement with Staff. but I am willing to approve the Demo demolition application tonight. If others are interested in doing that, to have kind of a more expeditious process for the applicant team. I'm sorry I just want to put that out there. And before I make a motion, just offer that to others, I recognize the value of

[254:03] not initiating and I think that in the past and in other projects not initiating, you know, I think, tells the more authentic story behind the Board's position. but I also do have some compassion for what I'm hearing from the applicants team about the ability to move forward with other aspects of this project. And so I just thought I would, before making a motion. See how my fellow board members are kind of considering these potential options, and let you know that I would support either number 2 or 3. Approach. I I am in line with that Ronnie. I also know that there's and and Kurt's point of view of knowing the inside. I do also think that

[255:01] that I can't look away from the inside, because, you know, as an an architect, there are 2 sides to. I mean, there's lots of dimensions, I guess, to the building. But being in that one interior space, I think it would be really neat to record a couple of those little tiny nuances that we could record the outside of the building for that, and have that within a little bit of history, and that one space on the top floor, and how I don't know how to record it. And maybe, you know, our applicants have like an interesting way, because they seem to always have some interesting ways of, you know, presenting and discussing and talking. So maybe they have a nice way of preserving that for you know anyone that would be interested in looking up Holy Wagner's Buildings or anything. So I know that that's not really asking that we can't ask of that. But

[256:08] I do want to say that Kurt. The space above was really really neat, like the inside of it, and I the outside, is, it? Just doesn't speak to that little piece upstairs. But I am in line with what Ronnie wants to do and I would vote for approving the Demo Demolition application tonight. I am. I'm somewhat split between option 2 and option 3. But I completely agree with what Rene just said about some kind of real capture of the experience of that space we're all talking about

[257:00] and and I think that I I would be. It's it's a standard condition of these things that there be a thorough documentation of a building to record its. It's It's architecture and spatial conditions. And but so I think that I could be inclined to approve the demolition application with a very strong condition of the documentation process to possibly include something like a three-dimensional modeling of that space. 3, as in computer three-dimensional modeling of the space so that it it could be at least to that degree experienced. I mean, at some point.

[258:02] A, you know, full VR capture of these buildings is what is going to be asked for. And and the technology is going to be fully available to do. But I don't want to hold anybody to an unrealistic condition. So a full document. some capture of the 3 dimensional space that is experienceable in the sense of a computer model and which can be done with sketchup actually, or other similar softwares and then I would be inclined to go with option. 3. If that's the way the remainder of the board is going. And Chelsea. Do you have any thoughts before Ronnie entertains emotion. No, I'm good with option. 3.

[259:01] Thank you. I I think you know the documentation of the building and space often comes with like various demolition approvals. Claire, do we have language, that references that should we want documentation in an archival manner. it is approved. So I think the standard version of plantation is probably the appropriate version here. So we're consistent with what we've done in the past. Oh, is Number 4 new? Was that added? That was. Added. I just added that one. Yeah. My concern is just the bar that we're creating there. I'm not sure what we're asking them to do, but. It's not. That's not the name. Extraordinary? Ask. I mean, I most everything that comes to us presented as as a

[260:00] proposal is 3 dimensionally represented now, and so. I think that we should just put it into words and make it part of the process. What it's like. Maybe. Question. Oh, sorry. Is that the purpose of the documentation is to have a record going forward, and so measured. Site plans, archival photographs are usually given to the Carnegie Library. and I don't know how a 3D. Model would be in their archives. That would be accessible in the long term, unless you did like stills of the 3D model, and I would say architectural photographs can capture a space, I think. Very well, I don't want to limit. It sounds a really spectacular space. But I would caution against

[261:02] computer modeling because I don't know how we would archive that long term for public use and capturing of that space. It's well, the thing is, that's something that could be. I assume that other types of digital archives are in place at Carnegie by now. digital digitized photographs and other types of things, so it could be in such an archive as just the the model. And it's discrete extension that would allow somebody to download it and actually view it if they had the software. And our staff recommendation would would be to have that be a consideration rather than a requirement. I think the other 3 are are much more tried and true in terms of what we've found as adequate documentation of a building.

[262:06] On on number 3. We say the exterior elevations are we allowed to put comma? The interior space. Yes, you can. Okay, I think. We should do that. That's a great suggestion. Yeah. But okay, that's that's good. And then, however, somebody. I think that the applicant wanted to say something. Are they allowed to say something. Yes. Perfect. Thank you, Rene. Thank you, Renee. Just a question we. We've spent about 25,000 over the last 60 days, bringing in some outside consultants to do all the inspections that I talked about in the presentation. Do you guys know, does the library or the city have resources available for this sort of documentation, whether it's taking the pictures or doing the modeling. I was curious. If that's been

[263:04] bridged before. Oh, we do not have resources, but the photographs don't have to be professionally done, and so that that's usually not high cost, and we don't require. They be printed on archival paper anymore. And so yes, I think the cost consideration is something the the Board might consider in making this a requirement. I will clarify that the code does provide that it's up to the city manager or staff to decide what the documentation is for these buildings, so I would be more comfortable if the Board encouraged staff to require documentation, and then we figure out what that documentation is. Got it.

[264:00] Okay, thank you. Marcy we might need your help phrasing that. Well, Why don't we start with the sentence that says, as a condition of approval, and prior to the approval of the demolition application. The applicant shall submit to staff for review, approval and recording. and just say, archival Doc archival documentation that may include and then and then have that list. Okay. I can. I can make this motion. Maybe there's 1 more question. Sorry, Ryan, to cut you off under. Excuse me, it's number 3. Now. you say professional quality.

[265:04] Oh, it! Oh, I see that! What good catch why don't we? Say for 3 high resolution and digital color color images. It's incredible. What can be captured on an iphone or something right. An iphone is professional quality and full. HD, and. And giving somebody a simple promotion with an iphone might be able to take on task number 3. Man. Look at me, I mean I should show up every month to these things, you know. Promotion here, promotion there. So I had another one that I wanted to to bring up. The. We do actually have elevation drawings. We have the original plans. So I'm wondering if it would be

[266:01] feasible to just annotate those. Ye? Yes, I think, having the original plans, and then annotate. If anything was not built to plan would be a great documentation. So I think it's covered in terms of that may include. And then that gives us flexibility to work out the details. But if we already have the measured original drawings. Then we can just update those with any changes that had been made. Great. I move that the landmarks board approve the application for demolition. Finding that the building at 777 Broadway does not meet the criteria for initiation. Pursuant to Section 911. 3. Initiation of designation for individual landmarks and historic districts of the Boulder revised Code 1981, and in balance is not consistent with the goals and policies of section 2,

[267:00] 27 of the Boulder Valley. Comprehensive plan as a condition of approval prior to approval of the demolition application, the applicant shall submit to staff for review approval and recording with the Carnegie Library for Local History archival documentation that may include one, a Site plan showing the location of all existing improvements to the subject property. 2 measured elevation drawings of all exterior elevations of the building annotated with existing conditions, architectural details and materials indicated on the plans 3 high resolution digital color images of all exterior elevations and interior spaces for consideration of computer modeling of the 3 dimensional interior space. Thank you, Ronnie. Is there a second. I'll second it. Thank you. On a motion by Ronnie, seconded by John. We'll do a roll call. Vote Chelsea. Hi. John.

[268:01] I. Renee. Hi. Ronnie. Hi. And I vote no, so the motion does carry 4 to one, and Claire will briefly go over next steps. I will. I don't have a slide, and sometimes it gets complicated. But I will approve this. The approval starts today, and it's good for 180 days we will do a conditional approval. And then as soon as we get the those archival materials to staff, we'll we'll do the final approval. And we should just talk offline about. I know that this this one is complicated because you have other things that that are in the works, including a visit to planning board. So hopefully, we can just talk in the next couple of days and and figure all of the timing out. For sure.

[269:00] Alright! Claire and the board. Thank you all. Yes. Thank you. Guys. Thank you. You're always welcome. Thank you. Hang out, come, hang out in the in the courtyard. We might have some Earl Grey tea. Thank you. We'll hang out in that space above. Yes. with some Earl Grey tea, I agree. We'll do it. Thank you. So I know we're. We're about half an hour over what we estimated. But, Marcy, I know you said matters would go quickly. and I'll leave that in your capable hands. Wonderful. Okay? Well, I'm sure we're all about ready to wrap up, so I will keep it brief. But I do want to make some timely announcements. The 1st I'm going to come back to that 1st one. I'd like you all to know that the Women's History symposium with the theme framed in time, is going to be held at history. Colorado, the History Colorado Center on Saturday, November 16, th from 8 30 in the morning till 5 30 Pm. And Claire Brandt is presenting research on the Water Street neighborhood that came out of the civic area historic district, and so

[270:21] huge shout out to Claire for applying for this session and getting accepted, and we will wish you all the best. But if anybody wants to attend. you're welcome to in just a week away. Week and a half. A little bit farther out is the Colorado Preservation, Inc. Saving Places Conference. You'll recall that the last 2 years it's been held in Boulder, which has been very convenient, but it's usually held in Denver, but in 2025 it is going to be held in Colorado Springs that has some funding implications for us, because we would cover either your registration or registration and hotel.

[271:09] So in the past we've just registered everybody, and then encouraged you to go this year. We're asking for a commitment by December 4, th and then we are also planning to apply for grant funding to help cover the cost of registration. So with that comes the ask, you have to like report on the sessions you attended, so we'll send out an email you might not need until December 4th to tell us if you're planning to go. But if you're interested, the theme this year is rooted in community culture in place celebrating intangible heritage, and Claire and I will be presenting on the intangible heritage of the Water Street neighborhood, coming out of that civic area historic district, and then I'll also be presenting on a panel about survey plans

[272:05] which I'm sure will be a crowd pleaser. The conference this year is both online in person. So if you don't want to go down, though, it's always wonderful being in person, there is an option to attend online, and those sessions are also available for months afterwards. The other thing I would like to put a plug in for is that they're hosting the Commission assistance and mentoring program also known as camp which is put on by the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions. It's 1 of the best trainings in the country for what you all do. Specifically, it's for boards, commissions, and staff to get training specific to design review and quasi-judicial process. And Roberts rules, and they make it fun. And it's been a couple of years since I've attended, but if you're interested also, we'll reach out. Please let us know. It is on the Saturday after the conference.

[273:09] So it is a commitment, but I would highly highly encourage everyone who can attend to do so. Okay, the last thing is on the next slide, Claire. which is just a quick snapshot of what the last month has looked like for the Ldrc. It's been a month since you all voted to approve the administrative rule that allows staff review for a greater number of lac projects. So October 9th was the day of the Landmarks Board meeting. There are 4 cases that were reviewed relatively quickly in an hour and 15 min the next week. We also had 4 cases. That's cases that were still coming in before the administrative rule was was put in, but we were also able to take 3 of those or 3 additional cases off the plate of the Ldrc.

[274:11] Happened to be all solar panels. So while there were still 4 cases which is really high, there would have been 7 otherwise. The following week we just had one case, but it was a really tricky one, because it was a violation. It took an hour and a half. and then October 30.th There were 2 cases we were done in 1 h, and we avoided one additional case, which is probably, you know, a 30 min time, but 4 h total to put put that application together. We had no meeting today, and then next week it looks like we have 2 cases on the docket, and so overall. We'll keep tracking these. But the overall trend is we still are holding Ldrcs regularly, but the Caseload has been cut. It looks like almost

[275:03] almost in half, so we'll continue to track this, but interesting to see just a snapshot in the 1st 4 or 5 weeks that it's been in place. Amazing. Such good information. Yeah, this is. This is really helpful, and proof that good decisions were made, at least in the sense of time efficiency, and it seems pretty productive. Solar panels. lots of solar panels. Must be like tax credits ending or something, cause we're just getting a rush of them. Yeah. But that's not to say that we're not really busy. So we, as you know, we had 4 cases tonight, we have 3 cases for a special meeting, November 20, th and then we have 3 more cases on December 4.th So we are up to our ears in memos and landmarks for things, and then we're all hoping for a little bit of a break as it we go into the end of the year. So

[276:14] stay tuned and and thanks everybody for your time and energy on these cases. Great. I I had a question and a comment. I don't know if now's a good time. If you're. We're finished with matters. Okay, this is. Thanks. This is, this is super. This is super quick but many of our memos refer to the broken treaty, which is the like the Horse Creek Treaty, or something like that. And I'm just wondering, was Hannah Barker part of the original group of people that defied that treaty. Hmm. I in all of the stuff I learned about her, all the original materials I've seen. I have not heard that.

[277:02] I became pretty familiar with a lot of things about her. There's a woman at the Genealogical Society, Dina Carson, who did like amazing research, and even held, you know, original documents of Hannah. I'm not aware of that, but I can't say that's not so. I think we'll I bet Claire's already looking at it. I think we'll we will follow up on that. That was 1858, and I think Hannah Barker came a bit later. 18. In the 18 seventies or so. But, We will find out we'll find out more. She was born in 1844, so I don't know she she may not. I don't know if she was here then. Yeah. I feel like. It's pretty early here. Yeah. I feel like there's a little bit of a gap, at least in my knowledge of that event, and who those people are, and how they relate to the people that we often talk about. And so I just wonder if we might learn a little bit about that. It could be interesting.

[278:10] I love hearing these questions, and there's so much more for us to learn as well, especially tying it to well, what buildings are landmarked associated with people, and you know whose names are on buildings on Pearl Street, Mall, and I know the Museum of Boulder has been doing a lot of interesting events and talks. And if you're not subscribed to their email list, you might start because I think there are ones that might be of interest. And we try to go to as many as possible. But I feel like there might be one coming up. That's somewhat related. But yeah, I think we'd all like to know more about it. And and I'm really glad to hear these questions kind of peeking up because it's been in the last year that we've started, including that earlier history in our Memos. And the timeline doesn't start in 1858.

[279:08] Right. And then I had one more thing that I just wanted to add is kind of on John's 3 dimensional model note, which I know we haven't been doing. I just did want to share something that I think could be valuable for us collectively. And Chautauqua right now is kind of pioneering. This. They have Lidar scans. That they're paying for that are point cloud based systems of some of their campus, and I think that they're intending to move forward with a full scan of the Auditorium Building. and in the process I've learned a little bit about what you get, which is a bunch of points in space. And then you can use that. Translate that, that raw data into different types of modeling systems, including revit and autocad

[280:00] and and also you could export it into just like rendering softwares that could allow the lay person to just like look around. And I believe that similar technologies were used to reconstruct Notre Dame after the fire, and I had a really great opportunity to kind of see the ways in which the point Cloud could be reviewed in all these different formats. and think that it would be interesting for us to look at that once. Chautauqua has it available for them to see if it's something we're interested in, you know, suggesting people use or supporting, because it's very, very informative. There. Yeah, there was some people I met down at University of Colorado, Denver, who were associated with the architecture school that were doing work with light. They had a lidar camera.

[281:00] And then there's also someone that I met that was doing VR work. She's actually from England and is back there. And she had an app on her iphone that was using a it was another kind of two-dimensionally derived system that was kind of like an app that could do two-dimensional interpretation and stitching of a three-dimensional shape, and then construct an experienceable three-dimensional surface of what it had captured and interpreted it. and it was for VR use. They were using it to actually capture environments. And then you could go inside them with a helmet. And so a lot of this stuff is becoming available, more available

[282:03] and increasingly reliable and and spatially faithful to what is being captured. So. That's a good point. And and we'll start thinking about what are the limitations of the archival like keeping it forever, and kind of figure out what that is, because you're right, like technology changes so quickly. And there are so many more opportunities to innovate and capture and document these buildings before they're gone. So if you have examples or resources, why don't you go ahead and email me with examples, and we'll learn. We'll learn more about it. Marcy, I feel like for me, the easiest and clearest thing to do would to introduce you to the person that's providing that service at Chautauqua, who gave a presentation that I attended with

[283:03] Lauren Schaefer. We invited her to come to just talk about how you can access this information, and how we might be able to help them on the campus, use it should they start paying for it. And so I will just tell you like that's the guy to talk to because he could meet with your staff and show you all of the stuff that he showed me, which is you know, basically where I'm getting this information from. Nice. Yeah. Please send me his info. It will do. I think that's it. Well! Oh, I so. Paint. Say this. I know the hours late. I know some people were up watching news till the wee hours of the morning. Marcy, what is the status, or what's your The thing about a letter of support? Thank you. Okay. This. This could be quick. Yes, so we are working. So the Boulder County Courthouse is being nominated as a national historic landmark. The highest recognition in the country as the historic site of some of the 1st

[284:12] same-sex marriage licenses. In the 19 seventies. The Landmarks Board at the last meeting expressed interest in writing a letter of support. Those letters are due November 30, th and we've reached out to the city manager's office. The mayor reached out expressing interest in in sending a letter as well. And so we've drafted a letter. There's a Lgbtq plus liaison, Pam Davis, the assistant city manager, who's also involved. And so we have a letter, and the question for you all is, would you like a separate letter from city council, or would you like to pair your letter with city council.

[285:03] Would you say, pair? You mean one letter? Be a part of their letter. Yes, and have one letter of support coming from the city of Boulder organization including the the landmarks, board and and city council, or there's no limit on letters. There's just limit on time and energy writing letters, the landmarks board. We could. I'm happy to draft another one and have it come just from the landmarks board. If if that, if we didn't do that, who would be writing the letter. I think I'm probably writing both of them, but with Pam and others. But but I don't mind. I think I hear strong support and am fully behind writing letters. And honestly, they take a little bit of effort. But they're not. They're they're not a thesis.

[286:00] I'm just gonna offer to write 2 letters. Then. Yeah. I think. I mean, you know. This is a pretty big deal, and we don't wanna be stingy about our support. I mean, I'm trying to think what would have the most impact, because it just seems like if we're the board that that looks at designations locally, you know. It just seems to me it would be wonderful if we had a letter from the Landmarks board going in as well. Happy to do that. And would you all like to review that letter before we submit it on the 30? th In 3 weeks? Great! I'll email it at least a week in advance. That would be wonderful. Yeah. And if anyone has a burning desire to write it, you're welcome to. But I volunteered last time. And and that offer stands. Yeah, thank you. Mark. That'd be great. Thank you, Ruth. That for us. Yes, I'll write. I'll write it, and I'll circulate it, and we'll submit it. By November 30.th

[287:05] Thank you so much. And then, as a related, heads up, the Museum of Boulder is working on their next exhibit, which will celebrate Clea Rorich's and Lgbtq history here in Boulder. So there will be maybe nice synergies for big loud celebrations next year. Oh, great, thank you. So unless there's anything else from any of the Board members not seeing or hearing anything, the meeting is adjourned at 1048 Pm. Thank you. Everybody. Good night. Good night.