December 3, 2025 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:02] The December Landmarks Board Meeting is called to order. Welcome to the December 3rd, 2025 Landmarks Board Meeting. It's… 602. Marci will review the virtual meeting decorum. Alright. Let's see… Am I sharing my screen? Not yet. Okay. So sorry. Hmm. Alright! 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.

[1:05] The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld during this meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, or other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. And participants may raise their hand to speak during open comment and public comment periods during the hearings. Individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted online. Here are a couple shortcuts for those, wishing to speak tonight. When it's the time for open comment, or public comment, or the applicant, presentation, you will use the, raise hand function, Alt-Y for a PC, Option-Y for a Mac, or Star 9 if you're calling in on a phone.

[2:07] Talk to you, Renee. And 4. The recording of this meeting will be available in the records archive and on the YouTube within 28 days of the meeting. We will do a roll call and brief introductions. Michael? Michael Ray's Board Member, Vice Chair. Ravi? Abby Daniels, Landmarks Board Member. John? John Decker, A member of the Landmarks Board? Chelsea? Chelsea Castellano, member of the Landmarks Board. And I am Renee Golovic, Chair of the Landmarks Board. We have a quorum this evening. We know that the people who are here to participate may have some strong emotions about these projects. We want to hear you and have found it more productive if you are speaking to persuade us rather than to berate us, staff or the applicant.

[3:11] As with the regular Landmarks Board meetings, you may only speak at the appropriate time during the public hearing. Requests to speak outside of those times are denied. We request that the members of the board, the public, who wish to speak, let us know by raising their virtual hand. As a board chair, I will call for a roll call vote on any motions made. Does anyone have any changes or alterations to the November 5th meetings? As I see, there are none. I approve that we approve these minutes. Do we have a second? I'll second. Thank you, John. Seconds the motions. We'll do a roll call. John?

[4:02] Aye. Michael? Aye. Chelsea? I believe I should abstain since I wasn't there. Oh, you're right. So, no vote. Abby? I… And I… We'll have… now let's move to public participation for the non-agenda items. This is to speak to topics other than the public hearings. We'll start with the the… the virtual participants. As a reminder, we no longer swear people in for this open comment. If anyone in person wants to speak, please sign up with Amanda and raise your hand. Amanda, do we have any speakers? Yes, thank you, Renee. Looks like we have a couple of hands raised so far. So, as Renee mentioned, if this is your chance to speak on anything real…

[5:01] unrelated to the public hearing tonight, and you'll have 3 minutes, and I will give you permission to speak. So we'll go ahead and kick off with Patrick O'Rourke, followed by Len Siegel. Patrick, you should be able to unmute yourself, and I'll give you 3 minutes on the timer. Thank you. My name's Patrick O'Rourke, and I'm not gonna swear in. 3 or 4 items I'd like to touch base with. that are… one is, I'm just going to start with, last month, you heard from Tim Plass, our president from Historic Boulder, regarding site plan reviews, and the fact that a lot of the processes included I mean, a lot of the process of development in Boulder is starting with the demolition process, and I'd like to have that conversation continued more than anything else, because we need to make sure that

[6:00] Houses and buildings of substantial significance, are critically looked at, and that they're not torn down Because the developer decides that they want to move forward and get the landmark status off their back, so that's… for a conversation in a minute. Number two is the letter to the City Council. Thank you very much for adding windows, and I think that's very important, even more for commercial buildings than it is for residential, and I'll tell you why. I used to own 5 commercial buildings, and In the community I lived in, I certified 3 of the homes, and I didn't certify any of the buildings because those buildings, the windows, I needed to replace them, and restore them back to their 1901 time period. However, I had to do it with thermopane steel windows, and they were exact replicas of the way they were built. But they weren't wood, and so that was the argument, and historic Boulder, we… we… Argue quite often about whether

[7:01] Windows should be saved or not, and most of us agree that the Windows should be saved, if not… if possible. And finally, I want to talk about the idea of Not the four particular properties you're going to review tonight, because in my opinion, they're all significant, and they're all historically and architecturally significant, and I won't… I don't have the opportunity to stay on to talk to each one individually. However, the community I came from, if these buildings, and In my wildest dreams, we would never, in my opinion, go against the Presbyterian Home for building those units, or the 60 units I think they want to build on this site. However, I would like to… give them… an idea that what if they're going to build 3 stories of 20 units per floor? What if, through the site review process, they did 4 stories of 15 units?

[8:00] per floor, and save these four beautiful buildings in front, and turn them into also affordable houses. Something to think about. And the final one, and the one I'd like to be able to talk and start the processes. What if these buildings are to possibly be moved? There's a way to have the ordinances written, and I'll go over it with you later, to give variances and allowances or incentives to people who might want to put these properties as ADUs in their backyard, and I think that's a real strong possibility. Thank you. Thanks, Patrick. Okay, great, thank you, Patrick. Last call for anyone else that would like to speak under public participation. Okay, we've got a couple more hands raised. So, first up is, Lenz Sagal.

[9:00] And Lynn, just state your full name. Can you hear me? Yes. Great. This is Leonard Siegel. And I just wanted to give a quick plug for the historic Boulder Homes for the Holidays tour that's going to be happening this weekend for the very first time in the Newlands neighborhood. It's our 39th year of doing, of showcasing historic properties, but never in Newlands. And, the Newland Mansion is going to be featured, on the tour as well, and it's a really rich part of Boulder's history, and it's going to be showcasing how homeowners have determined not to tear down buildings, but to add on to the historic portions of their homes and adapt them for 21st century lifestyles. So, I hope you can help us spread the word, and thank you, that's all I wanted to say.

[10:03] Great, thank you, Leonard. And next up, we've got Lynn Siegel. Lynn, you have 3 minutes. Lynn Siegel, yeah, for starters, I would just suggest that you somehow automate the things that you about pre… you know, before you speak, because you know you're never gonna convince me. You all know you're never gonna convince me how to speak to you. I know I'm 72 years old, I know how I'm gonna speak to you, and that's just the way it is. And… I feel actually insulted by the description of how, you know, if you want to convince us of something, be nice. Well, sorry, I'm not nice, sometimes. And that's just the way I am. And I feel like you aren't being nice to me, telling me how to be. And also.

[11:01] I just don't see the point of reiterating this long statement. You know, I cover 5 city boards, and you need to, if you really want to do something about Boulder and preservation of historic spaces. Water Resources Advisory Board, Open Space Board of Trustees, Transportation Advisory Board, Planning Board, and Landmarks Board. And the other boards, too, if I can get to them, but they conflict. So. In the interest of time, and me having to listen to that all of the time, I feel really insulted having to listen to that over and over and over again. If you just had a thing where I can just click on it. and I'm… I've, you know, given up my rights, then great! That would be much more efficient. I'm sure other cities don't do this. If they do, you tell me about it, but I don't think so, because it's really not very advanced thinking to do that kind of thing. But in any case.

[12:00] What I wanted to bring up is the loss of our cultural spaces and our historic integrity Exemplified last night at the planning board. with the new form-based code, which is outrageous. Not even the person that set the whole thing up with the East Boulder Sub-Community Plan could even deal with the old… her own implications to the plan on the facade of these buildings, for parapets and for… for how the building fits in. Instead, what we got at the Boulder Dinner Theater is a big, ugly box. That's what we got. And that's what the future holds for us in Boulder. If we're letting these houses go down. That's what they're being replaced with. Form-based code, at least on the East Boulder sub-community area. And so, do what you can, but there isn't much left. You know, everywhere, all over town, I go, I don't know this place anymore.

[13:02] And I'm sorry, I guess I'm just too old. Maybe the young people won't care anyway, because they never knew it. But that's the whole point of preservation. So, those are my two cents. Dent. Great, thank you, Lynn. Oh, great. I'm not seeing any other hands raised at this time. Give it just a second. I think that's it for public participation. Okay. We'll move on to the discussion of the landmark alteration and demo applications. Marci, do we have any pending applications for discussion? We do not. We don't have any pending stays of demolition, currently, so unless the board has, questions about other applications, we can move on.

[14:00] Okay, so we'll move to public hearings. Tonight we have public hearings of four applications to demolish non-landmarked buildings over 50 years old, pursuit to Section 91123, the Boulder Revised Code of 1981, and under The proceedings prescribed by Chapter 1 through 3, Quasi-Judicial Hearings, Boulder Revised Code of 1981. Item 5A, an application to demolish a building constructed in 1927 at 976 Arapaho Avenue. Item 5B, an application to demolish a building constructed in 1921, at 986 Arapaho Avenue. Item 5C, an application to demolish a building constructed in 1922 at 9… 90 Arapaho Avenue. And item 5D, an application to demolish a building constructed in 1927, and an accessory building constructed in 1950 at 1004 Arapahoe Avenue.

[15:11] The owner of all four of these properties is Boulder Presbyterian Senior Housing, Inc, and the applicant is Shop Works Architecture, represented by Tom Odinson, if I said it right? Apologies if I did not. I'd like to acknowledge that these are four separate hearings. However, because the properties are adjacent to each other and under the same ownership, we're going to streamline this public hearing format. The owners and applicants agree to this modified format, and there are a few things to note. There will be one single staff presentation. There will be one… there will be a single applicant presentation with a maximum allotted time of 20 minutes. There will be a single opportunity for public comment, which will follow the applicant's preservation. You will have 6 minutes

[16:03] Each, and your comment should address all four applications. Adjusting these times requires a motion, so I move to increase the amount. Renee, I'm so sorry to interrupt. Typically, you're on the right track about making a motion for adjusting the public comment time, I do want to bring to your attention that we have about 30 people in the audience right now, which, minus the applicants, might be close to an hour and a half of public comment at 6 minutes each, and so the board can set What that time is, and in the past, if we've had more than 12 speakers, in a typical public hearing, the board has chosen to reduce the time from 3 minutes to 2 minutes. So I'm happy to offer a recommendation, but I think, just wanted to bring that to your attention in terms of facilitating the meeting.

[17:03] So we're thinking, maybe not adjusting the time, because there's 30 applicants. Okay. it's completely up to you and to the board. I would recommend extending the time a little bit, you know, since they are combined and those speaking to the item are asked to address all four applications, but I would suggest maybe 4 or 5 minutes each, just so you can get through the, through the meeting in a timely manner. Okay, so, I look to my members of the board, does anyone have a strong opinion on A, do we want to extend the time, or B, do we want to put in, 5 or 4 minutes? Chelsea has her hand raised. I think since… if we have 30 people signed up to speak, it would make sense to…

[18:03] Have comments be about 3 minutes. Maximum? Okay, John or Abby? I think that… I think that it might be… Reasonable, because there are 30 people. to consider reducing the public comment time to 2 minutes. However, the applicant's time For their presentation, and their answer time should not be reduced. Okay. And sorry, I do want to clarify that there's 30 people in the audience, probably, 24 not associated with the applicant group. I don't… some may be here just to observe, but, but just wanted to Give you a sense of the audience. Go… Just… just to clarify, Marcy, it's…

[19:00] 24 are for the… are with the applicant group. Oh, no, 24 not. Are not with the applicant group. Okay, so there's a potential of 24 people that would like to speak on this motion, and… You could… Also do, like, a poll to see how many people wanted to speak, and then have that. And of course, not everyone uses the full-time, But… but it's a maximum. Abby or Michael, do you have a sense? Since we don't have really an accurate count of how many people would be speaking. I still think that most people, and I know some people have probably prepared remarks, but I do feel… I kind of agree with Chelsea about looking at around the 3-minute mark. Because I also know that… that people can get some very salient points across, and the gist of their remarks in that time frame.

[20:09] Marci, are we allowed to extend people's time, during the conversation? Like, if we feel like we… no, I… No. Okay. I would suggest treating all of the people who want to speak on the public hearing tonight, give them all the same amount of time. Yeah. Okay. They can use it if they'd like to, or not. But we don't want to give, like. One person extra time, because… Then, that could be kind of improper. Favoritism. Okay, so if we do, 3 minutes, we're at 72 minutes. If we do, 4 minutes, we're at 96 minutes for that portion. So, I, I think that, I mean, it is for a topic.

[21:10] Well, we normally do 3 minutes. I'm not even sure why we would talk about extending it. beyond that. Wait. That's my opinion. Okay. So let's… let's not… I'm hearing a poll with the Landmarks Board not to extend the 3 minutes. So, we will not make a motion, and we will not extend the time for each public comment. During the deliberations, we need to be clear about, can I continue, Marci? Okay. During the deliberations, we need to be clear about what applications we're discussing, and each application requires a separate motion. How we vote on one application does not influence how we vote on the others.

[22:00] With that, I'd like to move to the staff presentations. Alright, thank you. Get my windows settled here. Alright, good evening, Landmarks Board. I'm Marcy Grewing, Principal Historic Preservation Planner, and I affirm that I will tell the truth. This is a quasi-judicial hearing, And so I will go through, the process, but I will also pause for Claire, who is co-presenting with me, to also affirm that she will tell the truth. Good evening, I'm Claire Brent, Historic Preservation Planner, and I also affirm to tell the truth. Oh, great. And so others who are speaking to this item tonight will be asked to affirm that they're telling the truth, when it is their time to speak. I will now pause.

[23:04] to allow board members to note any ex parte contacts, and as a reminder, Renee and Michael previously reviewed the applications at the Landmarks Design Review Committee on October 8th. So, this would be an opportunity if you've had any conversations with community members, or made a site visit, or had any conversations that are outside the LDRC conversation, or reading the packet. Seeing none, I'll move on. Here's an overview of the process for this evening. We'll start with a staff presentation, followed by board questions. The applicant will then have an opportunity to present, followed by board questions, and then we'll open the public hearing. After all members of the public have made comments, the applicant will have an opportunity to respond to anything that was said. The board will then deliberate. And a motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass. Motions will state findings, conclusions, and recommendation. And finally, a record of this hearing is available in a few days as a video recording, and the official record will be added to the record archive within 28 days, usually sooner.

[24:18] The criteria for review for, these hearings tonight is outlined in the Boulder Revised Code under Chapter 911-23. These are the demolition… these are demolition applications, and the purpose of reviewing demo applications is to prevent the loss of buildings that may have historic or architectural significance by providing time to consider alternatives to demolition. The criteria that can be considered are the eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark, the relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood as an established and definable area. The reasonable condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or repair, although not deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect.

[25:05] As mentioned, each application will be considered individually by the Landmarks Board. How they vote on one application does not influence a vote on the others. And the options for the board tonight are to approve the demolition request, or place the stay of demolition to allow time to consider alternatives. A stay would not exceed 180 days from the day the review fee was paid, and those were paid, on the same day, so the stays… any stays placed, this evening would expire, no later than April 25th, 2026. Here's the application process so far… so far. On September 23rd, the P&DS Planning and Development Services Department received an application, applications to demolish the houses at 976-986-990, and 1004 Arapaho Avenue.

[26:00] On October 8th, the Landmarks Design Review Committee referred the applications to the full Landmarks Board for review, finding probable cause to believe the buildings may be potentially eligible for landmark designation. And on October 27th, the applicant paid the Landmark Board hearing fees. The four properties are located on the south side of Arapahoe Avenue between 11th Street and Lincoln Place, opposite the main branch of the Boulder Public Library. The properties are not within an identified potential historic district. The houses are addressed from west to east as 976 Arapaho, 986 Arapaho, 990 Arapaho, and 1004 Arapahoe Avenue. All four houses are located on the north ends of the lots facing Arapahoe. And the rear of the properties is adjacent to 1050 Arapahoe, which includes the 11-story Presbyterian Manor building and parking lots.

[27:03] The four houses were constructed in the 1920s. 976 Arapaho and 1004 Arapaho at either end were built by Frank Creamer in the same year, and we'll review the architecture and history of each property individually. This area is the ancestral homelands and unceded territory of Indigenous peoples who have traversed, lived in, and stewarded lands in the Boulder Valley since time immemorial. We don't currently know if Indigenous peoples used the natural spring at the center of the property, but they likely did until Marinus Smith bought the land from the federal government in 1868. He sold the area to Frank Weisenhorn and Charles Vodel in 1875, and they opened the city… Boulder City Brewery using the water from the spring. Boulder City Brewery became Crystal Springs Brewery and Ice Company around 1897.

[28:02] To orient you, the ice house in the bottom left of this drawing is approximately the current location of the house at 986 Arapaho, and facing Arapahoe Avenue. William Reeks purchased the Crystal Spring Brewing Company in 1916. He demolished most of the commercial buildings and platted the land as Reeks Addition. It consisted of 5 outlots and 1 block with 6 lots. Outlots 1, 2, and 3 ran along Arapahoe, while outlots 4, 5, and Block 1 ran along Marine Street. The central area, including the spring and pond, is identified as Outlot 3. Reeks sold a portion of Outlot 3, and the rights to use of the spring water to the Boulder Fish and Game Club in 1927. To this day, the Fish and Game Club uses the spring water for a fish hatchery.

[29:00] William Reeks ensured that the area stayed relatively undeveloped. He sold only the parcels that didn't interfere with the spring, including lots in Block 1 facing Marine Street, and four lots that he created within Outlot 3 facing Arapaho Avenue. Reeks continued to live on the property until his death in 1946. At his death, his sister deeded the rights for all the spring water to the Boulder Fish and Game Club. The area has had an eclectic character since its development in the early 1870s, when the rail lines first arrived in Boulder. Arapahoe Avenue was the primary east-west route through Boulder and into Boulder Canyon. By the late 1920s, the area shifted towards automobile travel and remained a transit hub. From the early 1900s, one block both east and west of this hub transitioned into residential with small homes, duplexes, apartments, live-work spaces, and small retail, like groceries. The area contains the eclectic character, today, with a transitional mix of public, institutional, commercial, and mixed-density residential.

[30:06] And it has… its character has remained relatively stable for more than 50 years. On the south side of Arapaho Avenue, the most significant change was the construction of Presbyterian Manor in 1963. The 11-story international-style tower was designed by Hobart Wagner, and on the north side of Arapahoe, the City of Boulder completed construction of the main branch of the Boulder Public Library in 1993. I will now hand it over to Claire to go through, each property. Thank you, Marcy. Let me share my screen. Okay. All right, we are going to begin with 976 Arapahoe Avenue, which is on the far west side of the row of four houses. 976 Arapaho was constructed in 1927. It's a one-story frame crosswind bungalow.

[31:10] that has decorative brackets, exposed rafter tails and purlins, tapered columns, a substantial header, and vertically proportioned windows. The decorative cladding is a combination of wood shingles, narrow wood lap siding, and wood paneling. And the enclosed porch is original to the design. This is the rear. There are two small additions, a covered patio and a low shed roof addition. The changes to the building are minimal, and include addition of tool storage and re-roofing in 1962. Other changes include remodeling of the basement into an apartment, and some of the windows have been replaced within the historic openings. Stuff analysis of the criteria looks at the eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark, its historic, architectural, environmental significance. I want to take a minute to note that the applicant hired a consultant to provide a report on significance.

[32:15] And they used the National Register criteria and found the buildings to be not eligible for listing on the National Register. Your decision today is whether the buildings meet the criteria for local listing. The Landmarks Board adopted the local significance criteria in 1975 to help evaluate buildings in a consistent and equitable manner. And the requirement is that the property meet just one of those criteria to be considered eligible. Staff analysis considers these criteria, and also the relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood as an established and definable area, and the reasonable cost… sorry, reasonable condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or repair.

[33:04] For 976 Arapaho Avenue, county records and newspaper articles confirm that Frank Creamer house in 1927. The families that lived in the house were typically working professionals and included carpenters, a grocery proprietor, and bookkeeper. We identified Merle Erk. as a resident that exemplifies the cultural and social heritage of the community. Merle was a sign painter in Boulder for more than 30 years. He was born in 1892 and married Glideth, Hapton Stall in 1917. Merle Gliddith and Gliddith's mother, Nellie, moved to Boulder in 1923, and they purchased the house in 1949. Merle ran the S&E Sign Company with Jack Savage from 1928 and opened Erk's Sign Shop in 1939. During the 1950s, Merle painted all of the signs for the University of Colorado, and many of the signs for businesses throughout Boulder.

[34:11] This house was constructed just before the Great Depression, and it was converted to multifamily housing during the 1940s. Boulder, sorry, Nellie, lived with the, Oakham Racks, for many of those years, and during the Second World War, and after the Second World War, as many as three families lived at the property. The bungalow form was popular in Colorado from about 1900 to the 1930s, due to its simplicity and utility. The characteristic elements of this form include the gabled roof, the overhanging eaves with the exposed rafter tails, very simple horizontal lines, and vertically proportioned double-hung windows. The broad front porch is typical of Craftsman bungalow style in Boulder, and this house is somewhat unique in that it has an enclosed sun porch at the facade, instead of a front porch, and that is actually original to the design.

[35:16] Frank Crema, built the house as income-producing property. He, moved to Boulder in the mid-1920s. And in the five years preceding the Wall Street crash of 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression, he constructed at least five Craftsman-style bungalows with a front gable and, that vernacular craftsman detailing, including 1004 Arapahoe Avenue, which we're also looking at today. So this enclosed sump porch, is, original to the house and an uncommon feature. And, two known houses built by Frank Creamer, including this one in Boulder.

[36:02] Include that… enclose some porch in place of the front porch, and it's a style that's uncommon in Boulder and more prevalent in Nebraska, where Creamer learned his trade. This house retains the traditional characteristics of a residential lot, including a lawn between the house and the street, multiple mature trees, sidewalk, and a front walk. As, as also the original setbacks from the properties to the east and from Arapahoe Avenue. Changes to the property, including the removal of an accessory building, a new driveway, and paving at the rear of the property, have not impacted the compatibility of the house to the site or the geographic importance. Staff found that the buildings are all an established and familiar visual feature along Arapahoe Avenue. And a prominent… and visually prominent. Across from the Boulder Public Library, and that the setback and vegetation on the lot are complementary to the site and surrounding area.

[37:09] As Marcy mentioned, the area retains the eclectic and transitional character that has remained relatively stable for more than 50 years. The building's surrounding context has changed over time, most notably the construction of Presbyterian Manor in 1963, and the Boulder Public Library across the street in 1993. However, the house, along with the three adjacent houses, also constructed during the 1920s, retain this historic setting along Arapahoe Avenue. The applicants are here tonight and can answer any questions you may have regarding the condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or repair. From the applicant, the estimated cost of restoration or repairs for the house at 976 Arapaho is $288,103, or approximately $428 per square foot.

[38:07] While the building appears to have been maintained over time and be in good structural condition, no significant investment has been made in upgrading the building systems or interior or exterior finishes in the recent past, with the exception of the electrical service in 2016. And this estimated cost is below the average cost of new residential construction in Boulder in 2025, which is around $500 to $750 per square foot. It's also in line with average restoration costs of $200 to $1,000 per square foot. The applicant has stated that the cost is unfeasible, as it would take over a decade to recover the cost using funds generated from net rental income. And while staff understands the desire to cover the cost of maintenance and repair solely with rental income, staff notes that the current owner purchased the property 39 years ago, and while the properties have been maintained, it does not appear that significant investment to the building systems or materials have been made.

[39:13] To the property in that time. Staff considers that the building at 976 Arapahoe Avenue is eligible for designation, and significant as an example of the Craftsman Bungalow architectural form built by Frank Creamer. And for its association with past residents who exemplify the cultural and social heritage of the community, including Merle Erkenbrach. who was a sign painter in Boulder for more than 30 years, and for its environmental significance as part of a block of four houses. Dating to the area's early residential development. Staff considers that the property, contributes to the character of the neighbourhood as an intact representative of the area's past, and it has not been demonstrated to be impractical or economically unfeasible to rehabilitate the building.

[40:05] Our recommended motion is that the Landmarks Board issues a stay of demolition for the building located at 976 Arapahoe for a period not to exceed 180 days from the day the application was accepted in order to explore alternatives to demolishing the building. So we are moving from west to east along the row of houses, so the next house is 986 Arapahoe Avenue. This was the first of the four houses to be constructed. It was built in 1921. It's a one-story frame house that is clad in textured stucco with a stone-clad foundation. It has a low side gabled roof, overhanging eaves, and a shed roof porch. The house also has extant features of a craftsman bungalow, notably the tapered window trim, the wood band and detailing, decorative brackets, exposed rafter tails and purlins, tapered window surrounds, and vertically proportioned windows.

[41:12] The general design of the building has not been altered, even though the gable projection on the west side may have been rebuilt to include a rear addition at the southwest corner. The changes are minimal. The majority of the windows have been replaced with final units within their existing openings, and again, the basement was converted into an apartment at this house. So a reminder that the staff analysis of the criteria looks at The eligibility of the building for designation as a local individual landmark. The relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood as an established and definable area, and the reasonable cost… so, reasonable condition of the building and projected cost of restoration or repair.

[42:02] County records and newspaper articles for this house confirm that Leon Denham constructed the house in 1921. The families that lived in the house were working professionals who were highly active in the community. Jesse Buster was an agent for the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company for more than 30 years. was organizer and first president of the Boulder Association of Life Underwriters. He was a 40-year member of the Kiwanis Club in Boulder. Lucy Champion worked at the University of Colorado for nearly three decades. Her husband, Doc Champion, was a well-known Boulder figure and exalted leader of the Elks Club. The Stoffel family was the longest residents living in the house for nearly 4 decades. Mertenstoffel and Wave Perienstoffel owned and managed multiple business properties, and were proprietors of the University Hill Grocery and the Stoffel Sandwich Shop. Their daughter, Naomi Stoffel, was Deputy Assessor of Boulder County from 1945 to 1961.

[43:07] and was elected Boulder County Assessor in 1962, a position she held to 1970. She was included in the 1970 and the 1971 edition of Who's Who of American Women. Staff found a pattern or themes in Boulder's cultural, social, and political history reflected in the residence of this house. Early owners Hyman and Ida Handelman were Russian-Jewish immigrants. They ran a successful fruit store during a time when Boulder had one of the largest Ku Klux Klan chapters in the state. The KKK aimed their acrimonious rhetoric and actions against people of color, Catholics, Jews, and immigrants. And the Handelmans likely left Boulder due to the political climate. At the time, the KKK was accepted by some residents as an institution for civic activism, and this type of institution was hugely popular and included clubs that provided networking and social services, such as the Kiwanis and Elks Club.

[44:14] Women, people of color, and members of Jewish faith were typically excluded from these clubs. Women, however, were invited to education and music-focused clubs, notably the Symposium Club, which discussed philosophical and theological topics. As women became more involved in civic affairs, they also demanded equal attention in business activities, and Wave and Naomi Stoffel, mother and daughter, exemplify this trend, as WAVE played an active role in owning and managing business affairs, and Naomi was a public employee from 1945 and elected to public office in 1962. Leon Denham built the house in 1921. He was born in Boulder and is, together with his father Alonzo and brother Alonzo Jr, together Denham and Sons, constructed, many small vernacular houses in Boulder.

[45:11] Denim added the artistic features, which include the craftsman-inspired tapered window surrounds, corner braces, half-timbering, and cat slide roofs. This house also retains the traditional characteristics of a residential lot, and the original setbacks from the properties to the east and west, and from Arapahoe Avenue. Paving at the rear of the property has not impacted the compatibility of the house to the site, or the geographic importance. I'll reiterate that staff found these buildings are an established and familiar visual feature along Arapahoe Avenue. and visually prominent across from the Boulder Public Library, and that the setback and vegetation on the lot are complementary to the site and surrounding areas.

[46:01] Again, this house, along with the three adjacent houses constructed during the 1920s, retain the historic setting along Arapahoe Avenue and the eclectic and transitional character that has remained stable for more than 50 years. The building's surrounding context has changed over time, most notably the construction of the Presbyterian Manor, 1963, and the Library in 1993. So, again, the applicants are here, can answer any questions you may have regarding the condition and projected cost. For this one, the estimated cost of restoration or repairs for 986 Arapahoe Avenue is $185,489, or approximately $112 per square foot. Again, the building appears to have been maintained over time and be in good structural condition. However, no significant investment has been made in upgrading the building systems or interior or exterior finishes in the recent past, with the exception of a sewer replacement in 2024.

[47:08] The estimated cost is well below the average cost of new residential construction in Boulder, and in line with average restoration costs. The applicant stated again that the cost is unfeasible, as it would take over a decade to recover the cost using funds generated from net rental income. And while staff understands, again, the desire to cover the cost of maintenance and repair with rental income, we note that the current owner purchased the property 26 years ago, and while the property has been maintained. It doesn't appear that significant investment to the building systems or materials have been made to the property in that time. So staff considers that the building at 986 Arapahoe Avenue is eligible for designation, and significant as an example of,

[48:00] Craftsman Bungalow Architectural Form, this time built by Leon Denham. For its association with past residents who exemplify the cultural and social heritage of the community, including Merton and Wave Perrine Stoffel and their daughter Naomi Stoffel, who lived in the house for nearly four decades. For its association with working professionals and their stellar civic engagement. And for its environmental significance as part of a block of four houses. Dating to the area's early residential development. Staff considers that the property contributes to the character of the neighbourhood as an intact representative of the area's past, and it has not been demonstrated to be impractical or economically unfeasible to rehabilitate the building. Our reaction is that the Landmarks Board issues a stay of demolition for the building located at 986 Arapahoe Avenue for a period to not exceed 180 days from the day the application was accepted in order to explore alternatives to demolishing the building.

[49:11] Excuse me. Moving again to the east, along the row of houses, the next house is 990 Arapahoe Avenue. This house was complete by 1922. It's a one-story frame house with rustic stone foundation. This craftsman bungalow has a clipped side gable roof with overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails. The house has an unusual arched hood over the porch that is flanked by decorative pergolas that extend across the width of the facade. The porch and pergolas are supported by tapered columns. Other notable craftsman features, include the tapered window trim and combined wood shingle. With natural horizontal… narrow horizontal wood shingle… siding, sorry. I need another drink, excuse me.

[50:05] The original design of the building is largely intact, and the building retains the majority of its historic materials, including its wood siding and trim. Wood windows, stone foundation, concrete steps, and stoop. In 2019, the pergola, including the columns and stone piers, were removed and replaced in kind, with the exception of the rafters, which were installed upside down. Again, staff analysis of the criteria looks at the eligibility of the building for designation as a local individual landmark, the relationship of the building to the character of the neighbourhood, and the reasonable condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or repair. For 990 Arapahoe Avenue, county records and newspaper articles confirm that Raymond Roy Teegarden constructed the house in 1922.

[51:01] The families that lived in this house were working professionals who exemplify the cultural and social heritage of the community. The Clapp family purchased the house soon after it was built and lived there for nearly five decades. Roy Clapp was a grocer and worked at… the University Hill grocery store for 23 years. Jenny Clapp was highly involved in Boulder's civic and social organizations. Their two sons, Robert and Charles, served in the United States military before and during the Second World War. Charles and his growing family with wife, Ruby lived in the basement apartment after they returned from service. Birdie Crowell and Virginia Campbell, sisters, purchased the house in 1970. They were both independent professionals. Birdie worked as a court clerk in Boulder District Court for more than 15 years, and Virginia was a secretary for a law firm.

[52:00] The theme we identified here is connected to Boulder's development and the need for multifamily use as the economy struggled to recover during the 1940s. The Claps rented the second unit in the house during times when their children and grandchildren didn't live there. Birdie and Virginia each had a unit in the house. Employment of women increased during the war years, but independent working women remained relatively rare until 1974, when the Equal Credit Opportunity Act was signed into law. So sisters, Bertie and Virginia were ahead of this trend, working as independent professionals from 1953. Boy Tigardon constructed the house. He built a few houses in Boulder, but was better known as a plumber. He included the hooded porch, roof, and decorative pergolas, which are an uncommon feature of the bungalow form. Other characteristics include the gabled roof, the overhanging eaves, simple horizontal lines, and vertically proportioned double-hung windows with decorative trim and the narrow horizontal wood siding.

[53:08] Again, the house retains that traditional characteristic of a residential lot, and the original setbacks from the properties to the east and west, and from Arapahoe Avenue. The paving at the rear of the property has not impacted the compatibility of the house to the site or its geographic importance. Again, we found that the buildings are an established and familiar visual feature along Arapahoe Avenue and visually prominent across from the Boulder Public Library, and that the setback and vegetation on the lot are complementary to the site and surrounding area. And also, again, this house, along with the three adjacent houses constructed during the 1920s, retain the historic setting along Arapaho Avenue, and the eclectic and transitional character that has remained stable for more than 50 years. The building's surrounding context has changed over time, the construction of the Presbyterian Manor in 1963, and the Boulder Public Library in 1993.

[54:18] So the estimated cost of restoration or repairs for the house at 990 Arapahoe Avenue is $245,338, Or approximately $122 per square feet. While the building appears to have been, maintained over time and in good structural condition. Again, no significant investment has been made in upgrading building systems or interior or exterior finishes, with the exception of a new water heater in 1991, re-roofing the house in 2012, and reconstructing the pergolas in 2019. The estimated cost is well below the average cost of new residential construction in Boulder in 2025, and in line with average restoration cost. Again, the applicant stated that the cost is unfeasible, saying that it would take over a decade to recover the cost using funds generated from net rental income.

[55:18] And, staff, again, understands the desire to cover the cost of maintenance and repair, but notes that the current owner purchased the property 36 years ago. And while it has been maintained, it does not appear that significant investment to the building systems or materials have been made to the property in that time. Staff considers that the building at 990 Arapahoe Avenue is eligible for designation, and significant as an example of the Craftsman bungalow style and its distinctive arched hood porch roof. And for its association with the Clapp and Crowell Campbell families, who exemplify the cultural and social heritage of the community, and for its environmental significance as part of a block of four houses dating to the area's early residential development.

[56:08] Staff considers that the property contributes to the character of the neighbourhood as an intact representative of the area's past, and it has not been demonstrated to be impractical or economically unfeasible to rehabilitate the building. Our recommended motion is that the Landmarks Board issues a stay of demolition for the building located at 990 Arapo Avenue for a period to not exceed 180 days from the day the application was accepted, in order to explore alternatives to demolishing the building. The easternmost house for consideration today is 1004 Arapahoe Avenue. The house was constructed in 1927. It's a one-story frame craftsman bungalow with a front gable roof. It's clad in decorative shingles with an alternating pattern on the lower portion and main gable.

[57:05] With narrow lap siding in the middle. Notable features include decorative brackets and exposed rafter tails and purlins. The property includes an accessory building constructed in 1950. The accessory building has exposed rafter tails, but is otherwise simple in design. The building has been minimally altered, with the original craftsman bungalow design intact. The building retains most of its historic materials, notably the exposed rafter tails and purlins, decorative shingles, narrow horizontal siding, paneling in the porch gable and tapered porch columns. The majority of the original wood windows were replaced with vinyl units within the existing openings, and the front window opening has been modified. A reminder that the criteria looks at the eligibility of the building for designation as a local individual landmark, the relationship of the building to the character of the neighbourhood, and the reasonable condition of the building and projected cost of restoration or repair.

[58:15] County records and newspaper articles confirm that Frank Creamer constructed this house in 1927. Families that lived in the house were typically working professionals, including a dentist, real estate agent, and machinist. None of the past residents appear to meet the criteria as historically significant individuals. Unlike other houses on this block, this house is not associated with a series of residents who exemplify civic engagement or themes in cultural, social, or political history. The, 1004 Arapaho Avenue Historic Building Inventory Record from 1995 noted no known past residents, but found the building represents a type, period, or method of construction.

[59:01] Finding the building is an example of bungalow-style architecture, which was popular in Colorado from about 1900 to 1930. Bungalow-style buildings were very popular in Boulder's residential neighborhoods. This building features overhanging eaves and a combination of shingle and weatherboard siding. Frank Creamer constructed at least 5 houses in Boulder, including 976 Arapahoe Avenue, which is the house at the far west end of these four. He built both the same year in the bungalow form, which was popular in Colorado, due to its simplicity and utility. The characteristic elements of this form include the gable roof, the overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails, simple horizontal lines, and the broad front porch with battered porch posts. Kramer included some artistic features, combining the wood shingle with the narrow, horizontal wood siding, and the simple decorative brackets at the gable ends.

[60:05] The house retains the traditional characteristic of a residential lot and the original setbacks from the properties to the west and from Arapaho Avenue. The changes at the rear of the property have not impacted the compatibility of the house to the site or the geographic importance. I'll reiterate that staff found that the buildings are an established and familiar visual feature along Arapahoe Avenue, and visually prominent across from the Boulder Public Library, and that the setback and vegetation on the lot are complementary to the site and the surrounding area. This house, along with the three adjacent houses constructed during the 1920s, retain the historic setting along Arapahoe Avenue, and the eclectic and transitional character that has remained stable for 50 years. The building's surrounding context has changed over time, most notably with the construction of Presbyterian Manor and the Boulder Public Library.

[61:07] The estimated cost of restoration or repairs for the house at 1004 Arapahoe Avenue is $286,271, or approximately $213 per square foot. While the building appears to be maintained over time and be in good structural condition, no significant investment has been made in upgrading the building systems or interior or exterior finishes in the recent past, with the exception of re-roofing in 2014 and a replacement furnace in 1992. The estimated cost is below the average cost of new residential construction in Boulder in 2025, and in line with average restoration costs. The, Applicant once again stated that the cost is unfeasible, as it would take more than a decade to recover the cost using funds generated from net rental income.

[62:01] And again, staff understands the desire to cover the cost of maintenance and repair with rental income. We note that the current owner purchased the property 36 years ago, and while the properties have been maintained, it does not appear that significant investment to the building systems or materials has been made to the property in that time. Staff considers that the building at 1004 Arapahoe Avenue is eligible for designation and significance for its Craftsman Bungalow architectural form, built by Frank Creamer, and for its environmental significance as part of a block of four houses dating to the area's early residential development. Staff considers that the property contributes to the character of the neighbourhood as an intact representative of the area's past, and it has not been demonstrated to be impractical or economically unfeasible to rehabilitate the building. Our recommended motion is that the Landmarks Board issues a stay of demolition for the building located at 1004 Arapahoe Avenue for a period to not exceed 180 days from the day the application was accepted in order to explore alternatives to demolishing the building.

[63:16] I'm going to hand it back to Marcy now to review the process. Alright, thank you, Claire. That concludes the staff presentations. Now is the time for any questions from the Landmarks Board, and then we'll move on to the applicant presentation. public participation, the applicant response after the last public comment speaker, and then board deliberation. So, I welcome any questions the board may have. And Michael, I see your hand. I have a question about the, I guess the… the…

[64:01] rehabilitation costs. Were those provided by the development career? By that. Yes, they were, and specific questions are probably, best answered by them, but we took what they had provided and did our analysis of what the cost per square foot would be, and then looked at permits of when the previous work had been done. Right on. Okay, thanks. And John, I see your hand. My questions are about the site. What is… do you know the approximate area of the whole consolidation of four houses, the site area that they… involve… That I do not know, and might be a good, question for the applicant as well. Okay. It… well, I guess the next question… Is how much of the… does the applicant own all of the property inclusive of the 11-story tower?

[65:06] So it's all their property. Okay. Thank you. And Renee? Yeah, I wanted to know, so 976, you said, has 2 units in it. Are the other ones just single units? You know, we focused on the history of the, of the properties and relied on city directories or permits, but didn't, you know, bring it up to the current day of what the use is, so that would also be a good question for the applicant. Tied to the board's criteria. Okay. And Chelsea. One thing I thought was interesting in the presentation, and…

[66:03] the memo was, I just, like, wanted to dig in a little bit more, because on the one hand, it was talked about that the Elks Club was a, was a place where the KKK, sort of. Thrived and had a space to… express their views and, I guess, activate their views. And then on the other hand, we lift up one of the… one of the occupants as being an exalted ruler of the Elks Club, so I guess I'm just curious how… We connect those dots and, like, make sure we're not lifting someone up for being… potentially… a member of the KKK. No, I appreciate that question, and glad Claire has come off of mute. It wasn't our intention, nor do I…

[67:04] know for sure that there's a direct connection between the Elks Club and the Kiwanis Club and the KKK. The connection that we were making were these civic institutions, but I am in agreement with you of not wanting to lift up and celebrate, these hatred… the KKK being a hatred group. So, Claire, what would you like to add? I would, I would reinforce that. It was probably my, my mistake in rushing through the presentation so quickly, if it came across that way. The Elks Club, Kiwanis Club. are, civic organizations that are, not associated with the KKK. The KKK was seen, as equally as popular As those groups, as a civic organization, and, wasn't really,

[68:01] known by everyone to be, a hate group, and it's a… it's a complicated history that… that we should, we should talk about more at a different time. We don't associate, the members of the L Club with membership of the KKK. Unfortunately, Boulder doesn't have the KKK membership directories that Denver has, so… Okay, just to… it does say in the memo, the type of institution the Ku Klux Klan was accepted by some as an institution for civic activism. This type of institution included other clubs that provided networking and social services, such as the Elks Club. So it does say that explicitly. So I guess I just, yeah, we should be careful about That. And then my question… I had another question about, Frank Creamer. I feel like I didn't… maybe I missed it, but I didn't see too much about him as an architect, and I was wondering, like, what makes him an architect of significance?

[69:05] He was actually a builder, and we consider him to be a vernacular builder, in that he had his own personal style, was not a trained architect. Got it, okay. That's probably why I didn't see it. Interesting. Okay, and… Let's see, what was my other question? I'll see if anyone else has anything, but I… yeah, I'll let you know if I remember what my other question was. Thanks. Any other questions from the Landmarks Board members about the staff presentation? Oh, I remembered it, sorry. Just in time, though you're welcome to answer questions later. Thanks. One question I had around the environmental significance was, like, I guess it's… obviously, every project and every proposal is different, and so it's hard to, you know, say, we did this here, so therefore we do this here. That's not how we do things, but…

[70:13] Like, one thing I've noticed in other projects that come forward is that when there's a lot of change in the area around the… property that we're talking about, then that… that sort of… Impacts the environmental significance that those properties have. And is that true? It is, and I think the environmental significance and the criteria about the relationship to the character of the neighborhood is one that is applied kind of case-by-case, property by property, because in one scenario, you could have, let's say. a whole block or multiple blocks of craftsman bungalows and mature street trees and all of that, and you would say, this area has a high degree of integrity and, it relates, directly to its,

[71:13] to its context. And then there are other landmarks, like the armory in North Boulder, or the Glen Barn out on East Arapahoe, or the Stevens Barn up on North Broadway, where they're the only remnants of that time, of whether it was the, the military building at the armory, or these agricultural buildings where Their environmental significance is that they are these visual landmarks and the only thing left where the area has changed, completely. So, in our staff recommendation and analysis for environmental significance and the relationship to the context of the neighborhood, we did look at, well, what was the character of this

[72:02] area, historically, you know, learned it was… has always been transitional, and that the character has been relatively stable, for the last couple decades. So… That's kind of the thinking behind our analysis for those two criteria. Okay. Seeing, no other questions from, the Landmarks Board, go ahead and turn it over to, the applicants and welcome the applicant team, this evening. I know there are four, speakers. This evening, including, Alex, Catherine, Cameron… And… I think, Mark, but you will tell me. So, Amanda, if we could go ahead and send those promotions, we'll get your,

[73:01] tech working. And I'll stop sharing the screen. And Marci, I just wanted to make sure we got everyone. We had Cameron, Mark Leipattrow. Myself and Tom Otteson. We'd like to have Mark Hawk and Alex Rugoff available for questions as well. Everyone's kind of slowly getting there. Were there two marks, Catherine, that you just mentioned? Yes, please. Mark Liebertrall and Mark Hawke. Okay, perfect. And then we'll do a check to make sure everybody's… On here. And I see a Tom with no last name, but I'm gonna assume that that's the right Tom. I think that's fair. Alright, and then Cameron… I think I saw… Cameron, you might have joined.

[74:01] Twice, but we'll go ahead and send you the promotion. And I think in order for any of you to share your screen, I'm gonna send you an additional… you'll have to click on Accepting Co-host. I think I'll be the only one sharing my screen, just to do it for everybody, so it should make things easier for you. Okay. Okay, and then we'll give it one more… minute here. I think Tom might be the last one coming through. I'm here. Oh, great. It's more than one… more than what's on my screen. So… I'll sign off. Okay, are we good to go, Catherine? Yes, I will share… Okay. PowerPoint. Alright. Thank you. Can everyone see that? Yes. Alright, Cameron, take us away.

[75:04] Yeah, hi. Good afternoon, everyone. Oh, evening, actually, now. Keep forgetting it's a little dark already this time of the year, but, anyway, good evening, it's nice to meet everyone on the board. My name is, Cameron Weishoff, and I am a Cultural Resource Specialist with Penny Environmental, and I was the one tasked with surveying and evaluating, cultural resources as a part of this project. I want to just preface and say, you know, thanks for Claire, she provided a really good overall point of view, so I'll keep my stuff brief. A lot of it overlaps, so I'll try to keep my stuff brief. When it comes to location, obviously we looked at 4 resources, those being 976, 986, 990, and 1004, all of which are located along Arapahoe Avenue. 976 is on the far left in green, or the west, pink is 986, 990 is in blue, and 1004 is in orange, which is a little hard to see, but it's there.

[76:02] So you can go to the next slide. Again, a lot of this has been kind of, already stated, but just a brief, again, a little overview. 976 is on the far, west side of the project area, consisting of a bungalow constructed in 1927. To its east is 986, consisting of a bungalow that was constructed in 1921. You can go to the next one as well. Continuing east, we have 990 Arapahoe Avenue, which is… which was constructed in 1922 and also consists of bungalow. And finally, we have on the far eastern side of the project is 1004 Arapahoe Avenue, which was constructed in 1927, and consists of Elswell Bungalow type of architecture. When it comes to criteria recommendations, there were 4 in total, 3 of which are the primary focus of tonight's, discussion, and a lot of, obviously, local criteria is ingrained from the NRHP criteria. Under Criterion A, these,

[77:10] These residences were constructed between 1921 and 1927. They consist of single-family residences built in Boulder as the city continued to expand in the early 20th century. Research did not identify direct associations between these properties and significant events that shaped local, regional, national context relevant to the period. Each resource is one of numerous residences that were constructed during the period, and they do not possess particularly noteworthy aspects of that growth. And similarly, they do not offer new or innovative information that would enhance contemporary understanding of local historical development that's relevant to the period. under B, although research pertaining to each, resource… although, sorry, although, research pertaining to each residence, identified initial owners of each property, some of whom, are… were more involved in the local community than others.

[78:05] Historical records did not reveal that initial or subsequent owners of these resources played substantial roles in that development that rise to a level of significant standing. And then, lastly. Each resource is a modest example of bungalow type of architecture, but are notably not exceptional examples relevant to the period. These resources do not possess influential design elements, and they do not illustrate exceptional feats in engineering and or architecture. More notably, as well, there are more notable and stylistic features of the bungalow type that are extant within the more cohesive neighborhood of the University Hill, which is located slightly to the south. Given all this information, it's recommended that these resources are not eligible for designation. in the efforts to keep myself brief and provide my colleagues ample time for their presentation discussion, that's all I have.

[79:04] Thank you. Thanks, Cameron. Good evening. My name's Mark Leibertrall. I'm the president of the board of Presbyterian Manor, and I'm here to tell you a little bit about our organization and introduce you to the team. Boulder Presbyterian Housing is a non-profit 501c3 that was created in 1961, completed in 1963. For almost 65 years, our singular focus and mission has been to provide affordable, safe, and comfortable, independent apartment living For qualified seniors aged 62 years or older. And we've brought together a very experienced and talented team for this exciting new project. Pinion, whom we've just heard from, is our architectural historian, that independently assessed those four houses on Arapahoe. ShopWorks is a nationally recognized architectural firm in affordable housing that has designed multiple projects locally and throughout the West.

[80:04] And Element Properties is a local developer and consultant that has successfully developed and completed a number of affordable projects here in the city and Boulder County. We're here asking for your help to deliver more critically needed, permanently affordable senior housing right here in downtown. We want to grow our community and expand our campus, while at the same time building upon the ongoing success Of the current 78-unit low-income housing tax credit tower that offers the lowest rents in the city. Everyone's acutely aware of the rapidly aging of America, and here in Boulder County, the curve's even steeper. Over the next 25 years, that 80-plus population in the county will grow over 220%. Presbyterian Manor already has a years-long waiting list that only continue to grow.

[81:05] And in a city that's desperately looking to increase affordability, there will always be trade-offs. In this case, the trade-off would be 4 single-family market-rate units versus 60 permanently affordable senior residences. Excellent. While our mission is to help create more senior, affordable apartments, I thought I'd take a moment to tell you what makes Presbyterian Manor and this project so unique. It is an unparalleled location. Just ask the residents what they value the most, beside the low rents, and they will tell you it's the location. We have the Maine City Library, a commercial shopping center, the AgeWell Center around the RTD bus route. Pearl Street is nearby, and the Boulder Creek Path. They're all nearby and very, very walkable.

[82:00] We have preserved the existing Hobart Wagner Tower, and just last year, completed a much-needed renovation using low-income housing tax credits. We've proven that we have the experience and know-how how to complete this new project. We also want to leverage our existing partnerships with our service providers. A number of our residents, if they need transportation, use VIA. We have decreased food insecurity through Bridge House, as our residents are able to order low-cost meals. Harvest of Hope runs a mobile pantry with fresh produce, dairy, and other groceries. And St. Benedict's provides monthly medical and hygiene consultations, in addition to vaccinations and immunizations. This new building would be integrated with the existing tower to support community and reduce isolation among the residents. And as you will hear in more detail, the stay of demolition will threaten access to much-needed, high-quality, affordable housing for low-income seniors.

[83:08] We respectfully request your support for this critical community benefit. And now I'd like to turn the presentation over to Tom Otteson and ShopWorks. Hi, my name's Tom Otison. I'm an architect at ShopWorks Architecture. We're an architecture firm who focuses on affordable housing and community-serving projects in Colorado and throughout the Mountain West. We've done, projects, that you may be familiar with, including the, Bluebird Permanent Supportive Housing in Boulder. Our projects have been recognized at a state and national level. Including, the, 2025 History Colorado Governor's Award for Historic Preservation. We, I wanted to start out on this slide to show this photo of the context of the four houses that we're talking about tonight.

[84:07] You can see that these four houses are, isolated, in a monumental civic context, surrounded by high-intensity, multifamily, as well as, commercial uses. And it's surrounded on sides by, you know, automobile facilities, as well as a major thoroughfare. You… this also, quite tellingly illustrates, the historic context of this, neighborhood. was removed as part of the construction of the Boulder Public Library, as well as the parking facilities for the Boulder Public Library, which was illustrated very clearly in the aerial photos shown in the staff report. And so, can we go to the next slide?

[85:01] This… this shows… this aerial photo, contains 4 single-family houses in it. All the other uses include, like I said, high-density, commercial uses, high-density multifamily uses, and civic, and institutional uses, you know, including the, West Sage Well Center. Boulder Public Library, Boulder City Offices. This neighborhood context is a neighborhood of, large-scale buildings With an isolated, small section of, you know, modest bungalows, which has, created, over time, a less than desirable, context for, single-family residential living. Next slide. Something to point out is that, surrounding this site, you can see, it's well represented in terms of, landmark, structures that have been designated as local historic structures as well as historic districts.

[86:08] houses that are, you know, indicated with the photos throughout the local area. You can see the kind of houses that are landmarked, the level of quality of design, the unique characteristics, and higher quality materials than the Kind of 1920s, small, modest bungalow worker housing that we're seeing in the… in… in the buildings that we're discussing today. Next slide. We have, spent, an extensive process over almost a year to come to the determination that, in order to proceed with the 60-unit low-income housing tax credit senior, permanently affordable project. We will be required to, redevelop the four parcels containing the houses that we're discussing tonight.

[87:06] We studied an option to redevelop only the parking lot of the Presbyterian Manor Tower, but because of the nature of the zoning constraints, that parcel is too small to create a project that can be financed under the low-income housing tax credit program. You know, as part of this process, we have engaged, you know, our historian, and we don't believe that the buildings meet the criteria for landmark designation. The Presbyterian Manor has owned these houses for some time, and have maintained them, including exterior upgrades, window upgrades, mechanical and electrical system upgrades. However, these are at the end of their useful life, and they're gonna require a significant, capital outlay from Presbyterian Manor, a non-profit housing provider, which would,

[88:04] Be over $1 million to restore all 4 houses. We don't believe that rehabilitation, physical relocation, or partial preservation are economically or logistically feasible in order to deliver the affordable housing that we're looking to provide on this site. We have, looked at the parcels owned by Presbyterian Manor to try and determine if relocation is something that could practically be achieved. But there's a number of constraints that would prevent any of these from, any of these buildings from being relocated onto this site. The first thing is, the existing topography, it really limits the opportunities to relocate on the site. The area marked in green is characterized by a steeply sloping topography with mature trees that would not only be cost prohibitive to build on, would also endanger, kind of, the urban forestry of the city of Boulder.

[89:06] In addition, the… almost the entire site is subject to FEMA regulatory floodplain, including floodplain Zone AE, as well as the X-shaded floodplain Zone. If we relocate the buildings, we would be required to provide flood proofing for these structures, which would involve raising them on stilts above the base flood level, which would definitely compromise their historic integrity. We also believe that relocation could potentially trigger new lot lines, which would impact the overall project's FAR, and potentially limit the density that we could provide on the site. Just by that, fact. To move it off-site, there are financial constraints involved, in purchasing a separate lot.

[90:00] We think that to, secure land and relocate these to a property off-site would be over $1 million, per house. And this would be considered an off-site cost, for the low-income housing tax credit development, which would be considered burdensome by the LIHTC funders, which would put the financing of the project in jeopardy. Next slide. Another alternative would be partial pres… Partial preservation, and so… but, we believe that the partial preservation also, jeopardizes the feasibility of the project. There are physical constraints in terms of an efficient building plan, but not only that, as part of the zoning for affordable housing zoning changes, the R2 zoning on this site has been subject to a floor area ratio maximum.

[91:00] Which, in order to develop on, the balance of this site, we have to accommodate the floor area of the Presbyterian Manor Tower in the overall calculation. So, the maximum floor area ratio that we can achieve in this design is, 1.4 ratio. So, for every square foot of, property that is not included in the consolidated parcel, that represents 1.4 square feet of housing that we can't build. Which represents 7 to 8 units per lot. If we wanted to consider using these houses as a kind of a common area or a public benefit for the residents. It would require full ADA upgrades, which would basically involve reconstruction of the entire interior, as well as the construction of accessible routes into the structure, which would again compromise the historical integrity.

[92:01] This adds complication to a project. Low-income housing tax credit projects, are always focused on cost containment, and adding the complexity puts additional risk in the overall project. You know, rehabilitation of a single unit, a single one of these houses exceeds the expected cost per unit available in the financing for the new construction. And again, keeping one or more of the houses, it decreases the size of the project, and it jeopardizes the financial viability. The next thing I want to point out in terms of partial preservation, after hearing the staff report and the… the kind of history of these houses. If we were to keep 1 or 2. I'd like you to think about which one you would choose and why, just because… There seems to me that there's, not any one of them that particularly stands out in relation to any of the other ones.

[93:06] Next slide. Thanks, Tom. I'm Katherine Bean with Element Properties, and I'll run through a few quick things. One is the financial piece of rehab, and, I want to point out that this doesn't include significant flood-proofing improvement costs. And that Presbyterian Manor generates about $60,000 annually. And that's from the tower, as well as the four houses. So, to say that they should have been saving that, and that's what they're producing today, it's not what they… were producing previously. But to say that they should have saved that in order to, just fix these four houses, which is such a small, small piece of, their impact in the community, I think it… it really misses the fact that they're trying to do the hard work and the good work. So it's not financially feasible. Time is really important, and that's because of the way that affordable housing is financed. Affordable housing is financed where you can make an application one day a year, and that day is February 1st. And if you all

[94:14] put a stay of demolition. Although that stay would expire in about 5 months, it actually means we would miss our application. So we would have to push out our application, because we need an entitled project to apply. We would have to push out our application to February of 2028. Which creates all kinds of risks about construction costs. Will the program even be available at that point? So it's not just a 5-month delay, it's… it's more like a year or longer delay, and that threatens the viability of the affordable housing. So I want to come back to the code for a moment, because, I actually find it nice when your heart kind of aligns with the code. And when we look at the eligibility for designation, we have the report.

[95:02] from Pinion, but we also have that 1990 report, and that 1990 report acknowledged that there were no people No known past residents of import. When we look at the relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood, the character of the neighborhood is change. We've seen that change happen from Chief Nyewat up to the building of the tower, to the library, to the super modern townhomes, just a few doors down. And then the condition and the projected cost, and I talked about that million dollars. But it's also the cost of not being able to develop affordable housing. We don't have the space to build a big enough project, there's not funding available to support an affordable housing project, period. And so, again, I want to tell you two things. So, this picture is, the lobby of Presbyterian Manor. They love history. And, they have these historic photos, some of which are probably in the staff report, up on their wall, and they'd like to offer to do a permanent exhibit in the new multifamily housing, showing photos of the houses, showing the history of the block, and how it has constantly changed.

[96:17] And I want to bring up one last piece. There were originally five bungalows here, and the fifth one, 1016 Arapaho, it was demolished in the early 1960s to make way for the Hobie Wagner-designed Presbyterian Manor Tower, which I think we can all agree is a jewel of Boulder. And the vision and the heart of the team that brought you that tower lives on in their board and in their residence. And we're now here asking you to allow us to create another jewel for Boulder. Imagine what we could build. With another world-class architect, award-winning architect. But we can only do that if you grant the demolition permits. Thank you.

[97:01] Thank you, Catherine. That was, an amazing timing, actually. I do have to say, can I get you guys all to swear in, anyone that talked? We had, I think we had, Cameron, you, Catherine, Tom, Mark, and another Mark. So, say your… state your full names. And then swear to tell the truth. We should have done… Oh, Cather. Go ahead, Mark. Yep, Mark, leave the trial, and I swear to tell the truth. Catherine Bean, and I swear to tell the truth. Cameron, do you mind going? I don't see him. Tom? Tom Otteson, and I swear to tell the truth. Do we have a… do we have another, Mark? I'm Mark Hawk, and I swear to tell the truth.

[98:02] And it looks like Cameron might have, dropped down to an attendee, so he's been promoted again, so he should be able to come off of mute. Hello, can you hear me? Yeah. Sorry, everyone, yeah, got kind of demoted there, and it's hard, obviously, I have to raise my hand to try and get attention, so, yes, I, Sorry I was busy trying to get my stuff back on. So just state your full name, and then just say, I swear to tell the truth. I, Cameron Weischoff, swore to tell the truth. Thanks. Thank you. Now we can move to public comment. It… this would be the time if the board has any questions for the applicant. That's what I was just… Gonna go backwards. Does the board have any questions? At this moment.

[99:01] There's two hands raised. Oh, I can't see them all. So, John, just speak up, I suppose, instead of worrying about the hand raise, because there's. Well, Michael… Michael has his hand up, too. You can go. I'll just… jump in. So, the existing… the existing 11-story tower has 7… 78 units in it, and the 4 bungalows in current use have… What, like, 6 units that are in use at this time? They're… they're four individual houses, they're just one per… per house. Okay, okay. So they're rented, kind of, as a whole unit, however. Yes. However that's handled. I guess my first question is, is considering the whole site, what type of yield are you attempting to achieve on this?

[100:02] For the, for the, the new project. Are you trying to match what's in the 11-story tower? Are you… just… just… kind of a… Approximation. What are we talking about? I'll let Tom talk about yield, but I actually wanna… Point back to… The zoning for affordable housing that passed The only zone in the city that actually kind of got downzoned as a result of it was RH2, which is where this is. So there used to be no FAR in RH2, and now there is, and it's 1.4, and Tom will talk about how that Will play out with our vision. Yeah, so… So, in terms of, yield, we're, if… if we can, incorporate the parcels that the houses are on.

[101:03] We can, achieve a yield of approximately 60 units in the new construction, based on the 1.4 FAR that's allowed under site review. So the total square footage of the parcel times 1.4 has to equal the total square footage of all the buildings on site, which would include the tower and the new structure. Okay. That… Like, that's… A good answer. I'll lower my hand. I have somewhat of a related question, or actually I have two questions. What is the current occupancy rate in the tower out of those 78 units, and out of those 78 units, how many are fully ADA accessible? Yeah, so we are always at 100% occupancy. We have a waiting list right now of a dozen. We only take applications one day a year, because we have such a… I took 24 applications last January. We're getting ready to take more applications.

[102:16] Because we have such an incredibly high demand for the manor, people are typically waiting between 6 to 18 months. To get into an apartment in the building, and so we're… And if I started taking applications all the time. You know, we would… we could shoot to… 50, 60, even 100 people on our waiting list. And we did take care of a lot of our waiting lists, through our construction, because we had 3 empty floors that we had to empty up to do the remodel of the main tower, and so… I just anticipate, as we go forward, we're gonna have more and more people sitting on our waiting list, and it could easily get to 24 months or more before apartments are available.

[103:08] No, I'm sorry. So, what was your second question on that? . Out of those 78 units, how many are fully ADA accessible? So, we have two that are Type A ADA accessible, and the remainder are Type B ADA accessible. And we completed a full renovation, in 2023 and 2024, and by doing that renovation, we had to bring those units up to Type A and Type B, so… But only 2 were Type A, out of the 78. Yes, as required by the code, and as you can imagine, some 1960s design didn't necessarily have the… The same, requirements for… for accessibility. What will be the percentage of the proposed 60 units in terms of Type A versus Type B, the same code compliance?

[104:02] Tom, do you want to talk about this and your research on senior housing? Sure, Based on state funding sources, we're typically required at this point to do a minimum of 10% Type A units. Typically in, senior affordable housing, we would do, more than that. I think that number would be determined in part of the detailed design. That… That being said, you know, we are, definitely designing the units in the context of, you know, aging in place, design concepts. We found that not everyone wants to be in a fully compliant Type A unit with all accessibility features, based on, desirability of, lowered counter heights. And so, we wouldn't do 100% accessible, but we would include enhanced accessibility features in all units in a senior housing building design.

[105:08] An example of that is grab bars in every single bathroom. Thanks. Catherine, can you speak to a little bit more about the timeline that you, mentioned? You know, putting, not allowing this? You said it's toward a… kind of toward the end of your presentation. Yeah, thanks for… for asking. So… The way that the tax credit financing works is we need to have an entitled project, so we need to go through concept plan and site site review. And have the project approved prior to submitting our application. And in Boulder, that can take anywhere from 12 to 24 months. With affordable projects, we have really good relationships and success of moving that a little bit faster, so we think of that 12-month timeline.

[106:10] And we need to have that entitled project to meet that February 1 application date. That's the only day of the year, just like Presbyterian Manor only takes applications one day a year. The Colorado Housing and Finance Authority only takes the applications for the 9% tax credits one day a year. And that, that means that we really need to start our entitlement process by February 1 of… next year of 2026 in order to be prepared to submit our application February 1 of 2027. That said, any extra day we can have. we will put to work. As Tom said, we've been working on this for about a year, and we're excited to bring this really important asset to the community, and we'd like to get that moving instead of needing to wait for a whole another application cycle.

[107:08] And I, I guess, maybe… that's great. I guess I don't have more questions. I'll ask them later. Thanks. Are you… I have a question. If, if… A stay was put. on this project, would it… would it necessarily halt everything that you're doing to work towards An ultimately deliverable project. the guidance that we've received from… well, I would say that To… to pay for a design, and to employ architects and engineers. Without an understanding of if the project's gonna move forward wouldn't be financially prudent. We need to pay the professionals. They require us to pay them in order to start that concept review and that design work. So I… I don't want to speak for Mark, but I believe his board wouldn't be comfortable moving forward with those costs. If there's a possibility that the project won't work.

[108:14] Because there's… there's not the floor area, and there's not the physical land to make a project happen. Okay, thank you. One more question. You said the FAR in the, updated, RH2 zoning, is 1.4. In your experiences, how achievable is the variance for greater FAR. The top set of the FAR in this zone district under site review is written in as the specific maximum that can be provided under that process.

[109:02] I think that we've gotten, kind of different FAR or bulk, control in different zone districts, but none of the ones that I've been involved with have specifically capped it In a… in… in what we can achieve in site review. So, I think it's unlikely. You don't anticipate pursuing a variance. That… that 1.4 is the allowable variance. So, we can go. So we're pursuing a variance already. with. The maximum world, yeah. The only way you could change it is if you changed the zone. That the land is in. Which… I would say is not feasible. Okay, any additional questions?

[110:01] From board members? I can't see the hand raised, so please just speak up. Okay. Now let's move to public comment. Virtual attendees, please raise your hand. And press 9 if you'd like to speak to this item, Amanda will announce. And please, you will need to state your Full name, and raise your hand, and swear to tell the board the whole truth. And you'll have 3 minutes. Okay, great. Excuse me. Let's see… We will go ahead… I'm just trying to get the timer prepped here for 3 minutes, and it looks like, first up, we've got Lynn Siegel, followed by Jonathan Singer.

[111:01] Lynn, you can go ahead and… Could I be next? You want to be second, Lynn? Gotcha. There's only 2 people testifying? No, no, no, there's more, Lynn. I just… that's just the order of the hands. How many are testifying? Yeah, Amanda, how many do we have, hands raised? It looks like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7… we've got 8 so far. There are more people in attendance, but we've got 8 hands raised at the moment. Okay. Okay So this is just the order that the hands are raised, so, Lynn, if you don't want to be first, you'll have to lower it. And just a quick note to the board, because we have 8, does anyone feel like we should extend the 3 minutes?

[112:03] If I do not hear anyone, we will continue to keep it at 3. Okay. Okay. 3 minutes, and… who is up? Alright, so we'll go ahead and start with Jonathan Singer, followed by Martha Patton. And Jonathan, you'll have 3 minutes. Good evening, I'm Jonathan Singer. I'm the Senior Director of Policy Programs with the Boulder Chamber of Commerce, and I swear to tell the whole truth here today. I come to you not only as the Senior Director of Policy Programs, but also as a long-time resident of Boulder County, someone who went to high school here, someone whose parents live here. Also, as a former Planning and Zoning Commissioner for the City of Longmont, and also as the chair of the Local Government Committee in the Colorado State House, where I oversaw the State Division of Housing, and the Chair of the Public Health Care and Human Services Committee, where I oversaw the Department of Human Services.

[113:00] I usually don't qualify myself with as many comments as I normally do, except to say that I've never appeared before this board And I want to underlie the importance of not just who I am today representing the Boulder Chamber, but also underlying the importance of this for our community. As a former Planning and Zoning Commissioner, I look at projects and I ask myself, have the applicants met the required standards, and have they provided a reasonable case to move forward? And the answer is an incontrovertible yes here today. I won't repeat their points, other than to say that I believe they have more than met the standards to move forward with expeditiousness. As somebody who oversaw the State Division of Housing. As chair of the Local Government Committee in the Colorado State House. Those CHAFA dollars get swept up so quickly. So to move with surgical precision and expeditedness. is incredibly important here today. I can say that because I know the people waiting in line, are gonna move forward, and our community cannot wait any further. And as someone who is the chair of the Public Health Care and Human Services Committee, our silver tsunami is real.

[114:13] And if we want to maintain our community as it was 10 and 20 and 30, 40 years ago, then we need to provide those opportunities. This application presents that opportunity. And finally, as a longtime resident of Boulder County, who asks myself. What are the opportunities that we have when we talk about historic preservation? these homes… don't have that uniqueness that, for example, the Mork & Mindy house might have. But the people who have lived in this community, who deserve to have the opportunity to live their remaining years here in a way that respects our elders. Those historic preservation elements of people over property? This application more than meets that standard, and changes the face of this community in a way that harkens back to where our community truly belongs, in a place that works for everybody.

[115:11] This is good for people, this is good for business to maintain that economic diversity, and ultimately, this could set the standard for where we could go in the future. So please approve this as the applicants have presented, and thank you for your time. Great, thank you, Jonathan. Next up is Martha D. Patman, followed by Christy… Henrix? Hey, Marcia, go ahead. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Okay. Greetings, I'm Marty Patton, and I swear to tell the truth. I'm here wearing several hats. One is a former resident of Presbyterian Manor, and another is a current resident in the neighborhood. I live west of the manor, on Arapaho.

[116:08] I want first to acknowledge the valuable work that this review board does, weighing trade-offs that are rarely black and white. You are charged with evaluating When a loss of something in the past, in this case, the four houses on Arapahoe, is justified by something in the future. We can easily think of examples when one loss is offset by future gains, almost any significant civic building. But what about mistakes? You want to avoid them. Arguably, the 1933 demolition of the Beaux-Arts-style Penn Station in New York City should never have been approved by some New York City board. You don't want to make that mistake, and I imagine that you tend to err on the side of caution, and I respect that.

[117:02] I live on Arapahoe, within a block or so of the four houses in question, and I share your preservationist concern about the integrity of the nearby, historic neighborhood. I personally don't take lightly the demolition of many things, but together, we need to wrap our heads around not only the current affordable housing crisis facing Boulder, and it is a crisis. But also the much greater crisis that will face residents of the 2030s, 2040s, and 2050s if nothing is done. This is not a time to nostalgically stick our heads in the sand when more urgent humanitarian needs are waiting to be met. I speak not only for myself. but also for many of the residents of Presbyterian Manor, who absolutely believe in the mission of the manor, to do everything it can to not be myopic, to not be blind to basic needs, and to actively address one of the top crises of our time, affordable housing.

[118:11] That is something the Manor Board can address. It is something that you can do. Given the affordable housing crisis at hand, and given that in some estimates, the houses are not as significant, and I want to stress significant, historic value. For me, it's a no-brainer. These houses are not comparable to the 1933 Beaux-Art-style Penn Station. What they would be replaced with would address one of the top crises. of our times. Addressing this crisis is, I believe, an ethical obligation. Thank you. Thank you, Martha.

[119:02] Oh, I'm so sorry, I thought I was unmuted. Thank you, Martha. Next up is Christy Henricks, followed by Frank Bruno. Christy, go ahead. Good evening, everyone. Thank you for your role, in… in listening to our story tonight. My name is Christy Henrix. I'm the President and CEO of Frazier here in Boulder, and I swear to tell the truth. So, as someone who's worked and served in the senior living and senior services industry for more than 30 years, I consider myself an expert in this field, and have spent a great deal of doing research on the needs of older adults, and have become very familiar with what those needs are in Boulder. Boulder urgently needs more affordable senior housing. As has been stated, Boulder has a growing senior population, and there are very few affordable options for those older adults.

[120:03] Presbyterian Manor has talked about their year-long waitlist, and it would be longer if they allowed it to be so. So, you know, saying yes to this project helps to solve this very urgent problem that is growing. This project, as mentioned, would create 60 permanently affordable homes for older adults. The location is perfect. It's literally in their own backyard. It just doesn't get any better than that. Mark talked about how this site has access to the library, shopping center, the AgeWell Center, RTD, etc. That maintains independence for older adults and supports their desire to help them age in place. And not having access to those things would, would make aging in place more difficult. The existing building, also helps support this building, with amenity space, etc. The trade-off seems obvious. Again, I think the person who spoke before me talked about,

[121:05] Taking 4 market-rate houses off the market to replace it with 60 new permanently affordable senior homes, seems like a no-brainer, and, and… and will help not… probably more than 60 low-income seniors. These houses are small, aging, they're not accessible for older adults. And frankly, managing market rate houses is not the mission of Presbyterian Manor, which you heard them say earlier, is providing quality, affordable senior housing. The organization has an outstanding track record of managing senior affordable housing. We get asked to do it all the time to be a part of the solution, and my response is, we need to provide support in whatever the needs are of those who are already doing it and doing it well. So, I think we heard all the reasons why, moving the houses is not realistic, partial preservation doesn't work, keeping the houses as is doesn't serve the needs.

[122:06] But most importantly is just the seriousness of doing this in a timely fashion, because the dollars are there, and the process it takes to get approval of the city is forever. So please support this project. Thank you. Great, thank you, Christy. Next up, we have Frank Bruno, followed by David Radusiner. Okay, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you, Frank. Go ahead. My name is Frank Bruno, and I affirm that I will indeed tell the truth. I am… Currently a brand new board member of Presbyterian Manor. I previously served as Boulder City Manager, and was a Vice Chancellor at the University of Colorado, and I'm in my 10th year as the CEO of Via Mobility Services that Mark Liebertrow had mentioned. We are on the other side of the silver tsunami in terms of the housing, and we're on the transportation side, the paratransit side. We offer door through door.

[123:11] paratransit, and we've been serving Presbyterian Manor for many years, and I will affirm that the demand for our service, as well as for the housing, is really outpacing the ability to perform. And so, we absolutely respect the very difficult decision and the line that you have to walk as Landmarks Preservation Board. However, as we're talking about the silver tsunami, and the reality that the people 65 and over will continue to grow until at least 2060, the numbers, as opposed to younger. folks here just creates even more pressure for us to do something, and make these difficult choices. So, I, you know, I speak in support. Obviously, I'm a board member, so I have that responsibility.

[124:01] But I can tell you, you know, as someone who's providing senior services, you know, we have an opportunity to do something for former professors of CU, former doctors, nurses, teachers, all members, residents of the community, to be able to stay here. I know that my wife and my family, we live in the Fraser Meadows neighborhood, And we likely could not afford to buy our house today, and we bought it just a decade ago, and I've been in Boulder now 23 years, so we have some issues, but I just want to thank you for your time, thank my colleagues for their wonderful points, and I won't repeat any more of those, and I'll turn it back to you. Thank you. Great, thank you, Frank. Next up is David Raduziner. Raduziner, apologies if I'm mispronouncing, followed by Leonard Segel.

[125:02] David, you should be able to unmute. Okay, I just unmuted. Thanks, everyone. Happy to be here, and thanks for your service to the community. Really appreciate it. I'm David Radiziner, and I swear to tell the truth. I'm a 27-year resident. And, currently a member of the board of Historic Boulder. And I'm a strong supporter of affordable senior housing, particularly at this site. But there's several key points I'd like to make. First. These four buildings on Arapaho are a rare remaining example of an intact residential block face in the core of Boulder, illustrating how folks lived in the 20s, when Boulder was a small town of just 10,000 people. The group of buildings serve as a reference point that helps current residents and visitors understand what Boulder was like in its early years, and along with the eclectic nature of the area, provides context for how things have changed and how the city has adapted over the decades.

[126:01] Their location is particularly impactful given the location across the street from the main library entrance, providing a grounding in Boulder's history for everyone visiting. Individually, these buildings may not be of exceptional historic value. However, the historic benefit and value of retaining the four buildings altogether as a historic reference is substantial and culturally important. Second. as a developer and real estate professional, I'm confident that a way to save these buildings can be found. To integrate them into the proposed project, while accommodating a development plan that meets the needs of ownership and the community via collaborative site review process, resulting in a good project in terms of number of units, aesthetics, and affordability. Retaining these buildings would be a community benefit that would help offset other accommodations the owner would need during the site review in terms of density, configuration of the development. It's highly likely that an FAR of greater than 1.4 could be achieved during this process.

[127:05] The notion that this is a trade-off between 4 market rate units versus 60 affordable units is a red herring. The site can be redeveloped, resulting in potentially the same number of units, certainly much, much, much more than four, without demolishing the historic homes. And then finally, the board should issue a stay, given that the Landmarks Board purview and consideration should relate solely to whether the buildings have historic, architectural, environmental character. They do. The issue of affordable housing is not one that this board has chartered to weigh in on, though as indicated, I'm certain there is a way to both save the buildings and accommodate the need for affordable housing, with redevelopment of the balance of the site and integration of these buildings. The loss of these buildings to demolition would irreparably damage the community a stay Should be granted, providing an opportunity for the community to work collaboratively with ownership to explore opportunities that meet the needs of both owner and the community.

[128:10] Great, thank you, David. Next up is, leonard Segel? Segal, sorry. Followed by Tim Plass. Hello, I'm Leonard Siegel, and I swear to tell the truth. I want to thank you to the Landmarks Board members for focusing on the community value of historic preservation. I'm an architect and serve as the Executive Director of Historic Boulder. Thank you for the opportunity to make some comments about the proposed demolition of these houses. Historic Boulder is a preservation… has a preservation committee that is made up of people experienced with city processes, construction, real estate, architecture, history, governing, and preservation. We have met to review the report by the preservation planners, and came away agreeing that having a delay in the proposed demolition of these four historic buildings makes sense to consider a solution that incorporates shared community benefits of affordable housing, historic preservation, and environmentalism.

[129:18] Historic Boulder recognizes the value of affordable housing, especially for seniors. The past 15 years of my architecture career has been focused on the design of senior living communities, including at Fraser. I even once sketched a design concept for this property. I also served for several years on the board of directors of Golden West Senior Living, a permanently affordable community, but the City of Boulder has other expressed goals besides affordable housing that need to be considered and balanced with this development proposal. Environmentalism is an important city value and standard. The demolition of these four buildings would destroy their embodied energy, deplete natural resources, and hurt the carbon footprint of Boulder.

[130:00] These buildings already provide affordable housing for their occupants. How many people would be displaced in the demolition of these houses? Two per home? Four per home? More? Affordable housing comes in many forms. Boulder supports a variety of attainable housing types, not just department buildings. While the need for affordable housing is an important one. I want to remind the Landmarks Board members that their purview relates to whether the buildings have historic, architectural, and environmental character. The issue of affordable housing is not for you to consider in this quasi-judicial setting. The assessment by the developer's consultant that the properties don't have historic merit is flawed. They dismissed a previous assessment by the well-regarded Front Range Research Associates. They did not use Boulder landmark standards. It does not appear that they utilized the resources of the Carnegie Library to make their evaluation. The preservation of historic workforce housing like these should not be overlooked in favor of the larger trophy homes of wealthy people.

[131:05] Historic Boulder believes that a development that benefits Presbyterian Manor can be conceived during the stay of demolition that integrates these four historic houses into the layout, balancing other community values of historic preservation energy efficiency, carbon neutrality, keeping the pedestrian scale of this section of Arapahoe, and maintaining the spirit of Old Boulder. The timeline that you've set for yourselves is something you manage Maybe poorly, because now you're up against a deadline that you're forcing on the historic evaluation of these properties. I think that's a little unfair. Thank you, Leonard. comments. Thank you, Leonard. Okay, we have, Tim Plass up next, and, unless anyone Else wishes to speak, that's the end of our hands, but please raise your hand. If you still wish to speak. Tim Plass, go ahead.

[132:06] Hi, my name is Tim Plass, and I'm the president of the Board of Directors of Historic Boulder. And I'd like to speak tonight in favor of the staff recommendation to put a stay of demolition on all four properties. You swear to tell the truth? I will swear to tell the truth. I have told the truth so far, and I will… I will continue in the rest of my, rest of my testimony. Thank you. These properties have historic value because… both because of their architectural significance and association with persons of significance, well-researched and well-documented by the staff. A stay on all four properties is also appropriate because of the way this application is coming before you. This is a significant-sized project that will have to go to the planning board for site review, and possibly concept review as well. I spoke to the Landmarks Board last month about my concerns regarding the request for demolition coming before the site review. I won't rehash all of that argument now, but a stay is important so that these significant historic resources have a chance to be considered as part of the discretionary review process that will happen before the Planning Board.

[133:16] And obviously, preservation of historic resources is one of the criteria during site review. I also just want to make sure to reaffirm that affordable housing is a core value, core community value for Boulder, and I absolutely applaud the applicant's efforts here. But historic preservation is also an important community benefit. Obviously, the proposed project addresses the community value of affordable housing. The historic preservation value, not so much. I would challenge the applicants to design a project that can do both, and have even more community benefit. I would also offer that a diversity of housing types has a real value. These four historic homes can offer another option for affordable housing residents. While I would assume that the vast majority of the dwelling units will be attached in the new project, perhaps even corridor-loaded.

[134:10] The availability of detached dwelling units has a lot of appeal to many folks. Just consider the popularity of our mobile home parks. An affordable housing option that offers a detached dwelling with a yard and some distance from your neighbor. Historic Folder would welcome the opportunity to work with the applicant during the period of the stay to find a way for two deeply held community values, affordable housing, and historic preservation, to work together in tandem. I respectfully request that the Landmarks Board put a stay of demolition on each of the four houses. Thank you. Thank you, Tim. Great, thanks, Tim. And we have another raised hand, Lynn Siegel.

[135:02] Lynn Siegel, do I have to swear in? Yes, please. I swear to tell the truth the best as I know it. Not THE truth, the best I know the truth. This is not a planning board meeting. As the last person said, this is a Landmarks board meeting. Planning board last night took down, you know, the dinner theater at 55th and Arapaho, and they're putting a big, huge box And, you know, they got down from 12 feet to 10 feet. Because they would lose 6 units if they had ceilings that were 12 feet, but the commercial space, which is empty anyway, you know, those… all those considerations go on at Planning Board, not at Landmarks Board. This is the Landmarks Board, and this is where you decide if you want to say things. You don't have people coming to you and begging, begging!

[136:01] You know what? There's an endless Demand. For housing in this community. Seniors? All the way through, all the ages. That isn't our problem here. This is not the Housing Advisory Board. It should be that these things go through the Environmental Advisory Board. But I can't make the Environmental Advisory Board, because it's the same time as the Landmarks Board. But the… all of these projects should route through environmental. Because it's also a matter of the environment. But you know what? If you want a place. To live. That's worth it. Just a second, my friend's trying to get on. He lived, Bob lived at, 990 Arapaho. Before he preserved the house, maybe, Abby, you might remember. It's on 11th Bob Carmichael's house that he preserved, that beautiful place, that rock house. He lived in this house before. He's the most important member of… of someone that was of…

[137:07] of unbelievable value in Boulder. He worked for 10 years, like me, on municipalizing your local electric supply from Xcel Energy. And he lived at 990 before he preserved that house up on 11th and about Evergreen Forest, whatever. I don't know if he'll get on, but he can if he wants. Anyway, so this is, again, it's not the planning board. This is not where you come to beg for money. This is where you come to decide if you're gonna preserve something and have something that's worth the value of living in this place, because you know what? Day by day, the more I go around here, the more I see another box filling up my space. There's nothing here. There's no culture, there's no life, there's no humanity left here. Without preserving these places.

[138:00] This is not a place to make deals. Go to Planning Board for that. Thanks, Lynn. Thanks, Lynn. Okay, sorry, we've got another hand raised. Robert Carmichael? Robert, you have 3 minutes. Hi, this is Bob Carmichael. I don't see my image, but I… am I, on the air. Yes, we can hear you. Okay, yes. Oh, look, it's just real simple. I lived there. When I first moved to Boulder. I'm Robert, I'm sorry to interrupt, I just need you to swear the… tell the truth. Oh, yes. I swear to tell the truth, yes. Okay. I would just like to be on record saying that Uniquely, I have lived in that

[139:02] And it was, I lived there for 4 years, 3 or 4 years. And, It was very close to, you know, the center of town. It was convenient. It was a place I could afford. And I really… would… Would like to see it preserved. I mean… I think it's, You know, that kind of home… Craftsman kind of home. is, you know, it's, like, two bedrooms, I think, or maybe just one. But it was… really a nice domicile for… for me coming back to Boulder after many years. And it was a… And I really like the affiliation with the Senior Center. I've had all kinds of relationships there, and… you know, I was a photographer, I gave them prints, and so anyway, I would just say, please consider…

[140:07] The value of having those kind of stand-alone homes and Unique places to live for people to give Boulder… to enjoy Boulder in a way that's affordable, and you know, reasonably energy… Conscious as well, without having to destroy all that Embodied energy of those homes. I can't imagine what… the prospects would be. I hope it's not a… Another square apartment complex. That seemed to be empty. And 28th Street. So anyway, that's all I've got to say, and… I appreciate your time, thank you very much. Thank you, Robert. Yes. Great. Alright, I'm not seeing any other hands raised at this time.

[141:02] Okay. We'll give it a second. I don't, I'm assuming Amanda doesn't see any more hands raised. We can move to… I'm sorry, Renee. Is there one? There is one now, yes. Okay, go ahead. Stacy Arnett? Stacy, just remember to, swear to tell the truth. Yes, I… I swear to tell the truth. My name is Stacy Arnett. I'm, 5th generation Boulderite, 4th generation Boulderite. My great-great-grandfather came here. In the 1840s, 1850s. He had the… we had the Arnett Hotel, there's the Arnett House on 6th Street in Pearl. I was born here, and I've lived most of my life here.

[142:03] And I want to say, I'm also a resident at Presbyterian Manor. I am so grateful that this building is here, and that it provides extraordinary senior housing and a fabulous community for those of us who are growing older. And older. I also… Have no hesitation to promote the building, the demolition of these houses. Frankly, they're… having lived in Boulder my whole life and seen so much change happen here, these houses are… are insignificant compared to providing affordable housing for seniors in this community. There is housing for seniors in Boulder, but most of it is so expensive, it's untenable for people. This… this place, Presbyterian Manor, is unique. And, I would like to see it continue and expand, and continue to provide affordable senior housing for people in our community. In Boulder, these houses, these four houses, frankly.

[143:12] They're… They're ins… I can't say it more clearly. They're insignificant compared to the needs of the Older folks in Boulder. And to provide that need, and continue to provide for the diversity of our community, not just students and families, but also for seniors. So I highly recommend that you approve this project. And do it quickly so that we can get it going and continue to provide homes for seniors. I did not practice this speech. I appreciate your patience, and thank you very much. Thank you, Stacy.

[144:03] Okay? Okay. Last call for hands. I don't see anymore. Okay. So we will close this portion of the public comment. Let's move to the applicant response. The applicant will now have an additional 3 minutes if they would like to comment on anything that has been said during the public comment. There are a few things I'd like to just follow up on, I… Coming back to one of the comments about integrating the houses into the proposed design. The presence of the floodplain. the fact that it's senior housing, so you can't have senior housing, you can't have apartments in the floodplain. So the building that we've designed actually has no units, no housing on the first floor.

[145:02] And because of that restriction that's both in FEMA and in the Boulder Revised Code, if we integrated the houses, we would have to lift them up, like Tom said, on stilts. So the integration of them, it's not physically feasible, given the floodplain constraints that we have. And if you were to make them common area, then they would, need to be fully ADA accessible. And if, you were to make them units, they're really not suitable for seniors, given the lack of accessibility. With the… the FAR, it really is in the code that you can only go up to the 1.4 insight review. So you can do .67 FAR, But if you want to get to that 1.4, which is what we've designed to, you have to go to site review, and that's the maximum that they would give. I also want to speak to the environmental issues. This would be an all-electric building. We'd meet national green building standards, probably at least silver, if not gold.

[146:12] And then, in the process, you know, we're… we're required to go to Landmarks Board first. And so we're here, and we're trying to be a good steward of the nonprofit's funding. And in a lot of ways, I think, Mr. Carmichael's comments about liking to live there because of the Affordability and the access to the Age World Center. That's exactly what we're trying to do. We want to create more of that, and make it more accessible for more folks here. I'll tell you, I was a history major in college. I love… I love history. I love old buildings. I actually took the same historic preservation classes that Marcy took, and There are really interesting things about these houses, but we also have a lot of other examples around our community. So let's… let's go work together and find other examples that we could landmark.

[147:10] That maybe aren't gonna interfere with the potential to build affordable housing for seniors in our community. We have another minute. I don't know if Tom or Mark, if there's anything you guys want to add to it. Just, a quick note on that, too. The houses are market-rate houses. Two of them are rented to student groups, and the two on the ends were rented to single people. You can have your 24 seconds back.

[148:06] Renee, you're on mute. Thank you. We're going to move to board… to the… move to the board… to the board discussion, and I ask everyone else to mute your computer or phone for the duration of the discussion. So let's start. With, I suppose we should start with the first unit, 976, Arapahoe Avenue. And does someone want to kick it off? Would it be possible to… Can we talk about it as a bundle, or no? We have to talk about it individually. That's a good question. I think we have to make cons… oh, well, we'll let Marcian. Good evening.

[149:01] My advice is to take each application on its own while they're in the same place, and there's kind of similar things going on with them. each, each structure is its own thing, and so it's entirely possible you might decide to do different things based off of what the, you know, characteristics and criteria lead you on each application. So, I would advise Taking them one at a time. Somebody making a motion, and then deciding that for each particular address. And Chris, can… I think, you know, Chelsea, we could talk about, the… could we talk about, like, overall, and then start talking about them individually, or you don't suggest that? I think, Renee, one of the things that has to be said at this point is. the… In our consideration of these, We… we have to go through

[150:03] It's set up as a process where we do have to vote each one of them individually. Right. But in our discussion, Because it's kind of a… a… group figure in the urban design of the city, we do have to discuss the significance of the grouping, and in the context of the neighborhood that it's sitting in. in… i.e. the changing context, and the fact that it's a fragment A fragment remnant in an area of Pretty significant change. then I think we have to proceed to talking about them Say, west to east, one after the other. Well, I think we probably could discuss… let's… we could start with 7-6, talk about it, and also weave in what you just said. to this first one. Like, it'll be the same theme, I think, you know, like, you're talking about, like, how this has changed, but I think we should just…

[151:09] Start. Here. And I think it also has to be said that, unfortunately, This… this is… The outcome of this skewed process that we've been finding ourselves in is we're the first ones that the development community comes to to try to get through the entitlement process. And we can't really discuss the project that they're coming to us with. We can only discuss the merits of the specific affected resource. And it's… it's why this needs to be resolved. Because this is a situation where There is a great deal to discuss about this project, but we're not the ones to do it, and this isn't the place to do it.

[152:03] So, we have to look at what we have to look at as though nothing is happening behind it, other than something that wants to knock it down. So, towards that end, can we… can we look at the list of the criteria? Really quick, reverse. Presenting their screen. What I don't really see in there, John, to your point, is… Is the consideration of whether affordable… Housing is on our docket. It isn't. It isn't. So… It isn't. So I, I think, I think that could clear things up. for us to sort of… while I would bet that my board… fellow board members are sympathetic, to… affordable housing concerns in Boulder. That's not really our place to make a decision. About how, potentially, Those needs could be met.

[153:02] Even with more creative solutions adjacent to the existing tower. Let's say. Right. And I would love to see solutions that were considering a second tower, rather than maybe. Right. the demolition of… historic fabric. Hmm. But, so maybe we just focus on these… this criteria. Yeah, we have to stick to that. And I'll go first in saying that I would agree with staff's recommendations. for item 5A. I'm happy to go next, Renee, if that's okay. The first and foremost, what I want to say about this evening's public hearings is that staff's presentation.

[154:02] Was phenomenal, followed by an equally and perhaps even more stellar presentation by the applicants. And I really appreciate what the applicants have said, and, you know, kudos to all of you for your great presentation, your compelling arguments, and then that was followed by, I think, some of the most articulate passionate members of the public who took time tonight to either support this project or to, encourage the Landmarks Board to place a stay of demolition. And I just so appreciate the quality of everything that was shared with this, and, it means a lot to me. It's something I personally have wrestled with after My brother, who lived a mile and a half away, and Golden West now has to be in Denver because of the cost of assisted living. So, I hear that, and I appreciate that, but my role as a member of the Landmarks Board is to look at the criteria, as Michael just very,

[155:10] succinctly pointed out, and use purview, what might be built in this place, is not something we can look at. And how noble the goal is, how, how… how the issues of affordability in Boulder, not even for our senior citizens, is… is… So important to all of us. I'm forced to go back and look at what our criteria is, and what is being asked for us tonight to vote on. And here's where I land. I think what has impressed me about these four buildings, and I know we're just voting about one now, but to John's point a few moments ago. It's this wonderful cluster of buildings, and it reminds me of the fabulous cluster of five buildings in the 16th Street Historic District that, again, wasn't designed by trained architects.

[156:08] But as a whole, became just this wonderful little neighborhood grouping. And I will be supporting staff's recommendation for a stay, because that doesn't preclude at all any future redevelopment on this, and any potential plans that the applicants would like to see. But it's just to take a breath, step back, support the stay. because I do believe 976 Arapaho Avenue is eligible for individual landmark designation, so for this item, I will be supporting staff's recommendation.

[157:01] Okay. I… Considering, or at least as I stated, I think that… If, if considered individually. I could go through the list, and… say. in essence, that I agree with staff's recommendation on each of the items 5A through 5D, And I also agree strongly with the statements that were made by the members of Historic Boulder. That… consider the grouping, because I think that their significance in this neighborhood, in this context. That has vastly changed since these houses were built. Is the grouping and the consideration of them, which kind of amplifies their significance.

[158:06] So… To, to cut through it. for 5A, I agree with staff. And their recommendation for 5B… well, I'll wait till the… time, but that's my position on that. At the same time. I find agreement with everything the petitioner said. I can't speak to it in this forum. So, Chelsea, do you want to go, or do you want me to? I'm… I'm happy to… I… when I was looking at all of these. my comments essentially rolled up to be the same comments across the four. So… I… am…

[159:04] Gonna say what my comments are. And they apply. They do apply to all four, even though I did look at them individually, and they just apply. So, I'm sorry, I'm not going against… I'm going against the guidance. But, in my view, these… four houses do not meet our standards for landmark designation under the criteria in front of us. The builder and architect are unknown, and while the past residents were certainly members of this community. I… I don't see any evidence that, you know, a sign maker or a member of the Elks Club On their own, rise to the level of historical significance that our criteria are meant to capture. It was suggested that these properties are environmentally significant because they are, quote, like, visually prominent, but I'll be honest, I don't really understand what that means.

[160:08] More than just you can see them from the street. I lived one block away from these homes, for about 2 years, and regularly walked past them, on my way to campus, and To downtown, and I… I don't remember them. I didn't recognize them when I first saw the memo. They didn't shape my experience of the streetscape in any meaningful way, and I… You know, would be interested to hear what the community thinks about how these shape their experience in any meaningful way. There has already been substantial change in this area, from the multi-family apartments right next to them on the west side to the Presbyterian Manor on the other, and on the other side to other nearby redevelopments, and

[161:06] I just… I don't believe that this remaining cluster of modest houses is enough to establish environmental significance in that evolving context. So, for those reasons, I don't believe that these properties meet the criteria for individual landmarks. And I believe that it is part of our job and duty to be selective and principled about what we landmark, because that keeps this program meaningful and credible. I know that this is not part of our criteria making decisions, so I'm gonna separate out. That was… that was my criteria-based decision, and I… I guess I just… I… we don't live in a vacuum, like, I just want to be clear about the consequences of our decision. The applicant's stated vision affordable housing for seniors in our downtown.

[162:03] appears to be incompatible with retaining these buildings, and I don't believe additional time will change that fundamental conflict based on all of the very, like, real legitimate reasons that the applicant brought forward. What more time will do is just make it harder to deliver a deeply Needed affordable housing for seniors. an aging population, like, that is growing very quickly in our community, and are already struggling to remain in this community. And when I think about historic preservation… sorry, I'm getting on my soapbox for a second. When I think about historic preservation. I think about, like, the legacy of our decisions that we leave for future generations. And if we landmark these properties, we are not only preserving their existing history, which is good, but we are also creating a new history, and that history would be that this body blocked affordable senior housing in order to protect

[163:09] these four, what I believe to be unremarkable homes with unremarkable histories. And that's not the legacy I want. myself or this board to have. So, for my criteria-based reasons, and additional ones, I will, I would vote to approve the application and demolition request, and I… I really urge my fellow board members to do the same, because the cost of inaction is simply too high. Thanks, Chelsea. So, I'm just gonna speak… I'm gonna try to follow. How we're supposed to do this. So, I'm gonna speak to 976, Arapahoe Avenue. First, I want to say that, like, I think staff did a wonderful job. I think that the applicant has brought forth a really, compelling argument. Again, I think that the…

[164:14] the idea that affordable housing, and especially affordable senior housing, which I think gets overlooked quite a bit, it… this is… this is a… this is a problem for, within, Boulder County. So. And the City of Boulder. So, I wanna, you know, let you guys know that I… I honor the fact that you're… you do this for, and you're a steward for, senior living, and I think this is… really an amazing location for this type of work, and again, we will go to what, you know, on the Landmarks Board. And the process, I think, for how we look at these demolitions is a little skewed, and I think we talked about that a little bit.

[165:02] But I do, I will start with this 7-6. And, so you… and Chelsea kind of stepped on this for the architectural features of this property. So, I mean, it's a 1927 craftsman bungalow that remains really intact. It's an original enclosed sun porch. Staff mentioned that they exposed rafter tails. You know, there's a prominent, historic workmanship. the neighborhood character and the cultural association with the Boulder's, you know, early development in this area. I think staff does a good job of digging into it. I enjoy the fact that there's a… a time to pause, and, the stay of demolition, might… be warranted. I want to talk about that a little bit, because I know, that we've, I'm… I'm understanding that this, timing is a little bit of an issue, and so I'm… I'm willing to open up

[166:14] a little bit more about if we're leaning towards a stay as the board for 976 Arapaho, item 5A, If we could talk about the schedule of this, and maybe come to a common agreement instead of, you know, choosing either side, choosing between all this stuff. If we… if we truly, you know, are… You know, this is… we all think this is a steward, something they could do, and at the same time, they've come to us to ask us Does this meet the criteria? And during the stay, we're able to have these conversations with them, and come out to the site. And so, I'm wondering if there's a way to

[167:07] to adjust the timeline, on 976 Arapahoe Avenue so that we could, meet with… with what Catherine is trying to do, because I understand, like, you know, getting these forms of cost implications is… is a big deal. So, I don't know how the rest of my board feels about that, but, I'm… I'm interested in, kind of coming to a compromise or an agreement with this, and, like, trying to work out to, help Both sides, I guess. So… Renee, we have previously reduced. out. The length of the stay that we placed. With… with the… I guess the intention of the stay

[168:03] The stated intention of the stay is to explore alternatives To the demolition of these buildings. Yeah, and instead of it feeling like a, like a, like, you know, that… that's what it is. It's not a… implementation and, you know, for the client, like, you know, there's… there is big ramifications for this stay, so that's… I want it to be more of a positive thing, rather than, you know, this is… it's dead in the water. So I don't know if… if a reduced stay, does that help Catherine? John, you can go. Well, no, I just… I just wanted to fully, fully state what the purpose of the stay is. The stay is the one opportunity that… is afforded to A project for any kind of interactive process.

[169:03] of… exploring Ways around demolition. And… It's the only opportunity we get to engage in that. Because it comes to us with… All the… the work done, as it were. and decisions are already been made, well, it's just not a viable alternative. But… The, the… The stated goal of the state is that we explore alternatives and thoroughly examine the value of the property. And Historic Boulder has stated that they want to be involved in that process also. And again, it's the only opportunity that's really afforded to do this. If we were, I guess, to take your question.

[170:02] the next step with Catherine. If the stay was reduced to, say, 90 days, does that gain new. At all. Am I allowed to respond? I just… Oh, yes, I asked you directly. you are allowed to respond, I believe. So, so, I want to make sure I understand the timing. The 90 days would be from the day that Presbyterian Manor submitted the application and paid for it, which was the end of October? So that would be… 90 days would get us to the end of November, December, the end of January? Is that… When does the 90 days start? Mercy? Marcy. Or Claire. Hi. So typically when the board has decided to put a shortened stay, you would look at the time forward from tonight and say, what can we reasonably accomplish and make use of that time? And so, rather than looking backwards and calculating, I would, give you the math that I always do, which is

[171:16] The board meets the first Wednesday of the month. During the stay, which usually, has 3 or 4 board meetings within that stay, we usually give you a status update of, we met with the applicant, here's what we discussed, etc. But in order for the board to take action. by the end of the stay, you have to make that scheduling decision the month prior. And so, if you have a stay, that is in ends in January, any time in the month of January, it ties your hands, quite a bit in terms of, the ability to take action on the applications before the stay expires.

[172:04] So we would have… we could have just January meeting to do that, or you're saying… I would say a shortened stay would, not be very useful if it were shorter than, the February 7th meeting. Okay. And even then, I would say that, given the holidays in December, it's not very realistic to get a group of 10 together before your January, I think it's January 7th. meetings, so these could be scheduling considerations closer to if the board is heading that way. For a shortened… motion, why don't I go off-screen, make a recommendation about the shortened stay, but my point is that sometimes the board will offer a shortened stay because, they'd like to benefit the applicant, but then it becomes just a delay, and it's not a very productive use of time.

[173:05] Yeah, we… if we do this, we want to make it as productive and… and… And another. Useful as possible. Another option that the board has exercised in the past is to place a stay of up to 180 days, so that would go up until April 25th. The board can choose to lift that stay early, During the stay as well, so… So, right now, tell me what… Tell me right now, if we place a stay without any sort of timeline issue, what does that look like? Like, when the stay is 120 days, like Catherine was saying, is it 120 days from today? No, it's 180 days from the day the fee was paid, and so that's calculated out to end on April, 25th, so the April Landmarks Board meeting would be the last regularly scheduled meeting during that stay.

[174:08] Okay. Okay, and, and, maybe I can… go back to, like, Catherine, within your process, or we can ask Within the process of this, like, stay, I mean, I… I'm… I'm… I'm trying to, you know, be gentle in this whole process. I was wondering, is there other things that, like, if… If we… if… I don't know how to say it, like, what's the next step after the Landmarks Board for you? And… and… I mean, there's other criteria you have to meet, so February 1st. Right? Is the date you're trying to match? Yeah, so the next steps for us… after, receiving

[175:04] demolition approval would be to enter into a concept review application with the city. So we already did a pre-app. We already did that work. That's how we landed here, because one of our big questions was. Which path do we go down? So we'll go into a concept review. So we put in that application, we get responses from the planning staff, we have a concept hearing with the planning board. We go back and we make a site review application. And then, at site review application, which is… really extensive drawings. They're essentially DD-level drawings, so we need to show what the exterior of the building looks like, how many units, all the parking, the landscaping, the civil, all of that work. Landscaping and civil are essentially 100% done at that point. And then, kind of, structural, and design are 25 to 50% done at site review. So…

[176:06] that's the… the path that I think will take us 12 months, and we'd like to have that done by February 1, 2027. So that's why I gave you the February 1. date, as I said, we'll work as hard as we can, and so I think I see February The first Wednesday in February 26th is February 4th. So, if… if that stay lasted until, like, February 5th, so that we can have that meeting on the 4th, as well as the meeting in January. I'll tell you, our team is very committed to this, and we're here through the holidays, and so… We can meet tomorrow, if you need to meet tomorrow. And… and we'll work as efficiently as possible to get that… that done.

[177:00] Okay, thanks, Catherine. Chelsea, hands raised, I see it. So, it sounds to me that Catherine and her team have done a lot of work investigating How this project could look, and all the different ways in which they could achieve this project. And so, I know as part of the stay. You know, some of… a lot of those conversations, at least the ones I've been a part of in the past, are the board kind of digging into that and seeing if there are other opportunities that maybe haven't been thought about. But considering how prepared this team is, and how much work they've done previously. It seems like that conversation could be relatively efficient and productive, and I think… for… the…

[178:05] for what is at stake, I think it is worth it. to… to try to find the time between, like, again, like, you know, maybe next week, maybe. Like, I think it's worth it to try to find the time. If we're gonna have… this conversation is gonna happen, let's just try to do it. In the next few weeks. And… and make that commitment so that… Regardless of what the outcome is, we're leaving the most opportunity For, you know, for them to meet their goals, if… if that is ultimately what is allowed. I… I can agree with that, Chelsea. I… I think that… I think that what we want to accomplish with this stay is to have that conversation with your group. To go through and talk about this project in

[179:04] The controlled forum that that would provide. And talk about what the alternatives could be. And… And to understand more fully the other side of what we can't even discuss tonight. Because I think that that… Gives us a little more… Of a complete… opportunity for… Input and looking at the resource versus the potential resource that would be created here. And because, as I said, the process is skewed, putting us on the front end of it in a way That we're the ones Completely blocking the entitlement process, which is… is not what our role should be. Well…

[180:00] and… But also, on the other hand, John, is that we want to be in… in the concept phase, we want to be engaged, right? Right. Because if these buildings are, they don't want to go down and be the la- or the last, or the first, or whatever. Or whatever. hard… it really is hard to, plan this out, and I… I feel for the applicants that are going through this, you know, and, you know, and to say that Yeah, so, I mean, to be the first could be a godsend, but at the same time, it could be a double-edged sword. So, like, you know, there's already plans in place, and I think that You know, as the… as the historic board, it's our… we… we need to have these conversations and look at these buildings more than, just demoing them. So, one question for staff is. the… if we do do a shorted stay, not naming a time, what does that… what does… I know that puts a lot on staff, and with the holidays, what does that look like, Marci?

[181:12] Well, staff is here, other than some closures around, the holidays for New Year's and… Christmas and the winter holidays. I will say it is, in the past, been challenging to get 12 schedules to align. So, we will do everything we can to put together a meeting in a timely manner, and we would, we need a minimum of 24 hours to notice that meeting, if there are two or more board members. So we're here to help schedule that, I just want to be realistic in that the holidays are very challenging to have everyone's schedule align, but it sounds like there's Interest and motivation to make it happen. All right, Abby or Michael, do we have…

[182:05] Input. Well, marcy would… having this day go till early or mid-February, giving the February 4th meeting a chance to make a decision, which I know means that we have to vote on it in January to put… take action at February. Is that even realistic, or do we need to look to March? I don't… my opinion is that it's not realistic, because that means having to… meeting between now and January, 7th, and then having enough information for the board to then schedule a hearing for the February 4th, meeting. So, I think a, Again, an approach is that you could set

[183:02] the stay, and then at the January meeting, if this… if we meet in December and it's very productive and there's a clear outcome, at the January meeting, you could schedule a hearing in February. If you have another meeting in January, you can schedule a meeting at the February meeting for the March agenda. So. having a longer stay gives the board more flexibility. It doesn't take away your option to shorten the stay. But I think the message about the commitment to move on this and make it a productive use of time is… what I'm hearing as the important thing. I think the length of stay, It's up to the board, but… but you are kind of limiting your options by… by shortening it, where if you didn't, you would have the option to have a short stay or a longer stay. I appreciate that.

[184:01] The other… Oh, go ahead. And Renee, the one other comment I want to make is, John, you brought this up, and I heard a willingness from the three speakers from Historic Boulder that they would love to be involved, and I think they'd be very valuable. Even if only one person could attend whenever the first meeting is, I… if a stay… you know, so far there's no motion, and, you know, we don't have a stay in place. on… and we're still at the first, property. but just from my vantage point, you know, I would meet as early as tomorrow or Friday, but anytime next week. I mean, I heard Chelsea's comment, and I think it's for us as board members to kind of put… put ourselves out there, that we will do our part if we feel… if there is a vote for a stay, that we all need to, even if we have to rearrange something at some point, I personally can commit to be very available and flexible as soon as possible.

[185:06] I, I also do. I'm almost wondering, like, could we… I know, probably not the best use of time right now, but… Katherine, I don't know about your team and their availability, but I imagine that since this is a big Priority for your team? Would it be… Feasible for us to even just find a time that works now for everybody, so we don't have to do the whole scheduling. Thing afterwards, and… Is that something we could do? Yeah, I think… As long as we have Tom and Mark on the call, then… We can schedule that. And Marcie, is this… under, like… There's a process, so I don't wanna… I'm saving Marcy, you know, some emails.

[186:01] You know, I do love a doodle poll, though, but… We can do it. I… the only consideration I would have is whether the board would like to make a motion so that you know what you're formally doing and scheduling. Exactly. I think, I think, first of all, maybe we go through and, you know, make, Chris happy. Chris Reynolds happy, and go… let's go through… now that we've kind of, like, you know, we're getting on some sort of path of… of… what we want to do. Let's… let's start. Can, Chris, question for you, can we go in to talk about them individually, and then, and then come back to 5A and make a recommendation, or a motion, and… and do the motion per all of them? Is that… does that make sense, what I'm asking?

[187:00] I'd recommend doing four separate motions for each. Yeah, but we could… we could move on to the next item. We don't have to make a motion for this one without… Right? Like, can we go B. Well, I… I… I would advise making the motion during the… because this is really the hearing for this item, and so if you go on and talk about other, you know, item 5B, C5D, then, you know, you're lumping all of the deliberations together. And so, each application has to be considered on its own merits, which this situation is complicated, because there are these similarities, and, you know, the building's relationship to the character of the neighborhoods, you can… in some contexts, talk about them together, but, you should make a motion on 5A, and then 5B, and then 5C, and then 5D. Can I just jump in one thing? I just have a question about that, because I guess if that's the case, then why did we have a public hearing for all of them combined?

[188:07] Because it was one application. One applicant. They're… but they're different. It's one… it's one project area, which would normally be submitted as one thing, but the individual house… I suspect it's four separate applications. Yeah, they had to be applied for 4… 4 times, I guess. Exactly. So, I guess, anyway, it's just a point of clarification that if they are for Indeed, 4 distinct applications, then they should have had four separate Public hearings, and it seems like we're mixing things up, but… I'm fine, I keep going. I think that that was… I think, Chelsea, you're… this is this gray area of… You know, do… do we want to do the… each application, and then hear the same… We would hear the same,

[189:01] proposal, right, for each one, because the proposals are the same for each of them, but we're individually have to look at them. So, again, let's start… Yeah. Do you want to make a motion on 976? Well, Chelsea has… Here we are. Marcy has to get something up, and we have to talk about the timing. There's the… there's the language. So… I'll incorporate the… I'll incorporate the timing in my motion. But are we shortening? Let's go back. Are we shortening it to… I don't think so. I think we're… no. I think we're saying that that's… That's sort of due process, but what we are articulating is an accelerated from the pool. Opportunity to meet with the applicants. Well… So, sorry, just in terms of procedure. Anybody can make a motion, and then the motion has to get seconded. You don't all have to agree as to what the motion is before the motion is made.

[190:02] We'll. So Michael says that he has a motion, he can then make the motion, and then it gets seconded, if it gets seconded, then it gets voted on. So you don't all have to agree what the motion is before it's made. Usually that is kind of sometimes what happens, but… But just as a point of clarification, you don't have to agree on the motion before it's made. The agreement part happens when the voting occurs. Okay. I guess I… I wanted to more or less do… like, right now it's, April 25th. If we shorten it by 30 days, we get… January, February, and the March meeting, and then it's up in April, if we shorten it by 30 days, we have January and February meeting. Right? What? Let me ask… Chris? If… if we vote, each, each…

[191:02] Of the four houses, in turn, make the motion, Seconded, voted. And we have gone through all four and voted all four motions. Can we then discuss The collective stay at that point. Well, the question on each of these applications is to whether or not to, issue a stay or approve demolition. Right. So… what you do on one doesn't necessarily impact the other, although I understand you might want to do the same thing. on each one. But… But… Are you asking, John, if you can go back and then discuss the timing of this day, or the length of the. Right, right. Does… Does the timing have to be… Included in the specific discussion on each of the four.

[192:01] That's… I would say yes, because otherwise, you'd need to then go back and make probably four other motions to talk about what the length of stay is in each of them, if that's what the board ends up doing. So I would advise incorporating length of stay into the motion for each of these properties, so it would be four separate motions that either, you know, whatever the motion is, but incorporate the length of stay in each motion, because otherwise I think we'd have to go back and do more motions about the length of stay for each application, if that's what the board ends up doing. And just to Marcy's point, though, that the board's hands are not tied if If the board wants to issue stays of demolition on 5A, the board's hands are not tied by this 180 day. It's not to exceed 180 days. It could be much, much shorter than that, if that… if the meetings occur at a future Landmarks board meeting. So, so…

[193:02] That, from a… Thank you. That provides the most options. That's what I was trying to… Renee, that… I hope that answers your concern. I was just trying to do an olive branch to indicate to the… to our applicants that we are… we are… we're… we're… we're willing to make it, so… Well, the olive branch is really about, like, meeting next week. to get into a greater discussion, the not to exceed 180 days doesn't preclude us from. Working faster. Okay. pushing. Would you be willing to make it 150 days, just since we are planning on meeting anyway, just as a… A indication of, like, a concrete action of our support? To move things along? I'd like to make a motion. Okay!

[194:00] I move, I move that the Landmarks Board issue a stay of demolition for the building located at 976 Arapo Avenue for a period not to exceed 150 days from the day the application was accepted. By the city manager in order to explore alternatives to demolishing the building. I second that. I think it's me. Now, hold on, I have to go back to the other screen. Thank you. Do we have a second? Okay, now we need to take a roll call vote. John? Aye. Chelsea? No, but I very much appreciate the friendly amendment. Abby? I… Michael? Aye. An aye. The motion passes. 4 to 1. Now we move on to 5B.

[195:01] 986 Arapaho Avenue. Let's discuss. Do we want to talk about 986 Arapaho and… Up. I'd like to… I mean, we're gonna… this is gonna be an extension of… and Chelsea, I wanna… I wanna acknowledge all of the really eloquent points and… and socially responsible points that you… you made. I… I mean, I… I think you're spot on with those. The exception that I have to them, though, is I don't know that it's our role to only acknowledge You know, significant, high-end. architecture. I think we're also… we have a responsibility to even the lowest but… but exemplary forms of, in this case, or in the case of all of them, but I'll use this as an example since that's what we're talking about, of a craftsman-style envelope that isn't, you know, the green and green masterpiece, but it's representative of

[196:13] how the community lived in the 1920s, and the fact that the context has changed is due in large part to the enormous tower on the corner, but I don't… I don't know that that… Continuing to erode that… that… Humble infrastructure is the right move either. So that's… that's all I'll say about this one, but I think I… I just wanted to… Based on the criteria, I feel like it's an example, a fine example of a humble craftsman-style House and dwelling that… that is… were to lose it. If this was, you know, in a different context, I don't think we would have…

[197:00] Any issues acknowledging it as… as worthy of a landmark status? And Michael, I want to echo your, kudos to Chelsea. Chelsea, you're always such a gifted communicator, and I hear everything you say, and a lot of it resonates with me, and then I go back to what I feel is the task in front of me, and what my vote should be on 986 Arapahoe Avenue, but that's… that you need to know that I value and hear and applaud everything you… you've not only shared this evening, but at every board meeting, but… but in my eyes, and I know when I was part of the stakeholders group on the first 2013 Historic Preservation Plan, there was a section we called out to… to… to… be sure and protect when appropriate, smaller dwellings, what some people consider the most modest homes, because they actually tell the stories of everyday people in Boulder, and I think that's as important as the dignitaries, and

[198:10] I think with the previous House we have voted on, I think this House, in my mind, is… has the potential to be eligible for landmarking. I will be supporting staff's recommendation for a stay of demolition, and I think it continues to add a grace note to this block. Right. We're… are we going in screen order? Is… I don't think it matters, John. Okay, well, I'm… I'm gonna say, first of all. Michael, that was well said. Abby, I agree with you, and… I applaud Chelsea's position on this. It does, in our criteria, it is discussed that we have a responsibility to the vernacular, and especially

[199:07] in terms of what Michael said, this is… this is what Boulder was. This is how people lived in the 20s and 30s in Boulder. And we do have a responsibility to look at Fragments of that boulder as they remain in Areas, particularly of fiercely changing context, And… because of the intactness of this particular house at 986 Arapaho. And because of its sitting in a context of a grouping of 3 other individually distinct Pieces of that period I think that it has value that we need to recognize. And so, I support staff's recommendation and the statements made by

[200:08] historic Boulder, and… There you have it. You know, I, I agree, with, I… I will be supporting staff's recommendation in this. I think that there is… these, little gems within our neighborhood. Michael and Chelsea are doing a really great job of, you know, creating this, What the issues are at hand, and that's why we are here, to look at each individual piece and take it for what it is. So for 9, 8, 6… Arapahoe Avenue, I feel like, you know, there are a lot of, details in here that is to preserve the craftsman-style bungalow. I also think that the area around it,

[201:06] you know, that we have to look at these type of things. So, Chelsea, do you, want to speak on this one, or would you like me to… Or should… does someone want to make a motion? I'll make a motion. IP, you all go. But Chelsea should get her chance first. She's… she… I've said my piece. It applies to all of them, so I feel good about… What is it? Thank you all. Okay. I have a motion. Marcy? Do I have a motion? I move that the Landmarks Board issue a stay of demolition for the building located at 986 Arapaho Avenue For a period not to exceed 150 days from the day the application was accepted by the city manager in order to explore alternatives to demolishing the building.

[202:14] Thanks, John. Do we have a second? Second. We'll take a roll call vote. Abby. I… Michael. Aye. Chelsea. No, but again, appreciate the amendment. John. Aye. And I vote aye. Motion passes 4 to 1. Now we move on to 5B986. Oh, nope, 5C, sorry, 5C990 Arapahoe Avenue. Do… Let's… Talk about maybe… again, here's another little gem within the city that represents

[203:11] this area of what we like, the craftsman-style bungalow, the uncommon arch porch in there, the pergolas, the rafter tails, like, so, the historic nature of this, it's 1922 vernacular. So, again, I agree to, go with staff's recommendation. John? Since you're unmuted. Okay, yeah, well, I just… Stay unmuted. This one… is… An interesting example of I guess, creative vernacular. And it is kind of…

[204:00] has a unique set of elements added to the bungalow style, the gambling on the roof ends, and then the curved entry. And the, the arbor kind of mini pergola structure across the front are just… really interesting little pieces of… of this house that… that I think make it… Definitely rise to staff's recommendation. And the, statements made by Historic Boulder. So… I support this one. Same. Except for the fact that the pergola rafters are upside down. Yeah. They're upside down, is what it looks like. The bevels.

[205:03] And I also will be supporting staff's recommendation on this… this unique house, and find that it meets the criteria. for individual… Michael, you're unmuted. I was ready to make a motion. Absolutely. Chelsea. I was gonna let Chelsea… Chelsea say that her… Her comments apply to this one as well. Yeah. Ditto, ditto, myself. I would like to make a motion. I move that the Landmarks Board issue a state of demolition for the building located at 990 Arapaho Avenue for a period not to exceed 150 days from the day of application, concepted by the City Manager in order to explore alternatives to demolishing the building. Do we have a spec kit? I'll second it.

[206:02] We'll take a roll call vote. Chelsea! No, but thanks again for the amendment. Abby… Bye. Michael. Bye. John. Aye. And I vote aye. Motion passes 4 to 1. We now move on to, item 5D, 1004, Arapaho Avenue. Let's discuss… discuss this final item. I will kick it off with a couple things about this, building, that this… this one, I think, is the oldest one of all of them, if I understand correctly, which was pretty unique. In itself, the gable, I mean, it, it does a really good job of the, again, the Craftsman bungalow feature, the characteristics of…

[207:00] the front gable porch, the tapered columns, rafter tails again. So, I, again, will be supporting staff's recommendation. John? Yeah, this is an interesting and fairly well-preserved I guess, version Of the bungalow form. And, I support staff's recommendation. And historic Boulder. As a detail, Renee, I believe this one from the report Identify the state of construction as 1927, so it was… it was really… later. Yeah, it was really 986 was 1921, 990 was 1922. So those… the two, sort of, in the middle. Of this row were the older…

[208:03] Just pointing that out, for the record. For the record. No, no. Further comments? Abby? I will be supporting staff's recommendation. Chelsea? I have no further comments. Thank you, Jill. Do I have a motion? I'll do it. Mercy. I move that the Landmarks Board issue a stay of demolition for the building located at 1004 Arapahoe Avenue for a period not to exceed 150 days. From the day the application was accepted by the city manager in order to explore alternatives.

[209:05] To demolishing the building. I second it. So let's take a rolled call vote. Michael. Right. Abby. Aye. Chelsea. No. Done. Aye. And I vote aye. Motion passes 4-1. Marci, can you please go over the next step in the process? And I believe this was a historic… historic, online virtual meeting Of 4 different… App items. It's very interesting tonight. Whoa. Yes, okay, oh, good, Claire's on it. Thank you, Claire. Okay, so, so the vote was to place a shortened stay of demolition on each of the applications.

[210:04] And that is from the date the Landmarks Board, hearing fee was paid in October. So, it will, expire on March 26th, unless the board chooses to lift it. or take action before then. So the next step is to, designate two Landmarks Board members. There can be more than two, but, traditionally the board has selected two members to represent the board during the stay, and then to schedule, a meeting with the applicants. We typically do that, tomorrow, the following day. But if there's interest in pulling up all of our calendars and seeing if there's a date that aligns, then we are willing to support that. So, Marci, is your first question for two Landmarks board members to volunteer?

[211:03] Yes, thank you, Abby. First question, are there two Landmarks board members that would like to volunteer to represent the board during the stay? Second question, would the board like to try and schedule that meeting, right now, or through, like, a doodle poll tomorrow? With general guidance of what days or times of day generally work. Hmm. So, let's start with the first question. Are there two landmarks Board, or more, who would like to represent the board during this day? I see John's hand. And I don't… Marci, would it be based on… for me, it would be based on the availability of when the meeting is. If… If the meeting is a time that I can be there, I'm happy to be a representative. And Chelsea, the, the purpose of the stay is to explore alternatives and look for ways for the buildings to be preserved. So, if… since you, voted against this stay, I would say you're welcome to join, but,

[212:15] As long as you understand the purpose is to talk about alternatives and how the buildings could be preserved. Yes, I understand the purpose of this day. Great. in the cinema. I have some availability, I'm happy to… Are you looking for a minimum of two, Marci? Yes, but there could be more. It could be all five. Yeah, it could be. I'm happy to volunteer, but I always like when our architects are able to, attend these meetings. Well, it sounds. Well, there's 3 of those. I know. Well, I think… so if John and Abby sound like they have the most availability, let's put them as the two that are designated.

[213:05] And then I'm willing to bend over backwards to make this meeting. You know, there are some things that we… I can't move, but, so let's make, officially John and Abby the two, and then, if we can get maybe some times, and that's hard, because we have to bring Catherine back, and it sounded like she could do almost anything. So, Marcie, do you feel better? I mean, I don't want to put everyone on the spot, but… Why don't we start there with John and Abby's and staff's and the applicants' calendars, and then invite the rest of the board members, and then, if you can make it, that's great. I… I… I… Perhaps not tomorrow, but I… I actually cannot think of a conflict beginning Friday and any weekday next week at this point.

[214:01] I have a big conflict Friday, so… I do too. Okay, so Monday. Did we start with next week? I can do, right now, at this point, I can do any day next week. Okay, and staff could do any… we can move other things around, except the LDRC Wednesday morning, which two board members will also have a conflict for, so… Monday, for me, is wide open, but after that, it disintegrates. Mondays… I can make Monday work. I can, too. I could do, oh, my calendar's not up to date. I think… Monday morning, but not Monday afternoon. I, I, I will… I will keep Monday morning open.

[215:00] Monday at 10am, Monday the 8th. Okay. And Catherine and your team, please, feel free to chime in with your availability or constraints. Tom and Mark, and Mark, how… how's your availability? I'm ready. That's… that's fine. I will make it. Okay. gone. I'll… I'll make it. I just want to make sure our architect, Tom, is available. Oh, yeah, that's important. Monday morning is conveniently the only time next week I'm available. Wow. Perfect. That's… Like, it's meant to be. That makes it, yeah. That's… that… okay. And, even though Chelsea was a nay, Chelsea, can I have your… is that…

[216:02] You said Monday at what time? 10 a.m. I believe I would be able to be there a little bit late. Great. Great. Sounds good. And then… Would you all prefer to meet, in person, virtually, or hybrid? I would… Oh. In person at the site. creation. I… my preference would be at this site in person. Me too. Brief? Since it's work. We've got city offices nearby if the weather is bad. Yeah, if we could… 49. What was that, Michael? Mostly sunny with a high of 49, according to the National Weather Service. Oh, that's gonna… that's balmy. And we have a conference room in the tower as well, so… Oh, you're older. We could meet, yeah, we could meet at the manor in our conference room. Okay. Well, I wish every scheduling

[217:01] logistics I had was this easy, so thank you for the start. your doodle pole, Marcy. yeah. Mercy. away. Was it 10 o'clock? 10 o'clock on Monday, December 8th. Those meetings will be posted on our website, to meet the public notice requirements, and they're open to the public for observation. And… Cool. Marci, is it possible to extend an invitation to Historic Boulder? I know they'll be recovering from their holiday house tour this weekend, but I know that I used to, when I worked there, I would get invited to a lot of the, stay of demolition meeting, so I'll leave that in your capable hands. Okay, thank you. Okay, that worked. So, we're confirmed for a, meeting to discuss alternatives to demolition on Monday, December 8th, at 10 AM, on-site at 1050 Arapahoe Avenue.

[218:03] If we meet there, I think we'll… Usually we can find each other. Great. Alright, thank you. So… Now we move to matters. Yes? Yes, so that's a closing thank you to the applicants. That's the end of the public hearing piece, and so we've followed up with the meeting, but I'll confirm with an appointment, and then just thank you so much for your, time and comments. Okay. Alright, we have 3 items under Matters, 2 easy ones and one, longer one. Oh, Michael, would you like to say something? I would like to say that I would like to request a short break. Thank you. Just to keep my dog from exploding.

[219:01] Yes. Would that… would you like a 2-minute or a 5-minute break? fighting. we know. 5, please. Let's come back at 9.45. Thank you. Thanks for reminding me.

[224:36] I hope it's, michael, your dog didn't explode? She… she knows the drill. Good timing. We have Chelsea back? Yes, you all are all neck. That's a good cat. Good cat sighting. Okay, so we've got 3 items under Matters, and let's roll into the good calendar karma and do the 2 calendar checks first, and then the landmarks board letter, last. So,

[225:11] the… CPI, Saving Places Conference is every February. It's moved around the last couple years, but it's returning to Denver February 11th, 12th, and 13th. And, it's going to be at the Doubletree by Hilton. And, the city has funds to pay for board member registration, and annual training is a requirement of being a certified local government. It's a great conference, highly recommend it. The rates go up on December 10th, and so… We'd like to know by… I think I asked for… by tomorrow, of whether or not you'd like to go, and I think, Abby, you've responded that you are a… Yes, for this year. Was that not you? Was that Renee?

[226:01] I might have gotten confused. Who can go to the, conference this year? Renee. I can go, but probably not on the 11th. I would be able to go on the 12th and 13th. That's great. The registration is for all… 3 days, so if you can go for… Right, I'm just… I just don't know… I can't… I mean, I've gone in the last 4 years, but I can't remember, sort of, how weighted. I mean, they probably don't have the… Itinerary of the agendas, or sessions. I don't think they do yet, but usually Friday… the first day is, like, workshops, and then the, like, main days, the keynote, are… is the middle day, and then there's usually, like, a luncheon on the… Friday. So, if you can go one day, I would still say let's register… Okay, then I'm in. I… yeah, I… I… I think I'm gonna go one day. Okay.

[227:00] And I'm gonna look and see what the workshops are when they're posted. And there's virtual and in-person options, and the recordings are available after this. That's true, I've done that previous. Previous years, I've done the virtual ones. Thanks. Last year, I did all 3 days that way. Hmm. Abby and Chelsea, what about you all? How's your calendar looking? I mean, I'm available, but I didn't know if it was appropriate if I go off the board a few months later. Oh, it absolutely is. Okay, I'm in. Okay. Plus, he couldn't go last year. Because they moved it. Right. Unfortunately, I have to work. Those are during the… Working days.

[228:00] Alright, appreciate that, and and that'll help Amanda register… You all for the, conference, and so you'll look for a series of, Emails, confirmation emails, and then they'll post the catalog as soon as it's ready, the program. Okay, the other one is the board recruitment for Abby's spot, which doesn't end until March 31st, 2026, but the recruitment for the next board and commission, openings. starts actually next week. And part of that this year is a board and commissions open house, and we're a little light on details. It's likely going to be, like, towards late afternoon, maybe early evening at a rec center. And the purpose is for each of the 22 boards to be represented, and then for community members to kind of wander around, talk to existing board members and staff, and kind of

[229:13] Gauge interest and hopefully cast a wider net of applicants, and, so staff will be there at a table with some sort of materials, but I think it would be really valuable for potential applicants to hear, directly from current board members. So is there anybody that would like to hang out with me at the open house? on Monday, January 5th. Location and time to be determined. Could love to, but I am unable to. I appreciate that. Yeah, I… I probably can do it, so… I… I'll say yes. I could as well. Amazing. That would be a great baton handing off, Abby.

[230:01] Don't do it! Bring your shoes, and you can see who fits into them. I'll be a to-be-determined, just cause of… Great. family… Issues. Can I, can I ask a question, a related question, not, Renee, about your family issues, but, About the… so, what is the criteria for this… for Abby's… pending opening. It's… so it's an at-large, not a design professional, so you have to be a resident. That is… So, so nothing is to say that… Outside of the open house that we… Oh, yes. patients on our own, just. You can talk to people that you know about. Yeah, please, yeah, tell… tell everyone, tell anyone that you think might be interested, and I'm happy to talk to, to anybody if it's helpful, but, you know, if, get the word out as broadly as you can.

[231:08] Will you have, like, a… maybe if there's an email that you can write up with this thing, and then we can forward it, or if you… if you have a link to it, you could give us a link, and we could forward it. Yep, I can do that. Okay. Awesome. So, I've got, John and Abby for the open house on January 5th, and then we'll invite everybody, so if you can make it, or if you just want to stop by, we'll send a calendar appointment there. That's great, thank you. Those were quick items. And then I'll have a better sense of the… board recruitment calendar appointments. I think the appointments that, the applications open, I think, next week and go all the way through…

[232:01] the beginning of January, after the open house. And then there's a series of interviews, in early February, and then appointments, I think, are March 5th. So actually, I do know the calendar. Do you know the deadline already for the applications? Well, it's after January 5th, but I don't know how quick you are, Amanda, on that, but, it's a ways out. I think it's… It is sometime in January, which actually isn't that far. I had it open earlier today and closed it, so I might be able to find it. Just kind of looking for deals. Yeah. a date that is more meaningful than sometime after January 5th. Hey now! That is, yes, very vague. I do… have it, but I have too many windows open. Oh, here we go. Okay. Are you ready? Friday. Nope, stop.

[233:00] Sunday, January 25th. Application deadline at midnight. Sunday, January 25th. And then the, interviews will be sometime February 2nd through the 13th, and then appointments are on March 5th at Council. Did you say February… Fit? March, sorry, March 5th. No, the interviews, sorry. Oh, February 2nd through the… Oh, man. 13th. Thank you. Nope. Yes. Okay, so that brings us to, the letter to Council. We talked about it last month, and…

[234:00] There was a brainstorming of ideas about potential projects to recommend to City Council as one of their 2026 priorities. The project would need to be done, in less than a year, but realistically, that's more like a 9-month project. And the letters… will be sent to Council. The deadline is December 19th. for consideration at their, retreat in January. Since then, Renee and Abby have drafted a letter, which Renee asked me to put, here on the screen, and so, now is a time that you all are here together and can review it. I would recommend maybe… Abby or Renee reading it, and then having feedback on it, or if you…

[235:00] would like to do this another way, feel free, but, it is… this is your last regularly scheduled meeting, and the letter is due on the 19th. So I went, you know, I just took the opportunity to, go down a path. We didn't really hear from Chelsea, so, maybe if Chelsea wants, or I will propose what I wanted the letter to be. And, to say that Abby and I worked together about it, we bounced some ideas back and forth. I wrote it, probably sent it maybe 30 minutes before this meeting to Abby, so, to say that, you know, I don't want… if, you know, we're throwing Abby under the bus because she doesn't agree with some of these sentences, I don't want that to be the case. So, I guess what I… what I want to talk to the board about is kind of where I was coming from with this.

[236:00] And it was really, you know, I had a couple meetings recently with people out… that are, you know, general contractors and homeowners, and I get this a lot with homeowners as well, more so, but also a lot with general contractors, and I think there's an overall, consensus that you know, the historical board, or, you know, that… that this is, you know… to be in a historic district, and then you have to go… in front of the Landmarks Board, it's like a… it's like a… like a heavy burden, and so, I feel like in this nature of the climate we are living in right now, I feel like we're always asking for things, and I know the letter is to propose to ask for something. And some changes in how we do things, and, you know, we, I guess, failed to get together or, you know, get something, moving, so that's why I took it upon myself to write something and get it started, and maybe a conversation, but…

[237:10] It was… it was, you know, about how, I… I kind of wanted to… a letter to Council to be… I mean, it maybe was a little longer than I wanted, but short and sweet, just to talk how historic Boulder is, you know, an asset to the city, and how we provide You know, the city is somewhat what it is today, because we have because there are historic landmark buildings, and historic districts, and cultural sites, and this, civic fabric throughout Boulder, which makes Boulder unique. And so I kind of want to be waving at them to tell them that this is, you know, we're here, we're important. And what we really want you to see is that this is, an asset to… within the city and to our…

[238:05] To everyone that lives within Boulder. It's a value, and then I want to ask them to, Claire does these wonderful walks, so I kind of was like, hey, do we ask them to walk a historic neighborhood with the city… the Christmas lights, or… and, kind of enjoy that? And so, from… that's kind of what I was wanting to do, instead of asking. Oh, let's work on the windows, or let's work on this and, like, give another, you know, and I don't want to put those… All the things we talked about on… you know, I don't want them to go by the wayside, but I also think they need a little bit more prepping. before December, 19th, or whenever the deadline is. And… or we add in a paragraph that just, like, talks about also what we're working on. And so, it was kind of my idea to just kind of reflect on how the historic

[239:07] How we as a board actually bring the historic preservation and bringing in, you know, the Saving Places Conference and the Colorado Preservation. So, that was where this letter came up with, and so… And I, I want to hear from, before maybe I read it, if, the, the board wants to talk about, like, man, that sounds like a terrible idea, or, I'm willing to hear you out. So, I guess… Can I say something first, Renee, since we… we briefly discussed this yesterday, and I think that, you know, there's… at the November meeting, some great, really tangible pro… projects, some that… that… could prove to be more ambitious than others, and they're important to do, but I think what I heard from Renee is sort of wanting to go back to sort of, like, who we are, and why we're here, and what we've done in the sense that I know we have one new council member, but it's sort of like, I'm not sure sometimes with everything City Council has on their plate, what they even know about us, or sort of how to

[240:24] to evaluate it, and it's sort of like, well, do they need to maybe know more about the preservation program and the landmarks board before, like, okay, this window project, or how we… the whole thing that actually came up tonight with with site review versus demolition proposals, and where that falls in that process. So, it almost struck me as it was sort of more getting back to basics and philosophical, and not trying to make a heavy ask of this council, which is what I think, Renee, you were trying to capture, when we talked briefly yesterday. So, it's an interesting, it's different.

[241:07] But I think it may be, you know. Something to really take to heart, since today's already… the third, so I guess that's a couple of weeks away, but, part of it was the time issue about fleshing out some of the really tangible, specific projects that could be in a letter. I… I think… Having just read it, it's an excellent first page. to a second page that makes an attempt to flesh out one of the ideas from November. Which means I probably have to write something. And I started thinking about this in Mexico, and wrote some of the preliminary stuff that came through my email.

[242:00] And… Of course, didn't do anything down there. Tangible, so… I'm willing to throw something into this in the next few days. And send it to you and Renee, and see what you think. I see Chelsea's hand is up, and we haven't heard from her regarding this letter yet, so I'm very curious. to here. Yes, what will she say next? Yes, Renee, I love that you took this approach. I… look, Council's gonna get a letter from every board, and they're all gonna be asking for very, like, detailed kind of minutiae things that… I know Council only has a few work plan items that they're actually going to be able to do, because it's… their work plan is only going to be things that can be accomplished in, like, 6 months, and they already have a lot on their plate. And so.

[243:06] And this is something that I thought I mentioned last time around, but I feel like we have a lot of, like, wonky things that… not wonky, but we have a lot of… we do. It's kind of wonky. We have a lot of wonky things that I think we know are issues that we want to address. And I think… a really amazing opportunity that we have to address a lot of those issues is through our 10-year strategic plan update. Right, because that's going to be something where we are we are… we are saying, within the, like, this is our vision for the program, and these are all the things that need to change, in order to achieve that vision. And I feel like a lot of what is on our list of things that we need to change are more likely to get accomplished through that strategic plan update versus piecemeal having council weigh things. And I think we can still say, here are the things that we think that we

[244:10] like, that are on the top of our minds that we need to address, but I guess the one… if we get to have an ask, I think that an ask that would, like, give us, The most likelihood of actually receiving what we ask for is to get Council's guidance and attention. on, like, what their vision is for the historic preservation program as we… as we embark on Updating our 10-year strategic plan. And… And… And yeah, and ask… so ask… basically asking them to put their… some time and attention, on the program, like you… which I think is sort of what Renee.

[245:05] Was getting at, that, like, there needs to be some attention on this, and then to give some guidance that we can then take into our planning process, which would include a lot of. The issues that we see Every month, and, you know, every week at LDRC. That's sort of my deal. I'm hearing you, it's almost like… like… Through this letter, we're asking for a little bit of a dialogue. As opposed to just a list of… wants. you know, specific program wants and whatnot. If that's a summary of Renee, your intention, and… Abby's validation of that, and then Chelsea's interpretation of it, if it's summarized as having it somewhat of a dialogue. with the council, I… I love that approach. I cannot see this letter. I mean, I see 3 paragraphs.

[246:04] I would like to get a PDF copy of it somehow. Rather than trying to… review it. I think that now it's on the… we're reading it here. I think that we're all allowed to have it, right, Marci? You're allowed to have it… Like, I go just send it to you all. It's the going back and forth and editing it that you can't do in a serial meeting that you can do here, but I don't think anybody's in, space to be, wordsmithing at 10 o'clock at night when you haven't been able to read it yet. So, I think what I'm… what I'll do is forward this email from Renee to the rest of you all. But I, I really appreciate the, connection that Michael just made of, like, rather than having a distinct project to ask, Council to lift up as one of their priorities, rather to invite a dialogue

[247:11] excuse me, with Council, that would then inform the 10-year update. So I think that is a good approach where, Renee, what you've written really kind of, instills the why of preservation. in the pool. but then it still is an invitation to engage with Council and hear, some guidance of… Before we launch into a big, strategic plan. Yeah, I think that, you know, like, when… I think we're getting people on City Council that, or, people, you know, there was talk tonight about this, you know, wanting, housing and affordable housing and all these things, and I think we do need that.

[248:03] And I think they're, like, again, they're a compromise or a thing, and I want Council to know why… I mean, I want them to know why the historic preservation is important, why it has been important, and then I do like the idea of maybe a dialogue back and forth. I just want to, you know, because when people Come with… come to me with, like, ugh, we gotta go through this. I start off with, well, like, look what it's done to our city. You bought an historic district because it had this fabric, and that's why you bought there, and that's why you love it. And I think then people soften up to understanding what it is and what we're doing here. So, I mean, that was kind of my intention. I love the idea of the dialogue. I also just… I also did not want to miss the opportunity to write something, even if it was just, hi, City Council, we're doing our job over here, how's it going? You know, like, I wanted to,

[249:05] you know, you take this opportunity, and, I don't want to lose it just because we couldn't, get something together. Interesting. get something together, and then, you know, and then we dive really deep into all these, these, these very minutia little things, and, you know, I… I feel like maybe we need to put a reminder into our calendar that this is a call-up in you know, not during the holidays, that we work on this in August, and maybe we get, like, a criteria plan Happening then, and then, you know, then it's not… and then maybe we can get to some minutiae and have, like, okay, this is what we want. In our documentation, and we're able to spell it out, but when we give them a broad like, something… it doesn't give them a pathway on how to… how we want to… how we see it getting better, and then they can approve it, right? They don't want us to say, oh, if we make…

[250:08] Like, the site review process, like, that's an issue, okay? Well, we didn't come with a solution, right? We're acknowledging it's an issue, but they don't want to sit around at their meetings and figure out how to make it better. We want to… we want to come with something that will maybe make it better, and I… I feel like we don't have that sort of context yet. So, that's why I kind of stepped back and wanted to reiterate why we're important. I love the idea of the conversation and the end piece, and, you know, sustainability is a really big part of the City plan, so we always talk about this, that the sustainability is keeping the building. And not demoing the building, first and foremost. So, and then I knew if I wrote something, it would, we would have a conversation about it. So, my, goal was achieved.

[251:05] So, and then, Marci, are we allowed to… I know we're all intentionally trying to meet on Monday, can we, have, a short meeting and pause afterwards? like, after on Monday, and if we all come with… Some sort of… Ideas. Ideas? We could… can we talk about it then? Is that allowable? Like, how does everyone feel about that? Who do… sorry. Right. Well, she's coming on Monday, she said she'd be late. Okay. I'm good with that. I did just put… I don't know if people are in the chat. I saw… I did just put, Blurb in the chat. It was great, Chelsea.

[252:01] just as an idea for… to articulate what I was saying earlier. Yeah, I… Ned. I agree, Chelsea. I think that this is an opportunity to tie this to the 10-year update. And to get… some… input back from Council, because, as I said. in November. We kinda need to know where we stand in the community. And… and… We need to underst… we need to understand what the community's view. Of what we're trying to do is, so that we can do it better, and so that we can know What we need to… Try to work on or with. In our update.

[253:01] Me again. I don't think chat is, like, recorded as part of the public meeting, so I just want to caution the board in, like, having any sort of conversations in the chat function during a public meeting, because that's… Kind of like, just… not, in accordance with Obamini's law. So, would you prefer, Chelsea just reading it right now so that it becomes… Yes. That's the way to… that's the way to cure it, yes. Here's my dramatic reading. As we undertake the 10-year update to Boulder's Historic Preservation Strategic Plan, we respectfully request City Council's guidance on your vision and priorities for the future of preservation in our community. Your strategic direction on what you hope this work will achieve For our historic resources, our neighborhoods, and our broader community goals will be invaluable in shaping the future of this program.

[254:00] Copy it into a follow-up email that I'll send to the board as well, and I wonder… Without getting too… stuck on, like, the format of it, but I really like this idea of inviting a dialogue and having it be a conversation, and I think to your point, Renee, there are a lot of misconceptions about what preservation is. In general, and what it is in Boulder, and I wonder if there might be an opportunity to have like a tour of Boulder with City Council and the Landmarks Board together, and, like, tour the historic neighborhoods, or tell the story of preservation and its impact here. Over the last 50 years. And then to maybe have a study session where there are some questions or guidance or things like that, so that, it's not, like, a one-way, tell us what… tell us what direction to go, but more of, like, how can you foster a dialogue and for there to be, some learning and some back and forth about what it is that we do in the day-to-day, but then also the, like, overall long-term impacts that it's…

[255:16] That it's had, and… in hearing you all say, you know, like, everybody's gonna put their project forward, and Council only has so many priorities, I feel like this is a very reasonable ask to say, could we have a tour and a study session sometime in 2026, or something like that? I'm endorsing the… I really support the direction this is going. So, Marci, it's interesting you say that, because I think you were actually at a baby shower, but X number of years ago, Susan Osborne and I, and she's a former planning board director and mayor of Boulder, gave a tour for, Historic Boulder board members, and we did invite City Council members, and I know Aubrey came on it, and I know Brad

[256:09] Buehler came on it, and it just struck me as something that there's a basic thing to her that already exists, and even people who are really enmeshed in the preservation program, or really, advocates on city council or whatever. were still surprised to learn certain things, you know? There was still something we all learned on that tour from different people who happened to be attending it. So, I mean, if that… if anybody ever wanted to do that, like, on a… city transportation or, you know, outside transportation. There is already a core tour that exists that could be looked at, and… and use that as a model. I love that idea. I'm sorry I missed it. I hope I had a good experience.

[257:00] Well, you, you, yes, you, it, it was right before Miles was born. Oh, my… It was in August of that year, so you had a really good. It's a little busy. So… Okay. Well, it sounds like maybe you all have a good, direction, and we'll have time, maybe between now and Monday at 11, to, take a look at the excellent draft that, Renee has written, and I'll forward the, excellent piece Chelsea has, put here, and then, I think this is very achievable by the 19th. Yeah. Nice job. Yeah, great job, Renee. Yeah, thank you so much for taking the initiative and doing it. Amazing. I just didn't want to lose it, and then… and then also our long meeting go another hour long.

[258:01] I think it's beautiful, and I think it was good to just, like, keep it really high level and impactful, and… Not just a laundry list of our complaints. Well, I think every… I just… I think people miss what… what we're trying to do, and I also want to be in line with what Council's doing. I also… I don't want to lose the fabric of Boulder, and what makes it so special. Even if it is meaning… Bringing in low-income housing, but we could do it in a way that. Meets both things. So… Hang. And not that they're butting heads, I don't want them to butt heads, I want them to be together. And it takes work, so… That's where we are. Wonderful. Oh, I think that… I think it's me again, yes? again, but usually we do a quick calendar check to say the next meeting is on January 7th.

[259:03] Yep. And then we've got this, two meetings now for Monday. Great. Okay, so the meeting is adjourned at… 1021, PM. Thank you, everyone. Thanks, everyone. Have a good night. Good night.