January 7, 2026 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] Okay. The. January Landmarks Board meeting is called to order. Welcome to the January 7th, 2026 Landmarks Board meeting. It is 6.05 p.m. Marci will review the virtual meeting decorum. Alright, thank you, and good evening. Let's see… The City has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive. civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff, and board and commission members, as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences, and political perspectives. More about this vision and the project's community engagement process can be found online. 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.

[1:05] No participant shall make threats or use other form of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupt or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. Participants may raise their hand to speak during open comment and public comment periods during hearings. Individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online, and currently only audio testimony is permitted online. So, for those of you joining us this evening, virtually, you'll find the raise hand function under the reactions button in your menu. There are shortcuts Alt-Y if you're on a PC, Option-Y for a Mac, or Star 9 if you're calling in. Phone. Back to you, Renee. The recording of this meeting will be available in the records archive and on the YouTube within 28 days of the meeting. We'll do a roll call and brief introductions. Michael?

[2:04] Michael Ray, Vice Chair, Landmark Support. John? John Decker, member of the Landmarks Board. Abby? Abby Daniels, members of the land… member… member of the Landmarks Board. Chelsea? Chelsea Castellano, member of. the Landmarks Board. Renee Golobic, Chair of the Landmarks Board. We have a quorum this evening. We know that people who are here to participate may have some strong emotions about this project. We want to hear from you and find it is more productive if you speak to… to persuade us rather than to berate us, staff, or the applicant. As with the regular Landmarks Board meetings, you may only speak at the appropriate time during the public hearing. Requests to speak outside of these times are denied. We request that the members of the public who wish to speak let us know by raising their virtual hand. As board chair, I will call for a roll call vote on any of the motions made.

[3:03] Does anyone have any changes to the December 3rd meetings? I move that we approve these meetings. Minutes? I'll second. Thank you. Thank you, John. Let's do roll call. Michael? John? Hi. Hi. Chelsea? Aye. Abby? Aye. Michael? Aye. And I… aye. Well… Now, we get to move to public participation. For the non-agenda items, this is to speak to topics other than what's on these public hearings. We'll start with the in-person speakers, and then move on to virtual participants. As a reminder, we no longer swear people in for the open comment.

[4:00] potential in-person participants. If anyone wants to speak in person, please sign up with Amanda. And… O. Do we have any? I was just waving at them. We have one so far. If anyone else would like to speak on any item. not related to the public hearings tonight, you can sign up here. But first, we have Leonard Siegel. If Leonard would like to speak for 3 minutes? And as Leonard's coming forward, if you're here to speak to the pending stays of demolition for the Presbyterian Manor, your time will be now during open comment. Thank you. All right, thank you. And yes, I'm here to speak on behalf of Historic Boulder. related to the demolition application and the stay of demolition for the four properties on Arapaho. I just wanted to say thank you. You don't get, a chance during a meeting to thank you

[5:03] During the meeting for your decisions that are made. So last month I was here, and you deliberated on the historic merits of that property, and I appreciate that you stayed the course and focused on, the historic preservation aspects of that project. I know there's a lot of temptation to go beyond your scope of purview into planning issues, and this is ripe with lots of really great ideas for how to solve this problem. But that's really more of a, as you know, a planning department, and planning board, purview, so I appreciate that you're focusing on historic preservation aspects. with the hope that the project, is successful in all regards for all the community values that we hold. Important. Historic Holder, of course, holds affordable housing as important, sustainability, and historic preservation.

[6:04] So thank you for your, work on this, and, that's all I had to say tonight. Thank you. Thanks. Great, thank you. Next up, we have Catherine Bean. Good evening. Catherine Bean. I'd like to begin by thanking you all. And staff, for the time and thoughtful consideration of the. projects on Arapahoe. We've tried in earnest over the last month. To evaluate alternatives. Our team has spent money. We've spent time. We spent effort on additional feasibility studies. And those have showed that no matter how we carve it up, if it's just on the tower property, or if we combine all the properties.

[7:01] We wouldn't be able to develop An affordable housing project. with the LIHTC. required in order to finance it, because we wouldn't have enough space for the parking that's required by the first phase. So that phase of the tower is in a tax credit partnership that requires 73 parking spaces. And we need the space and the land underneath the four houses in order to develop it. So… you know, I could stand up here and, ask you to read the 300-page partnership agreement and 15-page parking license agreement that explains all that, but to… protect Presbyterian Manor and their business interests and your time, we won't do that. We can get a letter from the tax credit investor stating that, if that's something you'd like to see. One other piece I wanted to bring up is all four homes are located within the 100-year floodplain. And they were damaged in the 2013 flood.

[8:02] And leaving these structures in the floodplain? Continues to put our preservation efforts Tenants, and the owners at significant long-term risk. We didn't do a good job of raising this, last time. So to remain in place, typically, a building in the floodplain needs to meet FEMA's 50% substantial improvement requirements. And they… for these houses, that would mean they'd have to raise them up between 3 and 6 feet above the ground. They'd have to abandon their basements, and bring them out of the flood elevation. So, that costs money, but it also disrupts the historic integrity. Now, the mitigation requirements would probably cost about a million bucks, and the staff here has the ability to waive that requirement. However, the question to me is, should they? Should we put… Housing and people in risk of flood, and invest more dollars, and perhaps invest even

[9:07] even more dollars for preservation efforts and keep them there. It doesn't seem like the right place to try and preserve an asset. So to me, it's more an opportunity to move them out of the floodplain if you really are sincere about preserving them as assets. So… Well, thank you. Thank you, Catherine. Great. Next up we have Mark. Libertro? I hope I said your name right, sorry, Mark. Yes, go ahead. And Mark, just make sure you state your full name. Yep. Legal… my legal name? Yeah, it's Richard Mark. Mark Leibitreau. I go by Mark. I'm president of the board for Presbyterian Manor. And, Thanks, Catherine, for what you've said, but I also really want to thank the board, the staff, and Historic Boulder.

[10:06] for all the time and the collaboration that you did. I was amazed. we were able to meet two consecutive weeks, and I think we… we had some really good discussions, and a lot of, ideas were presented, and all of which we pursued diligently. And, we recognize how complex it is, to balance preservation, safety, and the community needs, and I really do appreciate the dialogue that we had. We are respectfully, requesting that the Landmarks Board make a motion to move forward with the approval of the demolition permit for all four houses at your February 4th meeting. As part of this request, and building upon an idea that was presented by Historic Boulder. I've talked with our board, and we are committing, to donate all four houses.

[11:00] For relocation upon approval of a demolition permit. And underneath, that structure, the owner, we would allow, up to, or until June 30th of 2027, To identify a relocation plan led by a community partner. And if a plan is identified, we'll also allow until December 1st of 2027 for the physical relocation to occur. This would provide nearly 2 years for relocation, and earlier approval really helps us accelerate the efforts, and not just us, but someone else to secure a permanent location. So, we really, again, I appreciate your, engagement. on alternate solutions. This is the only one we find that really is viable to complete both preservation and also move forward on a valuable community benefit. For these reasons, again, we're asking for your support in motioning for approval of the demolition permit at your February meeting.

[12:04] Thank you. Great, I think that's it for in-person, so we could move to, online? February. I know you will need to speak. Please raise your virtual hand. Yes, so far… Thanks. So far, we've got two online. We'll start with Susan. Susan, if you could share your last name with us when you are allowed to speak, followed by Lynn Siegel. And Susan, state your name, and you'll have 3 minutes. And Amanda, will you put the 3 minutes in the… Oh, yes. She should be able to, unmute.

[13:03] Susan, you should be able to unmute yourself. I see her, but she's just not unmuted, sorry. Oh, there, there we go. Okay, great. I'm sorry about that. I'm not technologically adept. I'm Susan Collins, and I live… at 308 Pearl Street. in the historic landmarked Briarley Smith House. This is in the West Pearl Historic District. And I'm… Coming… before you today, and I apologize for not being there in person, to talk about what is to me, a relatively minor issue, but it's one that I know has been, brought to your attention, or at least someone in the city's attention, and that is,

[14:09] paint job of my next-door neighbor at 302 Pearl Street. Again, I'm sure that you know the architecture of the buildings on Pearl Street. The corner of 3rd and Pearl is a dispensary that has been for a while, but it's been many, many businesses before that, since it was initially a private residence. It's a great old house. It is within the West Pearl Historic District, but many years ago, like in the 1970s, there was an organization that bought it and occupied it and did some nasty things. They, Sandblasted the paint off of the brick that had made it a white building, And…

[15:03] And then painted the decorative shingles of the gables above to match the brick, so it's been that kind of orange-brown-red brick color ever since. The soon-to-be occupants, who have not yet opened their new dispensary, but I'm sure will before long. Have painted the decorative shingles black. With white trim around the windows. It's certainly not a choice that I would have preferred, but quite honestly, it looks better than the big, solid Brick orange that we had before for 30 years. They did this without benefit of a landmark alteration certificate. I don't know, what the procedure is for people who do things like that without permission.

[16:05] But I'm sure that they will be coming before the Design Review Committee at some point, and I would just like to put in my two cents, please don't have them painted orange again. The black is not good. I would have preferred white, as it was originally when it was a home, but in any case, I think it looks better than it has for a few decades. That's really all I wanted to ask. Thank you. Thanks, Susan. Great. Thanks, Susan. It looks like we've got Lynn Siegel up next. Lynn, just state your full name, and you'll have 3 minutes as soon as it… First, I need to see my landmark board members, please. I don't. I just see an open comment sign.

[17:02] Thank you, thank you, thank you. Tiny, but on there. I've… I go to planning board meetings for 5 hours all the time. They're happening practically every week, it seems like. I watch subsidies, and FARs, and giveaways. for hours. I don't need to come to my landmarks board and see the same thing. This is so inappropriate. Were these four bungalows across the street from the library. Presbyterian Manor and their affordable housing? I appreciate… that's great. They're doing a good job, but the land that they bought has constraints. Do you hear that? Yeah. It has constraints. The Landmarks Board must honor The constraints that it has.

[18:04] it's like Leonard, and Patrick saying, this is not the planning board. Wheels and deals are not happening, and already too many have happened. 1015 Juniper. That was… Unspeakable what happened there. These are giveaways. When Presbyterian Manor bought that land, they bought that land. They didn't buy it with a floodplain situation fixed for the houses, and they didn't buy it with LIHTC approvals, and they didn't buy it with subsidies from the City of Boulder. Who's in an economic crisis right now? How dare you? And I'm sorry, this isn't a pleasant discussion. I'm passionate about keeping my landmarks here in this town. And I can't just be nice about it.

[19:00] Because I see this happening all the time. No deals made! Not, oh, we'll keep one bungalow, or we'll keep two of them. These four bungalows stay there. I don't want to commute outside of town to look… look at my bungalows. No, thank you. I ride my bike. I live here. I struggled to live here. For years, commuting to Denver. To live downtown, close in. I'm not gonna commute out to see some… some… some landmarks in another town, in Erie, in Renee Goliupak's choice for the tiny homes. No thank you. No deals! No deals! Shame on you! If you do one thing. for a Presbyterian Manor. They bought it, they deal with it. It's their issue. Thanks, Lynn. Oops, sorry.

[20:03] We can… any more virtual members? I think that's it for open comment. Okay. Sorry. Oh. Before we, as we close open comment, I just wanted to let the public comment speaker and the board know that, I have an active code compliance case for the paint concern that, the speaker raised about 302 Pearl. Great. And so, you all probably won't see that, since it's a staff review and a code compliance, case, but wanted to know that it is on our radar. Thanks, Marcy. So now we're gonna move to the discussions of the landmark. Marci, do we have any pending applications for discussion? Seriously.

[21:11] Okay… All right, yes, we have, 4 pending stays of demolition, for an update, this evening, and they are the, houses at 976-978-990 and, 1004 Arapaho. And, The Landmarks Board had a hearing at your last meeting on December 3rd, for the four applications, and voted to place stays of demolitions on the applications in order to explore alternatives, finding that each of the buildings were eligible for local landmark designation. As you heard from the speakers, a thank you from staff as well for the applicants and the board moving so quickly, and we managed to meet not once, but twice before the holidays.

[22:03] First on December 8th with a site visit, and then a week later on December 15th, for a virtual conversation. At the… At both, stays of demolition meetings, I found them to be very collaborative and really go through a broad range of alternatives, to demolition. And then appreciated the applicant team putting together kind of a presentation that, pulled together, graphics and the different scenarios for that December 15th meeting. So on-site and in the meeting, we kind of covered the constraints of the site with the steep slope on the south portion, and that a portion of the lot is in the floodplain. So a couple of the scenarios that were explored was, to keep the existing four buildings and build only on the tower lot, and that would result in fewer units for their, project and less parking.

[23:08] In Scenario 2, to consolidate, the lots, so the four residential lots, with the tower lot, and keep the houses with a 10-foot buffer between a new building and the existing buildings, some of the constraints raised are that the fire apparatus, turn around. would be challenging, and it would result in 13 fewer parking spaces than required for their financing agreement. So, I think from my, kind of… perspective, that was a clarification that was useful, where, in the hearing, I heard a trade-off between affordable senior housing and historic preservation, but I think when you get into it, it's about parking and historic preservation and having The on-site parking be kind of a non-negotiable piece of the project.

[24:05] Some other alternatives that we talked about was off-site relocation and the offer from Presbyterian Manor to donate the houses to anyone who would, take them, and an offer to have an extended timeline, into, 2027. And then we talked, briefly about on-site relocation, moving them east along Arapaho. And there was, some opinion that that might impact the historic character of the tower, and impact the, drive access that there is there now. But that alternative, I wouldn't… would say, wasn't fully explored. Another piece that, was covered was the tax credits. There's a, tax credit fund for historic preservation for state tax credits, one for, commercial credits and one for housing. So interesting to see it from the

[25:05] Applicant side to break it down, in their assessment was that at the end of the day, after subtracting legal costs and historic preservation expertise costs, that the tax credits would only cover 3% of the renovation costs. So I thought the two, conversations were very productive. There was a couple lingering questions. One is about the, floodplain, which, Catherine spoke to. This evening about, the requirement to, elevate buildings 3 to 6 feet above the ground, but one of the lingering questions is, the buildings are already elevated today, what's the difference between their current elevation and what it would need to meet the, the floodplain requirements? And as she mentioned, there is a, modification for historic buildings. We take that very seriously as life safety is number one. But if it is the difference between, let's say, 3 inches of what's required by code versus where the buildings are now, versus,

[26:12] you know, something that would put the tenants at greater risk. I think that's something that both historic preservation staff and the floodplain administrator really carefully consider in applying that modification. So, that's a recap of the… two meetings from staff's perspective. I would, welcome any of the board members if you, wanted to add any observations or anything that I missed, you're welcome to do so. And then the decision in front of you this evening is a scheduling one of would you like to, schedule a hearing for either the next Landmarks Board meeting, which is on February 4th, or the March 4th meeting, which is the last regularly scheduled

[27:04] meeting before the stay expires on, March 26th. And as a note for the calendar, the board voted to put a shorter stay of demolition on the application. of 150 days, which worked out to be March 26th, which missed the April meeting by a few days. So really, it shortens it, to make a decision at the February 4th meeting or the March 4th meeting. Otherwise, you could hold a special meeting, before March 26th. So… With that, I will… let you all know that we have two applications on the February 4th agenda already. One can move, the other cannot. There are applications that also have deadlines. So we will, Work to balance the agendas, but wanted to let you all know that it's shaping up to be a busy spring.

[28:07] open it for board members to have comments about this, and site visits? Sure, I would propose that we schedule the hearing, in March. We've had two meetings, with the applicants. We've learned a lot, and I think they've brought an exceptionally large amount of information forward and done a lot of due diligence that I don't think extending it an additional month would… we would gain any new information from what we already know now, so my proposal is that we schedule it for March. Thank you. And I was going to suggest we schedule it for February. Oh, sorry, February. That's what I meant. I thought that. That's what I meant, February. I totally agree with my colleague. But I just have to give a quick shout out. I mean, I appreciate Historic Boulder's advocacy on this, I appreciate what staff has done, I appreciate what my colleagues have done, too. All of us attended at least one of the meetings, but to the applicants.

[29:19] I know we put a hiccup in your plans based on our 4-1 vote last. last year, but I think that I have never personally felt like we worked with applicants who were so forthcoming. who were so respectful, willing to hear our side and our viewpoints, and who so quickly arranged to give us, an on-site visit, and then to continue the dialogue a week later. And it's just been amazing what you guys have done, how well you've articulated. your positions, how when we said, well, what about this or whatever, you already knew the answers to those questions, because I think there was a lot you'd already had explored and tried to creatively think about before we,

[30:06] place to stay on it, but I just can't thank the applicants enough for going above and beyond and getting us to this point, and I agree with Chelsea that February would be a good meeting to do that at. John? I… I can… I concur with everything that's been said. I think it's appropriate to set the hearing for February. And I also concur with all the statements made. This has been a very… Open and honest process, and everybody has Come to the table with… the best outcome as their goal, and so I think we owe it to this process to get it to the hearing phase.

[31:00] Michael? So there are two items on the February 4th agenda, the hearing agenda. So do we push one, or do… So, only one can be pushed. We have, code timelines for the other one that, can't move, and we cannot do 5 public hearings in one meeting. So, from a staffing capacity. And so, I would ask that the board give us a little bit of time, because we will need to hold a special hearing in February, because the one scheduled for February cannot move, and we can't do five, public hearings. So, maybe Chris Reynolds could help formulate the, motion language so that the board Schedules the hearing, but gives us a little bit of, leeway to balance our, work plan and public notice requirements.

[32:03] Okay. Okay. How big do that. So… so it's… Next step is to make a motion. Yeah. Four motions. Chris was talking, but you're… you're muted, Chris. There we go. I just said that, I'm happy to help with emotion, I'm doing it right now. Okay. So… the… I guess the date… I guess your wording, Chris, is we want to, like. what the date, because you don't want us to put in February. 4th, you want us to put in? It's not… it's not required that the motion include the date. It's the… the intent… the legal decision before the board is whether or not to schedule these initiation hearings, you don't need to include, like, a specific time or date or location in the motion, just say, board moves to schedule, or the board moves to,

[33:00] schedule, initiation hearings, and I'll type this up, but generally, Schedule initiation hearings for these properties, and then the details can be worked out. After that. negotiate. Okay. Okay, I will make a motion that we schedule the hearings for 9… oh, okay, 9… Oh, okay, 97… Oh, sorry, she's getting the motion later. Okay, I was just gonna. ballet. And we have to say it 3 times, because it's 3 different app… it's four different applications. We got the motion language, already prepared for this, so… Yeah, we just have to get it on the screen. It looked like it was there. minute one. Am I… I don't… oh, there it is. Okay, I move that the Landmarks Board schedule an initiation hearing for 976 Arapaho Avenue to consider whether the initiation designation or issue a demolition permit.

[34:05] I second that. I have a roll call vote. Michael? Aye. John? Aye. I say aye. Abby? Aye. Chelsea? Aye. Okay. Very cool. Anyone else want to do one? Okay. I move that the Landmarks Board Schedule an initiation hearing for 986 Arapahoe Avenue to consider whether to initiate designation or issue a demolition permit. And I second the motion. Do we have a roll call vote? Michael? Aye. John? Aye. I say aye. I vote aye. Aye. I move that the Landmarks Board schedule an initiation hearing for 990 Arapaho Avenue to consider whether to initiate designation or issue a demolition permit. I second the motion. Do I have a roll call? Vote? Michael? Aye. John? Aye. I choose aye. Abby? Aye. Chelsea? Aye.

[35:07] I move that the Landmarks Board schedule an initiation hearing for 1004 Arapahoe Avenue to consider whether to initiate designation or issue a demolition permit. And I second the motion. And do we have a roll call vote? Michael? Aye. John? Aye. I choose aye. Abby? Aye. Chelsea? Aye. This brings to mind a question I have. So, do you have to write 4 separate staff memorandums? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Now we can move on to public hearing. Item 5A. We'll move on to the first public hearing. This is a public hearing and a consideration of a landmark alteration certificate application to demolish an existing accessory building and construct a new 1,054 square foot accessory building at 2408 8th Street.

[36:13] HIS2025-00352, a contributing property in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, pursuit to Section 911-18 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981, and under the proceedings prescribed by Chapter 1 through 3, quasi-judicial hearings. The Boulder Revised Code of 1981. The owner is… 2498 8th LLC Registered Agent Larry Soule, and the applicant is Rodwin Architecture, represented by Jocelyn parlay… I will not be able to say that, but, parlay Pia? Piano?

[37:03] You can correct me when you present, and I'll hand it over to Claire for the staff presentation. Thank you, Renee. Okay, all speaking to this item will be sworn. in, as it is a quasi-judicial hearing. That includes me. I am Clare Bryant, Historic Preservation Planner, and I affirm that I will tell the truth, and I will pause to allow the board members to also note any ex parte contacts. And a quick reminder that, Abby and John reviewed a version of this application previously with the Landmarks Design Review Committee. So, ex parte contacts, anybody? Okay, hearing none, here is an overview of the process that we'll go through today. I'll give the staff presentation, and after that, the board may ask questions. The applicants will have 10 minutes to present to the board, and then the board may ask questions. We'll then open the public hearing. After all members of the public have made comments, the applicant may respond to anything that was said. And then the board will deliberate.

[38:13] A motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass, and motions will start… state findings, conclusions, and recommendation. 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. As we do record the meeting, as the official record, I'd like to remind everybody to speak clearly into the microphone. The criteria for review are outlined in the Boulder Revised Code under 9-1118B and C. The review is to ensure the proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores, and does not damage exterior architectural features of the property, does not adversely affect the historic architectural value of the property.

[39:04] The architecture, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials are compatible with the character of the property, and that the Landmarks Board considers the economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled. The options today for the Landmarks Board are to approve the application. This is subject to a 16-day City Council call-up period, where 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. This is the applicant's appeals process. However, denial would mean that the applicant could not submit a substantially similar application within 12 months. So if the board is headed in that direction, they usually give the applicant an opportunity to withdraw.

[40:00] This is the application process so far. The Landmarks Design Review Committee reviewed an application on December 10th. and referred it to the full Landmarks Board. The applicant subsequently revised the application to include full demolition of the accessory building and construction of a new building. So the decision today is in, the proposal, sorry, is in two parts. One is to demolish the existing accessory building, and then to construct the new accessory building. There's one decision for the Landmarks Board, is whether the demolition and construction of the new building meets the criteria. Section 91118 provides that when a demolition of an existing building in a historic district is proposed. the proposed new construction should be reviewed concurrently. So our staff analysis is in two parts, the demolition and the new construction, but there is one decision.

[41:02] So here is the property. It's located on the northeast corner of 8th Street and Mapleton Avenue. It's within the boundaries of the Mapleton Hill Historic District. There are two buildings on the property, the primary multi-unit building and an accessory building. Both face 8th Street, and there's an alley that runs parallel to Mapleton and Maxwell Avenue, that abuts the property to the north. The primary building was constructed in 1898 by Bertha Gordon, which was a surprise to us that it's so old. It's a two-story brick apartment building. It first appears on Sanborn fire insurance maps in 1906, which is the earliest, of the Sanborn maps to cover this area. The, There were accessory buildings along the alley at this time, but they were demolished and replaced with a four-car garage sometime between 1931 and 1936.

[42:06] The current accessory building reflects the location, footprint, and form of the 1930s garage. The primary building was originally four five-room apartments. Sophia Carey owned and managed the apartments between 1922 and 1934. During her ownership, she installed built-in kitchen ranges and refrigerators. She also likely clad the exterior in stucco and constructed the garage in the 1930s. The, 1936 tax assessor sketch, which is shown here, noted that it was for 4 cars and measured 43 feet by 18 feet. The building survey from the 1990s documented the four-car garage on site.

[43:00] In, 2005, the city undertook a survey of accessory buildings in the district, and at the time, the survey recommended this garage be considered contributing, as it was constructed during the period of significance for the Mapleton Hill Historic District, and was relatively intact. However, the ongoing practice of the Historic Preservation Program is to determine the status of a building at the time of review. So our staff analysis uses the National Park Service definition of integrity to evaluate the ability of a building to convey its historical associations or attributes. basically its sense of history. This includes location, setting, design materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. This building is in its original location, although the overall footprint and form appear to be original, the original design of the building has been altered through major changes to the window and door openings.

[44:07] The building retains very little of its historic materials. One of the garage doors and one window appears original, but there is no photographic evidence earlier than 2005 to confirm this. The trim and most of the windows and doors have been replaced, and it's possible the siding has also been replaced. The window and door openings have been enlarged. The building does not demonstrate historic workmanship, and the ability to convey a feeling of its time has been diminished through the changes that occurred after 2005. The setting at the rear of the property abutting the alley and the surrounding context has not changed over time. As the alley retains a historic feel. However, the changes over time have diminished the ability of the accessory building to convey its association with its past residents and this period of development in the neighborhood.

[45:08] The building no longer conveys the appearance of a multi-car garage. And while we encourage adaptive reuse of historic buildings, in this case, staff believes that demolition of the accessory building meets the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate. And recommends that the Landmarks Board find a building to be non-contributing to the historic character of the Mapleton Hill Historic District, and approve the request for demolition. The building meets the definition of non-contributing… of a non-contributing building, as while it was built during the district's period of significance, it has been altered to such an extent that historic information is not interpretable, and restoration is not possible. There is no photographic or other evidence that indicates how the building could be restored authentically. The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Reconstruction state that restoring a historic building should only be considered when there is accurate documentation on which to base it.

[46:13] Demolition of the existing accessory building would not adversely affect the special character and special historical, architectural, and aesthetic interest and value of the historic property and the Mapleton Historic District due to the modifications to the building. That diminish its integrity and ability to convey its historic appearance as a multi-car garage. Staff analysis for the new approximately 1,000 square foot accessory building includes key site and setting characteristics, the mass and scale, key building elements, and the detailing. Looking first at the key site and setting characteristics, including setback, orientation, spacing, and distance between adjacent buildings.

[47:00] The new accessory building is proposed to be located at the rear of the lot. The building is L-shaped and connected at the elbow with a hipped roof porch. The garage portion of the building is proposed to measure 36 feet wide along the alley. It has an attached studio flex space to the south, and a trash enclosure extending from the west side of the garage. The proposed hardscaping includes an apron between the garage doors, and alley, and a walk around the west side of the building, and a walk between the accessory building and primary building. The guidelines note that new accessory buildings shouldn't detract from the overall historic character of the principal building and the site, or require removal of a significant historic building element or site feature, such as a mature tree. That accessory buildings and parking should be at the rear and accessed from the alley, but maintain adequate space between buildings. And that they should preserve a backyard space and general proportion of built mast to open space in the area.

[48:12] Staff found that the new accessory building, proposed is at the rear of the lot, and oriented towards the alley. The footprint is within traditional setbacks, and the building's construction will maintain the traditional proportion of built mass to open space on the lot. While the building is shown to span the width of the lot, the property's location on a corner prevents the alley from evolving into a tunnel-like passage. Looking at the height, form, mass, size, and scale, and overall proportion of the proposed, the building is a one-story, with a flat roof and a parapet, an overall height of 11 and a half feet. A hip-roof porch wraps around the southwest corner. Three single garage doors are shown on the north elevation facing the alley, and a stone wall with metal gates creates a trash enclosure on the west side of the building.

[49:10] The Mapleton Hill guidelines ask that new accessory buildings are small in scale and mass, and simply detailed. The guidelines emphasize that new structures be compatible with the historic context, but recognizable as new construction. New construction should be a product of its own time, but should take design cues from the primary structure on the lot. Staff finds that the proposed one-storey building is subordinate in mass and scale to the primary two-story building. The simplicity of the structure and its clear design as a garage is complementary to the character of the primary building and alley. The flat roof form simplifies the profile of the proposed building, and it takes design cues from the roofline of the primary building. The hipped roof porch wrapping the southwest corner of the building is simple in design and relates to the studio function of the space. However, the scale and detailing of the porch should be revised.

[50:09] Staff considers that due to the primary building's historic use as an apartment building, and that the lot had a four-car garage during the period of significance, a multi-car garage is appropriate in this case, and does not overwhelm the site or alley. Key building elements include dormers, windows, and doors. The proposal includes three evenly spaced single-car garage doors at the north elevation facing the alley. The west elevation facing 8th Street includes a pair of vertically oriented 1 over 1 windows, and a sliding glass door at the studio portion of the building. The south elevation facing the interior of the lot. Includes a pair of vertically oriented 1 over 1 windows and a sliding glass door. The east elevation facing the adjacent lot does not have, window or door openings.

[51:07] The pair of windows measure about 5 feet wide and tall. The sliding glass doors are about 8 feet wide. The height was not provided. The studio portion of the building includes the hipped roof that wraps the corner. The roof measures about 6 feet deep on the south elevation and 14 feet deep on the west elevation. Guidelines for key building elements include direction to not imitate historic buildings, but take design cues. Simplicity is an important aspect of creating compatible new construction. Windows and doors should reflect the window patterns and proportions of the existing structure and the district. And use similar materials, and should be simpler in detailing and smaller in scale than similar elements on primary structures. The relationship of solids to voids and symmetry or asymmetry should also be compatible.

[52:04] Staff finds that the overall design of the accessory building is compatible with the historic site, and district is clearly of its own time and will not create a full sense of history. The proposed window pattern on the accessory building is simple and reflects the design of the primary building, which has a variety of sizes and proportions of double-hung windows. However, staff noted a few inconsistency with the guidelines and suggest revision to the design to reduce the perceived size at the double-hung windows, either by clearly separating them to reference the placement of windows on the primary building, or by reducing their size. The patio doors are appropriate on secondary and tertiary elevations, but not on the street-facing primary elevation, as glass doors are a modern building element where access doors are traditionally found in the historic district.

[53:01] The depth of the porch on the west elevation is overscaled and should be reduced. Traditional porches are generally no more than 6 feet deep. And the top of the porch attaches to the parapet, Approximately one foot from the top, and interrupts the parapet detailing, and should be revised so that the porch attaches to the main part of the wall below the parapet. The proposed materials include Marvin's signature ultimate wood windows and dark bronze gooseneck lighting. The proposed materials for the trash enclosure are stone walls and metal post and frame fencing. The location of the lighting fixtures were not shown on the elevations. The stucco color, garage doors, guttering and downspouts, mechanical if it's included, roofing material, lighting locations are also not shown. Materiality of the driveway apron and hardscaping proposed was also not provided.

[54:04] The guidelines for materials and details include those for fences, which should use traditional materials and should reflect the character of historic fences in height, openness, materials, and finish. Generally, historic fences were constructed of wrought iron, wood pickets, or woven wire in an open appearance and scale that related to the main building. The guidelines favor use of a permeable soft-edged surface over hard, non-porous paving or concrete for the driveway and apron, which gives a modern look and is generally inappropriate. Color choices should not be bright or garish, but similar in scale, proportion, finish, and character to those used traditionally. Staff considers that the materials and details provided for the proposed new building are reflective of the primary building and will not detract from the overall character of the site.

[55:00] The proposed garbage enclosure meets the design guidelines for fencing, stone material, and detailing. The metal gates are contemporary and meet the requirements of the wildfire urban interface regulations. Staff considers their metal material will not detract from the historic character of the district, as the material is limited to the gates. The paneling is shown to be vertical, and the review of details will ensure it has a matte finish. The application materials didn't include some of the details as listed, and they should be reviewed by either staff or LDRC to ensure they will not detract from the overall character of the site, and that the proposed grading and hardscaping will not damage the historic building, site, or surrounding properties. Staff considers that the conditions of approval should address the following to be consistent with the guidelines. Revised design of the west elevation to show an access door rather than a patio door.

[56:04] Revised design of the west and south elevations to reduce the perceived size of the double-hung windows, either by clearly separating them to reference the placement of windows on the primary building, or by reducing their size. Revised design to reduce the depth of the porch to 6 feet or less. Revised design of the porch roof to attach to the wall and not interrupt the parapet detailing. And final details of stucco, garage doors, guttering and downspouts, mechanical equipment, roofing material, fencing material, spacing, and color, lighting locations, materiality of the driveway apron, site hardscaping, and site grading. Staff recommends the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings, that they find the project will meet the standards of issuance of a landmark alteration Certificate set forth in Section 91118.

[57:03] And that they have considered the information in the staff memorandum and the evidence provided to the board at its January 7th. 2026 meeting, specifically that the board finds that the proposal will be consistent with the purposes of this chapter, in that the proposed work will not damage the historic character of the subject property. The proposed work will not damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the property. The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, and arrangement of color and materials used on the, building will be compatible with the character of the existing building and its site, and The proposed work will not adversely affect the special character or special historic architectural and value of the subject property, as it is consistent with the general guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic District guidelines, and Section 91118 of the Boulder Revised Code.

[58:02] Staff's recommendation is to approve the application with conditions, finding that it meets the standards of issuance of a landmark alteration Certificate in Chapter 911-18, and is generally consistent with the Mapleton Hill Historic District guidelines and general design guidelines, provided the stated conditions are met. Staff's recommended conditions may be modified by the Landmarks Board, but are noted here. And… That's the end of the staff presentation. As a reminder, the next step in the process, the applicant has up to 10 minutes to present to the board, followed by public participation, an opportunity for the applicant to respond to anything that's said, and then board deliberation. And a reminder that the criteria for the board's decision this evening is found in 9-11-18 and considers whether the project meets the standards

[59:03] For issuance of a landmark alteration certificate. And the options in front of you this evening are to either approve the LAC application, approve with conditions, or deny the application if you believe it does not meet these standards. Did anyone have any questions? I have one question. You indicate that the, one of the, proposals is to make the porch, like, it's 8 feet on the west side, and you're suggesting that it just get a little bit smaller. What part in the code, and you probably stated in all of that, and I was concentrating on another piece. So what part in the code Or in the language of the guidelines, does it say… And is that because it's facing the street, or… Yeah, so it's, as you know, it's… they aren't a checklist, but it's, they are guidelines. In the proposed 13-foot depth, 2S felt out of scale, and the guidelines talk about using

[60:10] traditional building elements and traditionally scaled building elements, and so I think a, porch, as you can see on the top right, with that more traditional, like, 6-foot depth reads of the porch. I think the, the cover that extends almost 14 feet, you know, 13 feet or so, reads more like a covered pergola or patio, rather than a traditional porch element. So our recommendation was to pull it back and have it reference a more traditional porch design. Okay, thanks. Any other… Okay, now we can move to public comment. Or no, sorry, press the… Stat, presentation.

[61:04] the applicant. Let me just turn the timer in. I'll stick. It's hard in my… Oh, so, you'll need to state your full name and swear… To tell the truth. Great. My name is Blake Sullivan, representing Rodwin Architecture and Jocelyn Parlippiano. I do state to tell the whole truth. At this hearing? Okay, we've already started. Okay, thank you so much, Steph, for giving us this opportunity and getting us to this point. We really appreciate that. And we, appreciate the opportunity to present to you this evening. Our proposal here, as we discussed, is the demolition and reorientation and reconstruction of the accessory structure at 2408 8th Street. And we seek for your approval to do so.

[62:03] I'm uniquely joined here this evening, virtually, with, Jocelyn Parlippiano, Larry, our current owner of the property, Carrie Jefferies, our, proposed, purchaser of the property. And her family members here with us today, who are also all Mapleton Hill residents. So with that, our objective here tonight is to rebuild the accessory structure in its existing location, with a modified orientation to better align with the district's historical context and neighborhood rhythm. The primary driver for reorientation. is to harmonize with the established pattern of the alleyway. In this district, the accessory structures are historically sited to create a specific rhythm along the alley. It's typically offset to one side or the other, not centered on the lot. And by rotating the structure, we're not introducing a new element, we're just kind of creating an anomaly that happened a long time ago, as staff presented earlier.

[63:01] And the current structure kind of fights against the grain of the alley, and the reorientation of this Realigns us, along with the neighboring structures. Aligns with new visual continuity. It allows our roofline and massing to mimic our traditional carriage house vernacular found throughout the neighborhood. While mimicking the architecture of the main building. We also worked with staff in providing, a photographic kind of inventory exhibit of other homes along the alley, one block either side of this property, and did find that many have been revised, to meet this criteria, being secondary, to the main building. But restored. With other buildings that had been… Previously contributing that had been demolished. So we think this is aligning with, that precedent, although I'm not… that's not a word that Historic likes to use. Additionally, within our historic report, we saw that those three buildings originally were on the alley, so we're essentially reorienting to the original historic.

[64:11] Intent of the property. The proposed design is not… A replacement, it's intended as an architectural upgrade, intended to converse with the main structure, kind of a call and response. The new structure will utilize a congruous architectural language. This means carrying over the specific details from the main home. Roof pitch, eaves depth, cladding, exterior detailing. That really tie the property together as a cohesive estate. Rather than a disjointed collection of buildings. By rotating our structure, we present a more favorable facade to the public right-of-way. And then often this reduces the perceived bulk of the building by breaking down the scale, so it does feel subservient to the main house. We also, with a trash enclosure on 8th Street.

[65:01] We do help… we feel like this does help create the human scale. So we step up to the building rather than right up against this facade. We also want to preserve some of the site conditions. We're asking to build essentially in the same spot while we are demolishing the entire building. We do want to minimize the disturbance on the site. And this rotation offers some distinct advantages over a straight replacement. By utilizing our existing footprint, or a portion thereof, we attend to only slightly increase lot coverage. We know we will be working down the line with the building department through that. And this also will increase the usefulness and utility of a building that sits unoccupied in the district currently. Reorientation of the building also will open up the middle of the lot, increasing the usable area on the lot and allowing the new owner to landscape the lot with intention and sensitivity to the area.

[66:05] Utilizing our existing patterns established within the district, our intent is to align this property with the context of the rest of the district. Right now, it feels a little disjointed. And a little bit, like it doesn't belong. In terms of the building itself. We are kind of sitting in the WUI. Zone, the wildland-urban interface, and that presents unique challenges, especially with the building that sits there now. It is a bit surrounded by vegetation. Mitigation of that is difficult at the moment. Right now, its construction is not favorable. And our strategy, using non-combustible and fire-rated siding and roofing materials, that would mimic our historic look and our stucco cladding. Allow us to create a more defensible property. Additionally. The structure would look and feel congruous with the original, building from 1898, but perform to 2026 fire performance safety standards.

[67:09] Along with that, we intend to… Produce an all-electric solar-powered design with an air-sealed envelope insulated beyond 2024 COBEX standards. Enhanced resilience will be achieved by replacing current vulnerable building And all those materials we just talked about. Directly addressing the board's criteria for inclusivity where the current structure fails. Additionally. Pardon me? Our sensitivity to the district, really. It's something we've been spending a lot of time working on. This is kind of rooted in the preservation principles. And we're prioritizing the spirit of the district guidelines. Rhythm, context, the architectural language.

[68:00] Over strict adherence to, kind of, this conforming versus non-conforming status. As staff has shown. The building does… Is ripe to be demolished and replaced. And this transforms a utilitarian replacement into a contextual asset. Respecting the historical pattern of the alley-facing structures, unifying the architectural language of the property, and preserving the established open space of the backyard. The scope… Represents a necessary evolution for the property. By removing a failing non-contributing structure and building a new, high-quality accessory building. We are not only solving a functional hardship for the owner, but actively improving the visual and structural integrity of the Maple District. And we are asking you to please help us keep this moving forward. With our remaining time, I just want to address some of the… Design principles that were presented by staff.

[69:00] And we do intend… I guess I could use page numbers. We essentially do agree with staff's recommendation. On all fronts. Talking about our… materialities. We know that this building kind of lacks the integrity to be considered significant. But we will… Take into consideration, the revised porch, Not only take into consideration, we'll work with you to find the right solution there. Also working with the window sizes, spacing of the sliding glass door, and the depth of the porch. We were happy to work with staff in resolving those issues. Also in providing all of the details requested, for hardscaping, driveway aprons. Revised elevations showing lighting, and updated materiality. And with that, I thank you so much for your time this evening.

[70:07] Thank you. Now, let's move to public comment. Virtual attendees, please raise your hand or press star 9. Amanda, do we have any in-person? Don't have anyone signed up with me. Okay. Let's see, so… If anyone would like to speak virtually, please raise your hand. And we'll start with Lynn Siegel. And Lynn, you'll have 3 minutes to talk, and please raise your hand and swear to tell the board the whole truth, and state your full name, and proceed. Thank you. Lynn Siegel, I swear to tell the truth the best as I know it.

[71:00] Anything else? No? Go right ahead. For the record, This is clearly… An approvable demolition. So… Don't ever say that, you know, I just don't want to demolish anything, you know? In Gaza. Unconscionable things are going on right now. Those are the demolitions. Each one of us cannot stand. Each and every one of us are living with that unconscionable Work that's going on over there in demolitions. In that… in that… in Palestine. It's unspeakable. Here, Sure, of course we can demolish this. It's a no-brainer. But you know what? Arapaho, by the library, the Bungalows? That is like Venezuela.

[72:03] Oh! Our oil is on their land. Oh, our value. are landmarking. is on their land. There's a distinction. Between the two. And with this one, it's easy. No problem. Done. Thank you. Thanks, Lynn. Great, I don't see any other hands raised online at this time. Okay, the applicant may have an additional 3 minutes, if you'd like to comment on anything that was said. During public comment. Would you like to respond to anything? Okay? We can now move to board discussions. I ask everyone to mute your computer or phone for the duration of the discussion. And we estimate 45 minutes for the discussion.

[73:10] Abby? So, thank you, Claire, for your presentation, and thank you, too, to the applicant. And, I got a sneak preview of this, at the LDRC, I believe, with John in December, and I've always loved this property, but it was the first time I thought, oh, maybe it would make more sense for an accessory building, a garage, to be oriented the other way, and Never thought of it before, and I thought that made perfect sense, and… From my standpoint, I will be supporting staff's recommendation both for the demolition and then the construction of the new building, and I think for me, when I look at this project, it's always fun to see when a property that's already charming and has history and has been here for so long actually gets enhanced by the new construction going on it. So, thank you all for your efforts, and

[74:08] The team you have together to, Make this even better, and move into the future. I, believe that… a couple of things need to be said, and I want to thank everybody for the, for the presentation, I think… that… One of the goals of any alteration to, historic structure is an enhancement, and I think that this project indeed does that. I think that There's no other reason to tear down part of it and replace it unless you're making it better or more optimal for the time you're living in or the uses that it's experiencing.

[75:01] I also just want to compliment The consideration that went into the elements That are being put into the new… the replacement building, particularly the full cut-off lighting. Which can be, particularly on accessory buildings, and particularly in accessory spaces, turn out to be a very annoying thing to neighbors, if not well considered. So, considering trespass light, and light going up into the sky, gives me… A good feeling about this whole project, so I support staff's recommendation, and… We'll be floating in favor of it. I'd like to see the site plan. Please. And while… while that's being… Obtained.

[76:03] I didn't see… I mean. Now, you guys are part of the LDRC for this component, but did… did this… Am I confusing this building with another one that had a big window replacement? Good catch. There was a separate landmark alteration certificate for the rehabilitation of the primary building that included window replacement. And then maybe some, like, new doorways or something. Openings on the back, and some mechanical. So I do have a couple things. It's clear to me that 8th is… is the main, sort of. Facade elevation. It's obviously the entry of the apartment. And I've questioned the trash enclosure Facing the main street, rather than… And I don't know if there's a… I mean, clearly there's a setback issue that would prevent it from being on the east side of the garage, but it seems to me that from a utility function.

[77:10] standpoint, that that's a… there's a better location for trash enclosure than facing the main street. Of the main facade. And so I'm… Struggling with that. I also… Ep. I'm torn, I'll just be honest, about the notion of… Marrying the accessory building architectural language with the existing, when that… that wasn't… I mean, it's conjecture to say that would have been the case with those earlier buildings that were on the alley, but certainly with… the garage that this is replacing. While I applaud the orientation, I'm not convinced that there's a necessity or an obligation to have the architecture of an accessory building in this case.

[78:03] kind of follow the storyline of the main apartment building. But if it were to do that, I would say, look more closely. at the existing apartment building. For instance, there's solid stone sills at those stucco window openings. If that's the case in the main apartment building, that should be what is at least on the west-facing windows and and openings, is that you… If you're gonna match it, match it. In terms of its architectural language. I have concerns about the proportions of the porch, but that's already been addressed, so I'll just leave it at those two main things and wonder if anybody has any… Equal anxieties about those things.

[79:02] I don't have anxieties. I think that's a little bit outside the scope of… what we look at. But I… I mean, I'm sure they appreciate the guidance. I'll just say that I… Agree with the staff recommendation, and… With some of my colleagues. So I'm gonna agree with some of the anxieties that Michael had, which is the trash enclosure, but I don't know… I think… To deal with it, I don't know, but for me. I don't know if the right, application is to add stone to it? So, maybe that's where… but again, these are, like, the little minutiae things that don't have to really be taken… The porch detail, I… Understand how… what you're thinking of is, like, if we're gonna match…

[80:03] the building match the building, but I also think that it's important to make it simpler and not match, and make it say that it's Because if we, if we add the stone detail of the sills. Then, from somebody that is not… has your eye, are they gonna think that, like, they were built at the same time? So, I like the idea of keeping them a little bit simpler, So, I… I want to say that I agree with staff's recommendation. I… I kind of wanted to, and I think this could be in the LDRC meeting, or… Depending on what we're proposing, is working out what the… how that patio, because I really do think that maybe… This area could be, I think it's a… this outdoor area is kind of a neat area for the clients and for the apartment residents to enjoy something that's…

[81:06] a little covered. And so I don't want to just say no to this, and agree with staff's recommendation, but maybe a conversation around it, because right now, the building that they have right now is, so square, and there's not really an outdoor space that each of these apartment people can use, and I… and I want to applaud you guys for, like, creating this, like, flex space. That makes, the space a little bit, you know. more interesting to be in, and then that porch on the outside, like, I can kind of, like, maybe want to sit there and, like, you know, and do what… historic… what we like about these neighborhoods is, like, you create a community within a community. So, I really like this idea, and it's facing 8th Street, so, I don't want to shy away from that, because as people are walking by, and you guys

[82:01] you know, the residents are sitting in there. It could be, like, a place for not only the residents, but now the guy across the street's coming over for, you know, iced tea. Shirley Temples, you know? So, like, I think that's important, and I… But I also… so then I want to go back to the trash enclosure, because then that, like, kind of… it's like, oh, now I have to walk past that piece. So, I don't really know how to address that, because I get why you put it there, and I don't have a better solution. I don't know if I, again, like the idea of we're adding a new material that wasn't there before, but I was reading through the guidelines, and I think it's an improvable material, so I think maybe as… Chelsea's saying maybe I'm overstepping on that piece. So… but, I agree with staff recommendation. Michael?

[83:02] Could it be stucco instead of the stone? Yeah, I mean… I think… I think that that could be a conversation that the staff has. With the applicant, but… you know. Can you go back to the site plan again? Does that porch… wait, the… The porch… is that the original size porch, or the recommended staff size porch? That's the, applicant's proposed proposal. So that's what I mean, yeah, okay. So… Are you suggesting that it would be equal depth in… in its, sort of, north-south Projection on the south side. Yes. And then reduce the… make it the same. Yes, I think the, that kind of front porch language is most important along, 8th Street, but I think, our, yeah, as we wrote in the memo, the recommendation is that they be the same as they wrap around the corner.

[84:11] Yeah. Which could be achieved two ways, right? It could be to move that west edge of the roof back, or to take the enclosed portion and move it to the west. Leaving the roof edge where it is. That would increase the square footage, so… I mean… Yes, it would. But there… you could do a happy medium, where you're, like, moving a little bit, and then coming in on the west side, so… You know, because it's still nice to have that covered porch. If they're gonna walk, there's two doors, right? I think they addressed also that big glass door? In the memor… like, maybe… Making that not be… Because for me, like, that being an 8-foot door also feels a little bit out of place, especially on the 8th Street side, so maybe a…

[85:08] Again, we're getting into the… Is there a floor plan? Yeah. And somewhere I saw that, that, that… sliding glass doors. worse. So if you're… if you're… oh, I see, if you're in the apartments and you're going to your car. you're going through the flex space to get there, I imagine. Yeah. So I think it's appropriate that that be a hinge door rather than a patio door. I mean, just for the… the security. Right? Like, instead of the… Slider and the use of the hinge drawer, but again, we're getting to the minutiae of it, so… Any… Oh. I… I'll just make the comment that I think that these are issues that

[86:04] Could be worked out in the kind of final go-around of design review, and that what we're reviewing is the, I guess the advanced concept that we're being presented. A comment on the… on the emulation versus… derive of elements At least my understanding of the guidelines and the way we have tended to apply them is that… You don't want to straight up emulate the historic character of what you're adding to, or addending or changing, because it… in essence, creates a false history. It makes it look like this was the original state of this whole project. And that's not the case. You want…

[87:01] You want the changes, you want the modifications on a project to be visible, and to link to the time they occurred in, because that itself is… kind of speaks to the history of the… of the site as it goes forward in time, and… So, I… I think that… Taking elements and using the proportioning and scale systems and so on from the existing building, and then Expressing them in… A little more contemporary way is… the most proper approach, and I think that's been achieved here. I think that it might be interesting to play around with that covered area a little bit more, because another way to do it would be to redistribute the area of it Evenly around the whole thing, and make both wings of the roof… make the narrowest part a little wider, and make the wide part a little narrower to find a kind of a…

[88:13] I guess, balance there. It changes the character of the spaces under the roof to have a kind of veranda-like area, and then you have a large area. Which is interesting, and it could have meaning, but it's… It would play maybe better to the open space between the two buildings. If it was… Kind of brought more into equity on the two sides of it. But I don't think that has a real bearing on what we're doing here tonight. I think right now, we've got the information we need. The trash enclosure doesn't bother me as much. The introduction of stone, it is an uncharacteristic element to the whole site. If stone was happening somewhere else, that would be interesting, if it happens in at least two places, maybe. But again, those are kind of microscopic to what we're doing. Yeah.

[89:20] I'm unchanged. I still support staff's recommendation. Yeah, and just a comment from the site, don't know who's going to… but the, like, changing it to make it more like a… indoor-outdoor space, that person sitting on that west side, you know, could still have a patio. Half could be covered, and half could be in the sun, which would… might be a nice feature. I do like the landscaping around, maybe, the trash enclosure, and even though we don't… that might be a way to cover it, but not having the tall trees, because I think it would be really nice for that patio to talk to 8th Street. So, but those are all… does anyone have a motion and move this forward?

[90:04] Can we create a motion? Make a motion. Okay. And we're… Is that… okay. Are the… sorry, can you go back to the conditions of approval? Yeah. Just because with… if there's flexibility, or we want to add flexibility with the… Awning. The porch? Or the porch, yeah, maybe we need to adjust the conditions. Instead of it saying 6 feet. Maybe just reduce… maybe just reduce. And we just leave it just… Revised design of the porch? I would suggest this revised design to reduce depth of porch. Okay. Okay. And not put the… But remove 6 feet. Yeah. And the other ones look okay? Yeah. I think those are a set of conditions. Double homes.

[91:01] So do we have to edit that, or how do we… It will update. Okay. Okay. Magic. We don't have to say all those. Oh, thank goodness. No, but I have to. reading them all. Yeah. And… Okay, so this is the motion. And you just start with, I move the landmarks board. Right. You can, yeah, skip the ice. The Landmarks Board adopt the staff memorandum dated January 7th, 2026 as the findings of the board, and conditionally approve the application for a landmark alteration certificate to demolish an existing accessory building and construct a new. 1,054 square foot accessory building at 2408 8th Street. a contributing property in the Mapleton Hill Historic District pursuant to Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981. As shown on the application received November 21st.

[92:02] 2025. Finding that the proposal meets the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate in Chapter 9-11-18, Boulder Revised Code 1981, and consistent with the general design guidelines for Boulder's historic districts and individual landmarks, and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines, with the following conditions. Do we… do I need to… I need to read those into the record, don't I? So there's no need to read them all. You can say, with the following conditions, as staff listed, with the exception of the depth of the porch, as we discussed. Okay, okay, I'll say, with the conditions, as written, with the exception of Specifying the porch be reduced by 6 feet.

[93:03] I second that. No. We can have a roll call vote. Chelsea! Hi. Abby. Aye. I say aye. I said. AI. Michael? Hi. Gotta put your hair on. Make a quick comment. mint. So, I do want to say I really value both Michael and your comments, and where I think that's helpful, because it's so hard to design from up here, but I think that's helpful for whatever Landmarks board members are assigned to that LDRC, so thank you. Okay. The motion passes. Oh, sorry! conference. 520. Marcy, can you go over the next steps in the process? That's okay. My husband's right.

[94:09] Yeah, I apologize, it's been, slow in updating today. Let's see if it's in here… No. I will just verbally say it. So, City Council usually has up to 16 days to decide whether to review or call up the decision. However, they're, in a special meeting. within 16 days, and the next regular council meeting is not until February 4th. So we will, extend the call-up period until then, and at that point, if they do not call up the decision, the, decision stands, and the conditions of the LAC will then be reviewed by the Landmarks Design Review Committee.

[95:00] And once the conditions are satisfied, the LAC will be issued, and you can go ahead and obtain your permit. So, if you have any questions, because you don't have any visual, help here, just, let us know, and we will, answer your questions about that. Thank you for your time. I'm wondering, before we start the next public hearing, if the brightness of the lights is bothering anyone else, and if it would be okay if we tried to adjust them. I have a sudden. Glasses, no. Yeah, that's true. That's not a little lower, but there we go, that's up there. Can you try turning on the easel? It's the other one.

[96:00] Yeah, those are the worst ones. Those are challenges. No questions. Is… is this better or worse? This is good for me to sleep. Turn him back on. It is split. Sure, but just keep… I know. I think more, more of them, maybe. Bless. Oh my goodness, searching. Life.

[97:05] That's… it's like a lighting grid. It's boring. Oh, she went to get some food. Oh, am I missing? I think we're okay. Yeah. Okay, we're gonna move on to the second public hearing. This is the public hearing and consideration of a landmark alteration certificate application to construct a new 2,583 square foot building at 2439 Broadway. His2025-00313. A contributing property in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, pursuit to Section 91118. of the Boulder Revised Code 1981, and under the proceedings prescribed by Chapter 1 through 3, Quasi-Judicial Hearings, Boulder Revised Code 1981.

[98:09] The owner, 2439 Broadway LLC, registered agent… Registered agent Roxanne. Roxy Ann. Duggan, and the applicant is Neo Studio Architecture Represented by Merrill Rappel. I'll hand it over to Marcy for the staff presentations. Thank you, and good evening, Landmarks Board members. Applicants, and public. So, we'll start with the quasi-judicial hearing process, and all speaking to the item will be sworn in. I'm Marci Gerwing, Principal Historic Preservation Planner, and I affirm that I will tell the truth. I'll pause to allow board members to note any ex parte contacts you've had for, this, case at 2439 Broadway. Any conversations or, site visits or any… anything related to this.

[99:10] Seeing none, I'll move on. Here's an overview of the process we'll go through today. I'll give the staff presentation, and after that, the board may ask questions. The applicant will have 10 minutes to present to the board, followed by board questions. We'll then open the, Open the public hearing, and after all members of the public have made comments, the applicant may 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 must state findings, conclusions, and recommendation. And a record of this hearing is available in a couple days as a video recording and the official record will be added to the archive within 28 days, usually sooner. As we do record the meetings, and as Claire said at the beginning of the last presentation, I'd like to remind everyone to speak clearly into the microphone.

[100:04] The criteria for your review this evening is outlined in the Boulder Revised Code under 9-11-18B and C, and that's whether the proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores, and does not damage Or destroy exterior architectural features of the property. That the work does not adversely affect the historic architectural value of the property, and that the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials are compatible with the character of the property. And that the Landmarks Board will consider the economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced accessibility. The options in front of you tonight are to either approve the application, and that is subject to a 16-day call-up period by City Council. The Landmarks Board may also, vote to deny that application, which would be called up to a 30-day, subject to a 30-day call-up period.

[101:04] And, this is the applicant's appeals process. However, a denial would mean that the applicant could not submit a substantially similar application within 12 months, so the board, typical practice is to offer the applicant a chance to withdraw if it… if the board's discussion is heading towards a denial. The application for this, proposed new building started in October when staff met with the owner and applicant to review conceptual design ideas for the rehabilitation of the primary house and a proposal for a new building on the property. After that, a separate LAC was reviewed, and approved by the LDRC for the rehabilitation of the primary house. And then a second LAC application was submitted on November 21st. For the construction of a 25… 2,583 square foot building at the rear of the lot.

[102:05] So, this property is located on the west side of Broadway between Maxwell and Portland Place, at the edge of the Mapleton Hill Historic District. The primary building faces east towards Broadway, and the rear of the lot abuts an alley that runs parallel to Broadway, between Maxwell Avenue and Portland Place. An existing accessory building is located on the lot and faces west, it's located along the alleyway. The primary building was constructed around 1878 as a one and a half-story masonry house with a framed front porch, and the building is an excellent example of the Queen Anne style. It's also been, maintained and kept up, exceptionally well, including its craftsman porch that was a later modifi- an early modification. A building survey undertaken in February of 2005 identified the existing accessory building as a pre-1929 contributing building.

[103:06] However, additional research demonstrates that a pre-1929 accessory building was demolished in 1947, and that the current building was constructed around 1949. The character of the, existing accessory building is consistent with post-war construction. It's a one-story frame building with a side gable roof and twin car… one-car garage doors. And the accessory building, in staff's opinion, meets the definition of a non-contributing building as it was constructed outside of the periods of significance for the district, and no changes are proposed to this building as part of the application. The primary building is considered contributing and was converted to a commercial use in the early 90s, and the rear of the site was paved around that time. So we'll move to the staff analysis for the approximately 2,600 square foot building, including key site and setting characteristics, mass and scale, key building elements, and materials and detailing.

[104:11] For context, this, property is located within the mixed residential 1, RMX1, and business transitional B2 zoning districts. This is the first project that the Landmarks Board has reviewed since the adoption of the family-friendly vibrant Neighborhoods, which allows increased density within the existing building envelope. So while it makes changes to the use of the building and the density of the units within the building. The, intention was that that, would be within the existing building envelope, so it's the same kind of layered review of Bulk playing and setbacks, along with the historic preservation design guidelines. The proposed construction is considered a second primary building on the property, not an accessory building, due to its size and use. And following the adoption of Ordinance 8696 last year, no off-street parking spaces are required as part of the redevelopment.

[105:14] Looking first at the key site and setting characteristics, including setback, orientation, spacing, and distance between adjacent buildings. The new building is proposed to be located approximately 27 feet behind the historic house, and set back from the alley approximately 25 feet. The guidelines recommend locating structures within the range of alignments seen traditionally in the area, maintaining traditional setbacks. The proposed structure is within the primary setbacks for the property, although traditionally, garages are located closer to the alley. The site plan also shows the proposed building approximately 3 feet from the existing accessory building, where 6 feet is required, both by zoning and building code. The guidelines recommend preserving a backyard area between the house and accessory buildings.

[106:03] Maintaining the general proportion of built mass to open space found within the area. The backyard area was paved for a parking lot in the early 90s, and the proposed new building creates an opportunity to replace the hard surface parking with backyard, which is appropriate. No mature trees or site features will be removed as part of the proposal, and the site topography is shown to be relatively the same. The guidelines recommend building proportions should respect traditional patterns in the district. The historic buildings along Broadway are vertically proportioned, including the historic building on this subject lot. The proposed design is vertically proportioned, which is appropriate. And the guidelines state that new construction should be compatible with surrounding buildings that contribute to the overall historic character. Of the district in terms of setback, orientation, spacing, and distance from adjacent buildings. The new construction is adequately spaced from the historic building on the site and the adjacent landmarked building to the south.

[107:04] However, the two discrete building entrances are shown on the sides of the proposed building and are not oriented to the street or the alley. And the building's orientation is unclear without a primary entrance. The guidelines emphasize that structures constructed after the period of significance, but that are still more than 50 years old, and contribute to the variety and character of the alleyway should be retained. No changes are proposed to the existing accessory building, which was constructed outside of the period of significance. During pre-application meetings, staff advised the applicants that the existing accessory building was a pre-1929 contributing building based on that 2005 survey. However, additional research demonstrates that it pre… That that building was demolished, and the existing building dates to 1949. The guidelines also state that the visual impact of parking for multifamily and commercial uses should be minimized. Common approaches include separating parking into small clusters, screening with buildings or landscaping, and the use of small accessory structures.

[108:13] Parking for the multifamily building is incorporated into the design, however, it results in an increased mass and scale of the building, and an emphasis on the garage doors and parking. Alley access is proposed to be maintained for parking, which is appropriate, and the character of the alley will be maintained as secondary access. Looking at the height, form, mass, size, and scale, and overall proportion of the proposed design, the proposal includes construction of a two and a half-story building. It is vertically proportioned and divided into two narrow rectangular units that are about 14 feet wide and offset from each other. The building measures approximately 32 feet tall. The proposed roof form shows a pair of gable roofs with a sloping gable that connects the two forms.

[109:02] The pitch of the gable roofs matched that of the historic building on the site. The guidelines recommend that while new construction tends to be larger than historic buildings, reflecting the needs and desires of the modern homeowner, new structures should not be so out of scale with the surrounding buildings as to loom over them. Also, that the design of the new building should be compatible with surrounding buildings that contribute to the overall character of the historic district. The mass and scale of new construction should respect neighboring buildings and the streetscape as a whole. And the proposed units are elevated above garages, which results in a primary building massing in proportion not historically found in the district. Traditionally, garages were separate buildings or had small living units above and were located along the alley. The overall scale of the building is not compatible with the surrounding buildings that contribute to the historic character of the district. The mass and scale of the new construction visually overwhelms the historic one and a half-story building on the site, and is much taller than the other buildings along the alley.

[110:07] The one and a half or two-story building may be appropriate in this location. The guidelines also state that the overall proportion of the building's front facade is especially important to consider since it will have the most impact on the streetscape. Historic heights and widths, as well as their ratios, should be maintained. And that the proportions of the front facade are particularly important and should be compatible with those of surrounding historic buildings. The proportion of the proposed building is much narrower than historic buildings found in the district, and the form of the two upper floors reflect a traditional proportion, but the increased height due to the parking on the first level results in a building that is very tall and narrow. The guidelines also state that a new house constructed behind an existing house should be of lesser mass and scale than the original structure. The floor area of the historic house is approximately 1,850 square feet, and the floor area of the proposed new building, the units on the second and third stories, is approximately 1,348 square feet.

[111:13] Including the garage, the new building is approximately 2,600… 2,600 square feet, and larger than the historic house. While the location at the edge of the district and the zoning allow for more of a townhouse-type building, the mass and scale of the proposed new building is not secondary to the historic building. Key building elements include dormers, windows, and doors. The proposed roof form shows a pair of gable roofs with a sloping gable that connects the two forms. The pitch of the gable roofs matches that of the historic building on the site. And wall dormers extend, down the sides of the building. From the guidelines, the replication of historic architecture in new construction is inappropriate, as it can create a false historic context and blur the distinction between old and new buildings. While new structures must be compatible with the historic context, they must also be recognizable as new construction.

[112:10] The guidelines state new construction should be a product of its own time, and to create compatible contemporary interpretations of historic elements. While the building is simple in its form and does not create a false sense of history, the proportion and scale are incompatible with the character of the neighborhood and the existing structure. It does not express traditional architectural elements or take design cues from contributing buildings on the site or in the district, other than the use of the gable form with shed roof dormers and the vertical proportion of the building. All other building elements, including the cantilevered balconies, attached garages, wall of windows, and inconspicuous entries, are all contemporary building elements. The resulting design lacks a traditional building scale, in large part due to the proportion of the dormer and windows, elevation above a garage, and the lack of delineation between floor plates.

[113:03] The proportion of window opening to solid walls, the size of the doors compared to the windows, and the length of the dormer further emphasize the height of the building. Additionally, the building lacks a recognizable entry, which would provide a traditional scale to the building. On the east elevation, the first and second stories have a wall of windows that measure 10 feet wide and approximately 14 and a half feet in height. In the third story, the windows are in pairs, measuring approximately 10 feet wide and 4.5 feet tall, asymmetrically placed within the gable end. The guidelines recommend that doors and windows should reflect the window patterns and proportion of the existing structure in the district and use similar materials. And also that the spacing, placement, scale, orientation, proportion, and size of window and door openings in new structures be compatible with the surrounding buildings that contribute to the historic district, while reflecting the underlying design of the new building. The overall window pattern with the large walls of windows results in a scale that is much larger than those found within the historic district and surrounding contributing buildings.

[114:09] They do not reflect a traditional architectural style, and are out of character with the site and historic district, as they do not relate to the surrounding context. While the window openings and the individual panes of the windows are vertically proportioned, as commonly seen in the district, the openings themselves are overscaled and do not reflect a traditional patterning. The window openings in the gable end are closer in proportion to those found in the district, but are overscaled and spaced closer than those traditionally found. Staff recommends that they should be placed symmetrically within the gable end, and for elevations visible from the public streets, the relationship of solid to void should also be compatible. Staff finds that the general solid-to-void ratio of the window openings are overscaled. The side elevations include two shed roof wall dormers that extend the length of the wall to a point approximately 7 feet above grade. Each dormer projects about 8 inches from the building and are filled with a bank of windows that measure about 5 feet wide and 17 feet tall.

[115:14] The entrances to the building are located on the south and north elevations, with a single pedestrian door measuring 2'4", wide, located beneath the eastern dormers. The entrances to the units are inconspicuous, located on side elevations, without any surrounding elements, and a narrower width than traditional front doors. No porches are proposed in the design, however, adding a porch that is properly masked and detailed could help clarify the entry and orient the building and delineate between floor plates. The guidelines state that interpretation of historic styles may be appropriate if they are distinguishable as new. Staff finds that the proposed design is not an interpretation of a historic style, but is contemporary in its form and building elements. For example, the wall dormer could be seen as an interpretation of a historic building element, and is distinguishable as new. However, the scale of the 17-foot-tall dormer is out of character with the site and district.

[116:11] The guidelines note that dormers should be secondary to the main roof and should be lower than the roofline. And the oversized dormers are inappropriate. And while the dormer rooflines are lower than the primary roofline, their length results in a building scale that is incompatible with the character of the site and setting. And the proportion of windows within the projecting dormers also contribute to the inappropriate scale and dominance of the dormers. On the west alley elevation, the proposal includes two single car garage doors with a cantilevered balcony above each garage door. On the second level, the doors to access the balcony are 7 feet tall, with a 1.5 foot tall transom window above, and the doors are about 10 feet wide. On the third story, there are two sets of paired windows in the gable end that match the width of the doors below, which are about 10 feet wide.

[117:05] The windows in the gable end are proposed to be about 4 and a half feet tall. Their window openings are asymmetrical in their placement in relation to the sill plate in the gable roof. Again, staff finds that the general solid-to-void ratio of the window openings are overscaled and do not reflect a traditional architectural style. The proposed garage doors are traditionally scaled, however, the main entry doors are narrow and significantly smaller scale than the windows above. The guidelines state that new structures should use a roof form found in the district or in the landmark site, and while the primary gable with shed roof dormers is traditional in form and commonly found in the district, the central gabled connection complicates the roof form and adds additional massing. The guidelines recommend avoiding cantilevered projections from the building, and to use appropriately scaled brackets or supports. Two cantilevered balconies are located along the alley elevation.

[118:03] They are supported by tie rods that span the width of each unit. Balconies may be appropriate as the building is new construction and they are located on the rear elevation. However, the guidelines encourage they be integrated into the primary structure, rather than cantilevered. The proposed building is shown with frame construction clad in cementitious siding and trim. The siding for the first and second story is proposed to be painted a yellowish-white, and the trim is proposed to be painted black. The half-story gable ends, the wall dormers are shown to be clad in vertical siding, painted a deep blue. The roof is, proposed to be asphalt shingle, and the guttering and downspouts are not shown. But, The windows are proposed to be a composite construction in a black finish, and the balcony decking is proposed to be a composite material with a steel hogwire guardrail, powder-coated black. The material of the driveway and landscaping was not provided.

[119:06] The guidelines for materials are that they should be similar in scale, proportion, texture, finish, and color to those found in nearby historic structures. The proposed horizontal siding appears to be in similar scale in the proportion Two materials found on contributing buildings in the historic district. The siding material proposed is a painted cement cementitious siding. And the texture, a faux grain or smooth is not specified. However, a material made to look like another material is not appropriate, and staff would recommend a smooth finish. The proposed vertical siding in the upper story has a much larger scale, where typically the material in the gable end of a building is smaller than the primary material. The texture and detailing, including the spacing or battens between panels, was not specified. And the trim detailing was not provided other than that it's the same as the cementitious siding.

[120:00] The color scheme of white, black, and navy may detract from the overall character of the site, as the guidelines recommend avoiding bright or garish colors. And the color scheme may also emphasize the height of the building. A review of the windows is needed to ensure that the windows will meet the design guidelines. And while the proposed garage doors are appropriately scaled, the material is not specified, and the guidelines state that wood is the most appropriate material, and that two smaller doors are typically more appropriate than one large garage door. So, in summary, staff considers that a second building is appropriate on the site, and that when viewed and planned, the general proportion to built mass and open space found in the surrounding area is maintained. Staff also appreciates the efforts to minimize the visual impact of the building by offsetting the footprint. and proposing gable roofs. However, staff considers that the building in its current form, particularly its mass and scale, and height, does not meet the design guidelines and will visually overwhelm the historic house.

[121:07] A one, one and a half, or two-story building is appropriate on the site, and the two and a half to three-story proposed building measures 32 feet in height, and is a result of elevating the residential units above two two-car garages. This also contributes to the building… building's lack of a traditional residential scale. Key building elements, including the extended dormers, window and door proportions, and lack of a clear distinction between floor plates, also contribute to the scale of the building. The materials and details, need further refinement and also contribute to the perceived scale of the building. Staff recommends that the applicant withdraw the application and redesign the proposal based on staff analysis in the Landmarks Board feedback. Demolition of the existing accessory building may be part of the solution, as it is a non-contributing building and is currently located 3 feet from the proposed footprint of the building, where 6 feet is required.

[122:05] While no off-street parking is required as part of the redevelopment, covered parking would be appropriate, perhaps in a garage along the alley. This would reduce the height of the building while maintaining the size of the units, simplify the roof form, and allow for traditional entrances to the building. With that, staff recommends that the Landmarks Board, deny the application, And the findings are that the proposal is inconsistent with the purposes of the chapter, the proposed work would damage the exterior architectural features of the property, and the style, arrangement, texture, color, and materials proposed is incompatible with the character of the existing building and the site. And that the proposed work would adversely affect the special character and special historic architectural character of the property and the historic district.

[123:02] with that, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. I think I have a simple question. I think it's simple. If the garages… if the proposal was exactly as it was. But the garages weren't there. Would we be able to approve something like this tonight? With amendments, maybe? Yeah, yeah. I think it's up to the board. So the board can approve it as proposed, approve it with conditions, or if you're heading towards a denial, provide the applicant feedback, and then they come back with a new application. I think it depends on the extent of the conditions, and I know that a practice that the board used to have that we've kind of gotten away from is to approve something they didn't ask for. So, in the past, if somebody came in for a two-car garage, the Landmarks Board approved a one-car garage. They were like, that's not…

[124:15] what we wanted, but it is an approval. So, I think I would advise that through the board's discussion, you can kind of weigh, are these, significant changes that, would really change the… look entirely different from the building that's on the screen? Or… Can we craft conditions to approve it conceptually while giving the LDRC enough guidance to then work out the design at that level? So, what's the answer? So, the answer… So the answer is, I would caution you against approving something that's dramatically different that might not work for the owners.

[125:01] I'm saying, from your perspective, in terms of what's approvable, I just am curious. Yeah, so in our analysis, we think, like, a one, one and a half story, even a two-story building in that footprint is appropriate, based on the site and all of that. And that there's Possibly a solution for covered parking more in a separate building along the alleyway. So, if you just chopped it off, would you… are you asking, would I recommend approval? I'm just trying to figure out what's the… is the main issue with approving it, is it seemed like the height was the biggest issue, so I'm just trying to get at, like, in terms of focusing our conversation, if we're… Focusing on something. Yeah. Would it… would you… would the recommendation have been? Obviously, you can't just chop it off, because there'd be, like, a balcony at the floor, and that would be weird. But… but… Yeah, so yeah.

[126:03] Oh, yeah, it's, so it's the mass and scale of the building, so the height is part of that. The, the… kind of scale of the dormer that comes down 17 feet, and then also the window pattern and the kind of amount of glass also contributes to this perceived scale. So I would say it's… it's the height. It's the, kind of building elements of the dormer and the windows, and then also that the building doesn't have a recognizable entrance that also contributes to a traditional stance. minor things. And are these two units? They are two units, yeah. And then the, the porch, I think, was the other… that was more the scale of it. Oh, sorry, the materiality was the final piece of… the materiality also contributes to the scale, but,

[127:01] Yeah. Yeah, okay, thanks. So, we can move to the applicant presentation. And let's… So you're gonna state your full name, you will have 10 minutes, and you will swear to tell the truth. I mean, at. E. Duggan, and I'm the owner of the property of… I had a practice at the property for about 30 years. I had a health issue, and… Had to come up to a situation where… what to do with the property. I think our best… Michael, did you swear to tell the truth? Boy, and I swear to swear. Thank you. Thank you. So I was… we were looking for the highest use of the property, and while I was recuperating from one of my issues. I was reading about the family-friendly, vibrant neighborhood.

[128:03] It seemed like a perfect match for this house. We were literally on the bus route. We're literally, the crosswalk for the kids that go across to the schools. We have, we're within a couple of blocks of shopping centers. Pearl Street Mall, North Boulder Park. You know, medical facilities, so it's like a 95 walking score from this… from this place, which is exactly… when I read what the family-friendly, vibrant neighborhood was supposed to be accomplishing, it made sense to me That this may be the way forward with this property. So, we did get together with the architects from Neo Studio Architecture. They followed all the zoning and building codes. When presenting this, particular rendition.

[129:06] And they're here tonight, to actually explain the… how they were following zoning and building codes. Associated with this. And, you know, any changes that may need to be made, we need to get some type of a feedback. From… from the board, so that we know how to move forward. So, Mara Rempel, will be… actually speaking for Neo Studio Architecture that has done the work on this, and she'll be on a Zoom call. Amanda, could you pause the timer? Oh, no problem. And then we'll promote Mara.

[130:17] So, Mara, when you, when you, please state your full name and swear to tell the truth. Can you guys hear me? Yes. Okay, perfect. I'm, Mara Rempel with Neo Studio, and yes, I swear to tell the truth. Is it? So… I had a little presentation, but, Marcy did most of the stuff. Marci, is it possible to share… the, first image that we sent you, or can I share? I can share. Yeah, I have your presentation. Just remember that the landmark.

[131:04] I know. Okay, so the first image that you shared. The one that says Duplex Edition? This one. Yeah. Now, I do realize there was some misunderstanding between, us and our, meeting with Marcy. We kind of moved forward with some design changes to make the… buildings more compatible in materials and windows. However, what I wanted to show you here and to chat about is the actual size of the building, the footprint, the height. Nothing in this diagram here that you see changed. This is a Google Earth image of the existing buildings that we then put our 3D model in. So it's actually our built 3D model of the house, so that we could show the duplex behind.

[132:01] So I wanted to… I know this doesn't look like the picture, and we're working… we thought we were… we made a mistake, but the size and the shape of this building match the footprint. So one of the things we'd… like to get out of this meeting today is, we're more than happy to work with Darcy on Marcy, I'm sorry, on, Details, you know, changing the materiality, changing the windows, we can change the height of the dormers, that kind of stuff. We feel that this duplex is not really out of character with the neighborhood. All the buildings… Behind us, let's see… Can you go forward a couple of… stop there a second. One back would be perfect. There are lots of other, historic houses within the Boulder neighborhoods that have smaller historic fronts and larger additions behind, and they work well in their neighborhoods.

[133:11] Next slide, please. This one, we went around the neighborhood and took a look at the buildings that were immediately adjacent to the property. There are lots of three-story townhomes and apartments and larger contributing homes in our neighborhood. Our house happens to be one of the smaller ones, but there are a wide variety of homes in the area that are Much larger than ours. And that back alley behind us? Has, almost the whole width… length of the alley are… 3-story townhomes, and… I can't tell if that's a 4-story apartment. It counts 4 stories, but I think it's because of grade, but a 3- to 4-story apartment building.

[134:05] Let's see. Oh, the final thing… I think that we'd like to point out is that, Currently, our design footprint meets all the rezoning requirements, and… As far as… the floor area, the open space. What else did we have? The height, the solar setbacks, the maximum building coverage. One thing that, if we lower the building, we'll have to maybe get some approval from you guys to help us get through zoning, because the addition of a garage will count against Our floor area ratio. And so… Because this building is in the center of the block, and it has Broadway.

[135:04] As a front street, there is absolutely no parking. Maxwell has parking, but it is permit only. And we're a little leery that there are permits still available. Portland is always full, because it is not. Permitted, so that is the one street that you can park on. Ideally, for this property, our parking would be on-site. So, somehow we'd like to finagle How to get that on site so that people aren't walking several blocks to their residence, which is… I don't know, it's kind of a bummer in Boulder and in the snow to… do that. Okay.

[136:00] I think that's about… I'm gonna just leave it open for you to ask questions now. If you would like to go. I have a question, does anyone else? So, Marcie, can you bring up the elevation of the alleyway? Of your… yeah. So, yeah, that's great. So, so the level, like… And I, you know, didn't, like. I'm not… I'm familiar with the area, but I'm not familiar with the elevation on that, alleyway that comes back. Because they haven't particularly. Right. Yeah, so… so when you come back there, is that… like, when you come… when you're coming from the north side, you're gonna come, and then there's an elevation drop, and so you're… so you took the elevations… I mean, that's like a two-foot difference within a small…

[137:04] range, is that working with the site? And then, and then along with this question is, like, and I think Marcie touches on this too, the, like, second… you know, the second floor of the building, which is the third floor, the headers line up with the windows, but they're, Are they… do the floor, elevations line up? The floor elevations wouldn't line up. The idea was to shift the two buildings slightly off, and yes, there is a little bit of a slope to this light, not a lot that we'd like to take advantage of here. But the intention… I believe that the windows on the right-hand building are incorrectly located. They should also be shifted down so that The buildings are supposed to be mirror images of each other, just… Stepped.

[138:04] Okay. And… In our discussions with Marcy, we do realize that we've got some work to do on materials and windows and proportions, and we're more than happy to figure that out. I guess our big thing for direction today, Would be to figure out if we can do this Size and height of building on the site, based on the context of the other buildings around us. If you were standing and looking at this building in the alleyway. directly behind you, is… of clusters of… 3-story townhomes. Also, if you go to the corner behind you is another cluster of three-story townhomes, and if you go behind you to the left. There's a 4-story apartment building Which maybe reads 3 stories from the grade, and the parking is underneath.

[139:09] Yeah. Okay, so keep going with the… just the questions, and then we'll make additional comments, I think. That's my… My question is about materials because of the rendering that we just saw from the street. So we don't get to comment on that. Because… That's correct. So, the Landmarks Board needs to respond to the design that was submitted in the application, and that was publicly noticed, and that we did our analysis, so… Okay. Yeah, we can make… Yep. Marcine, correct me if I'm wrong, maybe when we have a con… when we get to the conversation piece, we can touch on… materiality of… this, and that would maybe link us to what she showed, but we don't need to comment on what was shown, but we maybe have some direction, and maybe some additional comments. Okay, so I wasn't hallucinating.

[140:05] No, the reason I wanted to show you that, rendering is I don't have a rendering with this… Building in it, and… Part of this was a misunderstanding. we had met with Marcy and discussed all these materials, and… changes and stuff, and we moved forward. But the size of the building and the footprint of the building. is exactly the same. So you can see that our… our… the neighbor, which… That's a historic house, and I'm blanking on the name of it. Ural House? Earl? Yeah. Earl, you can see in context, The size of our building next to its neighbors. disregard the materials. Just look at the size and height and width and… Got it.

[141:00] Okay. So, anyone, any more questions for Mara? Thanks, Mara. We appreciate it, and we appreciate that you're… You know, working with comments already, so we do acknowledge that to start. But, we're gonna move with, to public comment. So, is there anyone, virtual, or… in person that would like to have some comments. And if you… if you are virtual, please raise your hand or press star 9 if you'd like to speak to the item. Amanda? Yeah, so we don't have anyone in person signed up to speak, so we'll move to virtual. And, we've got one hand raised so far, so we'll start with Lynn Siegel. So, Lynn Siegel, I'm gonna ask that you… State your full name, and sort of tell the truth, and you will have 3 minutes, and, let's keep it to, items 5B.

[142:05] Lynn Siegel swore to tell the truth as the best I know the truth, not THE truth, my truth, my understanding of the truth, and that is that Marcy did a stellar job on this. She nailed it. She, like… why did… why did this… it's almost like, why did this have to come through to the board? Like, the last two ones, clearly… well. The 8th Street one didn't need to go to the board. It should have been LDRC. I don't know why it came to the board. Wasted a lot of time. This one, pretty much same thing. Clearly, it's not meeting anything. It's… fully overwhelms The original building. It's kind of no question about it. Why all the discussion? Why all this time? I've missed an important international meeting because of this Landmarks Board tonight.

[143:03] Why? This simple stuff. It's so simple. Why did they put all this attempt into this? Why were they led to believe they could do this in any remote way? Clearly, it's… I mean, Marcy, you so nailed it. You nailed it on every… like, you should be a prosecutor. You did great. You did the job! I don't have to say any more, waste any more time. Done. Thanks, Lynn. Amanda, I don't know if it… Matters, but, like, when that thing says, like, 631, it could be… like, if that's what the… the public is seeing, it might be hard for them to understand, like… It's mirrored and. Zoom. Oh. So they're looking at it correctly. I know, sorry, we see it a little differently, sorry. Okay. If you just, like, if I was trying to, like, get my point across, I would be like, how many minutes do I have left? No, it's mirrored in Zoom, sorry. Okay, so good, as long as they see it correctly, because we see it here. Okay. Yeah. Amanda, is there any additional public comment?

[144:09] see any other hands raised. And would the applicant, like to address the public comment? You will have an additional 3 minutes if you'd like to comment. Not too difficult. Okay. Now we move on to board, discussion. We are now, moving to board discussion. I ask that everyone please mute your computer or phone for the duration of the discussion. We estimate 45 minutes. Anyone want to start off? I'm happy to start with, specifically with the character of the neighborhood, because I've spent a lot of time in this neighborhood. I had a close friend lived there, and, on Portland, so did a lot of walking in that neighborhood, and I guess I am trying to understand the conclusion that this isn't,

[145:06] In line with… what's there. It's a very, like, there's a very, very dense neighborhood. There's a lot of big apartment buildings, that are large scale. It's across from shopping centers, like, I guess I… I… I didn't feel like this was out of scale with the… the neighborhood. Like, if you extract it out and just look at the… The front house versus what's proposed, obviously. that looks different, but in the context of the full neighborhood, I… I didn't feel like it was out of place, so I guess that's sort of my first… question that I have, or a comment. Michael? I actually agree. I think that there's room for diversity in this particular neighborhood. If there was more homogeneity about the…

[146:07] the historic architecture, I think I would… my view would be a little bit different, but I think this is… this little finger, remote edge. of the Mapleton Historic District that kind of… it's… it's almost. What do they… what do they call that when you… Gerrymander? Gerrymandered, thank you. So, so I, I think with respect to that, I, I don't know that… In… this is my opinion, that the same sort of application of… the consistency of architectural character and context exist on the frontier, the edge, as it would if you were in the heart of the Mapleton Historic District. I… I… Don't have a problem with And I'm the guy that wants it to look like this. I… where… the one place where… and I… I actually… the height of it doesn't… doesn't bother me either. I think of historic…

[147:15] properties, they may not be in historic districts, but in Whittier neighborhood, where additions have been made to historic cottages that far outweigh the volume and the mass of this quaint bungalow. And they're set behind, so that's appropriate, I suppose. where I do agree, the one spot where I agree, is I feel… first of all, I don't… I… I don't think a two-foot door meets code. for entry. Right. So I'm kind of curious about why that's so narrow, if that's indeed the case. But… but I do feel… setting the width aside, I… I feel like there… there is, a missed opportunity with the… what would be a traditional,

[148:04] representation of entry. This looks like a garage, you know, as a side garage door, not an entry to the home. And I, I think that would be something I would… I would… very much want to see reconsidered, whether it's symmetrically along the facade… that side elevation, or just somehow had more presence, and I'll… Stop there. A rock scissors. Yeah, get all the architects up from your furs. I… I, I'm… my inclination is to agree that this, this is a pocket Kind of a neighborhood that is not full-on Mapleton Hill, and I've also spent time in that and around there. There's… there's some… there's a lot of verticality when you get behind that yellow apartment building.

[149:07] And, which is here next door. And… and it's… in fact, there's a lot of pavement, period, in that area. And it's… it's different, and it's the transition towards the kind of alpine hospital district when you go that way on Broadway. it… it's… It's also… The pictures, the angles of view and so on are not necessarily serving the case. real well, because what really happens there is the land starts coming up fairly fast as you leave Broadway. Broadway itself gains elevation at that point. And… And so… That could be used in how this thing sits on the land to maybe swallow the height a little bit.

[150:01] But it's shown as being very… predominant in its presence behind the house. I also… I think that… I think that part of the problem is Because it was presented in the… in the… the black and white rendering. imagery that we saw, and because the color scheme did make it very black and white, that made it harsh In… in context of… the kind of traditional materiality in and around Mapleton and along Broadway. But it's not so out of character with what's across the street on Broadway either, which is transitionally commercial. I think that one of the issues that needs to be resolved I think that the issue of entry is a big one, and I think that that needs to be worked on. I think that its position on the site is being…

[151:02] Pushed out into the viewplane more because of the existing building that is attempted… to preserve or to stay there. I think that… I think that building should probably not be there, and it should be repositioned off the edge of the site. And… And that may… Nest it better into the… to the… kind of complex. If it were further into Mapleton, if it were closer to 9th Street, if it were on the other side of 9th Street. I would say that it's completely out of character to what the guidelines call for, and this is, this is a, I guess. kind of… Issue with this type of a… response, is there's been this… there's been this code enacted. And this is a legal and essentially correct response.

[152:06] To what that code is supposed to do. It's raising density, it's allowing More development on sites that were originally held to a lower density, and consequently is going to introduce More mass, more bulk, and height right up to the limit. But… In the context of a historic district. There is the guideline overlay to what the code says, and the guidelines Derive from the character of the neighborhood and the historic But, as I said. it's not in that part of Mapleton, and so there is more flexibility. So I think there's… But I do think there's work… to be done, and I don't think we can… Flat-out approve it tonight.

[153:01] And… Absolutely, between the architects. So… Thank you for this, because this is the first time we're really getting to wrestle with this… this new family-friendly thing, and I think what… Chelsea, you really hit the nail on the head. This is such an eclectic neighborhood, but it's also such a kind of cool vibe, because it's got a little bit of everything. There's something from everybody. It's a very vibrant neighborhood. And I think that… I think that we are used to looking through a prism, that if there's construction on a property, we only are looking at the historic resource and having everything be subservient to that and so forth. This is a little different case. And I think that maybe we have to be more open-minded looking at this, because in the traditional sense. If I'm just looking at it and how it relates to the historic resource, I would have some concerns or…

[154:03] I would pause on certain things. I will say the square footage doesn't throw me at all. I think that was the whole intent of this. And I think that… I feel like you're sort of our test case, you're sort of our pilot for this, and I think it may take us a little while to wrestle with it. I mean. Not necessarily time-wise, but we have to kind of come to that thinking that you know, and yes, there are the guidelines, and yes, we're so used to looking at, on this property, how does it… what's the dialogue between it and the historic resource? But… but we have the guidelines, but I don't think the guidelines have been updated with this new enacted, actually gift back to the community to do this, and if this is going to happen anywhere, this is the place, this is the neighborhood. You pointed out the bus lines, the services, or whatever. This really is kind of the perfect test case, pilot, case study, whatever we want to call it.

[155:04] And, I think the trouble might be if there are enough details that need to be altered, how do we move forward with that without, like, 6 pages of conditions, and what might be the next best steps? But I'm excited about this. I think there's definitely a path forward With some changes in conditions and some real, collaborative discussions. Oh, good, I'm ready. Go ahead. No. Well, one thing I was just gonna ask if… We all… it sounds like we all agree that we don't really have an issue with the mass and scale. And so… or maybe you do, sorry. You didn't say you… oh, oh, okay! Alright, well, I guess what I'm getting at is… maybe, maybe we don't agree. No, I'm just… I'm saying if there's… enough that we agree on, then maybe those other… because some of the details that we've discussed so far, like windows, door.

[156:08] What are the other things? I don't know. Some other things that feel, like, materials, like, feel, like, more minor that can be held at, or can be discussed at more of an LDRC level. But I guess, are we reaching the criteria, or reaching the threshold where we don't have to reject the whole project? And if not… because if we're wanting to reject the project, we don't have to have a discussion about it, but if we are willing to have a discussion about it, then maybe now is the time to decide if we want to do that. Well, I think… I think that… I wouldn't say reject it by any means. I think we're giving encouragement to explore this or to take it further. And I think, I mean, this is an opportunity to… talk about some of these issues that we're going to be seeing a lot of. Four out of five of us have been able to express our opinion of how close we are to it. I think we…

[157:04] owe Renee some opportunity to talk about us. Yeah, we do, I'm… Sorry, Renee. No, but, like, I think that for the applicant, they had to come and do the full board presentation, so they didn't get, like, the back and forth of the LDRC, so I think that, like, even though… I don't know, how everyone's voting, but, like, we can at least have a little bit of a conversation about it. And I first want to say that, like. I applaud them for putting density here. I think that that's the intention of what, we are moving forward with, and so, I like the density in this area. I think that… Yeah, and I think that, creating additional homes, this is… this is the opportunity. And, I think that the… when… when we get this look, right here, we can see it on this page, it…

[158:02] is really… I think that the staff, like, staff, Marcy did a good job, like, whoa, that thing is a lot… the height and mass… is a lot to the existing contributing historic structure. And so, we kind of have this, like. play that we need to do, because as you walk around, or you see the parts that it's next to. Those buildings are big on Portland Place, so I think there's a missed opportunity to express the height as it works with those buildings, instead of us looking here and just relating it to the historic structure. So, I'm not totally, sold on that it can't be that high. Because I think that you could have a step into the, those higher buildings in the back. But, I do think that you, in the height and the massing, you could create a relief.

[159:00] Between the historic structure and give it a little bit of… not overpowering. Like, maybe there's just relief in the elevations of some sort, or the massing that it goes from to… to these other buildings in the back. So, I am leaning towards that it's not approvable, and I would deny the application, because I think there's a lot to work with. I think that, the windows, you know, the frustrations to, the wall and the components, they're just… a little bit, I don't think it really meets… because there's, like, these huge windows, and, and then these, you know. opaque walls and things like that. So I think that, I think there's work to be done. I also… but I don't want them to shy away from the mass and the scale. I just think there's a little bit of opportunity that can come back.

[160:04] And, because I think that a part of me is, like, you created these very vertical, like, you're… you know, you have these two vertical, like, townhome pieces, which actually accentuate the height, where maybe, like, you didn't do that. Maybe you didn't, like, mirror it to create the verticality, and then it wouldn't feel so massive on our end. So, but… I think it's… I think that the landmark, the part that we're supposed to review as well, is that, you know, how does it relate to the contributing building? And then, and then how does it relate to the part around him? And I think it… I just think there needs to be a little bit of a transition between the two, and I think… Yeah. I think John did a really good job of, like. maybe, there's a way or a missed opportunity of, like, how those elevations, and that's what I was trying to figure out, which it's hard to figure out from this angle, is, like.

[161:08] When you come in, can you… because one part's sunken down. But it's also higher up on the alley than it is in the front. Yeah, so… Could I just say one thing? saying, I so value your remarks. I… I personally… I just want to be sure we all understand, if we deny anything tonight, they can't bring anything similar to this back for a year, so I know we have an opportunity they could withdraw it, correct, Marci? Yeah, and I think… Okay, that's what I think you. We should just have… I think we can have a conversation, and then when we're all kind of… because I think Chelsea is wanting to not deny, and she wants to proceed with conditions. And so I just want… everyone's been heard, I think, and so I was just trying to give a little bit more feedback so that

[162:02] because they haven't had the feedback, and I think that, like, that's important, and so, and whether they choose to withdraw versus, Continue, like, we can have that conversation before. Well, can… can I just ask a procedural question, then? If… if… If this is approved with a laundry list of conditions. how does… how does that work? Does that go to LDRC, and then… Is there an opportunity for the applicant to make some attempts, and if… If that takes 2 or 3 more iterations within LDRC is that. Yes, I'm nodding, but I will verbally. So, you're correct. So the procedure would be for the board to vote to approve it with a list of conditions, and then whoever is on the LDRC, those two members, their role would be to say.

[163:07] is the revised design matching these conditions? And so, it's important to craft the conditions to give clear guidance, because you don't know which board members will be on there. But it's, the conditions are pretty, Set at that point, so… there's ways to write them of, explore this, or revise, and then you say the intent rather than, like, a number. But the point is, it goes from an approval for the full landmarks board to revised designs that could take a couple iterations at the LDRC level, and the LDRC Could call it back up to the board if the revised design doesn't meet the guidelines, you know, whatsoever. Okay, I want to say… All the things, if that's alright.

[164:01] Yup. I think… I think that looking at this, and I can't help but look at it as an urban designer. It's an urban design issue. It's a… it's a transitional… It's a site in a transitional area, which… In urban design, when you look at these things. At the first level, as envelopes, before you even get to anything. Fleshed out or shaped into a building. you use… you use… A kind of a mechanism called gradients. Where you see something happening at one story, And then, for purposes of Growth, or density, or so on, in the adjacent property, you want to be able to jump to 3 stories. But, from an urban design standpoint, you want to transition somehow, and you used that word.

[165:02] You want to… you want to… and this piece is big enough that it's actually gonna act to transition the Broadway frontage of… of your… the main property, or the main house. To the much bigger stuff behind it. And so, that's an issue in the case of this, because it's two units. That's an issue of how the massing is treated, and how you gradient… how you make Some kind of a gradient from one side of the site to the other, and from the front house back to where you can get To its full height. When we get to the discussion of the conditions. I, I think that because… because this was a… Fairly developed design as presented. the conditions I think are gonna have to…

[166:01] I guess, say to explore things. like… sighting first, and I think that needs to be explored, because I think there's a positioning sighting Kind of magic that you could find with this. And then… and then… And then go through a couple of different things. So that brings up the procedural thing, how you want to proceed with this. Marcie, that building, that accessory building, is not contributing. Right? Correct. Okay. Because right now, in the site plan, it's… Close to that one, so they're suggesting that they're not removing that? So, there's. There's no work to the accessory building proposed as part of this application. And that's it, the two-car garage thing? Right. Okay. Yep, it's not included in this application. Yeah.

[167:00] So, I think that when there was conversation She has her hand raised. Is that, like. the FAR, but if you got rid of that, you could… Maybe do, meet some… You know, if you got rid of that accessory building, if it's not contributing, and took it over, you might be able to have… Like, lower the building, like, Chelsea had suggested. Hi, I was just asking. No, but, like, maybe that would help with some of the, the zoning requirements and be able to still have the same square footage for these homes, but, allow for a garage, because I… I do think… The state, like, to have parking where these are is… very critical on Broadway, so I think that that's… I mean… Yeah, I don't know, are we… Is that at the description?

[168:00] discretion of the chair? Yes. Okay. It's your decision. Yeah, well, I think that also… Yeah. Yeah, so if… do you want to speak first, or you want me to have Mara speak? I'll met Morris. Thank you. Okay. Mara, your, hand's raised, would you like to have some comments? We were just kind of wondering if, we would be… open. To possibly getting, like, a conditional approval on the height and mass of the building, and working more with Marcy, who has done an excellent job, by the way. We improved a bunch of stuff, I think, just in our last discussion with her, and work more on the material and the details and some of these transitional elements, I definitely agree about the entry door, and we're happy to work through those things on a more… One-on-one level. I don't know if that's an option, but we just wanted to put it out there that we would be happy to do that.

[169:02] Well, I think we can make, comments. I don't know if there's, like, a condition that we approve the, like, the mass and the scale, but, like, I think we could have comments on it, and then… we could withdraw the application, then you can work with Marcy. Is that… No, you wouldn't have to withdraw it if we approve it with conditions. Well, I don't know if we're… I don't know that we can do that. That's… At some point, I wonder if the list of conditions would be too numerous. It… because… because it's a developed design fixed on the site. we're… we're saying redesign it. I mean, you… It, it, it's, it's kind of… that's what I was saying with the issue of conditions. You can apply conditions to something that… is fixable. The mass and height

[170:00] And then it's floating on the site. I'm… I'm not… yeah. Yeah, if I could, so I have a little bit more insight than when, Chelsea, you asked your question at the beginning. It sounds to me like the majority of the board members are, typically comfortable and would approve the… mass scale location of the building, including the height, its footprint. With perhaps a condition to explore the sighting. site… not siting, but where it's located on the site. I think that that's the biggest threshold of where I would be comfortable Then saying. the rest of it can be reviewed, and in some cases, more effectively reviewed at a committee level, versus if you all were talking about lowering the height of the building, or separating it into two buildings, or changing it substantially. So, you have two venues to… for design review. You have this full landmarks board, which is, they cook it, they present it, and you respond to it, and then the second one is the committee level, which is a bit more iterative, but after it goes to the landmarks board, you all would give

[171:17] clear direction for that committee, committee level. And, to Maro's point of… and appreciate the, kind words, I would say that the committee level is the most appropriate, rather than sending it to staff. We do send, like, final details to staff, but I think this building… even if the height and the footprint doesn't change, could be entirely different than what you all are seeing, and there are very talented perspectives and experts on this board that I think the design would benefit from. So, and I just, like, if we're gonna approve the height, like, I was making more of, like, a… I wasn't getting into the technical

[172:00] like, I… I think that's 35 feet. Like, if we're gonna… 32? So, if we want to approve this height, I was more or less making a general… like, I feel like there's a missed opportunity, because I see it that it's quite larger than the, the, you know, the contributing historic house, but I can't relate it to the house the… the buildings behind it. Like, is the building behind it 42 feet high? Or is it… The neighborhood. Right to the scale of the neighborhood. Well, yeah. Yeah, but I, I, I don't, I don't know. It's an urban… You know what I mean? Like, I'm saying, yeah, I can understand that, but if that building that I'm seeing, it's, like, a yellowish in the back… That's the apartment buildings behind. Right. On the opposite side of the aisle. Yeah, so is that building… The space is at least a story higher than this site. It starts climbing.

[173:01] Right. I mean, I can see that on my Google Maps, but, like, I'm just trying to figure out, like, what the… if we're going to approve the height right now, what is the… where's the transition? Like, is that 40… like, I kind of want to see what that building is back there. I think there's a missed opportunity, because, you know, if we had the transition to come to that building, right? I just want to… With a gradient line. Yeah, like… then I would feel better approving 32 feet, right? Do you see where I'm getting at? We're getting into, like, this little… That's… That's why, yeah, that's why I'm nervous about the idea of approving it. conceptually, Because the concept isn't… Clear enough yet. Yeah, and I think I was… I wanted… Even with conditions. And I was kind of giving Marcy feedback that, like, I'm kind of okay with it being higher than the contributing historic structure, because of the situation where it sits in the back.

[174:09] But I'm also, like, I, you know, I don't… So, I feel like… I guess I'm leaning towards… I don't think… I don't know if I can approve it with a ton of conditions to go back to LDRC. Does that make sense? It does make sense, and I also… Finding a way where you could craft a condition that talked about, reducing the perceived mass and scale in order to… and then you explain your intent, and then require that massing models be provided from… including the surrounding context, so that the… committee members could then be the judge of, is this scale appropriate or not? And if it is not, then you call it back up to the full board rather than making that the next one.

[175:13] I would… I would think that to really… Appropriately set it in terms of where your height transitions occur, you would almost need to take a site section up into the hill some distance, and look at the… look at the property behind it in section, and look at Broadway's elevation in section. But if we're… talking about scale, mass, and where it sits on the site, like, our… you know, I think there's enough… changes that… Michael. I… I was just gonna agree with John about a site section. I'm… I'm leaning towards approval with conditions. I'll just say that. I can… Workday.

[176:00] And I don't know how we get our head around the conditions. That's… yeah. that's, like, I feel like if they're gonna come back with something that is… quite different than what's proposed, then it's… is… is LDRC going to want to bring it up to They might. alternatively, Without… with a… with either a withdrawal. Or, or worst case scenario, disapproval, and another year goes by, without this instruction being somewhat clear. I think the next go-round is another shot in the dark a little bit. But if I understand, with a withdrawal, they could be in LDRC immediately. Marcy, is that right? That would… If, if the… if… If the proposal is withdrawn, Can they start at LDRC with their revisions?

[177:04] No, because it's a new freestanding construction over 340 square feet, so it has to come to the Landmarks Board, and then the other piece, which hasn't come from the applicants, but that the board's mentioned, is if demolition of the existing building is part of the solution. That requires a public hearing, because it's demolition. But, again. Not requested by the applicant, not proposed as part of this, but in terms of levels of review, the threshold is demolition or new freestanding construction over 340 square feet. What if we conditionally approve the 3,400 square feet, would that put them into LDRC? Like, I don't know how to… I was trying to figure out, like, if we take out, then it could go to LDRC with some conversations about it. Yes, so the most conceptual would be to say, we approve the construction of an approximately 2,600 square foot building on this site. Yeah. And then it goes to DRC.

[178:06] I think that's better. And withdrawing and having to start over with basically the same guidance. Right. Then it goes to LDRC, and then there could be some conversations there, and then we've all five seen it. And when it goes to LDRC… Although it won't be the five of us. Well, I know, but there'll be two out of the five, but we've already seen it, and we all have discussion, hopefully, on it. I think that this is a fortunate situation, that it's the first one of these, and I think we owe it to… this… I can support a conceptual approval. with the condition, go to LDRC. Yeah. With… some… set of explorations that we can ask for tonight, because we need to do this, and I think it's valuable to the… To this ordinance to test it through on something.

[179:03] Madam Chair. I'm very curious about what the applicant has to say, since he's been standing at the screen. I'm not… I'm looking across the board, so, no, it's… yeah. I was just gonna say, I mean, part of the problem, is the zoning. regulations in the backside here. This current, actually utilizes BoltPlane. And it utilizes, you know, solar shadows, and it utilizes sideline setbacks, and all that… all the things with zoning. In other configurations that we'd tried, we couldn't establish that. So that's one of the reasons that it became this. And one of the main issues with the parking, and not being able to drop it back, is without removing the current garage. That comes in, and it parks… If you're heading north.

[180:00] so it goes in front of the two other garages. So, we would need to, you know, stack the garages next to each other, To be able to come on in off of the alley without blocking each other. Okay, so that was one of the major issues, but I mean… I am totally for a long list of conditions. Because we… we have to move… we have to move forward, and this is, like you said, the first thing going through here, and I think we have to establish you know, what can be done on the… on the site. In accordance with the family-friendly, vibrant neighborhoods. Yeah. It is. Yeah, and we also have to be careful, because… This would be the first one, and we also want to do it with the due diligence to… to… to… not… Make this,

[181:01] You know, we want to honor the historical character, and we don't want this to be a… like a… you know, a standard moving forward. So we have to be… we have to do the due diligence that way, and… and make sure that we do all our checks and balances, because this is something new. And so, I think we owe it to you, and we owe it to the city. to other parts, so that, you know, I'm sorry, the test case, as somebody had mentioned before, but, and I… I… I do really think… I love the density in this area, so I applaud you for, like, wanting to put it here, so… you know, keep moving forward, and I… I think that the conditions I mean, I like Marcy's idea of that we have the condition, so it kind of… Allows you to go back to LDRC. with some. Right, right. I mean, you can see that we had… we had 2 days to actually look at it, and you can see that we did some things that actually

[182:01] Make it look less tall. And I know you can't look at that, but yeah. Okay, but I'm gonna let. Okay, can't look at it. Yeah, I wonder if we want to start making a list of condi- like, if there's any conditions we all agree on? That we can start giving more guidance than just, we approve with conditions that aren't… we haven't decided on. I think… Yeah, yeah. I think start with siting, location on the site, and exploration of removing the existing accessory building. And… I think that I… I actually think that… some… some exploration of how the massing… how the two sides to the mass engage needs to be undertaken. You may want to slip those further apart, you may want to

[183:07] open them. You may want to do things like that, but I think we should see in the context. I think that's item B. Can you see that from here? Yeah, explore. Is it… okay. So, rel… She added some stuff. I have a… Another slide where the text will be a little Okay. Okay. No, this is… I… I would like to… Maybe not amend that, and maybe this is another condition, and it… I was going to mention this earlier, and I… I think it's a response to, Renee, your… your comments about the… the sort of composition of the massing, and… and I know this is going to sound like Here's the technical guy talking about something, but there is a… a hyphen roof. that is connecting the two main gables, and in one case, because of the vertical shift, it… the peak, or the ridge of that hyphen roof, lands below the ridge of the main gable. In the other case, it is at the same elevation, and it's a little…

[184:16] that increases the bulk feeling of the mass. And so I think… and I know it's a nuance, but I think it would really, really help if there was an adjustment made to a shallower slope of that hyphen roof, I'm gonna call it that as the connector, but at least at the ridge line of that. allow the two pieces to be more distinctive? Because right now, with it being at the same elevation of the lower. I think that could be expanded to an E that would need to expand. explore. Got that. Explore the height and pitch of the roofs, and configuration. I think the main gables are fine. I think it's the connecting hyphen roof that would need to be explored with respect to reducing the bulk of the…

[185:14] So should I… yeah, I think… So what you just did is what I would like… It would encourage all, so the, the condition that you just said was specific in terms of, revise the design of the hyphen, and then you said so that the bulk of the roof is lessened and the gable roofs are distinct. we can wordsmith that, but the point was, you started with the revision, and then you put the intent, and that intent is going to help the LDRC interpret these in weeks or a month from now, so… Are you saying I did a good job? You did a great job, and if the other conditions could follow that, so you say the thing and then why, that'll help us. Well, excuse me a sec.

[186:00] After that, and it was… Yeah, so I need the same. Okay, go right ahead. Can we have a break? Yeah, why not two breaks? Okay. Oh, I don't think staff will mind if they're… Okay, they're working on something, and… A little bit of a… Do you… Renee, do you want to announce it and say we'll reconvene at 915? That's 4 minutes. 9.15? Okay. There's a two-person line. At the bathroom.

[187:05] Dude, that's the outline. Things are wrong. They should, but really huge development. The two quasi-judicial, yourselves and Pliny Bird? That's how you go longer, because you actually have to make. Their boards just talk about stuff.

[188:24] Well, no, that was… of those other 40s that I've been here. Sorry.

[191:55] Okay. Oh.

[192:00] Sorry, will you bring us back into order? Yep. Gotta call us back. Okay, I'm calling us back to order. Thank you. Yes. So the way that we approach our design guideline analysis is based on how the design guidelines are structured, and I find it's a helpful kind of framework to address and might be helpful for the conditions. And so, there's four main areas. One starting with the site and setting is anything you want to add a condition about the setbacks, orientation, spacing, or distance between buildings. It would also be where the building's located on the site. The second one would address mass and scale, and that could be conditions that talk about the height, the form, mass, size, scale, or overall proportion. And then addressing the key building elements, if that's the dormers, windows, doors, porches, etc. And then it goes more granular into detail about the materials and details, about the scale, proportion, texture, finish,

[193:05] material and color of the design. So, you've hit on a couple of them already, but we could bring this up to reference if, as a framework. And then I just have one comment, to Michael's comment about the, The… the roof? And the… what did you call that? The hyphen roof. So, for me, it would be good to see, like, a section through there, because, you know, we talk about the height there, but it's like… there's not any usable area in that attic space. I don't know, right? So, I mean, not that I can say that, but you could bring down the… the… the ridge. you could bring down that ridge, and then those dormers would actually be dormers, you know? Yeah. Because then they, you know, like, then the…

[194:03] You know, maybe on that one side, the… the… You bring down the ridge, and then you bring down the top plate, and then maybe you have some dormers along that… along the south side, and then that maybe reads better with… to the transition between the contributing house to the other. And I think that the, and I don't know how to say this, but… and… we're getting in the weeds, maybe, but the mass, for me, because we're talking about the height of the structure, like, when you have those two together, I feel like you accentuate when you go up like that, where, like, you could create it to be one one roof, And not two roofs next to each other, and that might… not. That might create a lower mat… like, a lower height, and that might feel not so vertical, more squatty.

[195:00] But I don't… I… Well, that's… that's… yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. I don't know that… I don't know that I have an issue with the verticality. I think it's… I actually think the more the roofs are gonna… work as, as maybe a… a consolidated mass, the bulkier everything would be, so I kind of like that it's… a little bit delicate, and if that… I don't know that I have a problem with the verticals part, but… But I… I hear what you… I totally hear what you're saying. I… when you were talking about bringing the ridge down, you were meaning… Of that roof, the hyphen roof. like, all of them, because, like, the two on the side, like, what's actually in that space? Well, I think based on what I could see of the dormers, there's livable space there. I mean, we have, like, 10-foot ceilings in the middle? But the… well, the building section would be helpful. I mean, that's fine. I… I do…

[196:01] Sorry, I… I… based on when I left, Marcy's comment about the… say what to explore, and then… and maybe the why? Or… and the… this addresses, I think, your comment about the verticality and the height, and I'm… I'm looking for… is it A? Is that where we're talking? How can we address this notion of a site section and… and how this bill that demonstrates… Yeah. So that the section from the… from the rear buildings, that's what you're asking, is like a site section from the rear building, this building… A site section all the way through the alley to show the relationship of the height of this building transitioning en masse from the historic structure that faces Broadway to the rear yard, to the alley, to the three-story massing that justifies…

[197:04] Yeah, I think it would really… actually help their kids. So I don't know where… Where that goes. Yes. I'm just saying stuff. Yeah, well, no… But that's what we all… I'm trying to summarize what we're interested in seeing. and… And go back to Marcy's, like, the place on the site. So, I'm okay with the location on the site per where it is from the historic building. I think from the accessory building, it's hard… I think that needs to be explored a little bit more, because it's like. Is… are they gonna touch? Like, so then it's one building, so… and then… so I think that needs to be explored, so I don't know how to say that. Disappoint… That's the shifting building plane. Dean Belima. location further to the side. It's disappointing that the… that that existing garage was not shown in the… in any of the modeling.

[198:01] to show that relationship, because, I mean, we saw photographs of that perspective, and then we're… you're forced to use our imagination for how that contributed, but the existing building, the historic building that faces Broadway, is modeled. I think the entire site should have some degree of modeling so that it can show the true relationship of all the components, site components and structures, and how they are in balance or not with each other. And I do think that that building looks like it touches Or it's really, like, there's 6 inches gap. And there's the 3-foot rule. With fire code, anyway. And then… The point of a building this. Do we touch on the balcony part? Yes, so my next piece of advice is that this gets harder as the night gets later, so… Oh, really? So, stay, like, we can do this. We will be looking at these conditions if approved. We will be interpreting them, and it could be weeks, sometimes months, depending on the applicant's turnaround of materials.

[199:08] all of that. So, I would recommend let's identify… the conditions, and then wordsmith them, because otherwise we're gonna have two really nicely wordsmithed conditions, and then, like, spaghetti on the wall. So, if we could go through maybe that framework, but it seems like one is providing additional materials to demonstrate mass and scale. Is that last word in the sentence, right, meant to be west? Yes, thank you. to the west. Yes. Thank you. So, right now we have, provide a site section through the alley to show the relationship of the height of this building, of the building transition. From the mass of the building facing Broadway to the alley and the buildings to the west. Provide massing models, so that they're not super detailed, but they're massing models, of the buildings on the site and in the surrounding context to demonstrate the scale of the proposed building.

[200:09] Then we get into site and setting. Explore shifting, and explore isn't required. to meet that condition, it's just that applicants would need to demonstrate that they looked into it. Explore shifting building location further into the site, and removal of existing accessory building. would love a why or a clarification on that one, Because otherwise, if they say, we thought about it, we say, okay, you met that condition. So you want a why? we want that? Yeah, if… possible. We're shifting, building a location for them. Site removal of existing. Building. Wow, that's you guys. Well, I was just saying, she wants us to say a why, so, like, I feel like exploring the shifting building location further into the site and removal of the existing

[201:05] Accessory building is so… they can… So that the building can move back. To provide… from the historic structure. I like that. There you go, thank you. it. Isn't it getting closer to the historic structure? Not if you remove the garage. That then goes into the rear yard setback where it can't be located. But it could go to the north. Well, yeah, that… Sorry. Applicant was saying that the solar fence analysis pushed them where they're located, too, so that may be an issue. Yeah, and always a challenge not to design from the dais, knowing that they have, spent months on this with all of the different zoning codes. So I would say, maybe explore shifting the building location And then don't say where, just say what you're looking to achieve by shifting the building location from where it's proposed.

[202:04] So, that may be. Explore shifting building location to provide relief. From this trip. Or a transition from the… That's true. Yeah, provide a transition for the story. That's right. From the… Contributing historic building. to… I think you're there. I think. Thanks, sir. Period. But you could take out further into the site. Yep. just at… Explore shifting the building location. To provide a transition from the contributing building, yes. If we want to… because we say the removal of the existing building, if we say that here, and they want to remove the building. If we… if we suggest they remove the building, then they don't have to come back. They do. You can't add… you can't add things. From the United States. Yeah, okay, sorry. Okay, yep, then I'm okay with it. I just was trying to help.

[203:02] Yep, and, I took out the explore removing of that building. Would you like me to put it back in? No, I think that if they don't want to remove it, that's fine. Okay, it would be a sign. Okay, so then we've done site and setting. Is there anything… that you would like to put in there about the setbacks, the orientation of the building, spacing and distance between buildings that hasn't already been covered. I guess. Great. So then we would move to the mass and scale. So that's talking about the height, the form, the mass, the size, scale, and overall proportion. Which I think we're asking for the site section. That is only a drawing, not an outcome or a revision to the design. So, that's still a condition. But I, but I think. I think we're saying that we're comfortable with the height. Yeah. Well, that's the majority, I think we are.

[204:02] Or we could take a straw poll. It… Well, I think that the conversation is we're not… we don't… we wouldn't not approve it, but if the site section showed that this building behind it was… 20 feet, and this was, like, a tower. You might get more height out of that. I can see that… I would like to say that I don't think that's the case, so I'm okay with the height. but I'm also… Not wanting them to go additionally higher. Right. Okay, so let's make that a condition. So… Or above 30? Well, they're getting close. to the limit, anyhow. So… Maybe retracting what I said before, that it's just a document, the way the condition is written, it says, provide a site section through the alley to show the relationship of the height of the building

[205:01] You know, in relation to the ones in the… surrounding area, plus the massing models. And so, right now, we have some massing models so that we think we know what the mass and scale of that building would be. But this would confirm or better demonstrate how the building would fit or not fit into its setting. Yeah. So… I think there's a way to say, you know, provide these additional massing models and, site sections to demonstrate that the scale, the mass and scale is appropriate with the surrounding context. Then, you would have the visuals to say, yes, it does, or you could say, oh, now that I see it in context with the other buildings, I think it should go back to the full board. Yeah. Okay, so give me a second to… Write that down. Excellent.

[206:01] Is this what it's like to gift. Earth. You have… you don't have children? No, screw you, kid? Can you see me as a mother? Yay. Okay. Way easy. Okay. I did push this. Hey, hey, you guys agree. And therefore, we are also hungry. May I combine A and B? Yes. Oh. Sean's quick. They're both essentially psychedel. Okay. Great. Okay, so then I'm going to also combine it with… Now newbie.

[207:04] Okay, So now we are… so mass and scale seems to be covered, acknowledging that the scale of a building also is related to key building elements, like windows and doors. So, for mass and scale, we have the condition to provide the Site exploration, demonstrating that it fits in with the proposed… with the surrounding context. And then… Explore shallower… do you still want to keep this one or edit it? Explore shallower slope of the roof hyphen so the gables are more distinct and the perceived bulk of the roof is reduced. Explore lowering the ridge of the hyphen roof to create a transition from the Building to the buildings to the east. transition… The historic building.

[208:01] And… Those are two explorations. I like it. Okay, moving along to key building elements. Would you like to make any conditions about the dormers, the windows, the doors, or porches? Oh, sorry. I have revised design to emphasize building entry and match traditional size of door. Explore adding porches. How's that? Create, explore creating a sense of entry. That's… I… I just think that… Emphasize building entry. says enough, personally. Right, because they will have to. Do a site plan. for this. Okay. At some point. Okay. Explore things like gorges and outdoor areas.

[209:03] So the… so we're getting into, not exploring, but actually revising the design to emphasize the building entry. Yes. Period. Delete the row. And I just… I just want to say, I've not used the word porch, because I… I don't know that that's a necessity to emphasize the entry, particularly with as clean as the forms are currently. Would you like to add something about giving the building an orientation through the entryway, or just emphasizing the entrance? Okay. Okay. Dormers? Windows… Dormers, let's say, don't… would you like to add anything about the dormers? The only thing with dormers is there is the guideline implies the normers should. Not hit the main ridge, but… Get below it.

[210:03] But I don't know that we want to… This is a contemporary design type. We want to impose this. Yeah, well… Yeah. Actually, they are. Because they're shed for them. So, the staff, analysis recommendation is that the shed roof form is appropriate and traditional, but the scale of the dormers as they go 17 feet down the building is not appropriate. But it's up to the board to make it a condition to revise the Size of the dormers, or to leave them as is. I think that… What we really… Are talking about is the… the size… And pattern of… of the windows, and… Less so the dormer form. Right, in the dormer. How the dormers expressed in the wall?

[211:03] I don't think. I would… I would agree, and I… I think there's a com… we already have a… a, what are we… condition, that addresses kind of the… the divisions of the windows. This is a great slide, actually, because, while I wouldn't expect the dormers to kind of… You know, they're getting their inspiration from those shed dormers of the historic building, and then being articulated in a contemporary way, I think that the division of the windows reads more commercial than it should. from a scale perspective. So I think if we were to make a… and there already is a condition, I think we just need to nuance it a little bit to… s… to… Okay. Ex… you know… But you could, you could talk about the…

[212:01] The scale, like you just said, the… Reducing the scale? Exploring the scale of the dormers? I'm just specifically talking about the window division, like, the Munton and Mullion divisions could be reduced per G. That they… that they have a more… traditional residential. I mean, all the windows could have a more traditional… True. Like, I think that would be… create the. portion, maybe. the window. Of the… So currently, it reads, reduce the size of windows and revise design to a more traditional residential window and wall pattern. Right, but on one hand, we were saying that we felt like there was too much opaqueness to the wall.

[213:00] So those… those dormers and those… Or you could have… more windows, but we. We just don't want them, like. Right. That's what I mean by that it's the patterning and the proportion of the Muntins that could be revised to reflect a more residential scale. of life. Here is… here is glass, here is wall, here's glass, where in a traditional style, there can be a lot more wall… there can be a lot more Windows, But the… how they are patterned out… Could be nuanced not to be so… yeah, here we go again. Great. What? designed to be a more traditional window pattern. I mean, I think we're gonna give. Okay. Winter's water. Can you help me with E, which is reduce the size of windows and revise design to a more traditional residential window-to-wall pattern?

[214:01] We have just been doing that. Yes, but could you give me the language? What was that one? You didn't catch any of that? So, here's what I said. Kate group. member. it… I don't know, the reduce is where I would go. I would say to revise the proportion of windows And to revise… Munton… patterns to reflect. more traditionally residential scale. So you're okay with, like, a large opening within the wall, as long as the muntons are at a scale that's smaller? No. That I am. Okay. I think when we get to the point where the architects disagree, it means that we've gone too far. Well, I'm just… I'm trying to just make it… make it generic in a way.

[215:03] I think we want to pull back from over-prescribing. Yeah, I think that they could revise the proportion. You know… I think that makes sense, revise the proportion. Right. And explore more punched windows. revise the… I mean, you know, or something like that. Of the windows, and the number of windows. No, I don't know. Revised. Simple, revised proportion of the windows. To be more traditional with residential window wall patterns. So… Perfect. It was just so jeez. that's… Sounds good, because there's a lot of ways to do it. Yeah, I… what if we simplified it with revised proportion of windows to reflect more traditional residential scale? Yes, yes, yes. Yes. Sold. Okay. I'm just gonna say traditional, because… So, okay, can we… We've.

[216:01] We don't have… we didn't do anything about the dormers. We have one about the windows, we have one about the entry. Porches, it sounds like, not interested in adding a condition there. Is there anything else about those key building elements? I mean, when you say not the dormers, I mean, we're talking about the windows and the dormers as well. That's true. But the dormer that goes down… The form of it is… It's fine. the drummer. Okay. I mean, that's a… it's a redesign to… to… to completely revisit that… dormer form. And what's inside? Isn't that what we're asking? Anyways, I think it only projects… 8 inches from the building. I don't think it's a major redesign, but, But I'm here to crash conditions. What I don't like about the current dormer is that I think it does do a commercial feel, and then I don't want that to be replicated throughout the historic district.

[217:01] So I think they could nuance the dormer to meet the guidelines. Better without losing the design of the building. Like, you can actually meet the guidelines of the dormer. Of what the guidelines of the Mapleton Hill District wants for a dormer. Yes. So, but I don't know how to say that. proposed condition that the board could Take or leave would be revised dormers to a residential scale. Sure. Explore revising? explore. Yeah, I think… explore. Because then, great. And then, I think… Revised materials to be more consistent with the guidelines for the… Conditional, residential. religious market. I'm gonna… Get a little bit more.

[218:01] consistency or compatibility. to be consistent… to be consistent… Right. …with the… and is there something in… Scale… Proportion, texture, finish, and color that you'd like to call out, rather than just, like, more Aligned with the guidelines. I don't think texture was an issue. And I don't think, black and white finish was an issue, but color, scale, and proportion, maybe. Yeah. But I think he just wanted to direct them to be more consistent with the guidelines. Okay. For that district. Okay, I, are there other conditions that you all would like to… Consider before maybe we have a motion. And there's also, we've got halfway through the app.

[219:01] We're going to zoom. I don't know what to have. I know, it was dramatic. She was. Rounding down. 30%. Should've drowning down. Oh, boy. Oh, no, it won't. Okay. Yeah, eat it, no. Oh, no, no, no, we're gonna… Okay. So… We're almost there. And, why don't we… Okay. These need to be numbers. Okay. When it was… Excellent. Alright. coming back here. So, the conditions of approval, I'm going to read them through, knowing that the motion maker will also read them. So, this would be a motion to,

[220:09] Sean? This would be a motion to approve… conditionally approve an application for… an approximately 2,600 square foot building at this address, subject to these conditions. Prior to submitting a building permit application and final issuance of the LAC, these, conditions will be reviewed by the landmark. Design review committee to ensure that the final design is… Consistent. with the general design guidelines and the Mapleton Hill design guidelines and the intent of the approval. There are 7. Provide massing models in a site section to demonstrate the mass and scale of the proposed building. That… To demonstrate that the mass and scale of the proposed building is compatible with the surrounding area.

[221:01] Explore shifting the building location to provide a transition from the contributing building. Explore a shallower slope of the roof hyphen so the gable roofs are more distinct and the perceived bulk of the roof is reduced. Explore lowering the ridge of the hyphen roof to create a transition between the historic building and the building to the east. Revise the design, To emphasize the building entry. Maybe that should be plural, since there's two. Explore revising dormers to a residential scale. Revise the proportion of windows to reflect traditional residential scale. And finally, revise materials to be consistent with the design guidelines. I would also recommend putting the last condition that we usually do about all the other details, submitting all the other details about hardscaping and lighting, etc, so that

[222:01] we cover everything, but I have to go back and get that. R… Are there any other conditions that I… that you would all like to add? Okay. I'm almost done. Have cards… No, I've accessed. Oh, you're giving me… I'm waiting for her. Wait, wait. I'm still working out. Thank you. But no, it's not gonna impact. Do you want to add anything about the materiality beyond that it's consistent with the guidelines about the windows? themselves? No. Okay, great, that's covered. You're technical.

[223:00] The sound here. Oh, sorry, in our staff memo, we said that additional review is required to determine whether the composite material that's proposed for the windows is consistent with the guidelines, but I think the condition covers it. Okay. Okay, congratulations. Oh my god. Who would like to read this novel? Go, Chelsea. My punishment. Do we have… do we have a. Motion. I omit. make a motion. I move that the Landmarks Board conditionally approve… should I read this one… conditionally approve the application for a landmark alteration certificate to construct a new approximately 2,600 square foot primary building at 2439 Broadway, a contributing property in the Mapleton Hill Historic District pursuant to Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981, as shown on application received November 21st, 2025, finding that the proposal meets the standards

[224:05] for issuance of a landmark alteration Certificate in Chapter 9-11-18BRC 1981, and is… inconsistent? And it's consistent. It says inconsistent? That was… And is consistent with the general design guidelines for Boulder's historic districts and individual landmarks, providing stated conditions are met. I second that. Doctor? Okay. Oh. Do I? He said we don't. Chris said… We do that for you. Thanks. So, this one is a… was a bit more involved, because the last conditions were not didn't do them on the fly like we did this one. So I would just suggest that staff put, that Marcie puts the conditions of approval up on the screen so that everyone can look at that, and then Chelsea can just reference these conditions that are up on the screen that Marcie just read, and she doesn't have to read them through again, but just so the record is clear, which conditions were all.

[225:09] Talking about. Yes, the conditions that we just labored over for… An hour or more. And that are on the screen. Is that it is? Sorry, a second? So now it's ready for a second, if there is a second. I second it. Well, let's do a roll call vote. Michael. Aye. John? Right. Chelsea? Aye. Abby? Aye, and I say aye. The motion passes. 5. to zero. Marci, can you go on to the next steps in the process? So, with that, that is an approved

[226:01] So with that, that's an approval for, the Landmark Alteration Certificate. And, that means that on February 4th, the City Council will have this item on their consent agenda, as a… or on their call-up agenda, if they choose to call up the decision. After that point, you're welcome to, come to the Landmarks Design Review Committee and work through these conditions. So, you're welcome to, submit the revised designs before February 4th, but the risk could be that Council may call it up, but it's, that doesn't happen very often. So, Thank you for all of your time. Oh, I forgot to say, if Council doesn't call it up, then it goes to the LDRC. If it does call… get called up, there's a hearing. But then, more likely than we'll schedule the LDRC review of the conditions where two board members and staff will review the revised plans based on the conditions. Once approved, we'll issue the LAC, which you'll submit for your building permit.

[227:11] Right, so… Thank you. Can I say something? Yes? Thank you for your time, and Marci, really great job on navigating this and on the fly with all these changes. But you guys, I think this is something to sort of celebrate, because this is the first time we've done this. It did take us longer. I have no idea what's gonna… no, I'm kidding. But I'm looking so forward to this project moving forward, and congratulations, and I think it's cool that… that… We came to this decision. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you very much. We appreciate all your input. So let's move. Now we get to move on to matters.

[228:00] You just didn't play. Oh my goodness. We're… Oh. been withdraw. We got 8? we've got… 7 minutes of Marcy to give us at least the matters. I mean. keep it short, today. I had some other things on a list that I… Can't find right now. So, one, Thank you to the board members, John and Abby and Renee all attended the open house on Monday. Great showing for the Landmarks Board. About 50 people, 50, interested community members attended. We spoke to a handful of folks who might be interested in applying for the board, so… There's a flyer now that I'll send out. Send it to your friends, send it to anyone you think might be interested. Landmarks Board and other Board and Commission applications are due January 25th. And then there are interviews, and then appointments are made on March 5th.

[229:04] The next thing I wanted to say is congratulations on submitting a letter to Council, during a power outage, and, really appreciate all that work. I will circulate it if I didn't already, so that you all have it. The next thing, the, Saving Places Conference, which a handful of us are signed up for is going to be February 11th, 12th, and 13th in Denver at the Doubletree on, by Hilton. And… looks like some really great sessions there. And then I am working, we collectively are working on a year in review, to kind of track, what we did last year, and I had hoped to have it tonight, but I think we're all kind of grateful that I don't. So I will…

[230:02] email it, but I would like to tell you that the process improvements for the LDRC cut the LDRC cases in half last year. So, round of applause towards Chelsea, but to all of you, phenomenal, phenomenal. So, that is in a year that we saw a 30% increase in LAC applications. So, your volunteer time… board time commitment on the LDRC would have been even higher, so those two things paired together And we found it pretty manageable to shift those to staff. So, with that, Chair, I think we're ready to adjourn. That's all I have. Okay, so meeting is adjourned. Beautiful. 50.

[231:00] 56. Thank you. She buys me a beer if it's before time.