January 8, 2025 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:02] So the Landmarks board meeting is called to order. Welcome to the January 8, th 2025. Landmarks board meeting. It is 6 0. 1 Pm. Before we get started with our agenda, Marcy will review the virtual meeting decorum. All right, thank you, Abby, and good evening. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board and commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives. More about this vision and the project's community engagement process can be found through the link online. Next slide next slide. Claire. Oh, the following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder revised Code, and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld during this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other form of intimidation against any person.

[1:18] obscenity, racial epithets and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. Participants may raise their hand to speak during open comment and public comment period. During hearings individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. And currently only audio testimony is permitted. and the next slide is orientation. If you are joining on a PC. You can have a shortcut of Alt Y to raise the hand when you would like to speak. It's option y on a Mac, and then star 9. If you're calling in on the phone, and if you're in the zoom app, it's under the reactions. Menu, to raise your hand

[2:09] back to you, Abby. Thank you so much, Marcy. I want to acknowledge that we do have a quorum this evening. A recording of this meeting will be available in the record archives and on Youtube, within 28 days of tonight's meeting we'll do a quick roll call and introductions. I'm Abby Daniels, the current chair of the Landmarks board. John. I'm John Decker, member of the Landmarks Board. Renee. Oh, I believe you're on mute. Renee Globek, member of the Landmarks Board. Ronnie. Ronnie Delicia landmarks Board, member. And last, but certainly not least, although his last meeting as a official liaison from the Planning Board, Kurt.

[3:01] Hi, yeah, curtain our back. Glad to be here for the very last time. Welcome everyone. We know that there are people here to participate this evening who may have strong emotions about some of the projects that will be discussed. We want to hear from you, but we have found it's more productive for you to speak to us, to persuade us, rather than berating us staff or the applicant, as with regular landmarks, board meetings, you may only speak at the appropriate time during the public hearing request to speak outside of those times will be denied as we are virtual tonight. If you would like to speak, use the raise hand as Marcy indicated function to let us know you'd like to speak as board chair. I will call for a roll call vote for any motions made this evening. The 1st agenda item is the approval of the December 2024 meeting minutes. Does anyone have any changes or alteration to those notes?

[4:04] Seeing or hearing none. I move that we approve the minutes? Do we have a second. I'll second. Thank you, Ronnie. On a motion by myself, seconded by Ronnie. We'll take a roll call. Vote, John. You were on mute, but I. I said, I I. Thank you, Renee. I. Ronnie. Bye. And I vote aye. So the minute meetings from December 2024 are approved unanimously. Now we're ready to move to public participation for non agenda items. We do have 3 public hearings this evening, but this is also the time for anyone who would like to speak on the 2 pending stays of demolitions that we do have, we will discuss both of those properties after the public hearing is closed for things, not on the agenda item, and as a reminder, those 2 properties currently under a stay of demolition, are 2119, Mariposa Avenue and 2425 Colorado Avenue.

[5:14] So I will give Aubrey a moment to see if any members of the public have indicated. They'd like to speak to us this evening. All right. We do already have a couple hands raised. so let's get into it. We will start with Patrick O'rourke, followed by Saint Aidan's church and Catherine Barth. So, Patrick, I will give you permission to speak and start the timer. Welcome, pat! Hi, thank you. My name is Patrick O'rourke. I have 4 quick items for you. The 1st one is on behalf of historic boulder to thank Ronnie. Your insights and your mission, your commitment to the mission of preservation in Boulder has been noted on our board, and you're such a valuable architect to have reviewing these projects, so I hope whoever follows behind you gives the same type of commitment.

[6:16] Number 2 is on matters of last month. Marcy, thank you for doing a fabulous job. I would like to add one more item to it, which was, which is part of what you do. But it wasn't in your agenda that might not be. Why is the the county courthouse should be noted as a win for the city of Boulder, even though it didn't go through your board. It's still you issued a letter to it, and you should take the success. Last week I sent you a note on the silver saddle motel. Clearly that project has gone belly up, and that's the world I lived in for many, many years, and what is a little bit disturbing is that I sent you a picture of the sign, the sign that was on top of the hotel or the motel is actually sitting in front of it, and it's already been vandalized, and I would hope that we could reach out to the

[7:13] the building department and get that signed stored someplace. If not, I'll be happy to get somebody over there and take take it. But I obviously cannot go on site without permission from the owner. There is a way to get it done is to pull the bond. I know those owners that developer had a bond, and I'm sure if somebody threatened the bond on it that would be taken care of. I don't know the date that they came before the landmarks board, so it would be helpful under matters if you could note it so I can go back and listen to it. And finally. we have our celebration for the Boulder Theater on January 26, th and I wanted to invite everybody on the landmarks board. I'm hoping to see you there. It's part of our community, and and it's we just got another grant. So we're pretty far along the way, but we'd like you to join us to celebrate that event, and once again thank you for. Thank you, Ronnie, and also Kurt. Thank you for being a voice of reason on many, many issues. Have a good night.

[8:22] Thank you, Patrick. Yeah, thank you, Patrick. Those are very kind words, and it's very meaningful for me to hear them from you. I really appreciate it. So thanks for thanks for saying that. And really I'm grateful. And, Patrick, I'd just like to add, you know, one of the values of of you, not only as president of historic boulder, but historic boulder as an organization is that I've always felt as the premier nonprofit dedicated to historic preservation. Here you're not only friendly watchdogs, but you have your your ears to the ground, and you're kind of our connection to things like I wasn't aware of what was going on at the motel that you sent us the image of last week. So thank you for for being so proactive, but also being, you know, really being a great tie to things going on, that we may not know about as quickly as people like you do

[9:22] so, Aubrey, I believe you said someone from St. Aidan's church is interested in speaking next. Yes, alright, you should be able to unmute. Let's do a mic check really quick. I'm here. And if you'll state your full name for the board and the record, then your 3 min will commence. Thank you. My name is Mother Mary Kate Raju. I am the rector of Saint Aiden's Episcopal Church at 2, 4, 2, 5 Colorado Avenue, and I am here along with Danica Powell from trestle strategy, and Jv. D'souza

[10:04] and Lauren Williamson from Jv. D'souza, Paul Vokes and Val Patterson, and probably a couple others from St. Aden's. We're here to answer questions, if that is needed. I know it probably isn't in this meeting, but also to express our gratitude for the site visit on December 13, th and the curiosity and care offered to us by both staff and members of the landmarks board. That was a great visit, and we are excited to continue to work with you, and that is all I need to say. This evening. Thank you. And Aubrey. Do you see additional members of the public indicating they'd like to speak to us. Yes, Abby, we have one more hand raised. That hand belongs to Catherine Barth. and if anyone else would like to speak after Catherine, just raise your virtual hand, and we'll put you in the lineup.

[11:05] So, Catherine, I'll give you permission to speak great. Okay. Good evening. Everybody. 1st meeting of a New year. I want to take the the opportunity to really thank Ronnie. And remember one particular meeting when Ronnie has a very, very wonderful talent that many of us who are architects, including myself, do not have, and that is under in moments of that are quite stressful. He can just calm everybody down and pull out a kind of thick crayon or pencil, and just start sketching, and people are so mesmerized by what's getting onto this piece of paper that people calm down. And so I have always very much appreciated that talent of yours, Ronnie, and you've used it

[12:08] to very good effect in your time on the board, and I have appreciated that so much. We will miss that, and it is a talent that is born, not learned because I can't do it. So thank you. Thank you so much. And as far as Saint Aidan's church. I just would like to comment. Saint John's Episcopal Church is an individual landmark, and is, is such a very good example of a wonderful church that has opened itself to the community as an individual landmark, and has participated in Tours and historic boulder, has had events there, and so I just would. I'm sure that St. Aden's would be able to find wonderful. You know, wonderful examples of of community outreach that they can do, and probably they may want to

[13:15] be in touch with St. John's just to find out how they manage this historic preservation and their mission as as a as a religious center. So thank you all very much. Thank you, Catherine. and I also appreciate your comments saluting Ronnie, but we are fortunate. We get him for a couple of more meetings, but it's not too early to start singing his praises. So thank you, Catherine. I mean, I also just have to thank you, Catherine. You know I do have a couple more meetings. But again, like I am flattered that you would say anything about me, and that you know, speak of me so highly, and I think the same of you, Catherine, as well as others that are involved in the preservation. You know efforts in our community, and I hope to have an opportunity, maybe at my last meeting to say that again. But I do appreciate you speaking up, and it's it is very meaningful and touching to me. So thank you.

[14:30] And, Aubrey, I'm going to turn to you again to see if any additional members of the public have indicated an interest to speak. Let's give it a couple more seconds if anyone would like to speak. Just raise your virtual hand. But I'm thinking. And, Aubrey, I'm definitely open to more compliments, so anybody that might be might want to compliment me more, feel free.

[15:01] But we did get another hand up, so we'll see all right. We have Hal Bailey. Hey, Ronnie, this is Hal Bailey. 1st of all, I can't believe you've been with us since the beginning of this process. We're about to go through in the end. And have I told you how great you are in all honesty, like thanks for all your work. You've been a stabilizing force and a voice of reason when we started this process. So thank you. Thank you. Hell. Yes, thank you. thank you, Hal, and this is kind of a fun. Great way to start the New Year. So, Aubrey, one more opportunity to see if anyone else has anything to share with us other than how great Ronnie is not. Alright. I'm not seeing anyone else.

[16:01] So we will officially close public participation for non agenda items and move on to discussion of landmark, alteration and demolition applications issued and pending. All right, Marcy, growing back here. So we have the 2 stays of demolition that I will talk about. But there were 2 others that I wanted to mention to the Board of Pending or issued Applications, and one is an active code compliance case in the Whittier neighborhood at 1918 Pine Street, just to let you all know that we are working with the owner to remedy the current project. They got approval for partial demolition, and then, during construction a portion of the building collapsed. And so the building is stabilized. We're working to get revised plans, but it looks pretty dire right now. So just know that we're working on it, and if you get any questions, just

[17:17] feel free to direct those to staff. I also wanted to let you know that the designation of the Leach Moritz House at 31 68, 6th Street, that the Landmarks Board recommended unanimous approval of in at your November meeting, and was scheduled to go to city council tomorrow night. The owner has had some unforeseen health issues and has withdrawn that application. So just wanted to update you all because you saw it all the way through the process through the landmarks board process. But that one won't won't go across the finish line to council tomorrow, and we really wish the owner all the best in her health.

[18:03] And then for Patrick O'rourke's comments on 90 Arapahoe, we'll follow up with him and follow up on his concerns about the sign and about the projects. So the other projects the stays of demolition. And let me get my slides queued up here. there we go. The board has 2 active stays of demolition. The 1st one is this accessory building at 2119 Mariposa Avenue. The house is one that you all reviewed a few years ago and ultimately decided to let go. The garage was reviewed for demolition at your October 9th meeting, where you placed a stay of demolition, and we met with the owner on November 13, th and I think the general takeaway and the conversation from the last update is that the

[19:10] the property is on the market. The owner is looking for options. Somebody may purchase the property and decide to keep the keep the garage, and from being on this site it seems like one that would be a good candidate for adaptive reuse as a accessory dwelling unit or a studio, or something like that, but it does have economic implications. It it will take a fair amount of work, not so much structural, but fitting it out, adding plumbing and electricity and bringing it up to energy code and all of that. So we would need a willing owner that wanted to reuse this. But I think it has good bones and could be a good candidate, but otherwise I think there might not be an alternative for

[20:06] for this one. So tonight is your last meeting to make a scheduling decision for a regularly scheduled meeting, so the Board has the opportunity tonight to decide whether or not to hold a hearing for next month, February 5, th to either approve the demolition or initiate the landmark designation process. and if the Board does not choose to schedule a meeting, you wouldn't have much room to schedule a special meeting because the stay expires on February 10.th So if you don't schedule a special meeting and the stay of demolition expires. On February 10th the demolition would automatically be approved. and it would be good for 6 months, because the application came in in October, moving forward after January 19.th Any demolitions approved by the program that approval will be valid for one year, but that's only applications that are

[21:11] submitted after January 19, th 2025. So I'll pause there and invite any other thoughts or reflections on this before turning it back to Abby and the Board to decide whether or not to hold a hearing next month. I am not hearing a strong desire to add anything to the conversation or to schedule, but would ask the board that they make you all make that decision, or you can just move on and not spend time deciding not to schedule a hearing. But now is your opportunity.

[22:12] Yeah, I mean, it seems to me that this building has been reviewed by our board members and that while it could be preserved. It is an unlikely candidate for us to place or to move forward with a designation process on it. And then this is my sense of things. I also think that the 5 day difference between the last regularly scheduled meeting before the expiration and the stay of demolition. Expiration is so close that it might be prudent for us to if we're in agreement about allowing this building to move forward with the demolition application to just let this day expire, to reduce additional casework and load

[23:06] for the February 5th meeting. If there was more time between those 2 dates, and we thought that there was additional value to making that decision at the meeting, then I would support that. But to me it seems like, maybe that isn't for this particular building. And so what I would suggest is that if we're in agreement that we do not schedule the last meeting, and we allow for the State to expire. Thank you, Ronnie, for for your your remarks, and your your thoughtful consideration of this. This is a building as Marcy alluded to early, which, if someone had the will in the way, has some really, really creative use opportunities. And I guess what my hope for this property is. It is on the market, the the

[24:06] house is gone. So this is still standing, and my hope would be that if the stay of demolition expires in a little over a month, that perhaps the owner might not immediately demolish it and let it stand for now, Marcy, do you have to have it demolished within 6 months, or does it have to be? The the request has to be pulled. Within the 6 months of the approval an owner has to apply for the actual deconstruction permit, and there are a number of steps to do that which include sign-offs from climate initiatives and comcast and excel. And then the biggest one is the sign off from the State Health Department to abate any asbestos. So it's the 6 months is typically a doable, but it's pretty tight, which is why we've extended it to one year. And if that deconstruction permit isn't applied for within that 6 months. Then a new application is needed.

[25:14] Right, but it it just needs to be applied for. Yes. And then it takes time from there. And then, and then you have, I think, a year, maybe 2 drive. Take the building down. So what I mean is, I'm still hopeful that something could come along while it's on the market that someone may come along and say, yes, we want this property. I mean, the the property has beautiful views. It's in a wonderful neighborhood that's still fairly intact. And so, you know, maybe there's a way, if it's not carted off to the landfill before they're that a potential buyer might might reuse this, but otherwise I agree with Ronnie.

[26:08] I don't. I? I have to say that I agree with everyone, and I think that it is, have a desirable location, a desirable little accessory building, and I wish that it I wish that it would be able to be landmarkable and but I agree that we should let this one, and not make a meeting for it. Okay, I I want to add that I think that it is, as I guess, to use Rene's language, a desirable accessory, Billy, I think we need to say that that this building, under the right circumstances, would be worthy of renovation, and being saved and reused in some creative way, as Abby said

[27:13] and that maybe someone will be struck by that possibility. With it sitting on the back of the property that offers other options in the front now, and we'll integrate it into what they end up doing. It it just. It is because it's a small property and a small building as a remnant on the small property. It kind of just eats capital to try to save it at this point, and so it doesn't rise to what we need these days to make a determination to preserve so.

[28:02] But it still needs to be said that there is some value in it, and there's certainly more value and better construction methodology in the House than in the house that was torn down. So those are all, I guess, things to consider for whoever elects to buy this property. Otherwise I think we let the the the term expire. All right. Well, I hear a unanimous kind of support for not scheduling a hearing, so that will take us to the next day of demolition, which is the Saint Aidan's Episcopal Church at 2425 Colorado Avenue, and this is one that the landmarks board reviewed at your November 20th special meeting.

[29:00] and we followed up with a site visit on December 13, th and quite a few of us were able to join John and Chelsea and Rene and Ronnie and Claire and I, and I really want to extend my heartfelt gratitude for the welcome and open conversation we had with the St. Aidan's representatives. and they're extremely prepared with with the materials which they've shared with the board that are available on the landmarks board materials now, but it helped us. It helped. I'll speak for myself, and then would love to hear from others who attended that meeting. It was very informative for me to walk through the building. It's 1 thing to visit and view a building from the sidewalk and study it through historic photos, and then to really experience it in 3D. Is walking through those spaces and understanding in this case the evolution of construction

[30:09] and enjoyed chatting with chatting with folks as we went through through the building. and then we all sat around a table and looked at different scenarios, very schematic, high, level scenarios about redevelopment options that St. Aidan's is considering, and some of the key points that stood out to me is that the existing spaces are a little bit Goldilocks. One is too small, one is too big. The size that they are needing is is somewhere in between there and the desire to redevelop the site, to add housing not not so much single family housing, but but denser housing that would need a comp plan. Land use change which is timely, as the Comp. Plan is being updated in 2025. So, leaving the meeting, one of the main takeaways was to connect

[31:11] Saint Aidan's with the development Review team. And so we have a meeting set up with the Development Review manager and the planning and development Services director, I think next week, if not the week after. And so that will help, I think, provide some guidance, maybe some answers, but certainly some guidance on the bigger issues that are outside of the landmarks, board and historic preservation purview about redevelopment options for the site, but for the landmarks, board pieces about, you know. should this building be preserved as part of that redevelopment or not, I really appreciated learning more about the building, both its challenges and its spaces, and would love to hear what others who were able to attend that meeting.

[32:04] what your reflections and observations were, and then also ask if there is interest from the Board if there's interest from the applicant group to set up a follow-up meeting after the Development Review meeting, and before the stay expires, which is March 19.th Yeah, Marcy, at the meeting that we had before, before the holiday. We did discuss the possibility of that meeting. I believe it would be useful to have a second meeting with the group. I got the sense from the room that everybody wanted to talk further about some of the opportunities and constraints on the site and

[33:00] where where things were gonna go with this. So I advocate for that at this point. Yeah, I I would as well. And I just wanted to. also, just reflecting on my experience, say that I think all of the representatives that are related to the Saint Eden's community, I think, were very welcoming. I felt that they were very transparent and forthcoming. I continue to hear them talk about their mission based objectives. And you know I recognize that some of this is outside of our, you know, scope of review. But the community service aspects of what that organization does and how it impacts the larger community of Boulder and elsewhere, I think, is something worth commending, and I could feel it just in the meetings that we had with them, that they are doing meaningful things. I also think that it was very valuable to see the buildings?

[34:15] And there's quite a bit of cool stuff happening in there. And then there are, you know, some of the less obvious constraints that, I think, were pointed out to us on site, about the thermal envelope, and kind of the energy consumptive aspects of some of these buildings in their roof forms. and you know, so I think that it was very productive to be there. I agree with what John and Marcy are both saying, I think it would be very valuable to have another meeting. Assuming that the applicant team is interested in that after they perhaps get greater direction.

[35:00] you know, from other planning staff regarding process. Since I was not able to attend on December 13, th I would be be really pleased to see another meeting, and and try to catch up with all the discussion that happened a month ago. And I will say, since my meeting before that ran long, and I showed up a little tardy to the December 13th meeting, I would agree. I mean, there was a lot of good conversation and brainstorming happening when I joined in. And You know they gave oh, such good in depth. Of of how to plan space planning as well as like, you know, trying to be very

[36:03] thoughtful of the community and the space around the community. But allowing, you know, I think this is, this is part of you know, the the thing is like to save the building, but you know, I think, what they keep telling, but they keep harping on, I guess, is the fact that the church, even though it it is this historical structure. The church in itself is the community. And how do we, you know, come to an agreement? With what has been there for such a long time. But actually. it's better to say, the roots of the community are, what make this church so valuable? And how do you move that forward into, you know, 2025, and be able to continue to have those roots and really flourish in this community and give it what it needs to and also preserve

[37:01] what aspects that you know the landmarks board, we think, is willing to is able to preserve. So I I really think that the December 13th meeting was super informative. I wish I wasn't as tardy as I was, and was able to jump in, so I would love to have a second meeting and hear about all those things so. Well, it sounds like we've got support for holding another meeting. And one thing that the applicant team shared is that they are being very careful with their resources as they go through this process, and so which I also share this value of not meeting without a purpose to meet. But I will reach out with them without I will reach out to them and see if they're interested in meeting, and then would suggest that before that next meeting each board, member and staff read through the materials that they sent, which is what was shared at the December 13th meeting, so that we can start that meeting kind of where we left off

[38:14] rather than spending time. Kind of going over what we went through previously, obviously with some time for questions from, you know, for from Abby or Rene, if there was something that would be beneficial from last time. But I think we're we have the materials to make that meeting productive, and would look to set that up after the meeting with the Development Review folks. So stay tuned and then looking ahead to the calendar. Our next meeting is on February 5, th and that will be your last regularly scheduled meeting to make a decision for the March meeting of whether or not to hold a hearing. The stay expires a couple weeks after the March meeting, so you would have

[39:03] time to schedule a special hearing, but our great preference is to fit it into a regularly scheduled meeting, if possible. Those special meetings sure take quite a bit more effort to put together. So thank you for that, and we will work on scheduling a meeting, and then the next update will be February 5.th Thank you, Marcy. And now we will move on to agenda. Item 5. A. Our 1st public hearing this evening. It's a public hearing, in consideration of a landmark. Alteration, certificate application to construct a new accessory building at 600 Spruce Street, a contributing property in the Mapleton Hill Historic District pursuant to section 9, 1118 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981, and under the procedures prescribed by Chapter 1, 3, quasi-judicial hearings.

[40:07] Thank you, Abby. See, here we go. So sorry. This is a quasi judicial hearing. So everyone who is speaking to this item will be sworn in, and that includes me. I am Claire Bryant, the historic preservation planner, and I affirm that I will tell the truth. I'll now pause for a couple of seconds and allow the board to note any ex parte contacts. Does anybody have any? Nope, seeing none? We will move on. So here's a an overview of the process we'll go through today. I'm going to give the staff presentation. After that the Board may ask me questions. The applicant will have 10 min to present to the board.

[41:00] We'll then open the public hearing. After all, members of the public have made comments. The applicant may have additional time to respond to anything that was said. The Board will then deliberate, and a motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass and motions will state findings, conclusions, and 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. So the criteria for review are outlined in the Boulder Revised code under 9, 1118 B. And C. And the review is to ensure that the proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores, and does not damage the exterior architectural features of a 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.

[42:15] The options today are for the landmarks board to approve the application, and this is subject to a 16 day city council. Call up period. That's where the city council can choose to review the decision. 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. And that's the applicant's appeals process. However, a denial would mean, the applicant could not submit a substantially similar application within 12 months, so usually, if the board is heading in that direction, they'll give the applicant an opportunity to withdraw this property may look familiar to. To you, board members as you did approve an Lac application

[43:04] to rehabilitate the the house and construct an addition back in 2020. The current application, which was received in November last year includes construction of a new building larger than 340 square feet. So it automatically is reviewed by the full landmarks board in a public hearing. And that's why we're reviewing it tonight. Okay, so this is the property. It's located at the southern terminus of 6th Street, where 6th Street meets Spruce Street. The house itself faces north onto Spruce Street, and there's a portion of the farmers ditch that crosses the front of the property. The rear of the property faces Morrison Slash Spruce Alley. It changes its name as it goes along here.

[44:01] The property is within the Mapleton Hill historic district, and just about the southern edge. The district ends at Spruce Alley in this block. So a little back story here, when the property was surveyed in 1994, it was thought to have been constructed around 1939, and the owners found some information where they believed that the house was older than that, and we were able to confirm that the house was constructed in 1924 by Fritz and Margaret Ditzel. This image is from 1929, and at the time this image was taken there was an older house in the middle of the lot. You can see it right here, and this house was demolished sometime before 1938, when the front house. Which is this one right here was modified by Frederick and Francis Truxis, and that's who we thought originally built the house, but they didn't. They took an older house and modified it.

[45:12] The here we go here. This is an image. From around 1939, and it shows the front of the house. This is Spruce Street right here. And the additions that were constructed by the Truxes family include this this artist studio here, with these north, facing large windows. and the garage which is right here, as the modifications and the original construction fall within the period of significance for the district. We do consider this property to be contributing, although that was a little backstory, and there are no proposed changes to the existing house in this proposal. So this is the staff analysis for the approximately 726 square foot one and a half story accessory building. We look at the key site and setting characteristics, the mass and scale key building elements and the details.

[46:24] So we'll go through them one at a time, looking 1st at the site and setting characteristics that includes the setback, the orientation, spacing, and distance between adjacent buildings. This is the proposed new building right here at the rear of the lot has a footprint of about 24 feet by 24 feet. It is proposed to be about 19 feet from the rear edition of the Primary building which is here, which is under construction right now.

[47:01] Driveway is proposed from the alley, which is right here to the to the new accessory building. This the driveway is angled to give a minimum of 13 feet to the alley. the, and it's 23 feet on this side their closest existing accessory building is on this side right here, and it's about 60 feet. So it's not close. And then there's another accessory building on the other side, which is even further, it's about 100 feet from the neighboring building on this side. So our guidelines note that accessory buildings and parking should be at the rear and access from the alley, that you should preserve a backyard space and the general proportion of built mass to open space in the area should be retained, that a new building shouldn't detract from the overall historic character of the principal building or the site, or require removal of a significant historic building element or a site feature such as a mature tree

[48:15] staff finds that the proposed new building reflects the traditional relationship of the building on the site. It's located at the rear, as you can see with access from the alley, does not detract from the overall historic character of the principal building, which is all the way up here or the site. The proposal is consistent with a general proportion of built mass to open space found within the area and the backyard area is preserved mainly due to the to the large size of the lot. We had in the memo that mature trees that needed to be removed should be reviewed as a condition of approval. But hell and skylar are here, and one of the things that they've let me know is that there are no mature trees that are proposed for removal, and they can talk to you about that as well.

[49:11] Alright, moving on to look at the mass and scale. It's the height, the form, mass, size, and scale and overall proportion of the building. The proposal includes this one and a half story accessory building. It's set into the into the grade which you can. You can see right here. It's here's the grade going down. It's proposed to be constructed of lime, washed brick with a moderately steep pitched front gable roof. It's an 8 and 12 pitch, pretty shallow eaves, and and a pair of wall dormers, one on each side. There's an exterior concrete stair that follows the the west side of the proposed building. From the alley grade, which is down here.

[50:06] And then the The entrance of the accessory building is proposed to be flanked by 10 foot tall on the side retaining wall, and it's 13 foot on this side, engineered concrete, retaining walls. The guidelines emphasize that accessory buildings should generally be small in scale and secondary to the primary structure. They should be simply detailed. Buildings along the alley should be in a variety of shape, size, and alignment should maintain a human scale and be sensitive to pedestrians, efforts should be made to maintain the character of the alley, and should respect neighboring buildings and the alleyscape. The roof, form, and pitch should be complementary to the primary structure, and door and window sizes and patterns should harmonize with the historic context rather than compete with or copy it.

[51:03] New garages should generally be one story tall, and shelter no more than 2 cars, and in some cases a 2 car garage may be inappropriate. We found that the the mass and scale of this proposed new building is subordinate and clearly secondary to the primary building. Its simplicity with a traditional form and punched window and door openings is complementary to the character of the house and alley, and harmonizes with the historic context. The gable reform of the proposed new building is complementary to neighboring accessory buildings, and in general the proposed building helps maintain a variety of shape, size, and alignment of buildings along the alley. We did have concerns about the proposed retaining walls, and thought that they didn't help maintain a human scale in the alley.

[52:03] So Key building elements include the dormers, the windows and doors. The proposed new accessory building includes a double car door on the South Alley. That's the alley side. With 2 divided light windows above. with a single casement opening on one side of a fixed picture window. The west elevation. That's this one. Includes that exterior stair that leads from the alley to the person entrance on on the side here. That elevation includes also a divided light window with casement openings on either side of a fixed picture window. The the east elevation.

[53:03] In this is you can see the grade here. So this one just includes 2 small casement windows. and this is the the north elevation which faces the interior of the lot and is not visible from the public right of way, and this elevation includes a single casement window with a fixed pane window above the wool domers are shown with rich lines that are lower than the main ridge line and approximately 4 and 12 pitch, and the dormer eaves overhang with rafter tails exposed. So the the key guidelines for key building elements include recommendations to keep the dorm as secondary elements, with ridge lines lower than the main roof ridge. and that the size and scale of dormers should be compatible with the existing building

[54:01] window openings should indicate floor levels and reflect the window patterns and proportions of the existing structure and the district and the relationship of solids to voids should be compatible. Windows should be trimmed with materials similar in scale, proportion, finish, and character. To the used traditionally, this one goes on for 2 pages. Garage doors should be consistent with the historic scale and material of traditional wood structures. Wood is the most appropriate material, and 2 smaller doors may be more appropriate than one large door doors should reflect the proportions, the height and width of doors in the existing structure, and or the district, and the guidelines also advise to take design cues from the primary structure on the site, but be simpler in detailing and smaller in scale than similar elements on primary structures. We found that the proposed accessory building does take those design cues from the primary building, including the general solid to void ratio of the window and door openings.

[55:05] and the reflections of the architectural style, with the minimal ornamentation and divided light casement windows and the gable roof with slightly overhanging eaves. The dormers are secondary to the main roof, form lower than the main roof ridge, and the size is compatible with the size and scale of the building. The windows and door patterns for the building are generally reflective of the pattern and proportion found on the primary building. And take cues on size, proportion, and location in proportion to the eaves of the primary building the double garage door. We thought maybe 2 smaller doors could be more appropriate than one large door. However, we're very aware of the alley, and how tight it is, and how steep the drop off. So we thought that maybe single doors might be impractical, for that alley turn, and that this should be investigated and resolved

[56:11] as part of the conditions of approval. And again, Hal can speak to that today. The materials proposed for the new accessory building include lime, washed brick with wood fascia to match the primary house, aluminum clad windows and doors, and half round, half round, guttering the garage door is proposed to be 2 car. Overhead. The retaining walls and exterior steps are proposed to be concrete, and the retaining walls are proposed to be lime, washed the guidelines for materiality and detailing favor. Use of a permeable soft edge surface over hard, non-porous paving or concrete, which gives more of a modern look, and is generally inappropriate. The guidelines also say that color choices should not be bright or garish, and there should be simplicity in new construction.

[57:11] Building materials should help establish a sense of scale, and are compatible with those found on the primary structure and in the district. including the use of wood garage doors. Again, a recommendation to use wood on retaining walls. The guidelines state that tall, plain, concrete retaining walls are inappropriate and regrading, and the introduction of new to retaining walls is inappropriate. We found that the proposed use of concrete for the engineered retaining walls gave too much of a modern look, and and would be inappropriate in the context of the historic district in this alley, and recommended that the retaining walls be redesigned to reflect the design, materiality, and character of existing stone, retaining walls found on site. And there's some pictures here.

[58:04] and that they should transition and visually blend with the existing. The new ones should blend with the existing walls. Additionally, the proposed driveway should be permeable, not concrete. and crusher finds flagstone or brick could be specified as a condition of approval. We thought that the lime wash white brick proposed for the building is reflective of the primary building. Usually we say that wood doors and windows are most appropriate for the historic district, however, the the aluminum clad windows is reflective of the primary house where steel windows were used. And it also identifies the garage as new construction, and of its own time and staff considers that aluminum clad windows are appropriate in this location.

[59:00] House. Let me know that the garage door they're going to propose wood, but we should also review the lighting as part of the conditions of approval. So, in addition to compliance with the guidelines. The standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate are outlined in 9 1118 B of the Boulder revised Code, and the issuance must meet the conditions of whether the proposed application preserves, enhances, or restores, and not damage or destroy the existing architectural features. Whether the proposed application adversely affects the special character of the special historic, architectural, aesthetic interest or value of the property, and if the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials used on existing and proposed structures are compatible with the character of the landmark property. we found that the proposal meets the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate, and in addition is generally consistent with the Mapleton Hill design guidelines and the general design guidelines providing the stated conditions and met

[60:16] the buildings at the rear respects the traditional relationship of buildings on the site does not detract from the overall historic character of the principal building or the site. It is, consistent with the general proportion of built mass to open space. It's subordinate to the primary building, and helps maintain a variety of shape, size, and alignment of buildings along the alley. and takes design cues, and is reflective, but not replicative of buildings in the district. The conditions of approval should address the following, to be consistent with the guidelines, that the proposed use of use of concrete for the engineered retaining walls gives a modern look, and is inappropriate in the context of the historic district.

[61:07] The proposed driveway should be permeable, not concrete. A pair of single car garage doors would be appropriate unless it can be demonstrated that this is impractical, for the alley turn, and that removal of mature trees should be avoided if possible. Okay. the staff's recommendation is to approve the application with conditions, finding that it meets the standards of issuance, and is generally consistent with the with the guidelines, provided the stated conditions are met. and we provided some draft conditions that would include revising the retaining walls to reflect the design, materiality, and character of existing stone, retaining walls found on site to revise the design to transition, and visually blend the existing, and proposed retaining walls to revise the design, to show a pair of single car garage doors unless it can be demonstrated that this is impractical, for the alley turn

[62:07] note mature trees to be removed, and provide details on materiality for the driveway. and the garage door and exterior lighting. We also had a note in there that the proposal may require the closing of the Spruce Spruce Street curb cut. and that the applicant should provide details on how that would occur. If that is the case. So we recommend that landmarks board find that the project meet the standards of issuance. And yeah, I'm not gonna go over this again. Sorry it's a bit repetitive this time. I don't know what happened. Okay? So board deliberation?

[63:01] the we've allocated about 30 min for deliberation. and generally the question is whether the project meets the standards for issuance, and I've said them enough that you probably get them. But here are some additional prompts. If you need that, to help the discussion, we can bring those back up. So that's the end of the staff presentation. Next steps in the process. The the owners, Hal and Skylar, are here, and they have up to 10 min to present to the board. The Board may then ask questions, and we'll then hear comments from any member of the public who wishes to speak. The applicants may have additional time to address anything said during public comment, and then the Board will deliberate. Once everybody has muted their computers again. So any questions for me before we hand it over to Hal and Skylar.

[64:02] Claire, I don't have a question, but thank you for that incredibly comprehensive and thorough presentation. I really really. Thank you. Any questions. That was amazing. All right. Aubrey. Do. We have Hal and Skylar here? I believe we do. And we will need to ask you both to raise your hand and swear to tell the Board the full truth, since this is a quasi judicial hearing. All right, and Hal will be rejoining as a panelist. I'm wondering if they're in the room. Oh, I have Skylar on. Here we are! Hello! You are together. Great! Just ignore that other promotion prompt. Good to see you. You look and sound great.

[65:00] And before your 10 min begin, if you'll both raise your hands where to tell the board the whole truth. We do? Thank you. And then I think we already have your names captured for the record, so you may proceed. Yeah. 1st of all, I just wanna point out that Claire and Marcy did a great job with the history of the house. We may have one thing. We may have a photo of a house a little bit earlier than the ones we saw where it was added onto. But I I this is such. I'm just. I said, this last meeting we had about this. But this process, this organization that you'll put in place this transparency and just having a better con conversation about these houses is infinitely like a hundred times better than what we had 4 or 5 years ago when we started this process. So thank you to everyone on the board, and especially Varsity Claire, for all their work on this.

[66:06] you know I I feel like Claire covered pretty much everything, and we agree with everything pretty much. The the drawings we submitted were originally drawn by our architect, and I thought, you know, for this conversation, and I'd love for it to be a conversation rather than a presentation. We could just go through the concerns and let the Board members ask any questions, and we'll give our thoughts as we go through those. Does that sound good to folks. So board members usually have questions, and and we always appreciate your willingness to answer them. We just have to be careful at this point not to get into more of the deliberative process, but more the factual yes and no, or you know actual questions with information. So would any of my do any of my colleagues on the board have any questions for the applicants.

[67:03] I think I might have some questions. yeah, so hail. Thank you. And I understand your intention behind wanting it to be a conversation. I do have some questions, and there's like standard process that we will follow here. And it's most. It is a question about the conditions. You know there are aspects of your proposal, for in particular the single garage door versus 2 garage doors that are smaller. As that are part of this written condition to be explored. I'm curious, if you think it is feasible, to have 2 single garage doors. So that was one of the things we were going to bring up. We don't. And the reason I say that is, if if you go back and look at the photos, and we, we can pop those up if you want. We currently have that. There's like a huge entrance

[68:05] that goes to the back of the property that they've been using for construction deliveries, and we also used it for parking for some of the construction workers for cars and trucks and that sort of thing. And it's been really tight. It's been tight to the point where the construction workers have been parking on the street and being willing to absorb parking tickets rather than go in that tight turn around the alley right? They're parking on the street in spruce in the alley. So you know. I totally get where that idea comes from. But just from our practical experience to date, I don't see how that's really possible. And and then I had a question. That I'm wondering if we could pull up the Site Plan image

[69:00] that was early on in your presentation, Claire. there's actually a couple of things. I mean, you could actually hang out on Image 46. This is a good good page here. And it's mostly about the retaining wall. When I saw the site plan it, it was hard for me to tell what the contours are reflecting. Do you know if they're one foot or 2 foot intervals. I don't know. I wanna say they're one foot, but I don't know that off the top of my head. That would make sense that they'd be one foot for a property of this size. and so, you know, here it is, and and I guess I'm just when I look at the Site plan, and I see the topography lines and the descending nature of the hillside as it approaches the alley that is probably accurately represented in the Survey. And I look at that in comparison to the 3D model. If we could look at the 3D model looking toward

[70:05] the garage door. My question, really, Hal, and I hope to have a conversation with the my fellow Board members about this is whether or not the wall is actually as tall as what is shown in the 3D. Model, and if there's an intention to step the wall down to lower it at the alley. And also my last part of this is well. I'm assuming that this might be maybe taller than what is needed. But it might not be. And my last question is, have you explored tiered walls as opposed to one large vertical plane? So that's that's actually probably the most relevant thing to talk about. For this, because they just the the original design for this

[71:01] which was where these images came from. Concrete walls are not really our favorite or even engineered walls. One of the things that we've been discussing with our landscape architect, and we've met with our builders this week as well. To talk about this is, can we use more natural stone to actually build like, build a stone embankment that goes up because we have a lot of redstone and other stones that are from the property that we've, you know, pulled out during excavation. and we would much prefer it to be a stone wall and or sort of stone tiers like what you're talking about, and I don't think that we need this tall of walls to be honest, and that's 1 of the things we're just going to have to explore. That that's great. I'll maybe make some more comments about this when we deliberate

[72:01] And then I had another question. It's not reflected in any of the images, but on the historic on the original house the topography descends toward the back of that house. I'm wondering if on the back elevation. If there is any material change. or if the brick on the back of the existing house goes all the way down to meet the grade at the lower level of the back. Right? So the that's why these were originally proposed to be concrete. Because on the main house, the original one, the one that we're we're just finishing. The bottom half of it is all concrete, and I think they were looking for architectural similarity with the walls and making the the lower. You know these walls concrete to match what we have on that other house? and you know it. It depends on how you want to look at it. We've looked at it both ways of like, you know, leaving it concrete as proposed, or

[73:09] or, you know, making it more brick or something else. We're pretty flexible about how that's approached. But but to match the house in front exactly, it would be concrete is defined here. And and what I can. You help me understand what I'm seeing here? I thought that the building itself, not the retaining walls, but the building has Brick proposed from the apex of the roof all the way down to the slab. That's the garage slab. It does. Were you talking about the walls? Yeah, I was talking about the walls. Okay, yeah. Okay. But the original house actually has exposed concrete foundation at its lower level, where it faces the rear yard. Parts of it do, and parts of it don't, depending on where the elevation is. Okay, that's helpful. I I think I have some direction to maybe have a discussion with the board, and if we have more, if we have more questions like, I think we might have the opportunity to ask more if they do come up. But I feel like my questions are currently like, you know.

[74:15] To your point. There is a horizontal line that goes across the main house, and it's all concrete below that horizontal on a line and brick above it. Got it. And then the original house itself is in stucco and brick, and break. Okay, I think I understand it. It. Thank you. Renee or John. Any questions for the applicants before we turn to public comment for this item. I have 2 questions. One question is, the windows? On your addition? Do the addition windows? I saw in one of the pictures of the 3D. Renderings, maybe, is the divided lights just like this in the addition part of the house, or they is there a different, because in one of them it looked like it was a fixed piece of glass with a divided light.

[75:13] Oh, no, okay. Yeah, it's it's actually very similar to both the windows that were on the original house. Okay. And the windows that we have on the addition. Okay, so it was just a 3D. Rendering like, look, you know, sometimes the lines don't always come through. So that was one question, and then the other question, and I think I can ask this, and Abby or Claire, let me know if this is inappropriate. Do you have a comment about the 2 car garage door versus one car garage, meaning how you pull it out? Do you want to make a comment on that part of it, or do you mind either way. We would prefer it to be one larger door, because, as we mentioned earlier, that, like even, even, it's a pretty narrow alley, and it's pretty narrow at that point, specifically, right across from us there's a very

[76:09] steep drop off. And, in fact. in one of the photos I saw it earlier. Even our neighbor across the alley had recently put up a chain link fence, because it's such a sharp drop off and it's having a post in the middle of that door, I think would be difficult. Yeah, and I think on page. Of our children, which would be a little scary. Hey, listen way. More car could do it. Yeah. And I think on Claire's page 27, it shows a a diff, an accessory building down the alleyway. And does that one have a 2 car garage door. You mind going to 27? I'm not sure which.

[77:00] 26, I think. Yeah, it's like a woodhouse or something. It's like a wood. Yeah. And as you pull that up I'm just gonna chime in with a quick time check. I think you've combined the board questions and the applicant presentation. But just to let you all know you're at the 10 min, Mark, and we don't have like a buzzer or anything. So just. Thank you, Marcy. Reminder. That way. That's the one. That is. Yeah, that's 2 over from us. And is that door a 2 car, or is that a 1 car. That is a I don't know. To be honest. Cuts off. Yes. Here's the one car. It is one car, this. Oh, it's a 1 car. Okay? Okay? okay. Those were my questions. Besides, the concrete which we kind of mentioned. And I like the of your conversation about that. So go ahead.

[78:04] In the other day. And I guess thank you. So. Gone! Well, I do want to give John an opportunity. Since, and be careful. We don't veer over into too much of a conversation versus questions directly to the applicant. But what was your comment, Hal? The other thing is to to loosen that angle so that you know you could come in. We'd have to move the house to the west, and to do that, we have these in which you can see in the left photo. Here we have those large trees, and we'd have to impede on those. If we were going to try to move it to the west, which is what we'd have to do to get it. The angle that we're talking about to have a post. In my opinion. Okay, thank you. Hey, John, any questions? I have one question about the walls. On the on the proposal. And it's and it's partly triggered by looking at this image in. In this image of this, this garage. Further down the alley.

[79:12] the corner of the garage is meeting the existing retaining wall there, and so it. It requires less, I guess. Sidewall kind of your yours is nested into the land better in the sense that from the from in in the sense that it's set back a little further from the alley. But have you explored moving it closer to the alley, maybe to diminish the the I guess necessary disturbance of those big walls. My my understanding, and we we looked at the the. We moved it as close to the alley as we could to meet the guidelines because this house, this one, was built seventies? No, that was in the early 2 thousands. I think that's Martin.

[80:15] Oh, okay, so it's it's a guideline that mandates your setback, you know. Yes, exactly. For yeah. Okay. Like we, we are right on that. Like to the inch is my understanding. John? Anything else? I'm it'll probably come out in discussion. One thought that occurred to me in the discussion is is that the landscape architect has probably chosen to do the single tall walls as opposed to a tiered form, because that narrows the amount of disturbance to the adjacent natural landscape. but that's that's more of a discussion item. It's not a question.

[81:04] Okay, thank you. And I think you guys know we'll come back to you. After public comment, you would have an additional 3 min to respond to anything especially said during a public comment. So I'm going to turn to Aubrey to help facilitate that anyone wishing to speak to this Lac in front of us tonight. We will need to swear you in, as it's a quasi-judicial hearing. All right, Abby. It looks like we have one hand raised so far. So let's start there, Catherine Barth. I'll give you permission to speak and start the timer. Once we've sworn you in. And welcome back, Catherine, and you know, to raise your hand. It's for to tell us the full truth. I will tell you the truth. Hi! Everybody! Well, I was involved.

[82:01] Oh, gosh! When James Hewitt was still with us, and we discussed this property, and we discussed the historic stone wall. And I. This is a question as much as anything that will go to Marcy and Claire, but at that time, as I remember. The wall was, I thought, declared to be a contributing feature of this site. and it was, I thought, pretty much part of the site and not to be disturbed. So I'd like to have some background on how we got from it being a really important part of the site to so much of it is now removed, and and I and I guess I'd like some background on how

[83:06] it became removed. I've went through that alley in the last few days, and it seems to me that about 20 more than 20 feet of that wall has been removed. and I'm wondering what the process was of of having permission to remove that wall and Anyway, let's just assume that all that is okay. And whatever looking at this garage, I would think I would hope that somehow the stone wall could. you know, be stepped up going into the house, and maybe part of the garage. You know the garage. The steps would be stone going up, and maybe the lower level, where the garages would be stone so it could blend into the

[84:04] into the site more. And I wonder if any thought has been given to to like materials of stone, to get it to be more of the site, the historic site, and it. It just seems very big to me it appears very big. so perhaps if we could get it to scrunch down a bit more into the site. Anyway, it seems like tiered I somebody had mentioned like tiered stone, tearing the stone, moving to get it to sit better into the site. The one garage door is pretty massive. but I do know that I mean, I've seen, and I know that the landmarks board has approved

[85:01] one garage door that appears to be 2 garage doors, so perhaps. Catherine, I am so sorry your time has expired. I could have a nice long chat with you guys. Oh, okay. Very few little thoughts of mine, and good luck with your deliberations. It's a naughty problem. Thank you. Thank you so much. Catherine and Aubrey. Has anyone else raised their hand to speak to this. Alrighty! I'm not seeing any others. Oh, we do have one more. Lynn Siegel, you are. Next, I'm going to give you permission to speak, and you will swear in, and I'll start the timer. I swear to say the truth, the best, as I know it, 1st of all, free Palestine, because any of this is irrelevant. If this whole project is blasted to holy hell in World war 3 over Israel, Palestine. So first, st free Palestine, second, the garage door looks okay to me.

[86:14] I think the utility of it really matters. I don't know what Catherine's talking about. Maybe I remember this house wrong. I see this house every single day when I go past on my bike, and the wall, I remember is on the front of the house. That seems kind of perfunctory, that you have one little piece of a wall that's still there. But they're doing a major big project to this. The main thing I felt is that they really should have put in a ground loop heat pump. which is what I'm trying to do with my place now, and anything less than that really shouldn't be allowed in the whole historic district, especially and and this there's a nice aesthetic here.

[87:00] And I like the the windows. Just seem like they'll really let a lot of nice light in, and it'll be a pleasant place to be, and it looks good to me. Good to go. Thanks. Thank you. Lynn and Aubrey. Anyone else. I'm not seeing anyone else. Yeah. Erin's hand up again. Catherine, did you mean to raise your hand again. No, it's not Catherine. It's Fran sheets. It's. Oh, Hello, Fran. I I'm sorry my computer is not working, and I'm sitting here with Catherine, so I hope you don't mind. I'm going to use her computer. No sorry. Welcome, Fran and you know I'm gonna ask you to swear to tell the Board the full truth, and then state your name once more for the record, and begin.

[88:02] Okay, I promise to tell the truth, and my name is Fran Sheets. I think I have a couple of things that people probably aren't going to like about this because I was in on the in 2020 when the other approvals came in on the house additions, and I really feel like the back end of this lot has been dramatically changed. And and it and it's a reflection on a really historic one of a rare historic alley, and I think it needs to be done really carefully, and I remember very distinctly trying to defend that wall that James claimed was very historic, and I measured 25 feet of it gone. And I just I'm wondering how that happened, because I remember James being quite clear that he didn't want that wall

[89:00] disturbed. The whole back end of the lot, if I remember correctly, has been changed dramatically, which and this adds to it, and I know that we need to put up all the adus in this town that we possibly can. But I think this is larger than anything else that's on that alley, and I would like it to blend into the alley and not not stand out as much as this drawing appears to do, and I would really love to know how we can repair the lost historic wall there, and how it can, how we can just let it sit down a little bit more in terms of the history. the historic presentation in that alley. It's a small alley, and none of the other adus that are in the alley look as large to me or as tall, and I think that with some work

[90:04] that can be done that can be accomplished, it can be repaired a little bit. It seems to me that there were some large trees at the back end of the property that were along that wall, but I could be wrong, and it would be really sad to lose any more than you already have. But that's all I have to say. Thanks. Thank you, Fran. and once again, Aubrey, I'm coming back to you to see if any additional hands have been raised, or indication that anyone else would like to speak to this agenda item. I am not seeing anyone, so I think we're good to move on. Okay, so we will officially close public participation for agenda. Item 5, a. And again back to the Bailey's. You do have an additional 3 min, and I don't know if you can shed any light on the 2 members of the public who talked about the stone wall that was there, and some of it, I think, is still there.

[91:11] Yep, we'll we'll start with that. And Skylar wants to read, was the letter sent in. I don't know if you guys got a letter from Martin Boone, who's our neighbor to the east? 608 spruce? If that was entered into the record I can read it. If not. Why don't? Why don't I make address the 2 issues or concerns that people had? And then we'll go from there. I mentioned the trees earlier that we're not taking down the mature trees, and I heard something about the trees have been removed or were being taken down. That's not the case. Just want to make sure people understand that. The second thing is, when we went through this process, initially, at least in. and she'll testify I have a horrible memory, but I don't remember anything in the original historic discussion about the wall at all.

[92:06] In fact. at 1 point it was brought up, and I want to say the previous owners who we bought it from built the wall, or did something, because if you go to the west side of the wall there. There are initials and a date. And I want to say this is totally from memory. It's in the eighties that the wall was rebuilt or remodeled, or something. And there's actually an inscription in the wall itself that states the names of the previous owners and has a year that the wall was built or remodeled that maybe you know, maybe we're misunderstanding something, but that's that's the knowledge I have right now. and it may be that there was a wall there and then they redid it. I'm not sure. Okay. Thank you. And then, Skylar, why don't you read the letter? If you have one, I'll just read. So Martin Boone is our neighbor at 608 spruce, and he wanted to be here, but he couldn't. So he sent in a letter that I think was directed to the Board.

[93:11] December 30.th Dear Boulder Landmarks Board. I'm the owner of, and reside at property known as 608 Spruce Street. As can be seen from the address. My property is 2 houses east of the property owned by Hal and Skylar Bailey, which is the subject of a public hearing of the Landmarks board to be held on January 8, th 2025. This email is in support of the Bailey's application to construct a new accessory building on their property. It is my understanding that the accessory building will consist of, among other things, a garage access to which will be from the alley located at the rear of the property known as Morrison Alley. as can be seen from the landmarks, boards, records in 2,003. I applied for and received approval for the construction of a garage at the rear of my property on Morrison Alley. In my view, and in the view of the board at the time, there weren't any negative aspects to the construction of the garage. Therefore I think it appropriate that the Bailey's application be approved, and can see no reason why it should not. Very truly yours, Martin Boone.

[94:07] Okay, thank you for reading that, because if I received it I I don't recall or I missed it. So I appreciate that. And I show that your additional 3 min are basically coming to a close now. So we are going to move on. I just want to make sure that you'll know that he did send it to historic at Boulder, Colorado. Okay, thank you for that. we are going to now move it back to board discussion. We do ask everyone to mute your computer or phone for the duration of the discussion. As Clara alluded to. At the beginning we had planned for approximately 30 min for deliberation. I'm very cognizant. We still have 2 more public hearings. I don't know, though, before I ask one of my fellow Board members to jump in. If Claire or Marcy know anything about what might have been considered a historic wall on the property.

[95:07] Yeah. So thank you. And we do have. We were able to reference the plans from 2020 that were approved, and those approved plans do show modification of the wall where it has been removed to in. Let's see like enter into the property and carve out a parallel parking space, and then so this is a new application, a new proposal in front of you this evening. But there's nothing to indicate that the wall was modified beyond what had been approved in 2020. I think the major point is that the grade of the lot there isn't a way to access the rear of the lot, except for the alleyway, so constructing the addition required removal, modification of that wall, and then it was shown to be inset in to the property to provide a parking space in back. So the current proposal is not removing any. You know additional wall beyond what has already been approved.

[96:18] Okay, thank you for clarifying that. Marcy. So it sounds like it was consistent with the scope of work approved. Correct. Thank you. So that being said, I don't know if anyone on the board would like to kick off our deliberations this evening. I, I'd like to. If that's okay with everybody. Okay. So at the highest level, I think that this application is I I think we can approve this tonight. I would support approving it with conditions. I think there's a path forward. I think Staff has done a good job identifying some of the conditions that I would like to talk about, and then to reintroduce some of the topics that we've just talked about. And you know, really it has to do with topography and

[97:09] the retaining wall, and I'll come to that in a second. But let me just say, I think, that the building size and form is appropriate. I know that the image makes the building look large, and I think it's the wall that actually makes the building look large but when you look at the dimensions that are proposed that are the vertical dimensions, they're all typical. and what I see is roughly a 9 foot main level plate, a 1 foot floor structure, a 2 foot to the sill, 5 foot window, and then they really pressed the roof down as far as possible, and so I think that those dimensions are pretty standard. Maybe there's a foot to mess around with, but I believe that what is proposed in terms of the building shape and massing its form, its dormers and its windows are all approvable. I will come back to some of the details of the building, like maybe at the end of my points, because I think the next largest thing, as you kind of heard me talk about initially with my questions to the applicant is about the

[98:12] scale of the wall. I think that there's 2 parts to it. In fact, one is materiality, and the other is the scale. I think that the scale of the wall is very unusual. Along the alley you might need tall sections of wall at certain locations, but the size of this wall. One. I question whether or not it's accurately depicted in the rendering. and then 2. It seems to me like it should, and I would recommend that we make this part of the conditions be more sensitively integrated into the topography. and I will just say the human experience along an alley is very important. And so when we talk about the regular cadence of openings to yards and fences and buildings, really, there's an aspect of that that has to do with the elimination of a wall like characteristic that often happens with large buildings along an alley, and while we don't necessarily have a large building, we do have a large wall, and that's doing the same thing.

[99:21] And that being said, you know, your relationship to retaining walls in terms of its height is important. And so oftentimes, and while we, I'd be curious if we have any of this in our code, but I will just say many codes have dimensional standards associated with that for certain reasons, and I'll just share with you what they are, because I think the intent of it is the direction that I recommend. We incorporate into our condition of approval, and that is, you know, a wall that is something that you can't look over is something that is much more obtrusive to the human experience, and so walls that, or retaining walls that are between at a maximum 36 to 42 inches, I think, are appropriate and common, and actually represented in that alley, as we've already

[100:11] seen already seen in the form of stone walls. And then. when a wall needs to be taller than that, creating tiered walls that allow for the relief of space kind of at shoulder level for a human that then sets back the next wall with opportunity for vegetation and landscaping. It continues to help diminish the wall like nature and the verticality of those features. And so I think that it would be smart of us all to incorporate the conditions requirement to explore. The reduction in the wall. Height. to promote the use of tiered elements that keep maximum wall heights between 36 and 42 inches, and then the other part, which would be about the materiality. And so, if you could. Just look at the 3D. Image again. I think

[101:12] you know it's unfortunate, because we're kind of picking on the 3D. Image, and I know there's a lot more material that kind of described this building, but it really is the one that is the most digestible to just say, this looks like this, and so if you could pull that up, I can kind of speak to it a little bit. Sorry morning. I missed what you wanted, pulled up. Oh, the 3D image of the alley that shows the concrete wall. Yeah. Okay, so alright. So you know, I believe you heard what I said about the wall height and the diminishing nature of the wall, and you could clearly see that a reduced wall height would, you know, help lessen the impact and the presence of this overall? I'd say, just general proposal and structure, and then, in terms of the materiality, it does seem appropriate to be consistent with existing material that is retaining wall material along the alley, and I know that there might be challenges to that, because it's

[102:17] we don't need to reinforce behind stone in order to hold up certain large areas of you know of Earth. But I think that sticking with the characteristics of materiality along that alley and the dimensions will significantly help this application. I think it'll also make it look better. I know that's just the, you know. That's a subjective thing. But I think all of the things that the code intends to do, which is about the compatibility and the respect of you know, historic features will be in greater compliance, and then, I think again, like it'll help diminish the overall size of this building, because things will come down.

[103:00] So those are the largest topics. But I wanted to just put a couple more out there. I do. I would still like to keep the condition of the exploration of 2 single car garages, and I believe that the applicant will have the opportunity to demonstrate that more clearly. If we do approve this, and then it goes to Drc. In which we can best evaluate it, and have a more thorough conversation before we approve a single car garage door, so I would recommend that we keep it as written, and I think Staff did a good job making it a condition to be pursued in review? Not a requirement, but an opportunity for us to discuss it further. Other things that I just wanted to point out is the rendering currently currently shows brick

[104:00] surrounding all openings on all sides without the demonstration of either sills or lintels, and I don't know what the new structures are doing and what they have, and whether or not they demonstrate them, I'd be curious. but I do think that the principal structure does at least show lintels in certain locations, which is the header above the windows. And so there's a couple of pieces to this that was like complicated. But I'm just gonna add one more piece and then come back to the souls and lintel talk. The the reason I was asking about the back of the like original house, and whether or not the foundation was a concrete foundation, is just that my gut reaction to seeing this building is that it looks like it kind of doesn't have a base and I think it is approvable as a single material. So I think that this one material approach is approvable.

[105:04] I think that the fact that you might, if we pursue my recommendations to Staff's recommendations, change the material of the concrete retaining walls, that it will be even more compliant as proposed as a single material. But I do think that some detailing of a base to this building, and how it relates to the earth may help improve it. It'll make the building look like it's sitting, and I think it'll be more accurate reflection of how building relates to topography, and so I don't think there's an exact route to doing what I'm describing, but I think it would be nice to if this goes to Drc. Explore the detailing of the windows and the detailing of the garage door. To both potentially demonstrate. You know the traditional historic nature of how

[106:08] forces go to the ground around lintels at a minimum over the garage, because you don't have much room over the windows, but in a minimum over the garage, and how that might also reinforce the demonstration of a base to this building, and maybe a detailing, while not, you know, unknown, but maybe detailing that does again reinforce that there's a base, and it relates to ground, and I think that those would. you know, help situate this building more strongly in the earth. I think it'll diminish the overall character, and I think it's also a reflection of what's likely happening on the historic structure. Is, that. I have a couple of other things, but I'll pass it on to my colleagues here. We know where to find you. Renee or John.

[107:02] I can jump in there. Thank you. So I generally agree with Staff's recommendation. I generally agree with the conditions. I'm going to echo some of the same things Ronnie said about the walls. I think that I think that the issue of the wall, at least, looking at this image is kind of unresolved in, or at least the way it's represented makes it look like, is it? It's not completely resolved as a design element. I I do think it's at least on the on the right side of the image. I don't think it's completely, accurately portrayed what that wall would have to do, even if it was a monolithic wall. The grade very quickly falls to at least the the historic wall grade along the alley, from the photographs that I saw elsewhere along there, and and from the walks along that alley I've taken so I think that some approach.

[108:12] possibly tearing, possibly stepping something, could get the height of that wall down fairly quickly. I also. I'm not sure exactly that the right approach is to bring the wall almost perpendicular off the face of the the building. Rather than to try to open that space to the side and bring the wall at a different angle off of the building, and and more off the corner of the building. I mean the building itself, I guess, is a kind of earthwork in this location, and so the corner of the building should kind of integrate into the wall in a way that that expresses that again, these are things that should be explored. Another thing that I heard in the in the discussion. I believe it was. Hal talked about material that native material that had been found on the site, that that was more the Redstone that is, in the in the immediate front range here, and

[109:28] that he wanted some way to use that, and I think some integration of some of that native material found from excavation and remnants of the of the somewhat historic walls. There's discussion about that. I think. There, I think there's a way to restore some of the original character of the edge of the land. Along the alley without this this kind of concrete extension. So I think that it's well, or it's properly placed to have that in the conditions that that exploration should happen. Otherwise, I think that the the siting and massing

[110:15] and position of the building relative to everything is is correct and approvable. And I believe it's an interesting completion to this this overall intervention on this site. And so I think that resolving the walls and the integration with the with the shape of the land a little better, is going to just improve the overall kind of finality of the project. So I will be supporting the the approval of this. Thank you. John Renee.

[111:01] Well, a as always, Ronnie and John do a wonderful job of this. So so we'll use Ronnie because everyone loves him, and we'll just keep letting him, you know, take full stage, because he's here for, you know. Just a few more months, and then we'll have to really pull our bootstraps up and get working. But my! I think. So. I would like to see. I think John is a has a really good point, because when we looked at the other view of when I was trying to see if that was a double door or a single door. That grading of that wall of that retaining wall that came out from that accessory building is not as high as this one, and it might be closer to the alley, and maybe that's the difference. But I really think that and not to belabor the situation any longer. But

[112:02] I really think that the fact that it seems like a really large building, because this, you know, white or gray concrete retaining wall comes into this. You know, stucco adu material on the outside. I really think a change up, switch up of the material and the retaining wall and softening it up and giving it more of a natural material, will actually alleviate the scale, the human scale in the alleyway. so. And I think that you know the Ldrc. I think that when we approve this project because I mean, I guess I just said what I was gonna do. Is that when it comes back to the Ldrc. If we can have, like some heights along that retaining wall, and try to keep it more to a human scale. I think that would really help it along the alleyway. I and and because we've been you know, getting this.

[113:05] you know, we're getting cars that have the alleyway situation. I'm not opposed to putting in the 2 doors. But I'm not opposed to the one door. Because I do want. If they're gonna invest in this adu which we need housing. It would be nice for them to be able to use the garage and allowed to be parked along the alleyway. I I agree with Ronnie, and how he stated all the numbers that you know, if it wasn't for this huge retaining wall and this view that we keep staring at you would not? It would be to scale it would be approvable by the building department or I guess that's not my to say, but it's doing the checks of the height, you know. It's staying within the limits of the 25 foot. It has the right slopes. The building department will determine if it's approvable. But you know that is because it isn't that I think that. We, when we look at it this way, the human scales a little off. But I really I really think it's a good accessory building. I like

[114:14] the little notations to the existing house and to the the historic structure. So I really like the way they've done it. And I think that they've done a really good job. And they put in really solid materials into the project what? What? It looks to be solid materials into the project. And you know they're not. You know, they're going full board into this. Adu. They're not just trying to do. A smaller adu. They are, you know. They're complementing the building as it is. So. I appreciate that. And that's my 2 cents. Okay, well, that's a hard act to follow. So 1st of all, you know, we're always excited to see a proposal of an adu even in one of Boulder's most beloved, treasured historic districts like Mapleton Hill, and secondly, I have to commend you for your stewardship of this property. I mean, I've always loved this house. I love the story, the studio, the artist. Everything about this really is

[115:17] a true gem, and and because it's a little newer house than a lot of the houses in Mapleton Hill. It just even means more how it's it. It tells a story of a little more recent chapter of our history, and not something newer and innovative that that really captures the spirit of Boulder so very clearly. You're going to recognize by my next remarks that I am not one of the architects on the board. I'm 1 of the members of the community appointed to the board. But here's the deal I absolutely love architecture. I also know this alley very well from when I lived in the neighborhood, when I 1st moved to Boulder, I haven't lived in this neighborhood for years, but I know the alley well, and I know there's even newer construction and some of the newer garages, and and I also know that that incredible slope south, that kind of drop off that is kind of frightening even as a pedestrian. Sometimes my sense of the other

[116:19] adu garages whatever that dot this alley in this block, and even going further east, they're more rustic in nature surrounding the garages or the adus that are there. And so. as a lover of architecture. When I 1st look at this image and Ronnie's right, we can wrap our hands around this image, and I don't know how accurate this is really going to be when it was built. But my response to it is that I see this wonderful bright white which I love it. I have to tell you. These are like my illusions of grandeur. The 1st thing that came to mind was the Sydney Opera House on a sunny day, because of the white and the light reflecting, and all of that just based on the rendering I'm looking at now. But what's fascinating to me about the Sydney Opera House, and and Ronnie's

[117:13] mentioned, maybe wanting a base for this to sit on is that the soaring sails of the Sydney Opera House are built on a Mayan designed and real kind of rustic textured stone, which you don't even really realize is underneath that. So I think the size of the adu is modest and approvable. I think the design is great. I love your paying tribute to the windows on the primary house. I think, like my colleagues, the concern is how to maybe make this wall. What I see is bright, white, and very noticeable. Along an alley where you see some some wood type fences, and then you see some of the fences where some stones are incorporated, and all of that. And so I do see a path forward. I agree with Staff's recommendation to approve this with conditions. But I really do think it's the wall. I

[118:12] I think the reality of of a 2 car, 2 doors versus one door is probably going to be resolved by by literally what can and can't be achieved in that particular alley for those turns. But I do think that the the issue is, as everybody has explained, is the walls. And and while tonight isn't the venue or the place to redesign this and to do that, you know, I'm wondering how we can move forward with with addressing those concerns and putting some conditions about how maybe that collaborative conversation can help happen at Ldrc and so I want especially people like Ronnie who can help sometimes facilitate that. I also also want to give Kurt an opportunity to weigh in on this.

[119:10] Hi, thank you. It seems like the Board has done a really good job of talking, particularly about the the wall, which obviously is a concern for me as well, and I think that some really good ideas have been discussed. and so I think the conditions that are being proposed are appropriate. I do want to talk about the the garage door, and you've heard me talk about this before. I feel like these wide garage doors, 17 feet wide or however wide. Really do have a significant impact on the feel of an alley as you walk down it. And I think that the design guidelines are very wise in not completely rolling them out, but generally advising against them, and saying that they

[120:01] in general are not appropriate. And I think that that is because they are absolutely a historic and are, do definitely change. The feel of the alley, which to me is, the alleys are so important, especially on Mapleton Hill and to change to significantly change the feeling of the alley as a pedestrian walking down it, I think, is something that we need to be very careful about and I the I understand that the applicant is saying that the 2 2 single car doors wouldn't work, but I think that that's probably driven by vehicle size. I'm certain that a small vehicle would have no problem getting in here. And yeah, you know, there's a trend towards larger and larger vehicles. But to what extent do we allow that to drive? Literally, I guess. What we allow in terms of

[121:07] the design of buildings in our in our city, and particularly in our historic districts, and does, when does that stop? You know? There are other cultural trends that we just say no to. For example, the thing of fenestration. You know there's a preference, a cultural preference these days for large single light windows which look great in in modern buildings. But in historic buildings we almost always say No, that is, it feels a historic. And we want multi-light windows with, you know, different different proportions, and so on. And so in that case we don't let cultural trends define. What we we say is allowable in terms of

[122:04] in terms of preserving the historic character, and I feel that we should do the same with these garage doors, so I would be strongly in favor of requiring 2 single garage doors instead of the one double. Thank you. Thank you, Kurt, and this is more compelling evidence of why, you're really going to be missed as a liaison. But so coming back to my board members about how to move through this this evening, you know, without having the luxury of a collaborative conversation like at Ldrc. And is it as simple as putting on the conditions? You guys would like to see. I think this can be accomplished with conditions, and it looks like some revisions to the original proposed conditions have already been put up, so maybe we could review those. That am I correct or.

[123:06] Yeah, it would. We would invite you to look at these carefully. I think some of may be redundant. A with some of the other ones. So if it's alright with you, I'll read through them, and then. You can either combine them or clarify them, and we'll we will move towards the conditions. Let me just pull up a slide so I can take notes as well. Okay. So a revised retaining walls to reflect the design, materiality, and character of existing stone retaining Walls found on the site. B. Revised design to transition, and visually blend the existing, and proposed retaining walls and sensitively integrate them into the topography and alley. See, explore reduction in wall height to use terraced walls no taller than 36 to 42 inches in height.

[124:00] revised materiality of retaining walls to match characteristics and dimensionality of historic materials found along the alley. explore the detailing of the windows in the garage door to demonstrate the traditional historic nature of lentils and building foundation. Explore connection of the retaining wall to the corner of the accessory building. Revise design to show a pair of single garage doors, unless it can be demonstrated that this is impractical for the alley. Turn note mature trees to be removed on the Site plan, provide detail on materiality for the driveway, provide detail on materiality of the garage door and exterior lighting. I think this is a great list. And I do see that letter a. The original proposed condition, you know, does capture many of the other retaining wall.

[125:00] kind of topics. What I would recommend is that we keep the more fine grained information that is documented in B through F we might be able to get rid of letter A, because it seems like letter A is captured in greater detail in BCDE, and F. I agree with that. Okay, it should update in a second, but I just took it out. There we go. So I think that this captures everything that we spoke about. I do want to come back to Kurt's Point, but maybe if others want to talk about the draft conditions here first.st And could I ask for a clarification? This is our roadmap for the Ldrc. Which 2 of you will be selected to review the final design along with Staff. Does. D is d going to make sense in a few weeks?

[126:05] could you help me clarify that one d explore the detailing of the windows in the garage door to demonstrate the traditional historic nature of lentils and building foundation. Yeah, it's kind of 2 points. I think they can be together. But I think what I what I'm recommending here is that the applicant team take a look at the ways in which the other windows and doors are treated with a header that is, the lintel on both the principal building, and then I'm not sure how you did it on like the newer proposed buildings, but it would be nice to see those, and to make an informed decision about how the detailing of this building relates to the 2 of them. The other thing, is it it? You know, my, this is just my instinct about this. Is that

[127:05] the the other part here, which is about the building's foundation, the base of the building. It's really once again. It's about looking at how, whether or not there's an opportunity to help reinforce base to the building. and they're right now. It shows the brick going all the way to the ground, which you know it might happen. But there, there really is some sensitivity to how that building's foundation, the stepping stairs, and where concrete shows up and doesn't show up, and the support for the concrete appears. And so I think that the massing model really is just like a wallpaper application of brick and I think that's good. It captures the intent at this point. But and I know I haven't really directed you, Marcy, on how to rephrase this, but I think you could leave it as written.

[128:01] I could. Yes, I appreciate the clarification, and and would be able to follow through with the conditions and do want to do a quick time check. I know that we're getting close to a motion, but I just wanted everybody knows. But we have 2 more public hearings this evening. So I just wanted to. I think. This is great. No, that's great. I just wanted to make sure, like everybody's in agreement. And then I wanted to bring up back to Kurt's point about the garage doors. But before we bring up the garage doors, does anybody else have anything to add to the potential modified conditions. I don't. Okay, I see everybody shaking their head now. So I agree with Kurt. and you've heard me vote in the past against the approval of a single garage door. But I agree wholeheartedly with what Kurt is saying about the kind of incremental nature of removing the standard and how it impacts our alleys, and I think that it is

[129:11] very important. It's a very important characteristic and feature in our historic districts, and you know my fear is that we you know, make justification for a single garage door. Which I can understand as being more convenient. But it really is a matter of degree of convenience. because I do think the single garage doors, as opposed to one large garage door still function, and that's just I recognize vehicles are getting bigger, but those garage doors can handle large vehicles. It's a little more challenging to navigate around the center post. And so I'm not sure what to do with letter F, and the reason why I was suggesting we keep it rather than eliminate it was to just reinforce the point that we need real proof.

[130:05] If there is a version of this in which we're approving one large garage door. And so I'm not sure how my colleagues feel about this I would be willing to leave it as is, and request real proof. or I would be willing to make the motion with the condition of approval requiring 2 single Doris and John, you're muted. Yeah, I believe I believe that letter F, the way it's written makes the case sufficiently. I don't think we should be descriptive at this point to require 2 garage doors, because I can see that there probably is a problem with that alley.

[131:03] And if if it could be somehow graphically demonstrated. Why, it's it's better to not have that center post We could conceivably require a graphic treatment of the garage door. So it read more like 2 small doors. We've done similar things before on alley garages. but but I think F makes the case that please explore this further, and we'll look at it. Okay. 8. I. I like the way that F is written. I think it says, revise the design to show the pair of single car doors

[132:00] unless it can be demonstrated that that's impractical. So I think that it achieves I I agree with what both Kurt and Ronnie. What you guys are saying, I I personally love the single car doors. But I do think the size of these adus do prohibit the use with the way our cars are designed, you know. Of course, you know the modern boulder car that used to be the Subaru outback is now the model Y Tesla. It's gonna fit in a in the in the single car garage doors. But you know, it also is that the Ford F 1 50 is probably not so, you know. I might have if it was. Cybertruck. Yeah, cyber truck. Let's hope things change. But the idea is that I think it could be a personal preference on

[133:08] and I think that I think that it's appropriate to leave it, as it is only because what we're saying is, let's do the single car garage doors, and then, when you come to the Ldrc demonstrate that it's impact. so does that. Is that work, or how? How? How would you have rephrased that Ronnie. I I think that it's written in the right way for what you and John are suggesting. And so I would propose that we leave it like this? And yeah, the alternative. And I think we should have a discussion. That's not the this board meeting about the direction of these decisions so that we're making it more as like a. you know, our cultural approach to this policy. As opposed to doing it right now in this meeting so, but I think that it is written in an adequate way for us to bring this to Drc. And I would love to make a motion.

[134:09] Oh, we'd love for you to make a motion. Okay. And as I go to the motions coming up here, I just want to compliment the applicant for their excellent designs. I think that this has been a really good process. I think that you know the applicant and applicant team has been very thoughtful in everything that they've been proposing. As we've looked at additions to the back of the property, other elements related to the landscaping and the pool. And and so I just want to compliment you guys, I know we kind of beat this up a little. I do think it will improve the project, and I think it'll be something like to continue to be proud of. So I move that the Landmarks Board adopt the staff memorandum, dated January 8, th 2025. As the findings of the Board, and conditionally approved. The application for a landmark alteration certificate to construct a new accessory building at 600 Spruce Street, Hist. 2024. Hyphen 0 0 2, 8, 3, a contributing property in Mapleton Hill. Historic District pursuant to Section 9, 1118 of the Boulder revised Code 1981, as shown on application, dated

[135:13] October 29, th 2024. Finding that the proposal meets the standard for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate in chapter 9, 1118 Brc. 1981, and is generally consistent with the Mapleton Hill historic district guidelines and the general design guidelines for boulders, historic districts, and individual landmarks. The conditions of approval are one, that the applicant shall be responsible for completing the work in compliance with the approved plans, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2 prior to submitting a building, permit application and final issuance of landmark alteration certificate, the applicant shall submit the items listed a through I which shall be subject to final review and approval by the Landmark Design Review Committee, Ldrc. To ensure that the final design of the addition is consistent with the general design guidelines and the intent of this approval.

[136:12] 3. If through building permit. Review, the proposal requires closing the Spruce Street curb cut per section 9, 9, 5, subsection c. 1 Brc. 1981. Provide details on the proposed treatment. the modified, the proposed conditions of approval, or the conditions approval are a through IA revised, designed to transition and visually blend the existing and proposed retaining walls and sensitively integrate them into the topography and alley b explore reduction in wall height to use terrace walls No. Taller than 36 to 42 inches high. C. Revised materiality of Retaining Wall to Match Characteristics and dimensionality of Historic Materials found along the Alley D explore the detailing of the windows and the garage door to demonstrate the traditional historic nature of lintels and building foundation

[137:11] E. Exploration of connection of the retaining wall to the corner of the Accessory building. F. Revised design to show a pair of single car garage doors unless it can be demonstrated that is impractical. Before the alley turn G. Note. Mature trees to be removed on the Site plan H. Provide detail on materiality for driveway parentheses. Crusher finds flagstone or brick. I provide detail on materiality of the garage door and exterior lighting. Thank you, Ronnie. Any second. I'll second. Thank you. On a motion by Ronnie, seconded by John. We'll do a roll call. Vote, John. I. Renee. Aye. Ronnie.

[138:00] Hi. And I vote aye, so the motion passes unanimously, and Claire will briefly go over next steps for the applicant. Yes, thank you. Thank you. Hal and Skyla City Council has up to 16 days to decide if they want to review or call up the decision. If they do not call it up, the conditions of the Lac will be reviewed by the Ldrc. And then, once the conditions are satisfied, the Lac will be issued. In the case that the city Council wants to review the decision. We will schedule a hearing within 45 days and let you know. So thank you for your time today. Thank you. We will move. Thank you, guys, bye, although you're welcome to stay for the rest of our meeting. We will move on to agenda. Item 5 B.

[139:05] It's a public hearing, in consideration of an application to demolish a building constructed circuit 1920, at 31 32 8th Street, a non landmarked property older than 50 years old, pursuant to section 9, 1123 of the Boulder revised Code 1981, and under the procedures prescribed by Chapter 1, 3, quasi judicial Hearings, also Boulder Revised Code of 1981 and I believe Marcy's doing this presentation. No, it's me again. I'm sorry. Apologies. I had a 50 50 chance. Thanks, Claire. So this, this again, is a quasi-judicial hearing, so I'll swear, and I affirm I will tell the truth, and then I'll pause to allow any board members to reveal ex parte context. If they have any

[140:05] alright hearing none, I'll continue so. this is an overview of the process we'll go through today I'll give the staff presentation. After that the Board may ask questions, and the applicant will have 10 min to present to the board. We'll open the public hearing. After all, members of the public have made comments. The applicant may respond to anything that was said. We'll then ask everyone to mute their computers, and we will. The Board will deliberate. Motion will take 3 members to pass, and will state findings, conclusion and recommendation, and then, as always, a record of the hearing will be available as both a video recording and an audio in the archive within 28 days. So the criteria for review for this application is outlined in the Boulder Revised Code under 9, 1123. It's a demolition application, and the purpose of reviewing demolition applications is to prevent the loss of buildings that may have historic or architectural significance by providing time to consider alternatives to demolition.

[141:19] The criteria that can be considered are the eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark. That's if it has historic or architectural significance. but also 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 projected cost of restoration or repair, although not deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect. The options for the Board tonight are to approve the demolition, request, or place a stay of demolition. To allow time to consider alternatives, and a stay would not exceed 180 days from the day the review fee was paid, so it would expire on May 18, th

[142:09] so the Department accepted the application to demolish this non designated building. On September 5, th due to the age of the building. The initial review was held by the Landmarks Design Review Committee. They referred the application to the Landmarks board in a public hearing. Finding that there was probable cause to believe that the building may be eligible for designation as an individual landmark. The applicant paid the review fee on November 19, th and a hearing needs to be held within 75 days the property is right here. It's located on a double lot on the east side of 8th Street, between Evergreen and Forest The house is located on the south side of the lot, and the garage is located northeast of the house. You can maybe just make out the shading there, and although the the rear of the lot is bordered by an alley. The garage is accessed from 8th Street, not from the alley.

[143:15] The property is not within the boundaries of an identified potential historic district. This is the house. It's a 1 story vernacular building. It has a front facing gable roof with a secondary gable roof and a shed porch that extends across the facade. The main gable here is clad in wood shake. but the building's defining feature is the distinctive polygonal stone with beaded mortar joints. and that continues all the way around the building. It includes decorative stone headers above the windows, many of which are wood, divided, light and original to the house.

[144:05] This is the south elevation. It includes a prominent stone chimney and the the north elevation. You can't see it on this picture, but it includes a smaller stone stone chimney. Sure. this is the east elevation. It's the rear, and includes a corrugated metal shed porch roof that extends across this elevation, supported by simple posts. This is the accessory building. It's a 1 story building with a front facing gable roof. It's clad in the same distinctive polygonal stone. This is the west elevation of the garage, so facing 8th Street, and it has 2 wood swinging garage doors, and you can see the decorative headers on the windows and the across the the door with the same treatment as the house.

[145:05] This, the polygonal stone facing also continues around all sides of the building, which has this smaller shed roof addition at the rear, and is quite difficult to photograph. so historic integrity is the ability of a property to convey its historic associations or attributes, and the commonly accepted practice is that a building should retain physical features that allow it to convey that significance. According to county records, the house was constructed in 1920 as a frame house with wood siding. Sometime between 1929 and 1949. The you can see here. Frame is in blue. Somebody wrote over it in red stone. The stone cladding was applied to the exterior of the house. The underlying house is still frame

[146:03] the garage itself was added to the property before 1938. Which there's some interesting things going on here. but we know it was before 1938, because we have an aerial picture in 1938 of the new garage. The building is in its original location. The original design of the building is somewhat modified through the addition of the stone cladding that happened before 1949. The building retains much of its historic materials, notably the cladding, but also wood siding in the gable ends, and many of the windows. The wood shingle roof has been replaced, and the there's. There was a window at the front gable end, which has been covered with a corrugated metal sheet. The building demonstrates vernacular workmanship, and its ability to convey a feeling of its time has not been diminished. The setting of the house on its property, with mature trees and plants, has not changed, and in general the building retains both buildings retain its their ability to convey association with the earlier early residents and architecture.

[147:18] So staff analysis of the criteria looks at the eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark, its historic, architectural and environmental significance. The Landmarks Board adopted significance. Criteria in 1975 to help evaluate buildings in a consistent and equitable manner and staff considers these criteria, and also the relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood. The reasonable condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or repair the historic significance. Criteria considers the development, heritage, and cultural characteristics of the community. The long family has owned the property since 1937. Ira Long was a local contractor. He applied the decorative stone facing, and likely constructed the garage.

[148:11] Ira and Minnie's son, Lynn lived in the house and the house next door, which the Longs built with matching polygonal stone facing Lynn, was a wrestler for Team U.S.A. At the Olympics in 1957 and 1958. He was head coach of the University of Colorado, Boulder's wrestling team for 8 years. and he was added to the Colorado Athletic Hall of Fame. In 2014 the house was surveyed in 1995, and was considered at the time notable as an example of native stonework and its polygonal stonemasonry is also significant. The architectural significance criteria. Consider the distinguishing features of the architecture and the architect and builder.

[149:03] the vernacular ornamentation of the building. Using the stone veneer. Cladding is the distinguishing feature of the house. It was applied by Era long in 1948. He also faced the neighboring house. 31 22, 8th Street, with matching polygonal stone long built at least 4 houses in the Newlands neighborhood between 1948 and 1952. And but addition to this subject property, the only house that he built that includes the polygonal stone cladding is the one next door to this one the environmental significance, criteria. Consider the sense of identity created by the unique, natural or man-made environment. Staff found that the close proximity of the 2 unusual houses faced by Ira Long was unique, and makes the subject property visually prominent.

[150:04] but also found that the surrounding area has an eclectic character and a wide range of building ages. The neighborhood experienced enormous population growth after World War 2 as many ex-servicemen returned for higher educational opportunities, and the student population more than doubled at that time. Only 3 pre. 1929 buildings remain on this block, and all are on similar double lots. 3 properties, additionally have been redeveloped in the last 20 years, and the buildings that are not included in those 2 groups were constructed between 1939 and 1955. Okay. The applicant provided information about the condition of the building, which was included in the packet and is very complete. The applicant team, Andrew and Stephen are here. Hopefully, they're sticking with us and can answer any questions that you may have.

[151:10] Staff considered that the applicant has demonstrated. The house has significant structural issues, including its roof and floor structure and the stone veneer. We considered that these issues were not a result of neglect, but rather due to the age of the building, and the unusual application of the stone veneer to an existing frame building. the inadequate roof and floor framing, and a shallow foundation while the stone veneer is supported by a concrete ledge. The stone is not adequately attached to the frame structure, and the window and door openings do not appear to be structurally sound. Similarly, Staff considers that the applicant has demonstrated that the garage has significant structural issues. The roof structure does not have a ridge beam, and the joists are visibly sagging due to the span.

[152:05] The garage walls are cast in place on reinforced concrete, with significant cracks, and no lintels or supports were observed to support the stone over the openings, and the foundation of both buildings is inadequate the applicant also provided information about the projected cost of repair also included in the packet. and they're here. They can answer questions. But in summary, Staff considered that the projected cost of rehabilitation of both the garage and house a lot higher than the average rehabilitation project with a similar scope. The staff's findings are that the building is eligible for designation as an individual landmark consistent with the purposes and standards in Section 911, one and 9, 11, 2, and based on the significance criteria. However, the applicant has demonstrated that the condition and cost of restoration or repair is unreasonable, and therefore a stay of demolition is not appropriate.

[153:13] In addition, the cost of restoration or repair, and the conditions of the building and buildings are not due to unreasonable neglect, but rather due to the unusual application of the stone veneer to the existing frame building, the inadequate roof and floor framing, and a shallow foundation. The character of the neighborhood has somewhat diminished over time, and the loss of this building would not constitute a significant impact on Boulder's historic resources. So Staff considered that approval of the demolition of the house and garage at 31 32 8th Street is appropriate, based on the criteria set forth in 9, 1123 f. Of the Boulder Revised Code. So our recommended motion is that the landmarks board approve the application to demolish both buildings.

[154:06] That's the end of the staff presentation. The next steps in the process are that the applicant has up to 10 min to present. followed by public participation. And then an opportunity for the applicant to respond to anything that's said and then board deliberation. Typically the question at demolition hearings is whether the building has historic significance. But today's staff recommendation is that the demolition application be approved because of the condition and cost of repair is unreasonable, even though we found the building did have significance. So I've just brought up all of the criteria here, and the board can consider any of these criteria during deliberations. So any questions for me before we move on to the applicant's presentation?

[155:07] No. Did we lose Ronnie? No, there he is okay. Good. Alright. Aubrey, I believe that Andrew and Steven are are here. I'm not seeing Andrew anymore. I did see. John raised his hand. So different, John, not John Decker. So we're promoting John as a panelist. Anyone else in the attendees is here to speak on this. Will you just raise your hand so I can promote you. We're here. Okay. Great. And before you begin your 10 min I will need anyone speaking to this. So if both of you are speaking to raise your hand, say you swear to tell the Board the whole truth, and state your names for the record.

[156:08] I, John Stevens, swear to tell the Board the whole truth. I, Andrew Stevens, swear to tell the Board the truth. Thank you. You may proceed. So. well, thank you, everyone for your time and consideration, and for particularly Claire and her staff. They did quite a job preparing the the memo to you all. We believe the work that's been done, so more or less speaks for itself. We don't have much more to add the other than I. The the stone wall, which seems to be the the major characteristic, is founded on

[157:02] what amounts to a when the original house. It's a siding house, and I think what they did. It looks like what they did in the engineer's opinion. What they did is just got a shovel, and dug a little 8 inch or so deep trench around the house, and filled it with concrete and rubble, and then built a stone wall on top of that, without any attachment of the stone wall to the house. So doing, any kind of repair to the house would almost certainly involve the destruction of the stone wall. which I think leads to a a position where you almost the cause of the expense is because the foundation isn't. isn't solid enough and doesn't constitute a grade beam to where it can be

[158:00] founded into the earth by other means. I I think it's it requires almost a piece by piece, deconstruction of the wall, then do all the work to the house to bring it up to code, including a new foundation and a floor system. The floor. Joist right now, rest on a large part of the floor system or floor joists. They actually rest on the dirt below. So it's a fussy, finicky project that is tough to preserve what's there without actually deconstructing it and rebuilding it. And that's because of the size. That's why the cost per square foot is just so high because it's a lot of work on a small little jewel box, a small little fussy project, and we're happy to answer any questions you all might have. Thank you for that. Do any board members have questions for the applicant?

[159:05] I don't see or hear any questions. And, gentlemen, just so, you know, we'll turn to public comment on this, and you'll be invited back for an additional 3 min. If there's anything you'd like to add. Yeah, obviously, can I actually ask one question. Yes, please. Sorry, Kurt. No, no problem I didn't raise my hand, but I suddenly realized I wanted to ask thank you, John, for your description of the the construction, and what would be needed to repair the house. My understanding is, the construction of the garage is somewhat different, that there's an inside concrete wall, unreinforced, concrete, and then stone outside. There. Are you thinking, or is it your assessment that in order to repair the the garage, the same process would have to be done to d, basically disassemble the stone and then repair and then re reapply. The stone.

[160:03] Yeah, we it. The the assessment is that the garage was build is cast in place, concrete walls that are unreinforced, and there's cracks in those walls bitter are approximately one inch in width. And there's a lot of settling and heaving in that structure. And that structure looks like it's actually the original concrete walled garage plus 2 additions on the back of it. And staff report says this unconditioned space, where, in fact, there actually is a heating system in the garage and the office space behind. But again, after the construction of the garage. it looks as though they did the same thing. Just dug a shallow trench around the the building, the front part of the bill well, all of the building and filled it with concrete, maybe 6 or 8 inches deep, and then applied the stone on top of it and the back part of the building. The major intersection between the original concrete garage, and what appears to be the 1st edition.

[161:12] there's major separation of those 2 structures and a large crack in the stone wall. As a result of that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you any other questions. I don't see or hear any. So we are going to move on to public comment for agenda. Item 5 B. So, Aubrey, if you'll help facilitate this. you can either raise your hand if you're joining us on Zoom or press Star 9. If you're joining us by cell phone. All right. So far we have one hand raised. It's Tiffany Gwyther. and if anyone else would like to speak, just raise your virtual hand, and we'll get you in the queue. So, Tiffany, I will give you permission to speak and start the timer.

[162:08] And Tiffany, I will need you to swear to tell the Board the whole truth, and state your full name once more for the record. Hi, Tiffany Gwyther, I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and I'm here with my husband, Josh Gwyther, as well. Yeah. Recognize everybody on the board, as you probably all know, we went through the same process as the neighbors to this building. and it was quite a different discussion when we were applying for the same same same applicant. But we can get to that at a later date. we are curious what the plan is for this lot being as the the original owner of the slot, built our house, and we were under such tight constraints for any modifications to our house. We're very curious on what's happening to this house next to us.

[163:04] Thank you. And maybe when we close public participation, the applicants in their additional 3 min can speak to that. And I thought your names were familiar. Now I know why. Aubrey, do we have any other members of the public who would like to speak. I'm seeing one more hand raised. Just give me a moment to switch over Lynn Siegel. I'll give you the permission to speak. You'll swear in. I swear to tell the truth, the best I know it. Everyone seems to know the truth. What is with that? I don't know the truth. I just know what I know, anyway. Yeah, I remember Tiffany. And I remember. And I have the same question, why, why would why does she have to go through all of that on that garage or on the back. You know the way you drive in the

[164:01] that that doesn't seem right that there should be discrepant on either of these things. Personally, I lived at 31 82 7th Street, and so I'm pretty familiar with that block, and I knew of Irif. I didn't know him myself. It's not the same as Long's Gardens, right? It's not the same Ira long. Yeah. but it it tends to be confusing because it's long, you know. But well, you know, he wasn't the greatest builder from the perspective of the future, you know. And it really makes it prohibitively. I you know I'm very divided. I don't want to see the house go down. I'd like to see something like this, and you know, with the with the stonework and everything, and that it's and it's just indigenous to the neighborhood and the house next door. And

[165:03] okay, I don't think you can really say that you can let this one go, you know, and then do what you did to Tiffany and her husband on the house next door. That just seems inconsistent in kind of unfair and discriminatory, I guess. But I'm of the notion that and I'm really divided. But but I guess I have to say, let the house go and and there's no real way to reproduce this thing or to make it, you know to make something similar to it, you know, unless whoever builds something there happens to consider that I mean the last house that we saw, you know I don't really like contemporary stuff in the alley like that. I you know that isn't my style, but you know it's what someone wants to build and what is the past? But the future not yet happened.

[166:17] so I'm divided, but I'd say it could be demoed, I mean. and and I think a lot of these time. These issues are just a matter of money. 400,000 700,000. What's that? You know I'm paying 100,000 for a ground loop, heat pump, you know, like, and that's just so. I can be warm and not be 54 degrees and cranky like I am all the time. I so apologize. But your time has run out. Thank you, Lynn and Aubrey. I'll give you a moment or 2 to see if there's anyone else who would like to address this public hearing.

[167:05] All right, not seeing any other hands raised. I think we're good to move on, Abby. So we will close public comment for agenda. Item 5 B. John and Andrew, you have an additional 3 min, and while it's not part of what the Board's purview is tonight about what will happen on this property. If you choose to address the neighbors. Questions who spoke during public comment, feel free to. Yeah, we're happy to. So the the short and honest, truthful answer is, we don't know. We architects cost money, and we have not made progress with any architect on this without knowing what what we're gonna be limited to or not limited to. So it it we just don't know. At this point.

[168:00] th, this is sort of step one. We're trying to get this question answered before we start spending money on Step 2. I wish I had a better answer. But that's that, is the answer. Thank you and anything else you'd like to add before we bring it back to board. Deliberation. No, I I don't think so. Thank you all. Okay, thank you so much. So with that being said, we will bring it back for board discussion. We do ask everyone to mute your computer or phone for the duration of our discussion. And I do want to ask if any of my fellow board members if anyone wants to kick off this discussion. Okay, not everybody all at once. So John, are you. I? Well, since I was party to the discussion next door, I think I should open

[169:06] and and not to not to address that. Oh, I'm feeling out of focus. not not that. That is something that we can address in the in this situation. My inclination with this this property, and a lot of houses like this one is that? Well, there's value in them. We'd like to do what we could to see if we can find a solution or to save them and hopefully the the process supports that. But at the same time there is a point when it just becomes unreasonable to put a property owner into the position

[170:01] of being forced into preservation when it's just not financially tenable or otherwise viable. And it sounds like in this case the case has been strongly made, at least to the point where staff advocates for letting the property go, that this is one of those circumstances I'm I to to finish what I'm saying. I'm I'm split in the same way that Lynn finds herself split. This is an interesting piece of Boulder's history, but and she put it very well. The construction was poor. or it was done at a different level of understanding of what construction should be able to do

[171:02] in time. And and it's like any number of the mid-century modern projects that we're encountering these days. They were very poorly constructed in terms of them, of the current or contemporary parameters of building performance to a degree that it's just not. It's it's not considering, considering the cost environment that we find ourselves in. It's just not viable to say, well. this is a unique piece of design. We should preserve this if there's no financial support to do that. so I'm inclined to support Staff's recommendation. Thank you. Ronnie, or Renee. Yeah, I also agree with Staff's recommendation. You know I do have concern about the consistency question that I think has come up. And honestly, I don't have kind of at the top of mind with the other neighboring applicants.

[172:14] You know all the full details, but I will say that the construction type and kind of the Wall Assembly technology is a challenging wall assembly, and that the stone application and as well as the occurrence of it, happening like second to the interior. The creation of interior wall, and certain aspects of this proposal, you know, create some unusual assembly construction. and of course, associated costs to make improvements to those would be high. And so I do think that staff accurately captured the ways in which this property can rise to the merit of potential landmark designation, and how the costs associated with this, as demonstrated by the applicant, make it exceptionally burdensome. And so I agree with Staff's recommendation in this case.

[173:14] Thank you, Renee. Sorry I turn off the camera. I have little waiters coming in and out giving me food. Yeah, it's quite lovely. Yeah, so you know, I have this feeling about inconsistency, too, which is really, you know, kind of it's really hard, because someone can come in and say, Hey, I want to put this addition on this house, and we do this big rigmarole to it, or someone came in and say, Hey, I want to demo this building. Landmark it. What's the case? So you know I and I think life in general is inconsistency, and I don't know how to like. That's not really the answer to this, because, you know, when we're on a board and we're human, and we talk about things and things come up. And we, you know, make good decisions that there is an inconsistency with

[174:15] just being, you know, not being so consistent in life and choosing it so. I I do. I'm torn with it, because again we're demoing a building, and we went, you know, through this I think that I think they haven't I? I I don't know how to say it. But I I wanna say that like, have they explored the other options to what we could do to the house like we had requested with the neighboring property. And so you know, as as the applicant said, you know, architects are expensive and and some architects are expensive, and so

[175:00] What can be done to, you know, to actually save this house or keep part of it, or give like a little corner of it. And are we really at that point to talk about this? Or if we should just continuous staff's recommendation. And so I'm torn with it. I really don't. I can't really have an answer. And so I I don't know. So, Abby, do you wanna follow up on that? No, she watch, he answered. No, these are the thorny issues, and you know we wish everything was easy and smooth, and you know I didn't apply to serve on the landmarks board to have things be easy and and quickly decided. I, the staff presentation memorandum were excellent. I totally understand where Staff is coming from even after reading, how compelling, if there ever was a house not just its unique stonework and everything but just the history of the people who live there, and their long connection to that as well as their role in Boulder. I mean, I think this house tells a very important story, and

[176:18] I think one thing we did receive in this presentation is. this is one of the 1st times I can really think of a demo permit where we had upfront very clear, very precise numbers about, and information about the condition, and then the numbers that would. the amounts of money that would be required to repair it. So I want to thank the applicants for that, because we usually get that a little further down the roll. And I think if it seems like we're inconsistent. I think it's because we, at this very 1st point of discussion, as a whole board on this particular property, we had a lot more thorough information that sometimes we get further in the process. I think the reason

[177:04] I'm not torn. I understand where the applicants are coming from, and I'm not surprised to hear that this house is fraught with with a variety of things, not only just sheerly because of its age, but because of its construction, but I think in my heart and lamenting how? How we're losing more and more. And and you know these are the houses of ordinary people who helped make boulder extraordinary. So I would have supported a stay just to absolutely exhaust every creative alternative to saving this or a portion of it, and also with the same reasons, I supported a stay for the neighbor's house. I won't be supporting Staff's recommendation tonight. Personally. I don't know what an additional discussion there is, what what other thoughts there are. If anyone is at a place they want to make a motion.

[178:05] Kurt, do you have anything. Oh, Kurt, I'm so sorry! Oh, sorry, Kurt. Not a problem at all, not a problem at all. But thank you for letting me speak this house and the house next to it actually have always been sort of treasures for me, and I'm not particularly objective about it, because I live just a block and a half away. And so I go by them frequently, and have always noted them, because they're really very distinctive for the stonework. And of course I didn't just walking by. I didn't know what the construction material was, or or the construction type. But especially the fact that there are 2 of them together, you know. Really. It makes a little mini theme. I guess you could say there, which I think, adds significant value over just there being a single building there. So and I really appreciate all the information that was in the packet, and it is very extensive and and helpful. I agree I had sort of in reading over this. I had sort of in my head imagine that maybe there would be a middle ground

[179:21] of allowing demolition of the house, but trying to preserve the garage, because the garage to me is really a little gem at least, as viewed from 8th Street. It just, you know the stonework on it actually is quite remarkable. But I learned tonight that there are a couple of additions to it, and so maybe is a little more complicated, so whether that would work at all I don't know, but it's just a possible idea that I wanted to throw out there for the board. If the board were looking for some kind of a compromise, and it would be a little bit similar to what you did with the building on the property on Mariposa 2119, Mariposa, or whatever that is.

[180:10] So I just wanted to throw out that possibility. And I look forward to listening to the rest of the Discussion Board. Thank you, Kurt. So, Ronnie John, any additional thoughts. let's see. But go for it, Ronnie. Yeah, I yes, I saw John Gift, and I was think he's gonna say something. yeah, I I still. Well, 1st of all, I appreciate what Kurt is saying. I I'm not sure

[181:02] what you, Abby, and Rene, think about that. But what I'm hearing is as Kurt's describing that the garage may have characteristics that may make it something that is more worthy of saving and and more easily saved. My sense is that I would still support Staff's current recommendation unless I hear some other robust version of the preservation of an aspect of this from my fellow landmarks board members that, you know, might. you know, shed some new light on this for me. But I think that staff staff report and the applicants ability to supply information on the cost, as well as the things that we just talked about in terms of construction. Assemblies, you know, has demonstrated to me the challenges associated with this, and you know just they're believable.

[182:08] you know, even if the numbers are even a little high. I still can see how it would be costly and prohibitive and burdensome on them. To preserve it. And to me this particular building just doesn't rise to the merit of you know. Forcing, you know, more deliberation with them again, unless my fellow board members think differently. And there's more information that people would like to share about the garage, I think, is Kurt is describing, which I'd be. I'd love to hear more about if if others are feeling the same way. Otherwise, you know, I think Staff's report did a good job summarizing something that I also agree with.

[183:00] Hey, yeah, Ronnie, I think I think that I agree with what you're saying. If the numbers that they presented they they've they have thoroughly analyze the situation they're facing with these 2 buildings, and I think the numbers are reasonably believable, which means we're talking about a combined cost for both buildings of of over a million dollars, which is becoming to me extremely prohibitive. It. What we're what what we're wrestling with here, I think, is not so much this case that's in front of us as the inconsistency with the similar previous case. that we did go through the process of a a state and an attempt to come up with

[184:03] some kind of resolution to the issue of demolition. Sorry, John, can I interrupt you? Okay, all right. Yes, please. So there's been some talk about consistency with a previous application. I just want to caution the Board that what the Board does in one case should have absolutely no bearing as to what it does in another case. and you might be able to imagine that, you know we're pretty. We're decently removed from the whatever that case was, and you know the facts there, and trying to bring that here and and try to apply facts that aren't before the board is is problematic. And so it was a little bit of a red herring. For you know that, commented public comment to say, You know well, what about you? Know this other application that the Board went another way. I would suggest and advise the Board not to consider what it's done in any previous applications. The important thing is whether or not the application meets or does not meet the criteria in the code, and that is really the the crux of the issue, and so try not to get

[185:17] too wrapped up in previous decisions that the Board has made, because that's just not part of the criteria, and could be legal error. Okay, thank you. Chris. You're welcome. I was about to say something similar in the sense that that I was leading to this is this case. and that was that case, and there was a whole set of conditions around that case, and there is a set of conditions in this case that the clearly stated costs and burden. And, as I said, the environment we now find ourselves in with construction, costs and costs in general.

[186:06] It makes this case unique and makes this case specifically this case. And I I still, I'm finding that I support Staff's recommendation with all the regrets that this could be designatable. It could be argued and made to meet the criteria that we want for designation, but without some body of support. I don't think you can put property into that burden, without there being some benefit. And Renee. I don't know if you want to add anything, or if anyone is ready to make a motion.

[187:08] Well, I think that chris did a good job of putting us back on path and before John was gonna talk I was. Gonna say, you know, I don't even I don't know if I was on the board at that time, or what if so, I don't even know how to say that, like I don't even know what that project was. And if we don't really have information ahead of us, then how can we compare or contrast or deal with those type of things? So I really appreciate Chris for jumping in and saying, Hey, let's look at the facts in front of us. Staff has looked at this and had brought some really good information in front of us, and we need to take on that. And you know. I appreciate everyone's input and I I appreciate the fact that we're allowed to freely talk amongst our members and come to a place that is

[188:10] allowing us to move forward so if no one else has any more comment, I I can proceed with a motion. Thank you, Renee. Rene not to be presumptive, but which motion would you like to approve demolition, or to places? Stay. I would like the motion of the staff recommendation, which is to not replace. Yeah, thank you. This? Is it. Yeah. I move that the landmarks board approve the application to demolish the buildings. At 31, 32, 8th Street. Finding that the buildings do not meet the criteria set forth in section 9, 1123 F. Of the Brc. 1981 code.

[189:14] Oh, I shouldn't have said Code. Sorry. I suck in that. Okay, on a motion by Renee, seconded by Ronnie. We'll do a roll call vote John. I. Renee. Bye, Ronnie. And I vote nay, but the motion carries 3 to one. and then, Claire, will you be kind enough to explain next steps for the applicant? Yes, so the the Board has approved the demolition request. We'll issue the approval letter. It does expire in 180 days. So a deconstruction permit must be obtained within those 180 days, or you will need to resubmit the demolition request back to historic preservation.

[190:06] However, unless there's a dramatic change in the property, our policy is to be consistent with recent decisions, and you have my phone number. If you have any questions, thank you for your time and patience tonight. Yes, thank you all. We appreciate it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Now we do. We will move on to our last public hearing this evening. I know we're running late, based on what we thought we could get through this agenda on. I do know, though, lacs always take longer and we'll move ahead. But do we? Does anyone need a few minute break before we start. Item 5 c. Or are you ready to soldier through? It looks like we may be going on through, and Marcy will be doing this presentation. Agenda. Item 5 c. Is a public hearing in consideration of an application to demolish a building constructed circa 1910,

[191:11] at 2725 5th Street, a non-landmarked property, older than 50 years pursuant to Section 9, 1123 of the boulder revised Code 1981, and under the procedures prescribed by chapters 1, 3, quasi-judicial hearings. Boulder Revised Code, 1981. All right. Thank you, Abby. Marcie Gerwing, principal planner, and I affirm, to tell the truth in this presentation. we'll begin with reviewing the quasi-judicial hearing process, and it'll start with a staff presentation. They just skipped over any ex parte contacts. So let me pause there. If any board members made a site visit, had a conversation with a neighbor. Have any tie to this property whatsoever? I'll pause here for the count of 3,

[192:10] 2, 1, all right. We'll move on to the staff presentation, followed by board questions. The applicant will then have an opportunity to present, followed by board questions, and then the public hearing is then opened for public comment, followed by any board questions. After the last person from the public has spoken, that applicant has a chance to respond to anything that was said, and then the public hearing is closed, and the Board discusses. A motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass and motions must state findings, conclusions, and a recommendation. And finally, a record of the hearing is available. Let's see. So the criteria for your review this evening is found in 9, 1123, a of the Boulder revised Code, and it's a demolition application, and the purpose of reviewing these applications is to prevent the loss of buildings that may have historic or architectural significance by providing time to consider alternatives to demolition.

[193:16] The criteria that can be considered are the eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark. We look at its historic, architectural, or environmental significance. It's also the relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood as an established, indefinable area. The reasonable condition of the building, and the projected cost of restoration or repair, although deterioration cannot be considered if it is done by reasonable, unreasonable neglect. The landmarks, board options in front of you this evening are to either approve the demolition request, and that approval is good for 180 days, and would expire in July. or you may vote to place a stay of demolition on the application, in order to provide time to consider alternatives to demolition. That stay would expire on May 20 second, and that is 180 days from when the board, hearing fee was paid.

[194:17] The Planning and Development Services Department accepted the application to demolish the house on October 10, th and I do want to be transparent that at the time the property owner was not aware that the application was submitted, and we have made process improvements to prevent that from happening in the future due to the age of the building. The initial review was held by the Landmarks design Review Committee, who referred the application up to the Landmarks Board for review. Finding that there was probable cause to believe the building may be eligible for designation as an individual landmark. the owner was then informed at that point, and agreed to proceed. Proceed with the application, and they paid the review fee on November 23, rd and that brings us to this evening, January 8, th for the landmarks board hearing

[195:11] the property, is located mid block between Alpine and Balsam avenues on the west side of 5th Street, in the Newlands neighborhood, and the lot is bordered on the west by an alley. The one story vernacular frame building has a flared hipped roof and a rectangular footprint with the shed roof additions on the south side and the west side, which is the rear elevation. The house is elevated on a rubble foundation, parged with concrete and scored to look like stone. An elevated hip roof porch has flared. Roof detail, simple porch supports and railings with vertical lattice below, and is accessed by wooden steps. The entrance door is flanked by double hung windows, which appear to be original, and the building is clad in narrow horizontal lap, siding with corner boards and simple, trim detailing

[196:04] the south elevation of the house includes a double hung window and a shed roof projection with a series of square fixed pane windows. This portion of the building is clad in the same narrow siding with simple window trim, and there's a small shed roof dormer on this elevation, with a pair of single pane wood windows. The rear elevation includes a hipped roof dormer with a boarded window opening, and a shed roof projection that has a double hung window and exposed rafter tails, and a second double hung window is located on the north of the shed roof projection. The side north elevation includes 4 window openings, 2 smaller square windows, flanked by vertically proportioned double hung windows, and a portion of the rear hipped roof projection is visible from the front of the house and has divided light door and aluminum storm door. looking at the integrity of the building. And again, that is the ability of the property to convey its historical associations or attributes. The house was constructed around 1910, and in general retains its historic integrity. The building is in its original location, and the design of the building does not appear to have been modified since around 1929, when the tax assessor sketched the footprint of the building.

[197:25] the building retains much of its historic materials, including the lap, siding windows and concrete foundation, and the doors and the wood shingle roof have been replaced. The building demonstrates vernacular work, workmanship typical of its original construction, and the building's ability to convey a feeling of its time has not been diminished. The setting of the house on the property with the lawn and decorative plantings has not changed, and the area remains residential, and in general the building retains its ability to convey its association with the early residents and architecture.

[198:03] The staff analysis of the criteria looks at the eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark, and we'll look at the significance criteria that the Landmarks Board adopted in 1975. We'll also then look at the relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood, the reasonable condition of the building, and the projected cost of restoration or repair the historic significance considers the development, heritage, and cultural characteristics of the community, and while the building located at 2725 5th Street dates from around 1910 and has been associated with many people closely connected to the Boulder, Colorado Sanitarium, and nursing Practice staff does not consider the property to possess a high degree of historic significance. The property itself was not a site of a historic event that had an effect upon society. Nor does the building show character, interest, or value as part of the development of the community, nor does it exemplify the cultural, political, economic, or social heritage of the community.

[199:10] The architectural significance, criterion. Consider the distinguishing features of the architecture, and a prominent builder or architect. This building represents vernacular residential construction of its time, reflected in the lack of architectural details, but is not a significant example of an architectural style of the past and does not possess architectural significance. The 1995 Survey form notes that the house is a well-preserved representative of vernacular frame construction in boulder, as reflected by the lack of architectural details which would distinguish a particular siding or particular style. The house is notable for its narrow lap siding. however, Staff did not agree that that would raise it to a level of architectural significance for its design.

[200:05] The environmental significance criteria considered, the sense of identity created by the unique and natural or man-made environment staff found that the building and property does not have environmental significance in that it's not representative of unique environments or landscaping, and the property is not located within the boundaries of a potential historic district. While this was one of the earliest houses constructed along 5th Street, which had a streetcar line until the area became primarily residential. During the building boom. After the Second World War the area today has been somewhat diminished over time and comprises buildings predominantly constructed between 1950 and 1970, with a handful of modern buildings and Pre. 1929 buildings. With the exception of the subject property. The buildings generally maintain deep setbacks, and the naturally steep grade, with lots falling from the high point at the west, has helped maintain a bit of the character of the area.

[201:14] Moving to the condition of the building, the owner submitted information relating to the lead paint the roof, replacement repairs to the dormer wall and missing window, as well as some drywall repair on the interior, and as well as a letter from the structural engineer, which reads that the roof framing should be reinforced with new rafters and beams, and the rubble foundation would need to be replaced with a proper concrete foundation, extending to the required frost, depth. and soil cuts would need to be retained with properly designed retaining walls. The owner also submitted a report from Alpine building performance, which identified the following exterior repairs, including flatwork, siding, trim fascia, and soffit windows, front, porch, and site, grading

[202:14] the projected cost provided by the owner, relates to a number of the items previously mentioned, but not all of them, including remediation of the lead, paint, roof, replacement, rear, dormer, repair and window replacement, and upgrading the electrical system. So with that staff recommends that the Landmarks Board approve the demolition of the house. At 2725 5th Street. Finding that the building is not eligible for individual landmark designation consistent with the purposes and standards in 9, 11, and 9, 11, 2, and that the property does not possess a high degree of historic significance, as the property itself was not a site of a historic event that had an effect upon society.

[203:03] nor does the building show character, interest, or value as part of the development of the community. Nor does it exemplify the cultural, political, economic, or social heritage of the community. Additionally, the building is not a significant example of the architectural style of the past. and does not have architectural significance, nor does it represent a unique, natural or man-made environment. and the property is not located within the boundaries of a potential historic district. The second finding is that the historic character of the neighborhood has been diminished over time, and the loss of this building would not constitute a significant impact on Boulder's historic resources. So we have prepared recommended motion language. And that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

[204:07] and if there are no questions from the Board, I know that the owner, Chris Houston, is here, and may have others who are also on her, who are also planning to speak along with the owner's presentation. Aubrey, if you could go ahead and promote Chris, please. Bill Houston, Perfect. Thank you, Marcy, and thank you. The board! Should I go ahead and get started? Yes, please. But do you promise 1st to raise your? We need you to raise your hand and sort of tell the board the full truth. Thank you. Yes, I'm Chris Kristen Houston, and I am representing the estate of Cheryl Lynn Thompson, and I promise to tell the truth in this presentation.

[205:03] Thank you. 1st of all, I want to thank your staff. For the time. I have served on several boards in the city of Louisville over the last 2030 years, and I know the amount of time commitment it takes, and a big kudos to your staff working with Marcy during a very difficult time of managing a state and mourning the loss of our mother. Marcy acted with just such compassion and professionalism. It made the process much easier. So I appreciate your time. And the historical report that was provided was quite insightful, and and actually meant a lot to read. So thank you for those components. I will not take my full 10 min. I understand the length of your meetings, but I do want to let you know that as the representative I'm presenting to you today to urge you to follow the staff recommendations to not move this into a landmark situation and approve the demolition application that has already been approved by Staff.

[206:02] I've lived in Boulder County for almost 50 years, except for the last 3 which I've been displaced because of losing my home in the Marshall fire. We just moved in in September of 2024, almost 3 years after the fire. My brother and I are managing the estate of our deceased mother, Cheryl Lynn Thompson, and have had the home on the market since July, with little interest in purchasing the home from any buyer due to the dilapidated conditions, including the paint, the unstable roofing structure, foundational issues, electrical issues possible asbestos in the roof, missing windows. The only interest that we have gotten for potential buyers are those who want to demolish the home. We have a limited amount of time to close the probate of my mother's estate, and are looking forward to selling this home, which was her wishes, so that we can manage her estate appropriately. I appreciated the comments from the last presentation that John had made, that it's often difficult in these situations to force property owners into preservation when not financially feasible. We have not been able to provide precise numbers like the previous applicants, because of the costs involved. In fact, the application fee for this had to come from a home equity line on my own personal home.

[207:21] My brother and I are trying to be good stewards of my mother's wishes, and selling this home and distributing these funds to her estate, and we have had no interest in the state of the current home. I'm applying for this demolition permit, so that I can encourage buyers who are interested in the home that they that we have gone through the mapping work of getting this permit approved. So appreciate the staff's. Input and again, it was very insightful and quite touching to read some of the historical components of the home. But we fully agree that this does not meet the criteria of the Boulder city code for landmark preservation.

[208:03] Thank you. Thank you, Chris. And was there anyone else who was going to speak. Heather is on the call as well, but he is, to my knowledge, not speaking. Okay. And as you probably have learned through this ongoing meeting tonight that we will come back to you for an additional 3 min. If you or your brother would like to share anything else or respond to anything. So thank you. So we will now turn to public participation for agenda. Item 5. C. Aubrey, I'm going to look to you to help facilitate this last hearing. Alrighty! It looks like we have one hand raised so far. Catherine Barth, you will be first, st and if anyone else would like to speak. Raise your hand, and we'll put you in the queue.

[209:00] And, Catherine, you know what I'm going to ask you to do, to please swear to tell the Board the whole truth. I will tell the whole truth. Thank you very much. Chris. I certainly appreciate the process you're going through. Having done the same thing for my mother's estate. this particular house. And and this is a question that I have for Marcy. And maybe the board. Do you guys have any information or thoughts that this might have been a mine mine camp house from Superior. because, having worked for so many years and superior with those mine camp houses before the catastrophic fire in which they were. All, everything was destroyed. When I looked at this house it it looked to me like it very easily could be one of the houses, because when the mine closed in 1945,

[210:11] many of the houses were then moved out around the county. So this is just a question. Do you have any indication that this might have been one of those mine camp houses? So that's just a question. One thing that I find sad in in Boulder is that we have such such a need for affordable housing, and this is a little house that to me is a perfect house for a fireman or a teacher. or somebody, you know, working in the city government. And it seemed like a real shame that this house needs to be torn down.

[211:02] I'm thinking of the the Platte farmhouse which is on Belmont and this house, you know, we have talked. We've talked with the Parks Department and within the landmarks board about that house is a real candidate to be an affordable housing house. and this one I just see is you could sit right next to it. So I, Chris, I'm not suggesting that this house needs to stay there, but I'm suggesting that perhaps we could give a little more time before The the guillotine comes down on it.

[212:00] because we have talked in the past about trying to have a place where you know all of these Gregory Creek houses are still in danger. There are 9 of them. and we've talked about trying to find there are all candidates to be affordable housing and so maybe if if we could give this a little time and I'm sorry I'm out of time. You are. I'm so sorry. But if you guys could talk about that a little bit, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Catherine. As always. Aubrey, have any additional members of the public indicated a desire to speak to this. We have one more hand raised. Lynn Siegel, I will give you permission to speak, and you'll swear in, and I will start the timer. I swear to tell the truth, the best as I know it, Lynn Siegel, and you know this is this is an example, and maybe I'm hypocritical here, but you know, it seems like the landmarks board is really involved with

[213:10] with money extraction. It's all about money. All of these people want to come, and it's great that it's your family, and it's the estate and everything. But it's all about the value of the thing. It's not the people that are coming because they want to either add on to the house themselves or tear it down themselves. It's set up for a financial exchange. I mean. Let's be honest, that's what this is all about. That's what this is always all about. And you know this house is not going to take that much money to fix it up, and it can be added on to, and it can be turned into Kimball Muss Fantasy House, I'm sure, with the right person, you know, and I'm sorry you don't always get like, just like

[214:02] this is a queer slate, and you can build whatever you want in it. No, it's not. This is a place, and you know what these people that lived here that nurse and the stenographer, those are people of value. I'm sorry, but I don't think that they are insignificant. They work for the sanitarium, and the sanitarium's a big deal in this town. and you know these things matter like, why aren't? Why aren't these things considered in these demolitions, you know, and the last one I really feel bad about that one. I especially feel bad because of Tiffany in spite of Chris Reynolds. He's wrong. I'm sorry, just because he's a lawyer doesn't mean he knows. Lynn Lynn, I appreciate what you're saying, but I think your tone, if you could make it a little less strident. Okey Doke. Chris Reynolds. You know I grew up in Mercer Island, where half the people were lawyers and half were doctors, and my debate. Team members said, Oh, you should be a lawyer, you know I'm not, but I feel a strong desire to, you know, usually argue things out quite a bit.

[215:13] and I think that issue with Tiffany, and I remember that house being being evaluated, and that was very excruciating, and to not consider that to just like, make yourself another person, and don't think about that other thing. No, that's part of you. You can't extract that. And that's where the legal authorities are wrong, just wrong. You can't separate yourself out that way. And with this house I think you can fix it up and let Kimball Musk do something with it. You know it's not the responsibility of this landmarks board to put a bunch of bucks in someone's hand. That's not what this is about.

[216:02] Thank you, Lynn Aubrey. Have there been any other members of the public who've raise their hands. I do still see Catherine's hand up, Catherine, are you still with Fran? Is that why your hand was still up. No, no, Fran, is. Fran's exhausted. She went home. I'm by myself. so I I just. I'm just here by myself, and I'm about ready to go to bed too. So are we almost done here, guys. Okay. I just wanted to check in. Okay, I'll mute you again, and we'll see if anyone else would like to speak. Okay. Thanks, Catherine. I'm not seeing any other hands, but let's give it a couple seconds, and then we can move on.

[217:01] Alright. I think we're good to go. Okay, we will officially close public comment for this agenda item. And, Chris, I do want to allow you an additional 3 min if you'd like, or a couple of those minutes, whatever that's totally up to you. Thank you very much, Abby. I don't have any further comment. I feel Staff has done an excellent job of summarizing the importance of this. This is not a money grab. This is an attempt to close my mother's estate, and right now both my brother and I have had to contribute some funding to continue this estate, and to, you know, the affordability of housing is an issue. My mom mortgaged that house to pay for our educations, and that house still has a mortgage that we're having to pay on while we manage this estate. So thank you for your consideration. Thank you. And again, I want to thank you for your very compelling remarks of presentation earlier. So we will return this to the board for discussion. We do ask everyone mute your computers or phones for the duration of this, and I don't know if someone on the board would like to kick it off.

[218:16] John. I see that your microphone's turned off. If you'd like to start off. I can start I'm not sure where it's gonna go. This is another one of those gut wrenchers. It it it's a house that could. It still has value, it could be saved, it could be renovated, it could be expanded. We're responding to the circumstances of the specific request here, and Staffs

[219:05] Staff's review and recommendation was based on the fact that it's it's it's it's not rising to the level that we would like to see in a property that we take forward through our process. It's the place we find ourselves in right now. if if a property owner comes to us, and wants to landmark their house. We work with them to bring it up to standards and to help them in the ways that we can, but I don't think right now. At this time there's value in preserving a house or other building.

[220:03] even if there's a certain amount of architectural merit in it, or significance in the fabric of the community that there just are not resources to support. And yeah, it does come down to money. It it is a fact that preservation of a lot of these buildings because of all the factors of their construction, age and environmental effects on them. they need. They need a certain input of resources to bring them up to the standards that are required for them, to even be occupied, occupyable in some cases to make them code worthy, or at least code compliant. And it's it's an issue, because there needs to be some way of funding that that

[221:03] does not put the entire burden on the property owner. I it's it's an argument I've made more than once. I don't know what the answer is. There are places where preservation is well supported with public funding of various kinds. and we're not one of them right now, and I think the staff's recommendation is well considered and well taken in the environment that we find ourselves in. And so I'm going to support it this time. Thank you, Ronnie or Renee Ronnie. Please. Sure. I think that this is a actually a little bit of a tricky case. Because I do think that there is a lot of architectural integrity in this building.

[222:01] but I do agree with Staff's assessment, and I intend to vote for Staff's recommendation, because while it's borderline for me. I will say that ultimately, after having read the applicant's personal letter, that their ability to demonstrate the type of hardship that this creates. I think to me is compelling enough information, and you know, satisfies the criteria of financial burden. to the point in which I think it would be unwise for us, and unnecessary to place to stay on this property. So I would rather see us move forward and know that Marcy and the applicant have spent significant time discussing this and that. Marcy's and Staff's representation of how demolition approval meets the criteria is logical, and follows the way in which we administer this.

[223:08] So I feel as though the appropriate thing to do is to follow Staff's recommendation. Thank you, Renee. So I I don't know if we can can. Just because, you know Catherine did make a mention that it was maybe a minor's house. Are we able to ask Staff if they looked into that or. E. Marcy growing here. So yeah, this house was a really tricky one to research. The address changed. It should have been one block north. Both Claire and I spent more time than I will admit looking at the records to try and piece this one together. There's no evidence that it was moved here, and it does show up in city directories very, very early, much earlier than the 19 forties that that Catherine was alluding to. So, while it shares some of the same

[224:16] character as a mining cottage. We believe it was built on this site around 1910. Okay, so you know, I feel like that. I mean, I guess we could go in and dive some deeper. But I want to honor Staff's recommendation. And I also think that I will be voting as Staff has recommended. I think that these these Demos are tricky because it, you know, like, John was saying, it is a matter of assets, and you know what you want to do with property, and to say that it's

[225:06] you know, money hungry. It's also to bring this house. The pictures and the documentation she's brought forward is just as well or better than the previous one. And and again. Chris, the lawyer I'm not comparing. I just want to say that, like it also does to, you know, to bring this up to a code to bring it up. It would cost in an absorbent amount of money, and maybe there's not a specific dollar amount in this case. So so I will. To make it short and sweet. I'm just gonna I'll vote for staff recommendation. Kurt. Thank you. I feel that the Staff Memo did a good job of documenting that the house as it stands does not have significance. I don't feel that it has a particular architectural significance. You know, it's

[226:09] it's interesting, but that doesn't mean that it has significance. I think it certainly doesn't have environmental significance. I think the best argument to be made is that potentially it has historic significance because of its connection with the with the sanitarium. As Lynn Siegel was mentioning, but I don't think that it rises to the level required to consider it to have significance, and so based on that I think that Demo, issuing a demolition permit is appropriate. So. It. The 1st thought that goes through my head is, I mean, I'm not surprised at all that the exorbitant cost of housing in Boulder continues to put so much pressure on our historic resources. And, Chris, we personally moved here from San Francisco almost 20 years ago, because we thought it would be cheaper. I think it'd be cheaper now to go back to San Francisco, and here's where I land.

[227:12] I think this house does add a grace. Note to this, to this street, to this block, to this neighborhood, and overall to the entire boulder community, and I think that you know I always lament when we have to make these difficult choices like this. I think that you need to know that I'm someone who I have not ever voted directly to support a demolition permit. That's very hard for me to do, even if I'm a lone voice sometime standing up for this homes. But as our staff attorney rightfully pointed out in an earlier discussion. We look at this at a case by case basis, and this is the 1st case by case basis, looking at it and looking at the compelling evidence, not only from staff and their memorandum and excellent presentation, but from you, Chris, that makes me think

[228:11] I cannot support. Even. Not only could I not support landmarking over the owner's objection in this case, which is where my heart wants to go, but I also is, would have definitely supported a stay of demolition if Staff had gone that way. This is the 1st and one case where I find it so compelling that I think that you know with a degree of sadness, I will support Staff's recommendation, because Staff did their job, and they did it very, very well, and my guess is, it wasn't easy for Staff to do that, because I think their hearts in the same place that let's save what we can. We need vernacular structures. We need the houses and buildings that tell our full history, you know, from the these wonderful, charming homes like your mother's, to this great. You know the stately homes on Mapleton Hill, so

[229:11] I will be supporting Staff's recommendation with that, said I. Don't know if there's any more discussion or deliberations, or Ol, hey, would someone like to make a motion. I can. I move the landmarks board adopt! I'm sorry. Let me start that again. I move the Landmarks board approve the application to demolish the building at 2725, 5th Street. Finding that the building does not have significance under the criteria, set forth in Section 9, 1123 F. Brc. 1981. Is there a second? Thank you, Renee. On a motion by Ronnie, seconded by Renee. We'll do a roll call. Vote, John. I. Renee. Aye. Ronnie.

[230:00] Hi. And I vote aye, so the motion passes unanimously, and Marcy will briefly explain. Next steps. All right. So, with an approval for demolition, we will issue the approval. Excuse me, that approval is good for 180 days and expires on July 7.th If the deconstruction permit isn't applied for by that date, you'll reapply, however, that application we consider this hearing, but it is a new application, and because of a recent code change, that approval would be valid for one year instead of 6 months. Thank you for your time through this, and that is all. That is all I have. Thank you very much for considering the personal perspectives. I think, Abby, that meant a lot coming from you, because I have heard some of your comments, and I really appreciate the whole picture on a case by case basis and appreciate the time and effort that you and the board and the staff has given in consideration of this. Thank you.

[231:13] You were. You were a big part of our decision, but I I do think Staff did an extraordinary job to make it come to this conclusion. All right. So that concludes the public hearings for the board meetings, and we'll move to matters very briefly, and I think we just have 2 things. One is actually, there's 1 other thing that I'll start with tomorrow evening. The city Council will consider an ordinance called family friendly, vibrant neighborhoods, which includes proposed increased density to the Rmx. One

[232:03] zoning district which overlaps some of Boulder's oldest neighborhoods, and I've been partnering with the code amendment team to provide some proposed language to incentivize the reuse of eligible buildings and disincentivize the unpermitted demolition of buildings, and thank you to Kurt Nordbach and the Planning Board for helping us go from a pretty complex proposal to a much more simple one. That kind of took took a while to to get there, but once we're there. It was improved through that process. So thank you. And then, looking a little bit farther out, we have registered Staff and Rene for the Cpi conference that is held at the end of the month down in Colorado Springs. I haven't heard from other board members who are interested in attending, and that that's all right. But you know, last call, and it's happening, and if you can't make it all the way to Colorado Springs, we can still register you to listen to the recordings on your own time. So if you're interested in that option.

[233:21] go ahead and let Aubrey know. And then there is a really valuable Board and Commission training happening on Saturday, the 1st that I'm planning to attend, and I hear the facilitators really great. Also looking closer to home. The board recruitment is active December 16th to January 31.st So through the end of this month. and there's an open house for interested folks who might want to serve on a board that is, on Tuesday next Tuesday, January 14, th from 4 30 to 6 30, in the Penfield Tate Municipal Building, and there is some information on this web page if you're interested in attending, but the landmarks board

[234:16] the landmarks, board current members are encouraged to attend and chat with people who might be interested, and as a reminder, we'll need a design professional, to fill Ronnie's large shoes when your term is up. So. And soon to be his large head. But that's. Yeah, we'll try and limit any more praise for Ronnie for this meeting. He might re-up for a 3rd time if we're not careful. So. What's the reason? We've got these flyers that we will circulate to the board. Send them out to all your friends and neighbors, and anybody who might be interested in serving on the landmarks board, and if anybody has questions about the position, you all are well versed to answer those, but also send them towards

[235:13] towards me, and I can help give a realistic picture of what that experience might be. So that is all I have for matters this evening. Thanks, Marcy. I just want to say something really quickly, and it's not about Ronnie. No is that I know. During our agenda meeting. We estimated this would go a lot about an hour, just you know, we're about an almost an hour over, and I really, I personally apologize for that. But when we got into the Lac I realized that was not going to be a really quick discussion, and it shouldn't have been, you know. I think we had to have that thorough vetting of that proposal, and I have to say both these demolitions were really personally hard for me where to land on them.

[236:05] you know, for other reasons. And then, lastly, I just want to say, Okay, Kurt. Now it's official. We have to say goodbye to you, but we know you won't be too far away, and I know we're always welcome to come to a planning board meeting and wave or something. But thank you once again, for all your very insightful, articulate thought, provoking viewpoints throughout your time as a liaison. You better watch out. I'll get as big a head as Ronnie. Whoa! Let. See, because. I I agree I have really enjoyed spending this time with you on the board. and I think that you have brought great value to our conversations and insight, and your attention to the details has been very valuable. I also think that you have a very intelligent, broader view. So it's not just about the small things that sometimes come up

[237:07] and just compliment you on. You know the way that you've approached our board, and the way that you have like participated with us in such a respectful way, as well as an informed way that has been collaborative. So you know, I'm I've been really grateful for your involvement. And you know. Thank you for having, you know, participated for as long as you have. Well, thank you very much. I really appreciate that. And I will say that I really enjoyed being with you for the last year roughly and really learned a lot from you. You know I was on landmarks board for about 3 years back now 10 years ago or more, and this is a very different board. It has very different approaches to things. There's also some different, a little bit different code landscape. And so I've learned a tremendous amount, and and really it has been an absolute pleasure.

[238:10] I will not deny it, and although I will appreciate getting a Wednesday night a month back. I will absolutely miss it, and I will absolutely miss all of you, and all your interesting ideas and thoughts and perspective and brilliant design ideas, and so on. So thank you very much. Thank you, not seeing or hearing anything else. The meeting is adjourned at 10 PM. Thank you. Good everybody. Thank you. Bye. Bye.