November 20, 2024 — Landmarks Board Special Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:02] all right the November special landmarks board meeting is called the order it is 02 PM um so welcome to the special meeting um first thing Marcy will review the virtual meeting decorum and we'll have our first slide all right thank you John um Marcy Gering principal planner uh planning and development services the city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive meaningful and inclusive Civic conversations this Vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members staff and board of commission members as well as democracy for people of all ages identities lived experiences and political perspectives more about this Vision in the Project's Community engagement process can be

[1:00] found by clicking the link uh shown on the screen next Slide 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 threat threats or use other form of intimidation against any person obscenity racial epithets and other spe 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 the public comment periods uh during public hearings individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online uh if you have trouble changing your name please uh reach out to Aubrey through the chat and she can help you uh change that name and currently only audio testimony is being uh permitted online and the next slide has uh the

[2:02] shortcuts for how to raise your hand CLA if you don't mind advancing one more slide we don't have that on in the PowerPoint I can find it if you give me no no that's okay I'll just tell you that uh if you are on a um desktop then the uh raise hand function is under your reactions bar at the bottom if you're calling in uh it is star 9 and back to you John thank you Mercy um we have four members present this evening so we do have a quorum the recording of this meeting will be available in the records archive and on YouTube within 28 days of the meeting and so we will do a roll car call introduction and we will start with Chelsea hello Chelsea castano

[3:00] Board number okay and Renee I don't see Renee on the list of attendees she was here just a minute ago I saw her face sorry just one moment Renee is in attendees for some reason she should be promoted here shortly promoted Renee globic landmarks board member thank you Renee Ronnie and I'm Ronnie Palo landmarks board member and I am John Decker um acting chair this evening um we also I'll I'll acknowledge we have Kurt nordback here who is our ex officio

[4:01] member from the planning board and we appreciate his attendance um we know that people who are here to participate may have some strong emotions about these projects we want to hear from you and have found it more productive if you are speaking to persuade us rather than berating us staff or the applicant as with regular landmarks board meetings you you may only speak at the appropriate time during the public hearing requests to speak outside of those times will be denied we request the members of the public who wish to speak in person sign up using the sheet with auy actually we have nobody in person tonight so um virtual participants will then follow as normal by raising their virtual hand as board chair I will call for a roll call vote on any motions

[5:05] made okay so the first item that we cover is public participation for non-agenda items and Aubrey do we have any members of the public who wish to speak to an item other than tonight's topics all right it looks like we have one hand raised so far that is Lynn SQL Lynn I'll give you permission to speak and start the timer as soon as you're up okay and I'll just say we are no longer swearing people in for open comment so Lynn you can speak when you are ready and please State your full name Glen seagull I just lost my opportunity to testify at Hab because

[6:00] this meeting doesn't give me a specific time and when I come here you're talking about the decorum of how I'm supposed to speak I'm the only one that ever comes you know that and why can't there be some accommodation made to go between a different agenda item or something I I'm sorry but last night I had three meetings I was at Excel at I was at the um the reservoir at the um water treatment plant for the meeting with um with RAB and there was Tab and they accommodated me plenty they called me in to speak at two minutes after 6 now you've just I've just been screwed over basically because I can't testify it have because you're telling me the same things I know why can't you do the the Declaration of all the things you have to do why don't you just have people sign people that come to these meetings have to check off that theyre to that

[7:00] why do you have to read it each time you know I'm the only person here and you read it to me again and that limits me to not speaking at the hab what sense does this make I'm sorry I can't be pleasant about this but it I've brought it up so many times and I've sent it to Nuri and I sent it to Sarah Huntley and no one ever changes when there are multiple meetings at an at night at that people like to cover broadly which I do the 30-foot perspective would you rather that I wouldn't would you rather that I'm just gone and dead because that's what it feels like I feel very discounted for trying for at least trying to do all these different boards now I've taken up all my time just with Logistics and my concern here tonight is Gilbert White's situation that was very strange The Way We Were set apart and planning board and landmarks board need to coordinate on

[8:00] these efforts of stopping demolitions that are unnecessary and that was a perfect example because that did these these are Big Money deals 777 Broadway do you know what that gave the Lebanese guy George millions and millions of bucks just like 1015 Juniper and unfortunately the one interesting thing is that Gilbert white was able to Stave off the the um 613 Walnut job by putting an easement on the property right next to him and yet we're told the the landmarks board is told that the only way you can consider this is without what would happen legally with that easement that's impossible you know because that easement is there and you have to consider it wheny that is your time

[9:00] so thank you um everything that is said at the beginning of this meeting is said because there is broader virtual or otherwise attendance and it is a public meeting and could be seen by any number of people who have never attended one of these so we have to open the meeting with the general information every time because you never know when somebody's going to want to understand how the meeting works it's part of the process um this moves us to the next item which is discussion of landmark alteration and demolition applications issued and pending and I get Marcy are you doing that one I am and Claire if you wouldn't mind thank you uh all right so there is currently one stay of demolition pending

[10:00] um and that is the stone accessory building at 2119 maraposa and um that is one that the landmarks board uh placed a stay of demolition on at your October 9th meeting and uh we met with the owner on November 13th um Abby was the only one who was able to attend at the time but I understand John you went by the property um afterwards and I think Abby had um intended to write something to you all with her thoughts um but I I know she's traveling and didn't get a chance to do that um so what I can say is that um you know it was uh very helpful for the owner to invite us out and to look at the building inside and out um it seems like a well but built structure it doesn't have the same structural issue or method of construction that the house did um but it is constrained in in terms of um

[11:02] its size and and location I think it has the potential to be reused as a studio or an accessory um dwelling unit but that does uh cost um money to to finish it out and add uh electricity and plumbing um none of which the owner is interested in in doing um and uh she also doesn't see the same sort of um Special Value or interest in the accessory building that she did in the house I think she really wanted to save the house but then once got into it realized that um it was a much larger project than she had anticipated um so I think there's um I'm not sure what else to add to that maybe um hand it over to John and then I can uh kind of outline the next steps of um what the board's options are as the state

[12:01] continues okay um do we have no other um discussion items then here well did you want to add anything about going past the site um I'm familiar with this site I had looked at the front house at length and um have have pretty much familiarized myself with that site and in the neighborhood and structure around it so there isn't a whole lot to say other than this building is constructed differently from the house and hopefully does not have the kinds of problems that we saw at the house and um and it's an interesting building um the rock wall construction with light frame on top of it is very interesting and that's pretty much all I can say about it

[13:00] yeah and um I the property is currently on the market and I think with a certain buyer who wanted to explore adaptive reuse of it then I think there is potential uh especially thinking about the code modifications for uh building coverage in the rear yard for designated properties there's some zoning modifications that might lend itself well to Redevelopment um but again it would it would need a willing um uh buyer to to explore that so um I do want to extend my thanks I don't see her on the call but to um Vanessa miles for um meeting us on site and having a conversation and um the stay if the board doesn't take action will continue through February 10th and so that means that uh January 8th is the last regularly scheduled landmarks board meeting that you'd need to make a scheduling decision on if you wanted to take action before the stay expired um

[14:03] you have uh the December 6 or December 4th meeting before that one if you wanted to move more quickly or you could have a scheduling decision this evening um otherwise the stay will uh continue on uh on until February okay thank you Marcy um that moves us to our public hearing items and our first one is agenda 5A this is a public hearing and consideration of a landmark alteration certificate application to install solar panels at the front of the Higman house at 479 Arapaho um which is his224 00233 an individually landmark property

[15:00] pursuant to section 9-11-18 of the boulder Revised Code 1981 and under the procedures prescribed by chapter 1-3 quasi judicial hearings Boulder Revised Code 1981 um we have the PowerPoint presentation and I've read that and let's move on um who is Marcy are you presenting this one or is Claire I am gonna be doing this one John thank you all right um so this is a quasi judicial hearing so uh everyone speaking to the item will be sworn in that includes me I am Claire Brandt historic preservation planner and I affirm that I will tell the truth um I will um pause for a second and allow board members to note any experte contacts if you have any

[16:00] okay we can do that in our roll call order Chelsea hi or no sorry no no contact I thought we weren't doing this no we have to do it for this because this is quasi judicial you could just note uh actually if you do have any and we'll assume that if you don't say anything you don't have any so if if you have any then speak now that we don't do it if we we only say do you have any expart and people only raise their hand if they do no you're correct Chelsea we had agreed not to do it that way does anyone have any expar issues on the board I I'll just state that I was on the ldrc when this presented and was moved to the board that

[17:00] so we can move let's move on um so a quick overview of the process today um I will give the staff presentation and after that the board may ask questions uh the applicant will then have 10 minutes to present to the board and the board may ask questions of them we'll then open the public hearing after all members of the public have made comments the applicant May respond to anything that was said and then the board will deliberate motion today requires an affirmative vote of at least three members to pass and the motion will state findings conclusions and a recommendation and then a record of this hearing is available in a couple of days as a video recording and the official record will be added to the archive within 28 days usually much sooner than that so the criteria for review are outlined in the boulder Revised Code under 91118 B and C and the review is to ensure that the propos osed work

[18:00] preserves enhances or restores and does not damage exterior architectural features of the property does not adversely affect the historic architectural value of the property the architecture Arrangement texture color arrangement of color and materials are compatible with the character of the property and that the landmarks board considers the economic feasibility of Alternatives incorporation of energy efficient design and enhanced access for the disabled the opt today are for the landmarks board to approve the application uh which is subject to a 16-day city council callup period um that's when the city council can choose to review the decision um the landmarks board may also deny the application which would be subject to a 30-day period in which city council could review the decision um and uh a denial would mean the applicant could not submit a substantially significant application within 12 months usually if the board is heading in that direction

[19:00] they will give the applicant an opportunity to withdraw so the application process so far in uh 2019 um the uh ldrc issued a lmar alteration certificate to install solar panels on a new rear addition to the house and a rear accessory building finding that the panels would be minimally visible from the street due to the location um then in September of this year we received an Lac application to install additional solar panels on the street facing roof of the house um the application was reviewed by the ldrc which was me John and Ronnie on October 9th um and referred to the landmarks board for a review in a public hearing which is where we are right now at the time the ldrc concerns were that the application didn't meet the guidelines and that the applicants hadn't explored

[20:00] options to relocate the panels towards the rear of the building um on parts of the existing non-historic Edition that didn't already include panels and the non-designated accessory building so they were asked to see if they could find a solution that doesn't include panels on the prominent and visible face of the building or present the uh current application to the landmarks board showing why this location is the only solution and they they chose to um come here today okay so this is the property it is uh located just west of Fifth Street on uh on Arapaho um the property faces South onto arap arapo Avenue um and then the uh the rear of the property AB buts Boulder Creek it's just the South 110 ft of the property that is designated so it's the orange spot here the property goes all the way back and the the rear portion of

[21:00] the property is not uh part of the landmark designation um it was designated as an individual landmark in 2016 for its association with Clara and Joseph Hickman and Architectural significance as an example of the queen and style which you can see here um the house is one and a half stories with a front gable roof featuring decorative wood shingles and in an alternating fish scale pattern um so in 2016 uh the owners obtained a solar variants for the construction of a rear addition um and the work at the time also included Rehabilitation of the house and restoration of the historic front porch which you can you can see uh here was removed um sometime in the 1960s and then uh restored U relatively recently and then um also a new accessory building at the rear which is

[22:00] outside the landmark boundary um and you can see the the addition back here on this image from aapo so the proposal is for the installation of 14 additional solar panels um seven are located to be on the west elevation in front of the Dorma right here and then uh seven panels are proposed to be located on the East Elevation five of them would be uh in front of the Dorma and then two additional panels would be positioned between the two east facing dormas which you can't see that location from this angle um with the exception of those two panels between the Dormers um the the panels would be prominently visible from AR rapo Avenue which is where these pictures were taken from uh the guidelines address uh solar panels in Section 3 and Section 8 and um

[23:01] generally they say that alterations to a roof should be compatible with the form pitch plate height and massing of the existing that uh they should minimize the visual impact by not altering the existing profile of the roof and not be highly highly visible from the front of the house they are encouraged um where they do not compromise the historic Integrity of the building and where they do not detract from the historic character of The Landmark guideline um 8.3.4 says that it is not appropriate to install mechanical equipment on roof slopes that are prominently visible from the street uh while the guidelines um don't specify the type of pan panels that might be appropriate previous Lac approvals have required that the panels support structures and conduits blend into the historic building as much as possible

[24:01] uh so the in addition to compliance with the guidelines the standards for issuance of an Lac are outlined in 9111 18b of the boulder revised code and the issuance must meet the conditions of whether the proposed application preserves enhances or restores and not damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the landmark whether the proposed application adversely affects the special care character or special historic architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the Landmark property and if the architectural style Arrangement texture color arrangement of color and materials used um on existing and proposed structures are compatible with the character of The Landmark property so in reviewing the guidelines and the standards for issuance um we um considered that the installation of panels is reversible and will not damage

[25:02] or destroy historic material that the proposed location will not obscure character defining features of the house or require the removal or alteration of historic fabric uh we found that while the solar panels will be highly visible their installation will not alter the existing profile of the roof um due to their flush mount installation and as such will not detract from the historic character of the property and then the use of the black panels um is consistent with uh previous approvals um we did consider that as a condition of approval the panels should be set back from the front Eve of the house to preserve the historic profile of the roof and that the panels should be installed in a in a rectangular array rather than an l-shape to further minimalize their visual impact uh and you can see the proposed in uh in

[26:02] Orange um I guess little squares here and the existing panels are the the blue hashed areas on this diagram um the applicant provided documentation on why um alternate less feasible locations um sorry less visible locations are not feasible um and uh and that we considered that the appc demonstrated that um additional panels couldn't be located on the accessory building uh due to low hanging power lines and available space um on the addition um or further back on the historic house due to available space and um we also have the applicant here so they can answer any questions that you might have about this okay so this is a a summary of our analysis and how we came to the

[27:00] recommendation um we considered that the applicant has demonstrated that the panels cannot be located in a less conspicuous location and that while the solar panels will be highly visible their installation is reversible and will not alter the existing profile of the roof require the removal of historic material and will not detract from the historic character of the property uh however staff considered that the design should be revised to locate the panel at least 18 in from the front Eve of the house to preserve the profile of the roof um and considers the design should be revised to install the panels in a rectangular array rather than an l-shape to further minimalize the visual prominence of the panels so our recommendation is to approve the application with conditions finding that the proposal meets the standards for issuance of a l m alteration certificate in chapter 91118 and is generally consistent with the general design guidelines provided

[28:00] the stated conditions are met and the conditions would be once again to uh revise the drawings to show the panel setback from the front Eve um to preserve the reof form and historic character of the front of the house and to revise the drawings to show the panels in a rectangular array to minimize the visual impact okay so staff recommends the Larks board adopt the following findings that are here um and uh We've estimated that the board will need about 30 minutes for their deliberation um generally the question is whether the project meets the standards for issuance of an Lac but uh here are some additional prompts to help the discussion if you need them will the proposed work adversely affect the special character of the histo that's not right it's not a historic dis of the uh of the property and is the

[29:00] proposed style texture color and materials compatible with the character of the historic property it is not a historic district I will correct that uh while the applicant does their presentation so this is uh the end of the staff presentation and a reminder in the next steps of the next steps of the process um the applicant and owner have up to 10 minutes to present to the board the board may ask questions we'll then hear comments from any member of the public who wishes to speak uh the applicant may have additional time to address anything said during public comment and then the board will deliberate so any questions for me before we hand it over to the applicant thanks Claire any members do you wish to ask questions of Staff okay um none appearing we will move on

[30:00] to the applicant presentation uh who is here from the applicants team this evening Aubrey sorry just one moment clicking out of a bunch of things okay is yeah is either the owners or um their representative present yes and both Russell and Kate Merlin are here as well as Alexis uh and Aubrey will go ahead and promote them yeah okay I only see Russell Merlin and Alexis not audio just video okay great you guys are both together

[31:03] so however uh you want to present this um Russell and Katherine um you have 10 minutes and can tell us about the project uh thanks I'm not sure if Alexis was planning on doing the actually I do I'm I yeah make some comments if she's done or answer any questions you had but I think Alexis is going to do the primary presentation thank you okay yeah but you do need to be sworn you need to tell us that you will tell the truth and before you speak State your full names thank you sorry my name is Katherine Merlin and I swear to tell the truth my name is Russell Merlin I swear to tell the truth but I'm not going to be speaking okay thank you you can proceed I'm Alexis serson um for fulltime Brothers uh and I swear to tell the truth great

[32:05] great um so perfect jumping in here um so the um after the original um Board review um we did further anal uh look at the app um the layout and it was found that we were unable to locate the um solar panels and any other uh less conspicuous Loc patients other than where they are currently placed um um moving the um solar panels um as designed from the 18 inches at the ridge as well as moving them from the eve 18 in over we do not believe that will be a concern um that will result in the uh two panels being lost though um and that um impacting the overall design those panels will not be able to fit in other locations um nor fit in other

[33:00] configurations on those roof planes so uh we will have to make further um layout changes in order to um accommodate those um revisions of having 18 inches from the Eve um and resulting in removing those two panels um which will result in um from it being a 14 Panel System into being a 12 panel system with six panels on each side um six of which um on the uh West Side um in front of the Gable um the dormal uh Dormer my apologies and then that leaves four on the uh east side of the property um in front of the dmore um as well as the two in between the two dmores um so I'm just making sure this our chance explain why we want the panels and why we hope you will

[34:00] approve them or is that later um well we will we'll when we deliberate the issue we will discuss first of all approval and then um we could have some discussion about the conditions the the question that occurs to me in in what Alexis just said Alexis how in the proposed design how far is the edge of the panel array from the front edge of the roof from the let me verify um currently it is five inches okay so it is pretty close to the edge yes sir okay well that that will be part of the deliberative discussion yeah John if I can just jump in I think

[35:00] the applicant was also asking if this is their opportunity to make a case in general for the panels and the purposefulness of that um and this is the right time for you to do that um and there will as John was saying be a deliberation component which um and and and following this uh following your uh presentation we can ask you questions um and there'll be some deliberation after that but yeah now be a good time I think for you to um talk about your proposal thank you so much um well first I would like to say thank you for having us um we um do not disagree with uh Miss Brandt's assessment of the of uh or recommendations we we let me back up and just say that the historical um qualities of the property have always been important to us it was a big reason for selecting this property and for voluntarily landmarking it in the first

[36:00] place so we want to do what we can to uphold the guidelines that you've set because we do think that they're good and we um and we value that um we do hope that we get this um this panel these panels approved um we are trying to make them as um uh non-disruptive to the Aesthetics as possible um and um there are some physical constraints with the physical layout of the site um but we yeah we we do think also uh I'm a public interest environmental attorney I really would like to have um solar panels um the ones that we have now are pretty minimal and we would just really like to have a few more um to offset some of our electricity use for the house um I think that's it I didn't write anything sorry so that

[37:01] was a little off the cuff and and we're here for questions okay thank you um do we have any questions I had a followup question and maybe this was answered but it was just unclear to me um I know that one of the conditions um was spoken about that has to do with the distance from the edge of roof but I think I think that another one of the conditions had to do with the configuration of the panels um from an l-shape to rectangular shape and I just wanted to make sure that um the applicant had uh you know an opportunity to speak to that is that also feasible to do within the parameters that you've described um that would not be a concern at all moving the um panels the arrays 18 in and currently they're 5 in um so moving them in additional 13 is not a concern um however due to um how close

[38:02] that would take both of the arrays to the Dormers that will result in um I guess the L part of both of those arrays to be eliminated because um that would take up that space um uh therefore leaving to spatial constraints having us to remove them entirely um so that then therefore would um meet the requirement of it being two square AAS got it got so just by moving them away from the eve as one of the conditions you would be forced to push them in such a manner that it would uh Force the L-shaped condition to then be a rectangle so that would all comply that's great okay thank you no other questions any other questions um oh Chelsea sorry do you have a question uh I was wondering um

[39:00] cuz it's basically the proposal was 5 in and the staff recommendation was 18 in and I was just wondering if the um because it sounds like you were losing two panels um with the recommendation of 18 in and I was wondering if there was a if there was any compromise between 5 and 18 in where you wouldn't have to lose additional panels like what is the threshold of distance from The Edge where you lose panels is it that five inches or is it somewhere in between five and 18 I'd have to double uh to verify the exact dimensions um but to um to it would definitely be between the five and 18 Ines um I definitely would say on the west facing plane um more like another

[40:00] three inches and we lose a panel um and then on the east facing plane uh we do have a bit of um of leeway there um however it would still leave into a um an L-shaped array um uh but um to verif I would have to verify the inches but I do think it would be um maybe we can move an additional um five or so inches that would make it 10 inches from the Eve on the east side and it I could just clarify there's two intents behind those conditions of approval one is to set the panels back so that the uh overhanging Eve is still a prominent feature and is uh the intent is to minimize the visual impact of the panels being right at the front of the house so setting it back is one uh intent to do that and then the second one is to have a rectangular array rather than an L-shaped array so they are you know related to each other as

[41:01] you talk about the placement but the staff recommendation was to CH make both of those changes uh to set the panels back and to do a a rectangular array and that's consistent with a a recent approval on Bluff Street for another individual Landmark that we approved panels right at the front of that building uh with those same conditions okay all right any any other board members have questions okay none none appearing I have one Alexis could you could you elap or just tell me or tell us the if if one of the conditions was relaxed and the other one well let's let's start at the beginning moving the array back from the edge of the roof

[42:02] what by losing what is it one panel or two panels you lose by doing that um if it's going from five inches to 18 inches on um both Eaves um that would result in losing a panel on both the one panel on each array on the East and the west side so that would be two panels in general um okay how much how much impact is that on your proposed yield um let me do with the math real quick um that is 20 uh two 4 20 22 425 model um um that would result in a um about an 8%

[43:02] uh production decrease in the overall production so it's about 8% overall and then if you re if you go from the L shaped array to the square array how much additional yield loss would that incur that would be the a sensor losing those two yeah okay so it's the same it it's all right that's that's what I was getting at and is the is the project still viable with that loss is it is it still serving enough of the purpose that it's there for I think that's kind of what I'm I think for us as the owners it it definitely is something that we would still want to do I mean our goal and I I I think our goal even when we when we originally got put the panels on the back of the house was to maximize the

[44:00] solar as much as possible we're not really looking as much for the ROI as we are for trying to create as much um as much renewable energy as we can so even if it increases or or extends our timeline of our Roi by four or five years I I I don't think it would make a difference to us okay I that that was what I was I I was just trying to hear how how bad is this impacting the project um to um yeah to accept those conditions okay yeah not yeah not enough that it would change our minds I don't think okay that's that's good to hear okay um do we have any other questions and we can move on to public comment then and I will ask Aubrey do we have any

[45:03] virtual attendees who would like to speak to this issue we have one hand raised so far and if anyone else would like to speak please raise your hand now and we will get to you next first up we have Lynn seagull Lynn I'll give you permission to speak and start the timer this is AR okay Lyn Lyn I'm gonna need you to swear on this one I swear to tell the truth as best I know it not the truth it is my truth okay this is archaic that you are micromanaging these people trying to get solar on their place putting them in a position where they have to defend that they're going to not do this to improve their Roi but to to just do renewable energy their Roi is important too you know we're in a war in Gaza right now this country is on the

[46:00] edge of disaster we have long range missiles going to Russia we have all of our funding Boulder funding going to Gaza we've got bigger problems than the appearance of some solar panels on someone's house this is just I can't believe the discussion you know what you need you need ex officio people from EAB on this board and you need landmarks people on the EAB board it's outrageous I can't even go to EAB because I have landmarks board them same night EAB is not tonight I'm missing Hab tonight but Hab it's the same thing we have unaffordable housing and you know the economy needs to be stimulated by improvements in climate change which these people are trying to do and by improvements in the economy which they are also trying to do but although you know they claim that they that is a concern of theirs but of course it is it should be their return

[47:01] on their investment they have more disposable money to spend on sales tax revenue in Boulder that improves our economy you know why are you micromanaging these things I don't understand what you know and John simply my asking at the beginning that that I'm allowed to speak at different Boards of course you have to give your proclamation of what I can say and how I can't abuse people or something that's great but all all I was saying which you didn't understand apparently is that I would like to just check a box and have that happen and not waste my time and cause me to not be able to speak at another board that's at the very same time and when they when meetings are happening simultaneously the same night and they aren't staggering their public participation that's not okay I'm just trying to do I'm doing the best I can it's is it ever enough for you people I want to understand everything I'm trying

[48:02] to get the broad view and I can't I'm stunned because you have to stick to your 602 you know and the planning board the the hab is at 607 you know like what is this and then this micromanagement of these people trying to do solar on their place come on life's short we've got bigger problems than this you know and I'm an advocate of not demol demolishing things and of landmarking things and having something left in Boulder to look at like 777 Broadway which went down all right that would be the time thank you Lynn do we have any additional members of the public who wish to speak all right if anyone else would like to speak on this subject raise your hand now we'll just give it a couple seconds

[49:01] John okay great I think we're okay to move on I'm not seeing any other hands okay we will close the public hearing on this item and um the applicant has a chance to respond if they would like to Russell either one of you we appreciate Lynn's advocacy on behalf of her community thanks for showing up to the hearings and you know trying to make a difference okay thank you um I did want to note um math was slightly off um the overall production loss if we lost those two panels um would actually be a 133% decrease okay that's I yeah on a smaller system it definitely uh increases it the uh production loss a bit more as well so

[50:00] I apologize for that uh that error no that's that's yes thank you for that all right um we can proceed we can I guess proceed into our board discussion um and we ask that all members who are not speaking or or anyone else in the meeting Mee please mute your computer or phone for the duration of the discussion um we've allotted approximately 50 minutes for the discussion and Aubrey is going to actually keep the time to let us know if we are getting way beyond our time so um is there any member who would like to uh open this I can okay great Ronnie proceed I'm in agreement with staff's recommendation and I'm glad that it works for the

[51:01] applicant I applaud the applicant for their preservation efforts in the house and then also you know their desire to bring um onsite produced energy to their home and then to the grid um I think that these are just really wonderful causes both of them and I know that it's not always the case that we would um allow for panels to be at the front of a house visible from a public right of way on the primary structure that is the historic piece of a building um but I think the applicant has done a great job um with their analysis and has demonstrated that to us um and I think that they're also demonstrating that they're flexible um in understanding with the desire to make them as minimally visible as possible even if they are on this at this location and so I am in agreement with staff and will support the installation of solar panels

[52:02] with the conditions that staff's described okay thank you Ronnie um anyone else or let's just go through the list everybody gets a say here um Renee um so I I agree with uh Ronnie I do would I would like to propose maybe something in between um it was the 5 Ines in the 18 in that maybe an um this could be this is the time to have the discussion um if there's something in between there to where they could keep the panels do they lose both panels do they lose doing the non- l-shape do they lose that panel anyway so it's kind of mute maybe I can jump in um I wonder if staff could go back to the L-shaped or to the to the images that show them the panels installed in an L-shaped pattern because I do think Renee and you know the applicant should agree or disagree

[53:00] with this but I think Renee what you've described as accurate um if if there's a way to pull up the the image that shows the panel installation from above yeah I I mean I think um as I have heard it um that if they need to meet the condition of the square shaped C panel um that the configuration would consequently make two of these panels removed and then in addition to that if they do move the panels um off of the Gable end um it kind of forces those two L shapes to uh be eliminated so they're kind of happening in tandem with one another um if for some reason we think that the L-shaped configuration is um acceptable um then I think we would ask them how far off of the front of the um fascia could the panel system move back in this conf configuration um while still having all

[54:00] of these panels in that shape yeah yeah Rony I believe Alexis kind of answered that in one of my first questions that she said there was something like three spare inches that it could be eased back before it I guess hit the uh the change of angle of the Dormer roof and that appear in this plan it appears to be somewhat the same space on both sides of the house so that's they they don't have a lot but that's what I think it was was she said it was like 3 Ines that's going to take more verification yeah I guess you know I was trying to get them more I mean the ultimate goal right in um uh you know if we're going to allow solar panels on the house and they're going to put them

[55:01] on the house then allowing them to put the most capacity right because I went to the site today and I didn't think that the L-shaped um was to me the fact that it's closer to the front of the um fascia is more is a little bit I find that to be more important than the L shape because from the angle that I see it I don't really um I mean from the back like the the back area that has those panels there's a big difference between the color but assuming that these um panels would be similar in color to the existing um asphalt shingles roof I just I want to give them the opportunity to you know Supply them with as much electricity as possible I mean we are moving in that way and I would hate for them to install something and then have to come back in a couple years and saying you know we all need electricity now and we all have

[56:00] to be off the grid so I guess I was just trying to find a if everyone um on the board the l-shape are is anyone else concerned about it or does do you think that the um I guess Ronnie liked the square uh Chelsea were you um disturbed about the l-shape I was not Disturbed I I'm not I'm not quite as just I I I'm not that bothered by the l-shape either and maybe maybe we should find out then from the applicant how far back from the um Gable end the panels could be placed if they remain in an L-shaped configuration yeah um so we'll open that back up I'm not sure who from the app team would to that yeah Alexis I think

[57:00] would be the one who would be able to speak to that Alexis am I correct uh yes I am unfortunately I don't have the cad tool pulled up in order to get the exact measurements so I would have to verify that with our um engineering partner first thing in the morning um our engineering lead um but um on the east side it definitely is I'm sorry on the west side it definitely is going to be a lot um shorter of a distance be able to push back because there is an obstruction that the um the one panel comes up to um almost and that's where the 3 in is coming from on the east side one which is showing the South um on the South Side here um there is a good bit distance between um that the panel on the right far right side there um to the edge of the Dormer um so that does have a bit more of a distance that we can push back I just have to verify the exact measurements for sure okay um this is I this is important

[58:01] discussion and I I should probably let Chelsea speak before I jump in here Chelsea yeah no I mean I agree with Renee and that's why I asked the question earlier of you know how far back can you put the panels um while maintaining the capacity the solar capacity that you would like to achieve and um I don't mind the L shaped like I think it's one of those things that there solar panels on the roof this is how solar like solar is not you know it's not perfectly like roofs aren't perfectly shaped and in order to achieve the level of um sustainability that we need to achieve in order to um meet our climate goals like we have to be willing to not let like just because something

[59:02] doesn't look aesthetically perfect we I don't think we should um prevent the biggest capacity of solar on this roof from happening I and I just don't think that it diminishes the um character of the home um if anything I think it really shows that not only do we care about the past by you know presenting this like maintaining this home as a landmark but we also care equally as much about the future and to me that is really important so I don't mind the L-shaped and I think we should potentially consider uh the fact that they don't have the exact measurements now but maybe we could um if there's a way for them to configure it if we're okay with the l-shape maybe approving some version of an L shape with um distance from the um what do you call

[60:03] it the fascia whatever you guys the technical term um whatever distance we're okay with that being at and then having staff approve uh once those details are confirmed um something along those lines yes thank you Chelsea I I I agree with what Chelsea just said it was kind of what I was getting at um we have previously agreed under most most circumstances that the addition of solar to a roof is just going to be staff review and would not normally come before the board this was a very important specific project to put in front of the board because it does set a precedent somehow or in some way on

[61:01] historic properties the the guidelines is written state that the particularly the primary elevation of the property which is the portion of the building that faces the street and is the most visible from public realm is where you want to ideally not make any kind of alterations that are going to change the his historic character of the house um however for all the reasons that Chelsea just stated we want to be as with all other City boards I hope in the position of encouraging things that are going to optimize either the energy performance of a property or are going to lend sustainability to the systems of the property and are going to

[62:01] reduce Reliance on other sources of energy that are delerious to the climate and so we want to maximize yields anywhere these things happen or at least act to maximize yields and get the greatest bang for the effort at least so it's a good precedent to allow ow this this close to the front facade of a historic project now if the roof inclined towards the street so that it was highly visible from the public realm I would think that we would be opposed to it and it would have never been called up probably um but in this case this is an instance where as as the technology continues to increase with these systems and of course this one is going to happen at the place it is in time but they're

[63:02] going to become more subtle and less noticeable as time goes by this is far more I guess adapted to not being visible on a roof than systems were four or five years ago and so I think this is the point when we start allowing this thing these types of things in more more roof conditions and in more points of view locations I don't think people are going to be that noticing of it or aware of it other than oh you've got solar that's cool and I don't think it's going to injure the historic character of the house anymore than houses that were older than 1920 getting wired to electrical grids did so I think that that's kind of where we are in history and this was an important one for the board to review and I think I support what the

[64:00] majority of the members seem to be saying I I would support that as well so I think that um you know we're what I'm understanding is that everybody is in general support of having uh the photo Vol panels as proposed in the configuration proposed with the request that they get pushed back as far as possible from the um bading edge of the Gable the F on the Gable I think that's yeah I think that's the way we we should State the the condition of it okay um Claire can you bring up the um motion Ronnie would you mind uh looking at the conditions first so we can word Smith this a little bit yeah I would say letter a is more like

[65:02] the revised drawing showing the panel setback as far as possible from and then I think um condition B um goes away okay I I can make this motion you guys like me to I move that the landmarks board adopt the staff memorandum dated November 20th 2024 as the findings of the board and approve the application for a landmark alteration certificate to install solar panels on the Higman Higman house at 4 479 arapo a an individual Landmark pursuant to section

[66:00] 91118 of the boulder Revised Code 1981 as shown on plans dated August 30th 2024 finding that the proposal meets the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate in chapter 91118 BRC 1981 and is generally consistent with the general design guidelines of bold guidelines of Boulder's historic districts uh and individual landmarks with the conditions of approval being that the applicant shall be responsible for completing the work in compliance with the approved plans accept as Modified by the following conditions prior to the submitting a building permit application uh 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 and the intent of this approval a revised drawing showing panels setback as far as possible from the front Eve of the house house on the east and west sides to preserve the roof form and historic character of the front

[67:01] of the house okay do we have a second second great let's proceed to a roll call vote Chelsea I Renee I Ronnie I and I vote I the motion pass passes unanimously um so Claire can you uh tell our applicants what the next steps are I certainly can uh the so city council has up to 16 days to decide whether they would like to review um we call it call up the decision if they don't call it up um the uh conditions of the Lac will be reviewed by stuff and once the conditions are satisfied um the Lac will be issued um in the case that the city

[68:01] council wants to review the decision um staff will schedule a hearing within 45 days and I will be in touch with uh with information about how to um how to get those final conditions to staff for our review okay I see Kurt's hand up um Kurt would you like to yeah sorry I didn't mean to interrupt I just wanted to add briefly that I think that this is a great outcome I'm really appreciate where the board has gone in my reading this determination is consistent with the conditions for the Lac however it is not particularly consistent with the general design guidelines which indicates that the general design guidelines really should be amended to reflect this this approach um so I just wanted to call that out for the

[69:00] board okay I also see Alexis's hand up and would like to hear what she has to say um I just wanted to verify um I apologize um I just wanted to verify when we go uh when we make those modifications and push the East and uh west of Ray as far as possible um due to um the distance that one can be push back further than the other that could result in let's say the East Side array being 5 in from the front Eve and the uh rest array uh being let's say8 Ines uh from the eve would that variation um and look be of a concern I it's it's not g well I I'm I'm not going to say this is this is this will be worked out with staff from this point and I don't think with the

[70:00] exception of flying over the property you're going to see dis symmetry between one side of the roof and the other um so I don't know that that's going to be an issue or not in fact that as I said the the last phase of review of this is in front of Staff thank okay oh oh I was just GNA say I'm I feel okay letting staff and the applicant make that determination if it if they want it to be even more than they want one side to be set back further I think it should be up to staff and the applicant to make that call yeah kind of what I was

[71:02] saying if if no one if no one is opposed um well we voted it it's in front of Staff now um okay thank you everyone for time and hard work it was a very I think important discussion um which moves us on to item 5B and this is a public hearing and consideration of a landmark alteration certificate application to modify the garage door opening on a non-contributing accessory building at 527 Maxwell um in the Mapleton Hill historic district pursuant to section 9-11-18 of the boulder Revised Code 1981 and under the procedures prescribed by chapter 1 day 3 quasi judicial hearings BRC

[72:00] 1981 and so that is the next public hearing and uh who is presenting this one that's me again y okay thank you okay so um again a qu a Judicial hearing so I will swear in I'm CLA Brandt historic preservation planner and I affirm that I will tell the truth we'll try this again the board uh now only has to reveal an experte contact if they have one and I will pause for a second to allow you to do that okay hearing none all right so um here's an overview of the process um again I'll give the staff presentation and the board may ask questions the applicant will have 10 minutes to present to the board the board may ask questions of the applicant we'll then open the public hearing after all members of the public have made

[73:01] comments the applicant May respond to anything that was said the board will then deliberate a motion requires an affirmative vote of at least three members to pass and motions will state findings conclusion and recommendation and a record of this hearing will be available the criteria for review are outlined in the boulder Revis code under 91118 B and C and again this is to uh ensure that the proposed work preserves enhances or restores and does not damage the exterior architectural features of the property does not adversely affect the historic architectural value of the property the architecture Arrangement texture color arrangement of color and materials are compatible with the character of the property and that the board considers the economic feasibility of Alternatives incorporation of energy efficient design and enhanced access for the disabled uh the options today for the board to approve the application subject

[74:01] to a 16-day city council callup period um and then also the board may deny the application which would be subject to a 30-day period in which city council could review the um the decision uh however denial um would mean the applicant could not submit a substantially similar application within 12 months so if the board is headed in Direction they will give the applicant an opportunity to withdraw so this is the application so far the process so far the ldrc reviewed the application on October 9th and referred it to the Larks board for review in a public hearing as they found that the request generally didn't meet the guidelines for the district and that further review of the surrounding context and the sensitivities of the district and the alley were needed uh this this is the property it

[75:00] is located um Mid block between where did my laser pointer go hang on okay mid block between fifth and sixth streets on Maxwell Avenue it includes the house um and two accessory buildings to the rear of the lot um the the alley is unnamed in this area it is actually within the Mapleton Hill historic district which is the purple area indicated on the map right here this is the primary house it's a one and a half story Dutch colonial revival uh constructed in 1907 the house itself is considered individually significant within the district um but there are no changes proposed to the primary house this is the um subject accessory building right here it was constr ConEd in 2005 so it is a modern building so non-contributing to the district it has

[76:02] a front-facing gable roof uh decorative shingles and a central window in the Gable land and two single overhead garage doors with Windows um there's actually also a historic accessory building on the property which was constructed pre 1929 um that's right here and no changes are proposed to to that historic building this is the garage the proposed scope of work is to modify these two single garage door openings to install a double car door one double car door in place of the two single garage doors so the guidelines for garage doors say that two smaller doors may be more appropriate than one large door doors in new structure should reflect the proportions the height and width of doors found in the district uh the

[77:00] material subdivision proportion pattern and detail of new doors should be compatible with surrounding buildings that contribute to the historic district and that doors should be consistent with the historic scale and materials of traditional accessory structures um as I mentioned before in addition to compliance with the guidelines the standards for issuance of an Lac are outlined in 91118 of the Border Revised Code and uh the issuance must meet the conditions of whether the proposed application preserves enhances or restores and not damage the or destroy exterior architectural features of landmark or subject property within a historic district uh whether the proposed application adversity affects the special character or special historic architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the Landmark property and if the architectural style Arrangement texture color arrangement of color and materials used um are compatible with the

[78:02] character of The Landmark property so following the ldr's request we did an analysis of the alley on this block and found uh multiple styles of garage doors um and we included some examples in the memo and the applicant also included examples um generally we found modification of the door opening in this case appropriate as it is consistent with the historic scale of um traditional accessory structures and reflect proportions of doors in the district and this alley in particular uh we also founded the replacement of the non-historic wood doors appropriate if replaced with a solid wood double garage door with a similar design uh with window openings and wood detailing um which are in the recommended conditions of approval and uh I believe the applicant

[79:01] is here and can explain this um this in detail but the reason for the request is uh partly to do with the width of the alley so the official width of the alley is 20 ft um which you can see uh this Arrow represents approximately 20 feet the uh concrete apron at the entrance of the garage actually extends 3T into the alley um it was planned like that and approved like that um but as does the Landscaping on the opposite side uh which you can't really see um the leaves are on the ground here but uh you can see like the perceived width of the alley is more like 14 ft and that makes it difficult to turn into the single car garage door so this is a summary of our analysis and how we came to the recommendation uh the proposal does not

[80:00] damage or destroy exterior architectural features in this case modification of the door opening would not be detrimental to the character of the historic primary building or the adjacent historic accessory building the proposed work would not aversely affect the special character or special historic architectural aesthetic interest or value uh of the site or the district as the alley is found to include multiple styles of garage doors and also um do not impact the special character or aesthetic value of the alley or District as a whole the diversity of doors along the section of the alley helps emphasize the historic context and makes a distinction between historic and new buildings in the proposed architectural style Arrangement texture color and arrangement of color and materials are compatible with the historic character of the property uh the replacement door is proposed to have window openings and decorative de detailing that will add to

[81:00] the pedestrian scale of the alley um and the applicant can also go into this but uh has let me know that they are proposing a solid wood door so staff's recommendation is to proof the application with conditions finding that the proposal meets the standards for issuance of an Lac and is generally consistent with the general design guidelines and the guidelines for the Mapleton Hill historic district providing the stated conditions are met and staff's recommendation uh recommended conditions of approval include providing details of the new door um including materials proposed the design of door including windows and sticking trim details and paint color to ensure that the proposed is compatible with surrounding buildings that contribute to the historic district uh staff recommends the landmarks board adopt the uh the findings that the project will meet standards of issuance of a landmark

[82:01] alteration certificate set forth in 91118 and um we've estimated the board will need about 20 minutes for their deliberation and generally uh the question is whether the project meets the standards of issuance of uh an Lac but here are some additional prompts to help the discussion will the proposed work adverse the effect the special character of the historic district is the proposed style texture color and materials compatible with the character of the historic district so that's the end of my presentation um a reminder of the next steps the applicant and owner have um up to 10 minutes to present to the board the board may ask questions and then we'll hear comments from any member of the public who wishes to speak uh the applicant may have additional time to address anything said during public comment and then board will deliberate

[83:01] so any questions for me before we hand it over anyone have questions for staff okay none appearing okay uh or I believe uh Deborah is here okay we'll move to the applicant presentation and um I guess Deborah is the applicant yes and Deborah is being promoted we should see her in a moment there you go can you hear see me hi hi hi hi there um you have 10 minutes and the only thing I ask is that you swear to tell the truth and then State your whole name before you start

[84:00] speaking I swear to tell the truth and I am Deborah Dunn so um thank you um actually Claire did a really a thorough job um I here to reinforce what she said and maybe add just a little color I am fully prepared to do as you can see this is a note from my garage door Builder a custom wood door mirroring the two doors that are there today with the same color sighting Windows um so that is hopefully not even distinguishable from the two doors that I have today as Claire noted um the entry is actually very very tight I have a Jeep with a tight turning radius and even I am struggling to get into my single doors um and I actually already hit a side of my garage and had a claim on my Jeep because I messed up the fender and I've only owned the house since July so I am now uh started contemplating this because as I enter winter months I will find it infeasible for me to access that garage during the winter especially with the slope of the

[85:01] slab going in any ice or snow and we'll be forced to park on the street that if you know Maxwell's already overpopulated as it is and so I really would like to use my garage all year round including winter months during the snow and sleet and find that it will be more feasible for me if I can have one large garage door so I don't intend to change the purpose of the garage just simply change the door um so that I can use it um more easily uh during all the months of the year and that's really about it um it's pretty hopefully straightforward and give you comfort that I do not plan to deteriorate the visual of the garage or the alley okay thank you do any members of the board have questions for Deb I don't have a question but I just want to make sure that the Quasi judicial

[86:00] thing I have worked with Deborah before so it will not um here it won't change my opinion I guess so I just want to make that note on the lawyer end thank you Renee okay I don't believe we have any questions um thanks for your presentation we can move to public comment if there are any members of the public that would like to speak to this issue Aubrey do we have anyone all right if you would like to speak just raise your V virtual hand I'm not seeing anyone right now John so let's just give it a couple seconds all righty I think we're okay to move

[87:00] on okay we will close the public comment phase and we will move to board discussion um anyone on the board want to open this one I'll um I'll I'll start um I went along I uh did the tour that um uh that Marcy had suggested we do and so I was in that alley and um I noticed just across which I think they presented a picture of just across the alleyway is a double door um and um it is a tight it is a tight little area I probably would have to have done like a you know a three-point turn in my little car um so I um you know because this building is a non-contributing building I will support staff's recommendation in approving a

[88:00] double door and approving um the way and the character of the style I do not believe that it adversely affects the special character of the historic district um I appreciate the scaling in the upper part of the trim and um I think that um I am in agreeance with staff recommendation to approve a door okay anybody else we have sure I'll go ahead I agree with Renee and with staff all right Ronnie I think this is actually kind of challenging for me because in my tenure on the board I don't think I've have seen us like approve large garage doors um If This Were to have come in front of us as a new design I think we would have been encouraging them to have two single

[89:01] car garages I think the issue here is kind of the existing nature of the garage and the compactness of um you know the turning radius on that alley um but you know 23 feet is pretty close to a typical parking lot standard which is 24 ft from you know stall to stall um I recog there's a fence which makes it even more challenging um but I know that there have been many times in which people have asked for single car single garage doors and um they are always encouraged or required to put two doors in as this building apparently does and probably was required to do back in 2005 um so John I know you've been on the board for a while I'd be curious what your thoughts are and I know Kurt might have an opinion on this too um one thing that I would as agree with staff and my colleagues that just spoke about

[90:00] this not being the historic structure um and I don't think it necessarily damages the characteristics of the historic structure on this property um but there is a concern of like incremental change I'm less compelled by other possibly you know not directly complying U garages on the alley um because I think you know essentially when you make a decision like this today it seems as though we're making this decision kind of universally um and if we were to I would want us to make sure you know we're explaining why this one might be so special that we would allow it that's interesting because I was going to address the issue once again this is one that the reason it's in front of us I believe is because it is somewhat of a precedent setting

[91:00] review however I'm I'm inclined strongly inclined to agree with staff's recommendation and a kind of General tone from other board members I've walked this alley many times actually since the 80s and have seen the change kind of process which has been a little more than incremental actually along this alley and others in this portion of the hill and um or of of Newlands or M Mapleton I mean and it is interesting that there are within that block alone I think there are already three or four double siiz doors so in essence the predent has been set this is not the one doing it and it's already establishing

[92:02] or established as an allowable state in certain conditions especially on a a non-contributing building so I support staff's recommendation and I see Christopher's hand up thank you um just want to remind uh the board that uh marport doesn't really uh set precedent every case is individual based off the facts presented and the criteria so what you do in one case shouldn't really impact what you do in another case because every case should be reviewed individually and uh according to the facts and the criteria in the code um so I've I've heard precedent a couple of times tonight um and I understand uh uh I understand that but I just want to remind the board that we don't we're not in precedent here we're just reviewing cases and applying the criteria to individual cases

[93:02] okay okay well I'll withdraw everything I support staff's recommendation Kirk did you have anything you'd like to add yeah that's Kurt sure uh I'll say that based on my exper experience on the board now almost 10 years ago or maybe it is more 10 years ago I think that at that time probably our reading of the guidelines was a little stricter with regards to this than maybe the current boards and I you know I can't say how we would have ruled obviously but I think we there certainly were a number of uh situations where we considered um the options between two single doors and one double door and my recollection is in general we did not

[94:00] we're not approving double doors um but that you know as as Christopher points out president is not an an issue here um so I I guess I can just give you that perspective it does feel like if the uh I if if the board is feeling like the guidelines are not providing them the right guidance um that again really it it seems like the guidelines should be updated to reflect that well that yeah that is an interesting statement Kurt thank you um guidelines are exactly that they're guid lines they're not absolute statements or codes and they evolve and sometimes

[95:01] they're somewhat Collective taste driven when they're written and taste can become less relevant as tastes change and so guidelines sometimes need to be reviewed and evolved there are a number of guidelines in our various um guideline body in these districts that may at some point in the near future require some revision and there's a planning process coming up that may address some of that so um but it's an interesting discussion these alleys have been undergoing a lot of incremental change and part of it is how people interact with the city they live in and how they use all parts of the infrastructure the alley alley being the service site of the in

[96:00] infrastructure so it it's kind of it's kind of an interesting thing for us to look at this and review it and it would also be really interesting if somebody took a review through time of some of these alleys and looked at the changes that have been happening and what the pattern is there so but we're to the point point where is there anyone who's willing to make a motion well I I I want to honor like Ronnie's position because he was more apprehensive about um having these two double doors I mean having this to be a one single car door is there a way to make the door opening um um one door that Ronnie you might

[97:02] feel better with like a not such a maybe not so large or you know Rene I'm not sure um but what I have seen are like the types of doors that we have traditionally approved are single doors or at some points we have seen historic structures on alleys that have had like a barn door um and then there has been interesting Technologies around how that barn door has either been recreated or simulated um but I don't know how else you would do it you know I think the Faking It version probably is you know not the right way to go it's just that it's inauthentic and I think it's clumsier than um having the single door you know I I think that this particular issue is an issue of

[98:02] navigating into the garage um and if you look at the image that shows the neighbor's fence like I don't know what the fence standards are in Boulder like how close to can a fence be to the property line along an alley and whether or not that neighbor is actually complying um is just something that I would question um I don't have an answer to that but um I don't I don't know Rene I appreciate you kind of opening it back up to me and asking me um it's it's challenging because I will tell you that you know five years ago I am pretty confident the board you know reviewing cases like this would have come down more strictly on the single car garage door approach um because I'd seen so many with them at the time and I believe that staff's recommendation prop it when I saw these staff's recommendations while they're unique cases um were very um direct

[99:02] about the single garage door so I don't know I mean I think that this would be very different than what I've seen us administer in the past um and I do feel for this applicant um so I I'm not sure I don't have an answer as to like you know if what's the justification in this case I think is I I I guess for me it would be the navigation of the garage and the tightness of the alley um that would make this a unique case um if that wasn't an issue and there was just a desire to have a double Crotched or would we be saying something differently I don't know yeah I mean I my You know despite the fact that you know hopefully cars are not getting that much bigger but like for instance like an electric car the rivon is about similar

[100:00] size to the Jeep so um that would you know still have some radius issues um I guess I was more inclined after visiting the alley that there was the double car uh right literally right across the alley so I was like you know how can we um how can we approve this I mean that was my feeling and so I felt like and they're doing it in a way that um has the double door you know the windows above it and it creates same similar aesthetic so I guess that was um kind of where I was coming from with it and I think you're right I think if we got a new build we would uh really belabor the fact of it being a two single car um you know garages and um instead of one big car G garage door so but um I propose that I make a

[101:04] motion actually I want to make no one else has anything to say I I want to make one quick clarification um it rather than using the word precedent what I should have said was context and we are supposed to consider context and context is the place where incremental change accumulates and then your response to context is going to change through time as incremental changes do accumulate and I think we're in that situation with this alley I think that the context of what has happened elsewhere does play a role in what the character of The Alley is and what we're thus able to allow to happen there so with that Renee may may I ask a question before we make a motion um do we know what the fence on an alley uh

[102:01] construction regulation is can it be built on the property line I think it can be built right on the rightaway edge yeah I mean I don't know I M might have an idea but I do know that this fence obtained a permit so I'm pretty sure that it's in the right place I think it can be on the property line and I think that this house was built it's supposed to be 24 in from their 24 in 24 feet from their property line so the backup distance from the garage should be 24t from the property line so understandably if that fence was built on the property line there should be 24 feet between the face of the garage and that fence yeah that's the same backup you want in a parking garage or I mean in a parking lot so Marc did you I think Claire was

[103:00] asking you if you had documentation of the um fence construction uh requirement the the yeah the the I don't know what the requirement is between the between the two structures if you can call them that but I do know that this fence did obtain a permit and I don't know what the fence requirements are in terms of setback or uh location but would just Echo what CLA said about the the fence having a permit all right is that a motion motion Renee are you going to make the motion sure I have to I have to see it I can't

[104:01] do it off of memorization okay I move that the landmarks board adopt the staff memorandum dated November 20th 2024 as the findings and conditionally approved application for a landmark alteration certificate to modify the garage door opening on a non-contributing accessory building at 527 Max well h224 00234 in the Mapleton Hill historic district uh pursuit to uh section 91118 of the boulder Revised Code 1981 as shown on the application materials dated September 24th 2024 finding that the proposal meets the standards for issuance of a landmark altered altercation certificate in chapter 9-11-18 BRC 1981 and is generally

[105:01] consistent with the Mapleton Hill historical district guidelines and the general design guidelines for Boulder historic districts and individual landmarks sorry all good do I have a second well no you got to do condition of approval oh oh okay conditions of approval the applicant shall be responsible for completing the work in compliance with the approved plans except as Modified by these conditions of approval prior to submitting a building permit application and final issuance of the landmark altercation certificate the applicant shall submit the following which shall be submit 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 district design guidelines and the intent of

[106:03] this details include materials shown to be solid wood design of door including windows and sticking trim details and paint color okay thank you we have a motion do we have a second second okay we have a second we will proceed to vote Chelsea hi Ronnie or Renee I Ronnie no and I vote I so the motion passes three to one um and Claire you can explain next steps yeah uh so so uh city council has up to 16 days to decide to uh call up the decision if they do not decide to

[107:00] review it um the conditions of the Lac will be reviewed by staff and once the conditions are satisfied the Lac will be issued um in the rare case that city council wants to review the decision staff will schedule that hearing within 45 days um and I will be in touch to let you know how to um how to get us the uh final um final details uh to satisfy those conditions of approval so thank you very much for your time this evening okay thank you thank you everyone and we will move to item 5C and this one is going to be presented by Marcy this is a public Hearing in consideration of an application to demolish a building constructed 1957 to

[108:00] 1965 at 2425 Colorado Avenue um his 22024 or 2024 d206 a non-landmark property older than 50 years old pursuant to section 9-11 d23 of the B older Revised Code 1981 and under the procedures prescribed by chapter 1-3 quasi judicial hearings BRC 1981 and we have the PowerPoint up Marcy will make the presentation all right thank you and good evening uh landmarks board members I'm Marcy Gering uh principal planner in planning and development services and I affirm to tell the truth in this presentation we will uh Begin by going through the Quasi judicial hearing process uh board members will note any ex parte contacts

[109:02] that would be now and I'll pause if you've made a site visit or had conversations with community members or the applicants about uh this property hearing none uh we will continue uh I'll start with a staff presentation followed by board question s and then the applicant has a opportunity to present and followed by board questions and then the public hearing is open for public comment uh and the board may also ask questions there after the final person has spoken the applicant has a chance to respond uh to anything that was said and then the public hearing is closed and the board uh uh discusses a motion requires an affirmative vote of at least three members to pass and motions must State findings conclusions and recommendation and finally a record of the hearing is available after this meeting the purpose for this uh

[110:02] demolition review is to prevent the loss of buildings that may have historic or architectural significance and provide the time necessary to initiate designation as an individual Landmark or consider alternatives uh for the building the criteria for your review is found in 911 23f of the boulder of code and that is whether the building is eligible for landmark designation the relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood as an established and definable area the reasonable condition of the building and the reasonable projected cost of restoration or repair in considering the condition or cost the board may not consider deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect the options in front of you this evening are to either approve the demolition request that approval would be good for 6 months and would expire at the end of May or you may place a stay of demolition on the application in

[111:00] order to provide times to con in order to provide time to consider alternatives to demolition that stay would expire March 19th uh 2025 and um the option in front of you tonight is not to Landmark the building or initiate Landmark designation this is an opportunity to review the demolition application and either approve the demolition or place a stay to provide time to look at Alternatives this application uh process began uh in early September when uh the department received an application to demolish the building uh because it is a post 1940 building the initial review was completed by staff and staff referred the application to the board finding that there is probable cause to believe the building may be eligible for designation as an individual landmark and that brings us to this evening on November 20th for the landmarks Board

[112:02] hearing the property is located midblock between 26th and fulam on the north side of Colorado Avenue the building faces South onto Colorado and across from the CU campus uh and the engineering uh Center the property is not located within the boundaries of an identified potential historic district the original part of the building was designed by fisher Fisher and Davis of Denver in the modernist architectural style using the A-frame form the masonry in frame building has an asymmetrical front facing stily a steeply pitched gable roof with wide overhanging Eaves the west side of the roof descends almost to the ground uh typical of the A-frame form and a panel of Windows span the center of the Gable emphasizing its roof form and height a square Bell Tower or steeple at the southwest corner is constructed of brick and topped with a 750 lb uh Bell and a open gable roof

[113:02] form in 1965 an addition was designed by Architects art Everett Alan zagel and William Heisman they designed a masonry addition with an A-frame roof form to represent a spire and connected the two parts of the building these are additional photo moving around the west and uh north side of the building these photos show the original part of the building from the southwest corner including the Chapel to the right a court off of the chapel with a flat roof building behind it that hous the student lounge offices Parish house and uh near the rear the belf fry was modified in 1965 to include the gable roof a comparison between the 1957 building and and the uh image today shows the Integrity of the asymmetrical gable roof with wide Eaves Central ribbon window steeple and modify belf

[114:02] fry with the gable roof added in 1965 in the 1965 photograph showing the original portion of the building with the modified belfrey and uh gable roof and the new addition to the right side of the image uh with the A-frame form of the addition and the connection between the two parts of the building overall the building retains a high degree of historic Integrity the building is in its original location and the design of the building was constructed in two phases and retains its 1964 character the building retains most of its historic materials predominantly the rough uh reddish brown bricks the and the single sorry the cedar shingle roof and the original windows at the facade have been replaced the building demonstrates workmanship typical of its period of construction including the exposed framing members and the building's uh ability to convey a feeling as a mid-century church has

[115:01] not been diminished and the addition of the parking lots has not changed the overall park-like setting of the building in general minor alterations have not impacted the build the building's ability to convey its association with its 1957 to 1965 construction the the criteria for review are outlined as I mentioned in 911 23f of the boulder Revised Code which looks at the eligibility of the building uh as an individual Landmark as well as its relationship to the uh character of the neighborhood and we use the significance criteria adopted in 1975 to evaluate uh these buildings and its eligibility so starting with the historic significance staff considers that the building meets the historic sign ific criteria in that it shows value as part of a cultural characteristics of the community and exemplifies the cultural and social

[116:00] Heritage of the community It's associated with Reverend Alexander balfor Patterson and Virginia Helen wheeler Patterson who are instrumental in forming St Aiden and were active participants in the St Aiden's parish and The Wider Boulder Community Virginia worked for the University Bureau for state and community service the Colorado mun ipal league and wrote for the school board journal in addition she served as the Boulder Valley School Board member in president staff considers that the building located at 2425 Colorado meets the architectural significance criteria in that it embodies the distinguishing characteristics of modernist architectural style using a modifi modified A-frame form that includes the character defining roof and wall trust system with steeply pitched front Gable form uh creating the dominant triangular shape deep inset Eaves and subordinate vertical walls and it is the work of

[117:01] fiser fiser and Davis with art Everett and Alan zagel of the firm Everett and zagel William Heisman of Heisman and Eng Les Architects uh co-designing the addition to the building uh each of those Architects are known Statewide or locally Arthur fiser uh officially retired from the firm of Fisher sh and Davis in 1956 and it is unknown whether he was involved in this design The Firm designed and constructed several prominent homes churches hospitals and schools as well as commercial designs such as the Denver City Tramway building and the AC Foster building uh in Denver as well as the state capital Annex and the Denver Public Library art ever and Alex zagel are considered two of Boulder's masters of local modernism William Heisman was the chief designer for James Hunter and Associates before 1961 and in the mid 1960s Heisman partnered with uh Charles Les to create

[118:01] the firm of Heisman and Eng Les together they are credited for Designing the Colorado bookstore on the hill and the uh Boulder National Bank uh at 1628 Street um turning to the environmental significance staff considers that the building meets the uh Environmental significance in that the building enhances the variety entrance and sense of identity of the community uh and this uh area through the unique man-made environment due to its prominent location near the corner of fulam in Colorado and adjacent to the CU campus it represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community looking at the relationship uh of the neighborhood the northeast corner of Colorado and fulam is distinct in that includes three modernist religious buildings uh generally intact to their original designs two of the three buildings were found uh were surveyed in

[119:01] the 2000 modernist uh architecture survey and at that time were found to be potentially eligible for local Landmark designation as well as listing at the state Register of historic places uh those two are the uh the Lutheran Church at um uh 122 fulam which was designed by The Firm of deeton royland and Mueller and the Welsley foundation's Methodist Student Center at 1290 fulam which was designed in 1965 by uh Hobert Wagner while the St Iden uh church was not included in the survey of modern architectural structures the character of the neighborhood is made unique through the grouping of these three distinctly modernist buildings and together they exemplify a unique Regional architecture uh movement in Boulder moving to the next criteria about the condition of the building and the projected cost of repair uh the applicant has not submitted information

[120:01] specific to the condition of the building or the projected cost uh of repair but have provided the following uh information about the annual operating uh costs which uh are becoming prohibitive and that they regularly deal with plumbing and heating failures leaking roofs uh while parishioners and guests suffer from the lack of air conditioning during the summer months and that this structure was built with traditional lightweight materials and the systems are aging uh ongoing maintenance costs are taking a large portion of the congregation's budget and as the structures continue to age maintenance cost will continue to rise as the community congregation size continues to decrease the church finds itself in an unsustainable position riing on decreasing revenues to cover the increasing costs and representatives for both St Aiden and the applicants are here to speak to that and answer

[121:00] questions you may have uh so with that staff recommends that the landmarks board place a day of demolition on the application in order to provide time uh to explore alternatives to demolition our findings is that are that the property may be or the property is eligible for landar Mark designation based on its historic architectural and environmental significance and that the property contributes to the character of the neighborhood as an intact representative of the area's past and that at this time it has not been demonstrated to be impractical or economically unfeasible to rehabilitate the building uh with that here is the uh recommended motion language and that concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have okay thank you Mercy um any questions for staff from the

[122:07] board okay I think Kurt might have a question yeah he does have his hand up Kurt thank you uh I had one question for Marcy and one actually for Christopher the question for Marcy is why was the building not included in that 2000 historic context and Survey of modern architecture which I think you were involved in well that was a little before my time in 2000 um that's that's surprised me but I thought I saw your name on something I yeah um thank you um so if I uh am channeling Leonard seagull who was involved in writing that survey um when the when similar questions have come up in the past um he has provided the context that uh there was a limited

[123:00] budget and scope for the survey and so they really had to pick the top 66 modernist buildings um and so it was um not it didn't include every potential mid-century modern building in Boulder um but it is I think seeing that the two neighboring buildings were included I can only imagine that it must have been considered to be included great thank you uh and then Christopher I have sort of a legal question I know that there is federal legislation RI the religious freedom restoration Act and arupa the religious land use and something something Act and I know that at least one of those was relevant when there was some sort of a land use procedure related to a church

[124:01] out near nyatt and my question is from a legal standpoint do do any of those have any bearing on this process are there any different procedures given that this is a church owned by owned by a church uh thanks for the question Kurt um I have looked into that a little bit um and I haven't identified any legal issues at this time for this public hearing um but uh that isn't to say that something could not come up in the future and so I'm paying pretty close attention here um but the board doesn't need to consider anything other than what's contained in the code for this one okay thank you you're welcome good question Kurt thank you Chris okay welc uh we can move I believe

[125:03] past this phase to the applicants presentation and who is here this evening from the applicant group that's going to present I'm seeing jvd team so they will be promoted here shortly okay and then let's ask them if anyone else looks like B patteron has their hand up yeah we should we should know how many people are speaking and who they are are we live yep there are three people who will speak on behalf of the as representatives of the applicant this evening I am JB dusa and I will speak first followed by B Patterson a member of the congregation followed by Mother Mary Kate the director here at St Aiden and okay you got go ahead well before we

[126:02] yeah all three of you if you're all three speaking will need to swear to tell the truth and state your for full names before you speak and I believe we give each person 10 minutes Aubrey um each applicant team has 10 minutes oh the whole team does okay so you can you can break that time up however you like yeah okay um we're ready to begin I my name is JV dusa and I do swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth here um this evening before the landmarks board um and we we've applied for a demolition permit because we really want to and the constraints on St Aiden's property uh the application does not intend that the church be torn down anytime soon um the

[127:01] people of St Aiden really love their building and they want to occupy it as long as they can but the building no longer aligns with their needs and in the future it will actually become a burden that threatens their ability to carry forward uh their mission um so we're here to talk to you tonight about the full cultural significance of St Aiden and um we noted that staff states that that St Aiden structure has significance because of its architectural style the design by architects of prominence and the association with key members of the community um notably Reverend Patterson and his wife Virginia um you know and we're not here to argue the architectural Merit of the structure it it is a good building um undeniably and as I said it is much loved um but it isn't one of the most significant mid-century churches in the city and as was discussed already um staff's report

[128:02] quotes um a survey of modern architecture that through its exclusion um infers that St aens isn't even the most significant Church on its block um and the architects who created uh St Aiden were they were important in shaping Boulder um there's no disputing that and they were all in some way connected to St Aiden's whether as congregation members or friends of Father Pat um and when they designed the building um we think they created a structure not to honor their own names but to house their community in faith and we believe that each of them were they here with us today would want St Aiden's the spiritual church to prosper and continue its Mission rather than see St Aiden's the physical Church Preserve against the wishes of its congregation um similarly we we know that Father Pat in Virginia would want St aens to thrive in the future um and

[129:02] if that meant the building would need to be torn down they would support that and so we lay before you a really difficult task this evening um how to measure the cultural significance of a church whether its significance lies in its physical form or whether its significance lies in its spiritual form and the good works of its congregation um and we want to be clear in this instance preserving the physical infrastructure of the church the architecture of its buildings will imperil the social infrastructure of the church it's heart and the Heart and Soul of its people who celebrate their faith here and do important work supporting the broader Community good and when we the when the board today considers the importance of Aiden we ask that you consider the full breadth of its cultural significance and not just the significance of its building and now we'll turn it over to

[130:02] Bal Patterson good evening I'm B Patterson son of Father Pat and Virginia I'm a lifelong member of St Aiden and a member of the leadership team for St Aiden's property my dad came to Boulder in 1947 a priest committed to Ministry to establish an Episcopal Outreach to CU on the hill at 10771 14th Street for 10 years the ministry grew in that small house but then needed change to flourish so Guided by Mom's farsightedness the plot east of Campus was chosen as a place to build and become a church with many loving parishioners St Aiden continued to grow in service to the university and the community leading to the 1965 expansion into our current facility both times the buildings

[131:00] changed but the ministry continued and grew as a living entity with a focus on CU students faculty and staff alongside our congregational life my parents Legacy is important to this town and it's already Remembered in Patterson alley downtown uh Chamber of Commerce and downtown Boulder Awards in the name of Virginia Patterson and her acknowledgement in the birthing center at Boulder Community Health their legacy at St Aiden's is invested in the church and its Ministries and the hope of continuing for decades to come like my parents we love this venerable place like them we are challenged to evolve again and recreate how the building can serve our continuing minist Ministry in Boulder because of the age of our building that long and complicated Evolution begins with you we have the opportunity to

[132:01] reimagine our location and continue our ministry for decades to come we have many ideas of how we would reinvent our property giving our Parish family a facility better suited to its needs while possibly adding new ways to serve the neighborhood CU and the City we are driven to make good choices for our future which requires thoughtful and accurate study and planning as a relatively small yet stable congregation we have the ability to do that well but we do not have the means to fund pre-development studies based in an uncertainty we ask that you give us the freedom to Dream On to Mary Kate my name is Mary Kate and I swear to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth and I serve as the Rector or priest at St Aiden I

[133:00] speak to you from the unseated territory and ancestral homelands of the Cheyenne Arapaho Ute and other Native American nations I want to thank City staff for your excellent report and your careful work about our building I speak to you as a parish priest and a campus chaplain not as a student of preservation and architecture St Aiden is a faith community that is committed to the mission of following Jesus's way of love we are an Episcopal Church Seeking Justice and dignity for all people among Christian churches we are lgbtqia plus inclusive and we have been led by a woman Pastor for 20 years that's me our mission is to be the congregation God calls us to in this place and to ensure that we can preserve that Legacy for years and centuries to come buildings come and go even ones

[134:03] that hold Beauty and history such as ours we do not make this request because we don't love our building we do very much we pray we remember the Dead We marry the joyful we encourage each other in the hard work of being faithful in this world and a community where some find our core beliefs irrelevant or perhaps just foolish the church is people before it is a building and yet buildings matter they are to be used for common good just this month we have already hosted three student din dinners a mobile food pantry for hundreds Music recital for a studio of young students and musicians from CU several small groups for us or for the c or for CU adjacent groups a large community event on human trafficking and more when our buildings were constructed

[135:01] in 1957 and 1965 they were economical A-frames on the edge of town and Fields as the photograph in the staff report shows the context is different now at St Aiden we're not strangers to preserving legacies and new ways St Aiden hosts an art gallery named after Mariel cibil Wally her husband father Francis Wally was a priest who served here long ago we established this Gallery in her name in 2008 that was the year that the Wall-E building was demolished at CU Boulder to make room for a much needed arts building this Gallery is available at no charge to local artists from the community and from cu we care deeply about the history of Boulder and our imprint on it if our building is landmarked we will have to spend money that we don't have

[136:01] for a process that is challenging for a building that already doesn't meet our congregation's needs in 2024 as we plan for the future the people of St Aiden in 2022 voted on our values those values are Partnerships Outreach practical realities intergenerational relationships care of creation and our Episcopal traditions we do not want to demolish this building because we want fancier bigger newer we want to live out our values in a changed world where partnering with others might be our best witness in a divided world and having flexible space will allow us to better serve and support Community organizations and to welcome future generations to pursue these values we sought and received a grant of $5,000 to do a feasibility study his Grant is from

[137:03] a real estate development mission of Trinity Episcopal Church Wall Street New York it was established to help churches navigate property changes St Aiden raises our own operations funding every year for staff and Ministry and everything else we come before this board now because we cannot spend grant money or other money on what is feasible and sustainable for the long-term future only to learn in a few years that this board would not allow it we have to take care of every gift that has been given to us this board received 14 letters at least appealing to this board not to designate our building a landmark each of them tells a different story a story of lives and organizations directly impacted by our presence at 2425 Colorado we love this place help us to

[138:01] continue to love to do the even harder work of something new and holy and beautiful and good for a common good for generations to come finally early this morning five people two others joining online in our original 1957 chapter we shared Holy Communion together as we do every Wednesday morning the altar or table was built in 2012 it was constructed after reenvisioning that Chapel to be multi-purpose and flexible it uses beautiful pink marble repurposed from the original 1957 altar it served the community in a new and beautiful way helping to connect living tradition with our history we ask you to trust that we care for the cultural Legacy as St aden's Church please and we ask you to to help

[139:03] to help see that we understand and care for tradition and people with equal love please allow us to care for our history written large in this community by choosing not to Landmark our building thank you very much anyone else uh from your group wish to speak I just want to make sure that you know I tell I told the truth I did not start my comments by saying that so thank you for your patience with me thank you okay do we have any question to the applicants from the board anyone want to ask questions um oh let me turn my video I I

[140:01] do have a question I guess um so the reason for you to put forth the demo application is just a viability to figure out what you can do with the church in the future so um instead of um I I'm like you know kind of in this middle ground right now because um demolish having demoed the site is a big deal considering there are so many other possibilities you could do um so I just want to know the I guess the hard question is the reason for the demo application is to see if you can get a demo application that's correct um the the church owns two lots on Colorado Avenue and the existing structure uh the footprint of it and the parking lot behind it uh completely cover the larger

[141:01] lot to the East and were the building to be landmarked um it would significantly um impact the developability of the site um as mother Mary Kate referenced you know they're exploring they want to and need to explore a lot of different options for how the the congregation changes and how it service to the community changes in the future and we're trying to as we said at the at the very beginning understand the constraints that are placed upon a lot by the city of Boulder's zoning code by the landmarks um possibilities and things like that so that's why we're here before you this evening okay that helps um anyone else Chelsea yeah I just wanted to confirm

[142:02] because our demolition permits how long are they valid for now or has that up been updated yet one year I believe one year sorry the the council will uh review those code amendments in December so up until that point any approvals are valid for six months and then um it because it's a post 1940 building it's a staff level review after that but moving forward next year if Council changes uh the code then our approvals will be good for one year so I just want to make sure that the applicant knows and I'm sure they've talked to staff about this that if even if we were to approve the demolition request it would only be valid for six months and then by the time you came back once you've developed your plan of what you actually wanted to do it could be a completely different board and the outcome could be different so I just

[143:01] want to make sure that the applicant is aware of that that just if you get an approval today and you don't do anything with it there's no guarantee that the same answer will be in the future that is fully understood okay good good point anyone else okay um I believe we can then move to our um public comment phase um do we have uh anyone Aubrey lined up who wishes to speak to this issue from the public we sure do John okay right now I'm seeing six hands

[144:00] up so we will start with Lynn seagull followed by Paul VES and then Karina julig sorry if I pronounced your names wrong um let's start with Lynn okay Lynn I will need to swear you and you can state your name and you will have three minutes ly and I will tell the truth the best of my knowledge I I would not feel right making any kind of a support or lack of support to this project based on not really knowing if this group is planning on keeping this space um and what I mean in spite of the fact that it's a church it's these are really economic decisions um you know I know because I'm stuck in

[145:01] my house for the rest of my life I'm not even going to see my grandkids or my kids because I'm stuck here because I can't I'm paralyzed to find a contractor I can trust to do anything to my house so I'm just kind of living out my life the rest the best that I can in my place and this is a church that could you know just want to choose another place to build their place and and this just gives them the money to do that is that ethical to do that to give a demolition so that they can financially benefit I mean they're a church you know you wouldn't want to turn the Church down um but it's kind of a dilemma to me um because it's all about the

[146:00] finances and and I don't really know what they plan on doing um if if they plan on I mean if you get a good architect you could do a very creative adaptive reuse of the space in spite of the fact that you have it kind of divided up into the two lots and and I don't know any of that I don't know what I would like to know is what would be the situation financially with redoing the place or with demoing it and starting all over sorry I had to get my line in um and I'd want to see that first I'd want to two estimates but I know that estimates are hard to get too so that's a dilemma you know and it's expensive to get just to have

[147:02] people estimating what's you're what you're going to do there and what if you've got one architect and another one has a whole better idea and you wouldn't know that um it gets to be kind of chance and and so I don't really know I'd want to see what it costs to fix it up and I'd want to see what it cost to start a new okay thank you Lynn um next on the line all right next we have Paul okay and Paul you should be able to unmute now excuse me okay Paul I think I just did can you hear me now yeah okay I I need you to swear to tell the truth State your whole name and you get three

[148:01] minutes thank you I'm Paul VES and I do swear to speak truthfully I've lived in Boulder for 21 years I'm a retired professor and former Dean at CU Boulder I've been a member of St Aiden's church for 20 years and for the last three years I've been the church's Chief lay officer here's why I support this permit application for nearly three years now our leadership team has engaged the congregation in discernment that's a process where the entire congregation imagines the church's life over the next 100 years we've shared visions and dreams we actually voted on which of those we ideally would want to pursue during this discernment we've also found ourselves articulating the values that draw us to this place we value service to our community especially to those in need we value welcoming all kinds of people we value the serenity of A Safe

[149:02] Harbor amid the stress and pace of Campus Life or of city life we value our role as responsible stewards of our environment St Aiden is part of a national Trend over the last several decades of Aging congreg ations declining memberships and oversized inefficient buildings in our discernment we've become determined not only to resist that National Trend but to effect a more positive impact on our community than we've ever had as we seek necessary new revenue streams to do that we need the freedom to transform our property without that freedom we have little chance of making that greater impact in fact little chance of even long-term survival our mission at St Aiden is to shine Christ's light on CU comma Boulder

[150:02] comma and the world to us that's a mission of Outreach and service in our discernment we've come to appreciate that this place across the street from CU and in the center of the city is ideal for our mission we've come together in a commitment to stay right here our mission statement doesn't mention a building because we know that a church is its people not a particular structure the church building should exist to enhance not hinder our ability to serve and finally in our discernment we have become excited about the opportunities that lie ahead please help us take this vital first step toward planning of a brighter future not just for St Aiden but for the people we know we can serve please approve this application thank you thank

[151:02] you we need to move to the next in line all right and next we have Karina hello everyone can you hear me now yeah hi Karina um I need need to get you to swear to tell the truth and state your whole name and you get three minutes thank you um I swear to tell the whole truth um good evening everybody my name is Karina juled um I'm a class of 2020 graduate of CU Boulder and a member of St Aiden where I currently serve on the VRE um I started attending St aens in college because it was where my campus ministry group held us meetings each Tuesday night which is where I made some of my closest friends the St Aiden's church building has a lot of wonderful memories for me um including the wedding two years ago of one of those friends I made at campus ministry

[152:00] um to his now husband but along with my memories of how beautiful and wonderful that service was um are my memories of how by the time it was over our uh wedding clothes were all but soaked through because it was the middle of July and the sanctuary has no air conditioning uh you know the lack of functional Heating and Cooling is just one of the many issues um with that building which is unfortunately falling into more disrepair um as it gets older uh many of our V meetings have been uh bogged down by discussions about the newest problem at the building and how to address it diverting time and energy from being able to focus on our broader Mission um we have a generous congregation but at the end of the day everyone wants their pledge dollars to go to a higher purpose than just fixing the latest leak in the roof um it's because of that that we've come to the decision that we need a um a new church building one better SE to the needs of our current and future congregation not

[153:01] the Church of 60 years ago the St iden's congregation has really become like a second family to me um and I've been so blessed by the love and support of our members who are senior citizens um when I'm their age um I want our church to still be thriving but I'm seriously worried that if we're burdened with the upkeep costs of an increasingly expensive building to maintain we will ultimately become financially unsustainable and have to close our doors um I'm respectfully asking the board to um approve our permit and not move to designate as a landmark building so that we can be good stewards of our uh Current financial resources um and devote more of our um energy and our money outwards towards the people in the Boulder Community who most need our support and not inwards towards our own needs thank you very much for your time thank

[154:05] you all right all right next up we have Kevin kryy and Kevin you'll be followed by Richard wolowick and Ben Nelson okay um you can cue Kevin up uh good afternoon folks can you hear me yes hi hi Kevin please uh swear to tell the whole truth to the board uh I am Kevin kley and I swear to tell the whole truth for the board thank you you have three minutes thank you thank you all for your time this evening like Karina I uh came to St Aiden in the fall of 2016 as a freshman at the University of Colorado and uh stayed long past as an active

[155:02] member of St Aiden's past my graduation date in 2020 St Aiden is a vibrant and special place for me it's been a place of great personal transformation and growth of friendships with friends young friends old like Karina said I've witnessed the marriage several friends in St Aiden and the funeral masses of many other friends in S aens I value our building and our space and what it has allowed us to do as a congregation but like others have told you our congregation now needs the freedom to fully explore what our next chapter in life together with will look like one of my not so happy memories from my college days at CU was shoveling snow off the roof in order to stop the Relentless flow of water into our Parish

[156:01] Hall space and while efforts have been made to repair that roof we still experience problems like leaks lack of air conditioning and other repairs that hinder our life as a congregation we as congregation as St Aiden's need a building and not a museum that will allow us to fully live into the call that Jesus Christ has placed on us as a community we believe that the best way board for this is this board allowing us the freedom and opportunity to fully explore our options without having to worry that this building may be designated as a landmark site it is with all all of this in mind that I respectfully ask this board to not issue a state of Demolition and allow us to continue our work thank you very

[157:04] much okay thank you move to the next one all right moving right along um sorry Zoom is giving me trouble I'm surprised okay Richard you have permission to speak okay can you hear yes hi Richard um I need you to swear to tell the truth and state your whole name and you have three minutes thank you uh my name is Richard volovich

[158:00] and I swear that told the whole truth to the board I'm a member of St Aiden's Church uh I came to the University of Colorado and St Aid as an undergraduate in 1985 where I met my wife Katherine in the St Aiden campus ministry I stayed for Masters and PhD from CE and together with Katherine we have raised our four children and now two grandchildren in Boulder I live and work locally at Google uh I am speaking to respectfully request the landmarks board not designate St Aiden's building as a Historic Landmark even when my career took us away from Boulder 20 years ago for three years my family was drawn back to Boulder by our deep connection to the community in this city and in particular to St Aiden it's a vital part of our connection to Boulder the thriving campus ministry was extremely influential in my own life it introduced me to set of professors fellow students across many fields International students and ideas that I would not normally have encountered as an engineering major in the 80s uh my family's remained very engaged with our community at St Aiden uh to be

[159:02] part of offering the same opportunity to college students today and it is the St an community in this location across from suu campus specifically that is important not the building we need a facility here that will meet our the present needs and future needs of our community and students coming through our doors the present building is not that facility and so I'm asking the board to approve our application thank you thank you we have one remaining I believe sorry about that John we do have two remaining we have Ben Nelson followed by Pam green okay so Ben you have permission to speak and you will have three minutes can you hear me yes okay please uh please state that you will tell us the truth um State your full name and we'll give you three

[160:02] minutes I am Ben Nelson and I swear to tell the truth so I am a current PhD student here at the University of Colorado and unlike most of the people that have spoken tonight in uh support of St Aiden I am not an active parishioner at St Aiden I am a member of Grace Lutheran here in Boulder and I also happen to be the president of the Lutheran campus ministry here at CEO and over the past 15 years or so we have been engaged in a partnership with st Aiden's Episcopal Church specifically because of the location and the facilities that St Aiden has to interact and gauge with and support the broader CU Community this campus ministry used to be housed in Grace and like the challenges that St Eden is facing now that wasn't the appropriate space for it St Aiden has offered a a much better uh space for us but going far beyond that

[161:02] space it has allowed us to engage in relationships across ecumenical or across different uh sects of Christianity in ways that were unimaginable maybe 50 years ago or maybe even 30 years ago here in Boulder and in doing so we support a a vibrant grp group of students here at the the Campus Ministries we've had two other students who have spoken to their experiences since that partnership has occurred and just heard from somebody who was brought here well before that partnership was established with this partnership that we have between St Aiden and the Lutheran campus ministry we're able to reach so many more students in such a a more meaningful way and as it stands right now we're uh serving student dinners for approximately 40 students a week coming from all sorts of background across uh CU however the building at St Aiden is no longer the best location or the best place for that to occur it is the best location in a physical sense

[162:02] but the building can't sustain that forever and the hope with this process is to begin to discern how we can best suit all of those students all of those community members all of those parishioners at St Aiden in ways that works better for everyone instead of being in building that is hurting and diminishing those relationships for everyone where so much more effort has to be put into fixing all the things that spring up removing the snow from the roof before it's water in the building all of these things that make negative experiences for everyone and so I am asking the board here today to support St Aiden through this process of figuring out what is the best way to serve all of these vibrant communities that are so uh supported and encouraged and given New Life In Christ through St Aiden and its ecumenical Partnerships at this very location here on Colorado Avenue through the look at how we could

[163:01] achieve a better building to meet those needs thank you for your time thank you now we have one left all right the last hand that is raised belongs to Pam green after Pam if anyone else would like to speak please raise your hand and you can go next Pam You love three minutes great hi I'm Pam green and I swear I will tell the truth so as you've heard tonight as you've heard tonight our congregation and our ministry matter we improve lives I have been deeply involved in my congregation's three years of discernment and soul searching as we sought a realistic values-driven solution that would let us keep this building that we built and avoid disruption from transitioning to a right-sized one we needed to get a sense of what was possible we've determined that keeping this building will almost

[164:01] certainly not be possible the conclusion that we needed a demo permit became inescapable and I urge you to approve it tonight I do want to share some information and background about our building even though you keep hearing about Le leaking roofs and the roofs keep leaking it's not from lack of maintenance we spend over $100,000 a year maintaining and operating this building that's about 25% of our budget and that includes $30,000 a year for utilities for a building with no central air conditioning we only use about only about 8% of our building space is used each week for years we have reached out to compatible partners that might need space they find it unappealing and impractical the building generated less than $1,000 a month in rent last year almost half of our square footage is composed of two worship spaces one of them is always too big one can be too small unlike Goldilocks we don't have a single space that's just right the

[165:01] spaces have poor Acoustics they can be sweltering or freezing and they're not fully Ada accessible to everyone people it's not Equitable some people can't approach The Altar for communion these buildings cannot be converted spaces to be just right we have a shoe string budget we don't have Deep Pockets we can only pay one permanent full-time employee the extraordinary mother Mary Kate and a handful of part-time ones we could do so much more good without huge expenses for wasted space I'll point out again the staff report States in its discussion that Paglia seagull and Ray's exhaustive survey of borders Martin architecture didn't identify our building is potentially eligible for landmarking the building is neither architecturally unique or artistically unique or worth preserving the 1965 structures were cheaply built in 9 months and it shows and it's far from compliant with modern code we don't have

[166:00] the funds to figure out the cost to renovate it please don't require that as part of this process it would just flush more D money down a drain that's always backed up anyway we have a plumber on speed dial our main tangible asset is our location it's critical to our student Ministry a reasonable balance of community interests would never value this unremarkable structure over our private property rights and our benefit to this community please approve our application to demolish our building thank you thank you are there any other members of the public that would like to speak to this issue it looks like like we have one more hand raised belongs to Caitlyn Caitlyn you'll have three minutes give you permission to speak hello thank you so much my name is

[167:02] Caitlyn tosson I'm an undergraduate student at C Boulder I'm part of B belonging okay Caitlyn I need you to swear to tell the truth to the board oh yes of course so just state that you will yes I'll tell the truth okay thank you absolutely three minutes thank you um yeah so my name is Kaitlyn pson I'm an undergraduate student at CU Boulder and I'm part of the bread and belonging Tuesday night dinner um I am asking you not to Landmark St Aiden's building I stumbled across bread and belog in at Su Boulders involvement fair when I was truly at a point of Crisis I was first sexually assaulted when I was 8 years old but because I was associated with the faith community at the time back in elementary school and through

[168:01] part of high school I was supported through my assault when I began College a year and a half ago my first goal was to find a faith community but I was unsuccessful all of the student Faith communities I looked into would not extend a hand to me or support me because I openly identified as a queer woman I lost my faith community and because of that I was thrust into a very dark place I got into a relationship where my partner regularly made jokes about how easy it would be to rape me injured sexual assault time and time again at the beginning of this year I was walking through the involvement fair at CU Boulder just as the booths were packing up I had been sexually assaulted just days before and didn't want to get my hopes up about finding a faith community I was walking around had noticed the bread and belonging Booth lingering around just long enough for pastor Lindsay one of the pastors who co-runs bread and belonging who called me over she mentioned that this is an that

[169:01] this is an inclusive space starkly contrasting the other religious groups around campus she also mentioned that there'd be free food and I'm a college student and how could I turn that down the only other question I was hesitant to hear the answer to was if they were close to campus the other inclusive faith community that I had found the previous year was entirely inaccessible since they were over a 15minute drive away and as a freshman I was not able to I didn't know anyone in the organization nor was I able to find anyone to carpool with it was entirely inaccessible when I joined um when I heard about BR belonging and heard that they were only a 5 minute walk away from last class the day um and would support me with dinner that I often forget to cook for myself additionally I attended the Bible studies on every other Monday where I haven't been able to really

[170:00] connect with my faith community around 45 minutes in in a cry of desperation I was able to bring up my ongoing sexual assault for the first time and was met with warms and support that I had never dreamed was possible please do not make St Aiden's building a historical landmark this church is a safe space that deserves that serves a diverse population of students but St aens needs to be able to figure out its future as bugly as possible the location and people within St Aiden not the building was pivotal to me finding a faith community that extended a hand to me while I was drowning trying to handle my history of sexual assault on my own please do not make St adan's building a historical landmark thank you thank you okay okay sorry John Jinx if any would like to speak just raise your virtual hand now and you'll have three

[171:03] minutes okay not seeing any other hands I think we're okay to move on okay it's it's not real common that we get this many comments so we want to allow everyone who wants to speak to speak um with that we can close the public comment section and is there anything the applicant wants to respond to in what was just heard anyone in the applicant group want to make a response to anything that was said we we we do just want to um state that you know what we heard from all of the public comment is aligned with what

[172:00] we asked you about as part of our um applicant presentation which is to really understand the full um cultural significance of St aens within the community and how um the cultural importance of this institution to the people of this community is so much greater than the cultural significance of its structure um it was asked uh by the very first um uh public comment about the costs and uh Pam was able to share some of the costs that are ongoing that the building uh causes and incurs and places a burden upon uh St Aiden uh and and we've we are just really um starting to look at what the possible Futures are for St Aiden so we don't have costs related to uh anything that um was asked

[173:01] about uh in terms of what Redevelopment of the facility would be we've not put money into uh redesigning how the structure might be modified um the church has a very limited budget for this and so some of that exploration may happen in the future but we wanted to first come before the board today to um ask for a permit for demolition so that we could hear from the board its comments about the Merit of the the staff report that was placed before you anything else I don't have anything thank you that's it okay thank you that was useful um all right that that closes the whole the whole of the public comment phase and we will move to board deliberation and is there anyone on the

[174:01] board who would like to lead off here Ronnie yeah I mean I first of all want to recognize that there's tremendous support for the request and support for the church and that the testimonies that we did hear tonight I think describe the church and the ways in which the applicants have um regarding their commitment to um servicing the community and creating a welcoming and inclusive environment among other things and so um I just wanted to recognize that there is a lot of outpouring of similar sentiment and support for the church and I'm grateful

[175:00] to know um that your organization exists in our community and that you are providing services to um you know people at the University and kind of broader reaching than that um you know I think that this is is a little complicated because there is a lot of Truth in what is being said about the value of um the church being able to um you know serve people and for them to do that in the current facility is challenging um and then I think it's also difficult to contest um some of the evidence that's been presented by staff about the historic Merit of the building um you know Marcy in the past you've talked a little bit about these types of um

[176:02] relationships where um you know we question what it is that we're actually preserving and if we're dis if by displacing the the people in the buildings because of preservation we're creating issues um that have to do with you know the broader missions of our community so I Marcy I'm hoping that maybe you can jump in um and maybe help illuminate some of those types of conflicts because I think you do it much more eloquently than I can um and then maybe I can jump back in sure um yes I um I'm not sure I'll be more eloquent than you Ronnie but um I do I I do um I think this is a case it's it's not um unique in that preservation has a lot of emotions and a lot of um a a lot of

[177:06] uh feelings around change or stability and I think that this has come up in the past with long-term owners whose parents or grandparents built the house and now they are looking to sell it um and it's not an easy decision and it's not you know what they wanted to to see that demolished and so um I don't know if there was a a specific um case in the past that you're thinking of that I spoke to but that's the one that that came to my mind but um and also you know the community conversation around rallying around a place like the Dark Horse where preservation can preserve the shell of a building but not the community and the spirit within it so I think that um I'm hearing the issues be brought up about preservation of a physical place um and preservation

[178:02] long-term preservation of the community and the life within that place Marcy can I ask you a question I'm sure my fellow board members have similar questions but um you have you has staff been able to discuss with the applicant um the purposefulness of the stay what happens during a stay um the the Merit of what that process might reveal we've met with the applicants as as part of this process and um so the purpose of the state is to provide time to explore Alternatives could the building be incorporated into the Redevelopment is there a portion of the building that is um more significant than others uh in some other cases could the building be moved on site or offsite could the materials be salvaged um it's often uh there's an inclination to have

[179:01] the process jump from Demolition being proposed to Landmark designation over the owner's objection and you really have to pull that accordion apart of the processes designed to provide time to look at Alternatives and and that's what's uh in front of the board uh this evening Marcy um were you party to the process that occurred in the Lutheran Church on the corner the fome property I I mean that was an interesting I guess example of what the stay process allows and and how it works with um groups or people that are in difficult situations with a building that otherwise may have some architectural either significance or value or other

[180:00] community value from what the users are providing or gaining from it it the just to expand on this notion of what the purpose of the stay is rather than we we on the board and um even staff are presented with a problem and a or a challenge around a a project and the strict reading of the of the code and the guidelines at multiple levels is that well based on this criteria and this criteria and this criteria this building has this almost measurable value and so either a it should be preserved or it doesn't reach the right set of criteria and so be it can be let

[181:01] go but when the board's presented with these with the exception of what staff provides us it's very often a first first Glimpse and also it's it's a first chance to even engage the problem side of it and so the stay gives a time period and we're not locked into the 180 days so we'll we'll talk about that a little more it gives us a time period where some of the engagement that wouldn't happen in any other parts of the process can happen between there's a lot of Talent on this board and there's a lot of ideas and a lot of creative thinking around all the issues that we deal with and I assume that on the applicant side there's a great deal of talent and creative thinking that has been going on that's LED them to this point to make this

[182:00] request and so it it creates a point of interface between these two bodies of thought to try to get in and understand the problem and explore what some of the options might be and also just to completely understand and experience the building itself and what it is and what its value was and is and to be able to document and edify it as it were in the in the history of the of the town which is what the board should be involved with so it's it's not it's not the same thing as initiating landmarking it is a preliminary step that allows people the time to explore this to the degree that a building that does have arguably this

[183:00] value to that period of architectural history and in fact to this group of buildings um and it to to some degree the very first speaker on the applicant side he said we'd like you to help us understand this whole process we're going into and I also hear that that pulling the demo permit is not necessarily going to end in demolition it's to open the door to what some of the opportunities might be so the stay allows some of that without overtly saying okay well your demo permit expires if you don't drive a bulldozzer through this and I I think that I think that that's why I'm trying to explain why I think this would be a very positive thing for all the people involved in

[184:01] this is to implement the stay any other members I mean all of you need to speak chelse see question it seemed to me like there was a sense of urgency on approving the Demolition and so I'm curious if maybe the applicant can speak to um knowing if you have a demolition approval Now versus 180 days from now what the difference for you is um in terms of your planning yeah I I would like to speak to that I did speak to Marcy um several weeks ago when uh the demo application came before her and Marcy actually first encouraged us to um instead of coming before you about the demo permit to come through

[185:01] site review um to landmarks um and we had to State very assertively that uh preparing a site review is uh an investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars hundreds of thousands of that the church simply doesn't have and so we did need to press forward and Marcy did um after talking to me say that she agreed and she you know the demo permit has come before you here for consideration yeah we we don't believe that this process is going to be um resolved in terms of the process meaning the consideration of what the alternatives are for redevelopment of this parcel and how it serves the Partnerships that the church would like to uh continue to Foster and what it means for the economics of this organization and how it can continue going forward um in the future to serve

[186:03] the community of Boulder and the university this process is going to take quite a bit of time for us to get to any real resolution there and the 180 days uh represents no threat or risk to any process that we've begun um and we would be happy to engage with people on the board and talk about it um you know we we do believe in working together and we believe there would be value in you coming to see the church and see some of the issues here and talk to the people that are really that are here and that use it every day and who practice their faith here um and you know see where we can go with that together uh and at the same time know that the church has identified that one of the Alternatives that may need to be considered is that the physical structure is completely

[187:01] removed so to summarize your answer that there would not be um it wouldn't be an impediment to delay the decision 180 days for for you to be able to consider consider your planning I what I don't know um Chelsea is I don't know what are there any deadlines with mrred or Trinity that in any way we have to deliver some information to them prior to that no okay uh no if if it if it does not inhibit you know your processes and in fact it may become a valuable part of your processes I that's what I'm hearing is that that this actually could serve what it's supposed to do is a part of your process of taking this forward

[188:00] and it's 180 days that could be well spent um getting you to the place where you know much more definitively where you want to go with this and have a better idea of what's possible and those types of things yeah I think that um our real intent well they're are several different layers to our intent in coming in today and one of them is to make sure that the city of Boulder and the landmarks board does not see um or want to press forward with a landmark process in opposition to what the the church's desire is right because that would in many ways um severely limit what its options are in the future and it would have to begin to explore a lot of very different alternatives for its

[189:01] future than what they want to consider right um I can say that we have looked at a number of different Redevelopment opportunities or Alternatives just to begin to establish what the the kind of range of possible Redevelopment would be and that at this point the keeping what is most significant about the church um Marcy identified you know the A-frame style of the church and trying to preserve that portion of the church has a really significant impact on any potential Redevelopment of the site for housing or for daycare or for some of the other Partnerships that the uh church has identified and so we know that it even as we sit here tonight we know that preserving the church has really significant impacts and limitations on the alternatives for St Aiden's moving

[190:04] forward okay I'm happy to jump in um thank you for answering that question that's it's super helpful to hear um and one I just want to highlight that I think we've had more public testimony on this project than any project I have been a part of in the past two years and so um I for me that that means a lot and it means that there's real public interest people who we don't typically hear from are here to tell us um um what they want and that's like part of our job is to consider Community feedback and um I just I really appreciate that we had enough Community feedback to really take

[191:02] into consideration um for this project and you know something that Kurt often says that I really appreciate is that just because a property or a building has a history doesn't mean it's historically significant enough to be a landmark um and you know even hearing from like the you know one of the criteria for landmarking is um the association with persons or events but the descendant of those people um that we aim to honor came here to night to us and asked us to approve this Demolition and so I think it's important that um we listen to those that we aim to honor in the way that they ask us to honor them and not in the way that we believe we should honor them and because I ultimately that's not the goal um and at

[192:02] the end of the day initiating Landmark designation over the owner's objection um doesn't represent a balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the city's cultural historic and Architectural Heritage and so for me I don't believe that the current um like what we know and what we've heard from the community and what we've heard from the owner I don't believe we need this day of demolition like for me I don't need this de this day of demolition to approve it because for me the outcome will probably I I feel for myself will be the same and it just adds time expense and doesn't add a ton of value and for me that is important we don't like why

[193:02] are we adding time and expense for a a community organization that is providing so much value to the community um that just doesn't sit right with me so I would approve the request um without the stay now I do believe that this day is an opportunity to have an ongoing conversation and um while I don't think the outcome will be different at the end of this day I it seems to me like it's wouldn't be an impediment um for the for the applicant um but for me personally I will be voting to approve the application for demolition

[194:00] okay Renee we haven't heard anything about this um so um I I wanna um touch on um like we all have that the um I think that this community you know brings a lot to Boulder and I appreciate what they're doing um i' like the safe haven that they bring to the opportunities of everyone and they're very inclusive to everyone um so I that warms my heart and it really brings in um just awesome so awesome that everybody wanted to talk about this building and the community that it brings um in saying that I do want to um now if we we went with all our feelings all the time I think that um our purpose on the landmarks board is that I think that I'm also hearing from the um the

[195:04] applicant that they kind of Honor this 180 days and that they're willing to allow the community and not only their Community but the preservation community and the architectural community of Boulder to document this historical significance of this building whether the outcome at the end whether it is to proceed with the demo application or to um Landmark the site this 180 days allows us to um document the building and we get to uh view the site which is you know um a part that I really enjoy um so I would agree with staff to um um have a stay of the Demolition and and then allow us to document the site and um if I'm understanding correctly that

[196:00] that allows the city to record it preserve it and then we can evaluate it with more information and and not that um you know either one of us are leaning one way or the other but that um the client also understand that how important it is for this building and um I think that you know um Claire always the staff always brings such wonderful information and to document several things on about this building I think is appropriate so I would um um I would be in favor of um putting a stay on the building thank you Ronnie did you want to come back with anything John um not necessarily I don't know if you feel like you've had a chance to speak and if Kurt wanted to

[197:02] jump in yeah I I felt like I said everything I needed to say Kurt do you have anything to add sure um yeah this is a it's a very interesting and a very moving um situation I in looking at the significance criteria though um in some I find that this building does not meet the criteria I think that it is a very interesting building it is certainly an example of modernist Church design um but I don't think that it's exemplary and I think that that's indicated by the fact that it wasn't included in that survey of of modernist buildings um I think that it has a certain amount of historic

[198:01] significance because of the association with Pat Patterson and Virginia Patterson both of whom were quite prominent in the the history of the city um but I think that you know the fact that it's associated with them doesn't bring it up to the level of historic significance and I don't think it particularly has environmental significance it does have an interesting relationship to the other buildings the Wesley Chapel and the Lutheran um Chapel or whatever that is on the corner um and so you know there there there is that on the other side um but then I think that the applicant has submitted information indicating that the condition of the building is not particularly good um and that um and that the cost of Rehabilitation and

[199:00] repair would be significant I will mention that many many decades ago when I was a kid my um my parents belong to an organization that met monthly at St Aiden and so I had much experience with going to the sort of dining large dining area there I don't remember exactly what portion of the building it is but I think in the flat roof portion and um having very good potlucks there um but even at that time I recall thinking that it felt a little bit run down which has no particular bearing on what it is today but um that's just a a note so so um I am not voting of course um but if I were to be voting I would not uh be voting in favor of a stay I will also just observe and again this is not part of the board's

[200:01] criteria but um I think that the biggest impediment that the the owners are going to face is the zoning which is rl1 um which is extremely limiting in what you can be done in terms of housing um it does allow for daycares I believe with use review but um it's just a very it's a very limiting Zone District uh however there may be things coming down the line in terms of the B comp plan changes and um you know potential other changes that might have bearing on on that but as it stands today I think it would be pretty difficult to um to significantly certainly to significantly increase the amount or to provide a significant amount of housing in the site but that that is just sort of an observation okay but it's a good

[201:00] one um okay thank you Kurt I think I think that we are at the place where is there anyone who would be willing to entertain emotion sure I am in agreement with staff's recommendation and I think that um you know we've all kind of pointed out some of us have pointed out the value of the 180 day stay um and um I am in agreement with staff's evaluation in that um this seems like it should have a state placed on it and then it may rise to the level of uh designation but this is an opportunity for us to it would be an opportunity with for us to explore alternatives to demolition with the applicant um so I'll make the motion that the landmarks board issue a stay of demolition for the

[202:00] building located at 2425 Colorado a for a period not to exceed 180 days from the day the application was accepted by the city manager in order to explore alternatives to demolishing the buildings okay we have a motion do we have a second I second thank you Renee okay we'll proceed to a roll call vote Chelsea no Renee yes Ronnie yes and I vote I so the motion carries 3 to four and um staff will explain how this proceeds we'll appoint a couple of members to be um involved in some of the

[203:04] meetings and go from there all right so uh with a vote to place a stay of demolition on the application that um stay will continue till March 19th unless the board votes to uh either move uh quicker than that um so the next uh step would be for the board to uh nominate two members to represent the board and um meet with the applicants and the owners uh during the stay to discuss Alternatives do I have two volunteers I definitely am interested in it I will do it thank you John I would be interested great okay interesting yes um okay so Chelsea and

[204:01] John uh I will work with you all and um with the owners and applicants to find a time for us to meet uh you I'll follow up probably tomorrow uh with the time and um those are the next steps Marcy there's nothing to stop additional members of the board participating in this even though they're not officially corre yeah traditionally the board just uh uh nominates two people to be part of those but more are welcome um because there are two already those meetings need to be publicly noticed and um posted on our website so more than two board members are certainly welcome and I think the more creative and more collaborative the the best use of this day uh comes with that Spirit great yeah I'm particularly interested because I was involved with the the process with the

[205:00] Lutheran um site and it was a very useful process I thought and yielded well a portion of that is standing there now so all right thank you so I will follow up um with you all uh tomorrow and set up that time but thank you so much for your time and uh just a gratitude for everybody that uh came and stayed late and spoke uh as part of this public hearing yeah thanks to everybody and all the uh citizen participants in this so we'll move on to matters and I guess Marcy are you going to give updates here yes and we're we're um cutting you know what we can out since this is a special um meeting we

[206:00] meet again just in two weeks but we did want to do a couple calendar checks uh for some upcoming dates um I think you've heard me over the last couple months um how important I think that visiting the site before the public in and you know I think there's been a few cases in the last year where a site visit has um really changed our staff recommendation from seeing it you know on paper or you know digitally to um being in the neighborhood and seeing it in person and so um this could be a future conversation but I would like to uh pull the board and ask if you all have a preference one if you agree they're important and two if you have a a preference for for a formal site visit that we organize as staff and it's a set time each month or if you'd prefer to do it on your own um I'd be interested in in uh doing a quick conversation about

[207:02] that okay um any other items then oh then the other item is the uh CPI saving places conference as you'll remember the last two years it's been held in Boulder which has been wonderful and the city of Boulder has been a sponsor so we've gotten um all of the registrations that we need however in 2025 it's going to be down in Colorado Springs and so it will be more expensive because of uh hotel rooms and also uh registration so we do need a formal commitment for uh the board members rather we're not going to just um register everybody we we do need um uh to know that you'd like to go and the dates are January 29th to February 1st uh there is this really great training called camp on Saturday February 1st uh that I would um happy to

[208:03] send you more information on but if anybody's able to attend that I've uh found it to be tremendously helpful very high quality training and the ability to hear from um you know your peers fellow board and commission members from across the country uh it's a pretty unique opportunity um so we will be asking you to commit to attending or not attending by the December 4th meeting so you have two weeks to think about it and um if you'd like to learn more uh there's information posted on the saving places website okay great and with that I think we've covered all the ground we were supposed to tonight and I will see everybody December 4th

[209:00] quick question Mary did you want us to talk about whether or not we liked the organized versus the nonorganized uh site visits if it could be like a five minute conversation of just like a straw poll yes or know formal informal or anything I don't want this to become a half an hour um discussion but if you all could give us some feedback then we would know what is most helpful for you all of organizing these or or U putting a little map together Renee I'm glad you used it um so if I were to pose that in a question uh do you agree that site visits are helpful do you have a preference for formal site visits or would you rather do them on your own I yeah sorry Ronnie go we all at the same time what I found is the site visits are helpful um sometimes it's hard to squeeze them in

[210:00] um and I think that depending on the level of complexity of the property and access to the property um that you know having staff organized something um you know has different merits I I think that if the property is generally accessible and if the things are being reviewed are visible from the street that um you know I kind of prefer it not to be organized so that I can go on a Saturday and just not feel like I'm missing out on some else that might be presented um but if the property is complicated and staff were to think that uh staff organized visit um was more valuable or it gave us access to a property in a different way um then I would encourage that I have to agree with that I think that I think that in cases where there is complexity and issues with accessing the

[211:02] property the organized visits are very useful others Rene Chelsea um I agree I did follow the um the informal thing you know that uh she sent out and I found that very helpful I also think that maybe there could be um the My question is is like if we did do a formal site visit are we allowed to discuss what's happening but we cannot no so um I almost feel like the informal makes it um easier for everyone to do it and um allows us not to have those conversations because we would be more inclined to probably have those if we were doing like a formal walkr it is hard not to talk as you're walking around the

[212:03] site any other opinions Chelsea Kurt has his hand up yeah I I see that too I just wanted to get through the board okay um you know I've only done a few site visits and for me maybe I don't know if we were following all the rules but it was like we were C we weren't discussing it but we were asking questions of the owner and about certain elements of the property and I think at least at that the one that I've done was a demolition and I and so it was more about like the condition of the of the property um in the home so for those I I feel like it would be really hard to get the value without the context of the property owner answering a lot of questions that

[213:01] we asked um without it being a formal site visit so I agree with the proposal that when things are more complicated um and it's a bigger um the application is requesting a large change like a demolition that it's helpful but small changes that could be viewed from the outside that don't need a lot of owner participation should be on their people can do that on their own okay Kurt I just wanted to confirm that the organized site visits would continue to be noticed and public publicly open right okay so that does I I'll just mention that that does have some benefits from the public standpoint to be able to be able to understand the projects better um for

[214:02] from their standpoint as well well thank you and I hear some um agreement that will do them kind of case by case if the projects are really complex or there's a lack of access or visibility we'll pull something together before the um board visits but otherwise we'll do it on uh on your own and then um if it's helpful I'm still happy to send out a map because even though I have a pretty good mental map of Boulder it's not till I plug it in to be like oh those are really close or I could swing by this on my way to this or something like that so um if that's helpful I'll I'll continue to do it you're welcome to um use it or ignore it uh I is say okay all right okay that's all that's everything that you have that's everything we have okay we're only 17 minutes past the

[215:03] proposed time so this meeting is adjourned all right thank you everyone take care