February 25, 2026 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:04] Called to order. So, the February 25th, 2026 Special Landmarks Board Meeting is called to order. It's 6.02 PM. Marci, will you review the virtual meeting decorum? Yes, and good evening, Landmarks board members. 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, board and commission members, as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences, and political perspectives. More about this vision in the project's community engagement process can be found online. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld during this meeting. All remarks and testimonies shall be limited to matters related to city business.

[1:04] No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, or other speech and behavior that disrupts it and otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. Participants may raise their hand to speak during open comment and public comment periods during hearings. Individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. If you need help changing your name, please reach out to Amanda by raising your hand or sending a message. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted online. Thank you. The recording of this meeting will be available in the records archive on the YouTube within 28 days of this meeting. We will do a roll call and brief introductions. Michael?

[2:02] Michael Ray, Vice Chair, Landmark Sport. Abby? Abby Daniels, Landmarks Board Member. Chelsea? Chelsea Castellano, Landmarks Board Member. John. John Decker, Landmarks board member. And I'm Renee Golovic, Landmarks Board Chair of the Landmarks Board. We do have a quorum this evening. We know that people who are here to participate may have some strong emotions about this project. We want to hear from you and found it's more productive if you are speaking to persuade us, rather than to berate us, staff, or the applicant. As with the regular Landmarks Board meeting, you will only speak at the appropriate time during the public hearings. Requests to speak outside of those times are denied. We request that members of the public who wish to speak to us No, by raising their virtual hand. As board chair, I will call for a roll call vote on any motions made.

[3:05] We do not have any minutes to approve or any open comment for the special meeting, so we will move directly to the public hearings. Let's move to the public hearings. Tonight, we have four public hearings to consider adopting resolution to initiate the process for landmark designation pursuant to Section 9113 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981, or alternately, issue a demolition approval pursuant to Section 911-23, Boulder Revised Code of 1981, At the following properties. Item 5A, 976, Arapahoe Avenue. Item 5B, 986, Arapahoe Avenue. Item 5C, 990, Arapaho Avenue. Item 5D, 1004, Arapaho Avenue. The owner of all four properties is Boulder Presbyterian Senior Housing, Inc.

[4:07] I like to acknowledge that these are four separate hearings. However, because the properties are adjacent to each other, and under the same ownership, we are going to streamline the 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 a single applicant presentation with a maximum time of 20 minutes. There will be a single opportunity for public comments, which will follow the applicant's presentation. You will have 3 minutes each, and your comments should address all 4 applications. During deliberations, we need to be clear about which applicants we are discussing, and each applicant requires a separate motion. How we vote on one application does not influence how we vote on the others. With that, let's move to staff presentation, but

[5:12] Marcy, that little section about, If we want to address the time, do you want me to state this now, or just when we get into the public comment? Why don't you do that now? Okay, so adjusting the times requires a motion. So, I moved… Oh, Renee, sorry. I would just add and let everybody know that, there's quite a few people, I think there's 47 people in this meeting this evening. When… after the staff presentation and applicant presentation. will ask for folks who want to speak to the application to raise their hand, and then it's up to the board of how much time each speaker receives. And so it's generally the practice that there… if there are fewer than 12 speakers, it's 3 minutes each. If there are, more than 12 speakers, the time's reduced to 2 minutes each.

[6:10] But that's the Landmarks Board's decision, and we'll, get a… Kind of a raised hand to see how many speakers, there are this evening. Okay, so we can do that during the, public comment, right before the public comment. Okay. So staff presentation. Alright, thank you. Alright, good evening, Landmarks Board members. I'm Marci Gerwing, Principal Planner with the Planning and Development Services, department. These initiation hearings are legislative, which means the board does not need to reveal any ex parte contacts nor swear anyone in, but the rest of the hearing is similar to a quasi-judicial hearing. We will start with the staff presentation, followed by the applicant's presentation. After that, the hearing is open for public comment. After the last speaker, the owner has a chance to respond to anything that was said.

[7:07] Board members may also ask questions after each of the presentations and public comment. The public hearing is then closed, and the board deliberates. A motion takes 3 votes to pass, and finally, a record of the hearing is kept in Central Records. The options in front of the Landmarks Board tonight are to initiate designation of the property as an individual landmark by adopting the resolution included as Attachment A. Then a landmark board designation hearing would be held between 60 and 120 days. Your second option is to not initiate landmark designation, in which case this day of demolition would continue until March 26, 2026. If the board allows the stay of demolition to expire, staff will approve the demolition applications at the end of the stay.

[8:00] Your third option is to approve the demolition application, and approval would be valid for one year. In our staff memo, we also included a fourth option about the board withdrawing their motion to hold hearings, and that was only in the case that the owners withdrew the demo applications, but we confirmed they would like to move forward with the hearings. The application process began last fall, when the owner submitted four demolition applications. The Landmarks Design Review Committee referred the applications to the board for review, and a hearing was held on December 3rd. In the next two weeks, members of the Landmarks Board, ownership team, staff, and members of the public met to discuss alternatives to demolition. On January 7th, the Landmarks Board voted to schedule a hearing, which brings us to this evening. The applicants have also submitted for concept plan review, and a planning board hearing is scheduled for April 7th. All four properties are located in Central Boulder on the south side of Arapahoe Avenue between 11th and Lincoln Place.

[9:06] Opposite the main branch of the Boulder Public Library. The houses are addressed from west to east, 976-986-990, and 1004 Arapahoe Avenue. The properties are adjacent to 1050 Arapahoe, which includes the 11-story Presbyterian Manor building, parking lot, and multi-car garage. The criteria for the board's review is found in 9-11-3 of the Boulder Revised Code. Unlike quasi-judicial demolition or landmark designation hearings, initiation hearings are legislative, so the board may consider any factors in its decision at this step in the process. The criteria include seven considerations, whether there is probable cause to believe the building may be eligible for landmark designation, whether there are currently resources available to complete outreach and analysis for the application.

[10:01] If there is community and neighborhood support for the designation. If the building needs protections provided through designation. If the proposed designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Or, if the proposed designation would generally be in the public interest. Some of the staff analysis is relevant to all four applications, so we'll review these first before looking at each individual property. The first criterion asked whether the building may be eligible for designation as an individual landmark. On December 3rd, the Landmarks Board determined that all four buildings are eligible for landmark designation, consistent with the purposes and standards in sections 911 and 9-11-2 of the Boulder Revised Code. Looking at the purposes and standards in Section 9-11-1, staff finds that preservation of the buildings is consistent with the purposes and standards of the Historic Preservation Chapter, in that it would stabilize the neighborhoods surrounding the Boulder Public Library, promote tourism by preserving Boulder's distinct and authentic character.

[11:08] Foster understanding of the city's living history through the preservation of working-class housing constructed in the 1920s. Section 911 continues, stating that the purpose of the Historic Preservation Chapter is not to preserve every old building in the city, but instead to draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving significant buildings by ensuring that demolition is carefully weighed with other alternatives. Initiation of landmark designation is used very rarely, and last occurred in 2019. Since then, the Historic Preservation Program has approved 850 applications for the demolition of buildings over 50 years old. Alternatives to demolition considered during the stay included preservation in place on the individual lots. Preservation incorporated into the larger site. On-site relocation, and off-site relocation.

[12:05] Key constraints of floodplain regulations and private on-site parking covenants were identified. However, it has not been demonstrated that either the parking or floodplain regulations prevent the feasible incorporation of the building into the redevelopment of the property. It has also not been demonstrated that the cost of rehabilitation is unreasonable, which is estimated to be between $120 and $130 a square foot, compared to an average of $200 to $1,000 per square foot for rehabilitation. There's also an active concept plan review application for the redevelopment of the property. The applicant presented an alternative to demolition that demonstrates that the same number of units could be built on the property if the buildings were retained, assuming a 10-foot buffer behind the buildings. The constraint for this scenario and other aspects of the redevelopment are outside of the Landmarks Board's purview. Staff considers that the project would best be reviewed by the development review staff and Planning Board prior to the Landmarks Board consideration of demolition or designation of the property.

[13:16] As I mentioned, there is an active concept plan review application for the redevelopment. During this review, Planning Board provides general direction to the applicants in a public hearing. The redevelopment will be reviewed through the quasi-judicial site review process, which evaluates projects for consistency with the comprehensive plan and other adopted plans of the community. This criterion also asks whether the designation is consistent with Section 911-2, which says the City Council has the authority to designate a property as an individual landmark. The process may be initiated by the property owner, a recognized historic preservation organization, the landmarks board, or the City Council. For these four properties, the Landmarks Board voted to schedule a hearing to consider initiation of the landmark designation process.

[14:07] Continuing with the criteria in 9-11-3, the second criterion asks the board to consider whether there are staff resources available to complete the necessary community outreach and analysis. It is within staff's work plan to manage the applications, including the community outreach and historic analysis. However, other projects will need to be delayed, and the application processing times may be impacted while the application is in process. The third criterion asked if there is community and neighborhood support for the proposed designation. There has been some community interest in the building since the applications were publicly noticed in December of 2025. 10 members of the public spoke at the public hearing, 4 community members attended meetings, and a newspaper article was published in late January. Since the last public hearing, two community members have written the Landmarks Board about the proposal. One was in support of the demolition application, and one was in support of initiating landmark designation.

[15:10] One community organization, Historic Boulder, also wrote in support of initiating the landmark designation process. The fourth criterion asks whether the buildings need the protections provided through designation. There is an active application for full demolition for each of the four buildings. If the Landmarks Board does not take action on the demolition applications prior to the March 26th expiration of the stay of demolition, the demolition of the building will be approved per Section 91123 of the Boulder Revised Code. The fifth criterion asks if the boundaries of the historic district are appropriate. While the current applications do not propose a historic district, boundaries are determined as part of the designating ordinance if the process moves forward. The sixth criterion asks whether, in balance, the proposed designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.

[16:08] Staff considers that the relevant policies include 2.27 historic or cultural resources, 7.07 preserve existing housing stock. 2.09, neighborhoods as building blocks. And 2.10, preservation and support of residential neighborhoods. Starting with Policy 2.27, Historic and Cultural Resources, it says that the city will identify, evaluate, and protect significant buildings and sites. With input from the community, and that the city will seek protection of significant historic and cultural resources through local designation when a proposal by the private sector is subject to discretionary development review. Staff finds that the initiation of landmark designation is consistent with this policy, as the buildings proposed for demolition are eligible for landmark designation, and the proposed redevelopment requires discretionary development review, in this case, concept plan and site review.

[17:06] If the buildings are approved for demolition now, the Planning Board will not have its opportunity to consider whether the building should be landmarked as a condition of site review. Policy 2.07, preserve existing housing stock, recognizes the value of their existing housing stock. It encourages its preservation and rehabilitation, particularly for housing serving low- and moderate-income individuals and households. Staff finds that preservation and adaptive reuse of the buildings is consistent with this policy, as it retains existing residential structures that contribute to housing diversity and neighborhood stability. While the policy emphasizes affordability in a residential use, staff considers that preservation and adaptive reuse can also support long-term community value. Policy 2.09, Neighborhoods as Building Blocks, emphasize the importance of neighborhoods, and states that all neighborhoods should offer unique physical elements of the neighborhood character and identity, such as distinctive development patterns or architecture and historic or cultural resources.

[18:14] Policy 2.10, Preservation and Support for Residential Neighborhoods, says the City will work with neighborhoods to protect and enhance neighborhood character and livability, and preserve the relative affordability of existing housing stock. It also states the city will seek appropriate building scale and compatible character in the redevelopment projects. Staff finds initiation of landmark designation is consistent with these policies, as preservation and adaptive reuse of buildings maintain the unique physical elements that contribute to neighborhood character and identity. Incorporating the building into the proposed redevelopment would reinforce the historic development pattern of the area, maintain neighborhood building scale, and strengthen compatibility with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.

[19:00] Staff further finds that reuse of the building would be in the public interest by providing opportunities for neighborhood-serving uses that foster community interaction and strengthen overall community character. As previously mentioned, there is an active concept plan application for the redevelopment. The planning board will review the application in a public hearing on April 7th. The redevelopment will be reviewed through the quasi-judicial site review process, which evaluates projects for consistency with the comprehensive plan and other adopted plans of the community. This final criterion asks whether the proposed designation would generally be in the public interest. Staff finds that initiating the landmark designation would generally be in the public interest, in that initiating the designation process would prevent the loss of a significant building, and allow Planning Board its opportunity to determine whether protection of this historic resource is in balance with other goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.

[20:04] The Landmarks Board's purview is limited to Chapter 911, Historic Preservation, while Planning Board's purview is broader and equipped to review redevelopment proposals. Initiating designation ensures that the redevelopment proposal can be reviewed comprehensively, and that all relevant criteria may be applied before decisions regarding demolition Or redevelopment are made. For the other criteria, we'll be going through each property individually, and I'll hand it over to Claire. Thank you, Marcy. I am… Hopefully sharing my screen. It's still loading. There we go. Okay, good. I'm Claire Brandt, I'm a Historic Preservation Planner in the Planning and Development Services Department, and I will be talking about the significance and some other details of these properties. So, starting with 976 Arapahoe Avenue.

[21:10] The westernmost property, this one-story frame building, was constructed in 1927 by Frank Crema. The house is significant as an example of the craftsman bungalow style, and also for its association with past residents who exemplify the cultural and social heritage of the community, including Merle Uckenbrach, who was a vine painter in Boulder for more than… also for its environmental significance, as part of a block of four houses dating to the area's early residential development, and that contribute to the character of the neighbourhood as intact representatives of the area's past. While looking at alternatives to demolition, the constraints identified were the floodplain height and cost of repair. This property is within the 100-year floodplain, and

[22:10] The applicant states the finished floor area is approximately 1 foot above the base flood elevation, where 2 feet is required. Development in the 100-year floodplain is feasible within regulations to ensure life safety. A change of use of this building to critical facility would require the structure to be brought into compliance. With current flood regulations, and that would include the lowest floor being required to be elevated 2 feet above the base flood elevation. The basement would need to be filled in, and an emergency management plan would be required. It also has not been demonstrated that it would be economically infeasible to rehabilitate the building. Estimated costs of rehabilitation are within the average range per square foot for this building.

[23:09] Staff recommends the Landmarks Board initiate landmark designation for this property at 976 Arapahoe Avenue for the following reasons. The property is significant as a craftsman bungalow, and for its association with past residents, and is part of a block of four houses that contribute to the character of the neighbourhood. The building needs the protection, as there is an active demolition application. It has not been demonstrated that it would be economically infeasible to rehabilitate the building. It has not been demonstrated the building could not be modified or elevated to meet flood requirements. It has not been demonstrated that it would be economically infeasible to incorporate the building into the redevelopment of the property. It is in the public interest to provide Planning Board its opportunity to consider whether the building should be considered within the overall redevelopment of the site.

[24:07] And it is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Staff's recommended motion is for the Landmarks Board to adopt the resolution to initiate the process for landmark designation, finding that it meets the criteria for such initiation, and imbalance is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Moving one property to the east, 986 Arapahoe Avenue, is a one-story stucco building constructed by Leon Denham in 1921. The house is significant as an example of the craftsman bungalow style for its association with past residents, who exemplify the cultural and social heritage of the community, including Merton and Wave Perrine Stoffel.

[25:03] who owned and managed multiple business properties, and their daughter, Naomi Stoffel, who served as Deputy Assessor, and later as Boulder County Assessor, and was recognized nationally in who's who of American Women. And also for its environmental significance as part of the block of four houses dating to the area's early residential development, and that contributes to the character of the neighbourhood as an intact representative of the area's past. This property is within the 100-year floodplain. However, the finished floor is above the required base flood elevation. Modifications to the house would only be required if the use was changed to critical facility. And in that case, the basement would need to be filled in, and the owners would have to develop an emergency management plan. It has not been demonstrated that it would be economically infeasible to rehabilitate the building.

[26:00] Estimated costs of rehabilitation are within the average range per square foot. Staff recommends the Landmarks Board initiate landmark designation for the property at 986 Arapahoe Avenue for the following reasons. The property is significant as a craftsman bungalow, and for its association with past residents, and as part of a block of four houses that contribute to the character of the neighbourhood. The building needs the protection, as there is an active demolition application. It has not been demonstrated that it would be economically infeasible to rehabilitate the building. It has not been demonstrated that it would be economically infeasible to incorporate the building into the redevelopment of the property. It is in the public interest to provide Planning Board its opportunity to consider whether the building should be considered within the overall redevelopment of the site, and it is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.

[27:02] For those reasons, staff's recommended motion is for the Landmarks Board to adopt the resolution to initiate the process for landmark designation, finding, again, that it meets the criteria for such initiation, and imbalances consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Moving one property to the east again, 990 Arapahoe Avenue is a one-storey frame building constructed in 1922. The house is significant as an example of the craftsman bungalow style, with a very unusual hooded porch. For its association with past residents who exemplify the cultural and social heritage of the community. Including Charles Clapp, who volunteered as a union representative, and sisters Bertie Crowell and Virginia Campbell, whose lives reflect the employment of women in professional roles during the mid-20th century.

[28:01] And also for its environmental significance as part of a block of four houses dating to the area's early residential development that contribute to the character of the neighbourhood as intact representatives of the area's past. The property is within the 100-year floodplain, however, the finished floor is above the required base flood elevation. Modifications to the house would only be required if the use was changed to critical facility, and in that case, the basement would need to be filled in, and the owners would have to develop an emergency management plan. It has not been demonstrated that it would be economically infeasible to rehabilitate the building. Estimated costs of rehabilitation are within the average range per square foot. Staff recommends the Landmarks Board initiate landmark designation for the property at 990 Arapahoe Avenue for the following reasons. The property is significant as a craftsman bungalow.

[29:00] With an unusual feature, and for its association with past residents, and as part of a block of four houses that contribute to the character of the neighbourhood. The building needs the protection, as there is an active demolition application. It has not been demonstrated that it would be economically infeasible to rehabilitate the building. It has not been demonstrated the building could not be modified or elevated to meet flood requirements. If used as critical facility. It has not been demonstrated that it would be economically infeasible to incorporate the building into the redevelopment of the property. It is in the public interest to provide Planning Board its opportunity to consider whether the building should be considered within the overall redevelopment of the site, and it is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Staff's recommended motion is for the Landmarks Board to adopt the resolution to initiate the process for landmark designation, finding that it meets the criteria for such initiation, and imbalances consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.

[30:09] The easternmost subject property, 1004 Arapahoe Avenue, is a one-storey frame building constructed in 1927 by Frank Creamer. The house is significant as an example of the craftsman bungalow style, and of working-class housing constructed prior to the Great Depression. And for its environmental significance as part of a block of four houses dating to the area's early residential development that contribute to the character of the neighbourhood as intact representatives of the area's past. The property is within the 100-year floodplain, however, the finished floor is above the required base flood elevation. Modifications to the house would only be required if the use was changed to critical facility. In that case, the basement would need to be filled in, and the owners would have to develop an emergency management plan.

[31:03] It has not been demonstrated that it would be economically infeasible to rehabilitate the building. Estimated costs of rehabilitation are within the average range per square foot. Staff recommends Landmarks Board initiate landmark designation for the property at 1004 Arapahoe Avenue for the following reasons. The property is significant as a craftsman bungalow, as an example of working-class housing constructed prior to the Great Depression, and as one of four houses that contribute to the neighborhood character. The building needs the protection as there is an active demolition application. It has not been demonstrated that it would be economically infeasible to rehabilitate the building. It has not been demonstrated that it would be economically infeasible to incorporate the building into the redevelopment of the property. It is in the public interest to provide Planning Board its opportunity to consider whether the building should be considered within the overall redevelopment of the site, and it is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Comprehensive Plan.

[32:12] Staff's recommendation is for the Landmarks Board to adopt the resolution to initiate the process for landmark designation. Finding that it meets the criteria for such initiation, an imbalance is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. I'm going to hand the presentation back to Marcy to summarize and review the next steps in the hearing. Alright, thank you, Claire. Alright. Here's a summary of the significance and feasibility of the redevelopment for each of the houses. All houses are significant, all of the houses are significant as examples of the craftsman bungalow style, and representative of working-class housing built in the 1920s.

[33:06] They each have environmental significance for their visual prominence along Arapahoe Avenue, and are part of an identified potential historic district. The house at 1004 Arapaho was constructed by Frank Creamer, and the estimated cost of rehabilitation is about $213 a square foot. And for this house, the current finished floor area is above the required base flood elevation. The house at 990 Arapahoe is associated with the Klapp family, Bertie Crowell, and Virginia Campbell. The estimated cost of rehabilitation is $122 a square foot, and the current finished floor area is above the required base flood elevation. The house at 986 Arapaho is associated with the Stoffel family, including Merton and Wave Perrine, who operated a number of local businesses, including the University Hill Grocer and Stoffel Sandwich Shop. Their daughter, Naomi Stoffel, also lived here and served as the county assessor. The estimated cost of rehabilitation for this structure is $112 a square foot, and the current finished floor area is above the required base flood elevation.

[34:13] And finally, the house at 976 Arapaho was also constructed by Frank Creamer and is associated with Merle Erkenback. A sign painter. The estimated cost of rehabilitation is $428 a square foot, and the current finished floor area… Finished floor height is 1 foot below the required base flood elevation. So, to summarize, the buildings are eligible for landmark designation and will be approved for demolition unless the Landmarks Board initiates the landmark designation process before the stay of demolition expires on March 26, 2026. The decision in front of the Landmarks Board is whether or not to initiate the landmark designation process, or alternatively issue a demolition approval.

[35:03] The decision is legislative, meaning the board can consider any factors in their decision. And staff recommends that the Board initiate the landmark designation process to prevent the loss of significant buildings and provide the time for the planning board to comprehensively review the concept plan application. Staff encourages the applicant to consider withdrawing the demolition application, proceeds with the concept plan review, and incorporate the planning board's comments into the redevelopment proposal. So we can reference this. If needed, the Board's options for today are either to initiate the designation property, which means a Landmarks Board designation hearing would be held between 60 and 120 days. to not initiate landmark designation, in which case the stay of demolition would continue and expire on March 26th. Or to approve the demolition application, and that approval would be valid for one year.

[36:03] That concludes our staff presentation, and I welcome any questions you may have. Following board questions, we will move to the owner presentation, followed by public participation. After the final speaker, the owner will have an opportunity to respond to anything that was said, and then move to the board deliberation and motions. With that, does the board have any questions? I have a question. Oh, sorry, Chelsea had her hand up. Go for it, Chelsea. Thanks. Can you, Marci, can you speak to where this project is within the planning board review process, because I know part of this project the success of this project is based on keeping, like, a rather aggressive schedule, and so I'm curious where they are in that process, and if you can speak to that.

[37:05] Yeah, so the two processes are running concurrently, where the, concept plan application was submitted in January, and is scheduled for a planning board public hearing on April 7th. Okay. And then, just to follow up on that, assuming, you know, the applicant, we can't make the applicant withdraw. They have the right to continue through this process. So, assuming that the applicant does not withdraw, and continues to go through this process, then… I guess, because part of what I heard in your presentation was that, initiating designation ensures that the redevelopment proposal can be reviewed by the planning board, but I guess I'm a little unclear about that, because if it's designated, then

[38:03] Planning Board is restricted in what they can do based on the fact that these buildings are now designated. Is that true? So, if the designation process went all the way through, those would be fixed elements in the redevelopment. Right now, and I wish I had a slide for the graphic of the timeline, so on, last fall, the applicants submitted these demo applications to see, are these eligible for designation, or could they be approved? On December 7th, the board voted and found that these buildings are eligible for designation. Our advice to the applicants at that time was to withdraw, take that information that the board voted, that these are eligible, and then go on to the Planning Board Concept Plan Review. And Planning Board's criteria is, in balance with the comp plan policies, 2.27 says, if there are eligible resources, the Planning Board has a choice.

[39:12] And they can either, require a landmark designation application as a condition of site review, finding that it's part of the community benefit, it adds to the project, or they can look at the existing buildings and say, no, we don't think that these buildings need to be incorporated into the redevelopment. That choice, in the planning board, for the Planning Board review is only possible at this point in the process if the Landmarks Board initiates, because if the board doesn't take action before the stay expires. the buildings are approved for demolition, and Planning Board does not have the buildings to consider in their, kind of, comprehensive review of the redevelopment.

[40:01] So… So, the answer is yes. Sorry. So… These are… so, I, so, So, because the two processes are, running concurrently, right now, the board has a decision to either initiate designation, not initiate, or actively approve the, demolition applications. If the… board, approves the demolition either actively tonight or by not taking action, and the stay expires March 26th, then, the demolition of the buildings is approved. If the Landmarks Board initiates the designation process tonight, it would go from this hearing, then there would be Planning Board Concept Plan, and then there would be a Landmarks Board, designation hearing in the end of April through the end of June.

[41:02] So, they kind of integrate after this point, if the board votes to continue the process. Okay, sorry, I just want to make this really clear. So, if… if there is an initiation decided at the end of this meeting, and then, And Planning Board reviews it, and Planning Board says, no, we don't want these buildings to remain. Then what happens? And I see Chris coming, on the screen if you want to… Add in, but… Go ahead. I just want to make clear that, you know, the decision for the Landmarks Board tonight is not to, you know, designate these properties, whether or not to actually designate the properties. It's just to start the formal process of answering the question whether or not to designate them

[42:00] Orally. I understand that, but it's been stated that it's within the public interest to designate for this specific reason, so I'm trying to understand how this works out in the different scenarios where, like, staff is saying, we should initiate so it gives planning board more options, and so I'm trying to understand, when it gets to planning board. if there's an initiation and then a designation, but Planning Board has made a different decision in between these two meetings, like, what happens? In that case. The processes are similar, or there is some relationship, but landing board, you know, wouldn't say, no, they don't want it landmarked, just if they do want the buildings protected. And so, there are these somewhat parallel processes going on here, and, you know, the Landmarks Board's scope is

[43:00] A bit. smaller than, planning boards. And so, you know, just, just trying to keep the, Critical decision for tonight would be whether or not to initiate the process of… you know, basically recommending to City Council that these, would be, designated. So… but the question of designation wouldn't… is not before the Landmarks Board tonight. I understand. Okay, so, okay, I swear this is my last clarifying question, but… this seems important for us all to understand, so… we're… planning board, because what you just said, Chris, is that planning board can't… Planning board, the only thing Planning Board can do, according to what you just said, is initiate designation. They can't say. we actually like the 60 units of affordable housing for seniors. We don't want these 4 buildings there. We're gonna decide that that's the pathway. Is that what you're saying?

[44:08] Planning board doesn't decide whether or not, something gets designated, they just could require it to be, That the app… the applicants, protect the… the buildings through, Because of their historical significance. The only way they would actually get designated is through the formal designation process, which is Landmarks Board, purview, but again, that's not tonight. It's just whether or not you want to start that process. But Planning Board can't… so Planning Board has the power to initiate, but it doesn't have the power to say. We like the applicant's proposal. Any board can require protection, but not, they don't have the power to initiate designation. Okay. That's per the code. That can come from various ways, but, would have to follow the code.

[45:07] Okay. Route. So, alright, that helps clarify. Thank you. You're welcome. Michael, did you have a question? I did, but I… I now… I think I have a follow-up to what Chel… we're Chelsea. I'm gonna go back to what I was originally gonna ask, because I can't… I'm now a little confused about… well, I… in your presentation, at the… before we got to the four properties, I thought that, Marcy, you mentioned something about that Landmark's Board, prior to Landmark's Board action, that there was going to be, like, a plan review.

[46:05] A concept plan review. If you go back to one of your earlier slides, I can… I don't know where that was, but… Are you thinking of the process slide that had each of the steps? No. Oh. It was a green font. Hmm. I think. I'm… I'm actually a little bit sick, so who knows what color it was. Okay. Maybe it was blue. Go ahead. And it might help if you… if you ask your question, I know there's, like, 60 slides or so. Yeah, so I… I don't know. I thought I… I heard you say, and I read it, that there was some concept review prior to Landmark's Board decision, and I didn't know whether that was coming from our previous

[47:00] Hearing? where we asked for that, or whether… I don't know what… what that was… what the context of that bullet point was. Yeah, so there is the active concept plan application that is scheduled for a planning board hearing on April 7th. And so, if the board initiates the designation process, that planning board public hearing would happen before the Landmarks Board designation hearing. Oh, okay. Maybe that was it. Okay. So that's just procedure, like, just a matter of the calendar. It's a matter of the calendar and the… Maybe that is related. See what you're saying. But the planning board review doesn't happen before the stay of demolition expires, which is March 26, and then the planning board hearing is about a week later. Yeah, I think we're just talking about an alternate, like, an alternate scenario.

[48:01] then… the stay of demolition. I'll get to my question. Which was, you mentioned that it's in a potential historic district, and can you elaborate on that? Sure, so boulders… the four houses. Yeah, Boulder's potential, historic districts were mostly identified in the 1980s, when there was a major effort to Survey and a goal that we achieved to survey everything built before 1940. And so, while the individual survey forms that we're familiar with were prepared for individual properties, there's also a, survey report that talks about the context of the neighborhood, kind of key buildings within the neighborhood, and then proposes, potential historic districts. University Hill being one, Whittier being another. This, these boundaries are a little bit unusual in that,

[49:00] these four houses are the only properties on the, south side of Arapahoe, which tells me it was intentional that the four of them were included, but the potential historic district is more related to the residential, kind of expanded Highland Lawn, neighborhood, rather than Including anything to the north, or to the east. Any other questions for staff. Marcy, can you go to slide 57? Oh, thank you for… The slide number. I just wanted to read it again.

[50:18] Okay. I'm good. I think there'll be more questions when we… Get further down. Okay. If there are no other questions for staff, we'll move to the owner's, presentation and… Last call for questions, staff questions at this point. Alright, and then Amanda is here to help. promote folks from the applicant team, so recognize a number of, name so we can go ahead and promote, Alex.

[51:02] And… And I… Catherine. Thank you for helping, hopefully I'm getting everybody, too. Yeah, and… Mark. Mr. There's mark… Oop. Let me get everybody, Tom? true. We have everyone. There we go. Tom Otteson, too. I'm sending you a… There you go. Okay. And… make sure you can share your screens. I'm not sure who will be… Running the presentation, but… I'll give you access to share. I'll do that. Okay, Catherine, thank you.

[52:03] And is this everyone from your team? There might be another Mark. There's Mark Hawke. He's not native for the presentation, but for questions, he could be really helpful. Sure. Okay, just holler at me if you… if anyone's missing, but I think we got everybody. And, If it's helpful, for the Landmarks Board members and our applicants, I can run a 20-minute timer. It'll show up in the, like, corner of my Zoom. That'd be great. Okay. Alright, let me see… Alright, is that showing just the presentation for everybody?

[53:03] That's… I think we see a comment. I can see your notes. I'm kidding. I won't make you look at my notes. Sorry, everyone. Slideshow… Individual. How about that? Yes. That looks good. It's good. Okay, great. I just will speak without my notes. So… It's great to see you all again today. We really appreciate the partnership, and I'm sorry we're not in person, and I do wish we had the snow that we had that forced us to be virtual, last December. And I will say, I feel like it's proof that we've been spending a lot of time together, that our presentation is structured pretty similarly to staff's. So, we wanted to run through this timeline. Our team's been working on this for about a year.

[54:13] We had our first pre-app back in July. And two things I just want to, kind of pull up here. It was back at our meeting on December 15th that we, we said we were planning to submit for concept. And so… staff, board. was aware that that was going to happen, and then it wasn't until February that we heard that maybe we should just go forward with that process first. So, I think I just want to kind of talk through this process, and we really appreciate the collaboration. It's been nice to meet all of you in person and to talk through these things. And I wanted to next just talk a little bit about why the applicant decided not to withdraw its applications for demo.

[55:05] So, as we learned about this process a little bit, we heard that we could go to concept hearing. with planning board, and concept peering is… is not binding. It's actually… it's good feedback. And then, perhaps a council call-up, and then staff said, go… go back to landmark process, and probably pay the $7,200 demo permit fees again for this non-profit. And then get to that Landmarks Board vote, which would probably not come until Q4 of this year. And you all have been so responsive to the urgency of getting these housing units online, and this project, that this was just kind of… A way to show the reason that they wanted to get a decision tonight. So tonight's decision, and I have a question about this, I thought was to just vote to designate today or vote to approve demolition. And that was the language from the January meeting.

[56:09] But I've heard you all can also just not vote, and I would love some clarity later on if that's the case. So if you vote to designate today, President's gonna stop its entitlement work. We've done a lot of iterations, and we'll show you more, that the project just isn't feasible with the houses there. If you vote to approve demo today, President Manor can move forward, Concept Peering can move forward, but also the partnership to help relocate the houses can move forward over the next year. We'll get to that LIHTC application in Q1 of next year. This is the clearest and fastest path to new senior affordable housing. So the other thing I saw in the staff memo that I think is really different about today's meeting is this quote, and that's, the decision is legislative, meaning the Landmarks Board may consider any factors in their decision. And we'll go through code and talk about why we think

[57:04] A demo application should be approved according to code, but we also want to say these other factors, like floodplain, feasibility, and just the opportunity to create this housing should be considered by you all. So here's the site, and You all know it, all 5 properties. And here's the survey of it. And we bring this up because it shows the buildings, shows the property lines, but it also shows Sorry, everybody. It also shows this light blue, and this light blue is that 100-year floodplain. It's most of the property. Except for this, which is 500 a year, and it's 500 a year, because that's where the topography starts to go up, and this is not in the floodplain, because that's where the topography is significantly steep. We can't build anything there. And so… You all are now familiar with this property, and that floodplain is really important.

[58:00] Because all four of these houses flooded in 2013. They'll flood again, we don't know when, but they will. And, as staff mentioned, the Boulder Revised Close Code prohibits a critical facility in the 100-year floodplain without flood proofing. So that's why we can Put the new property into the floodplain, because there are no units on that first floor, it's elevated. 976 first floor would need to be raised above base flood elevation, and then we'd also have to abandon all of the basements. And abandoning all the basements cuts the square footage in half for these properties, so those per square foot cost numbers basically double, and beyond that. It disrupts the historic integrity. Not to mention, it's very expensive, and our general contractor hasn't even figured out if it's feasible. And so, just as a philosophical question, do you want to preserve properties in the floodplain, or if you have the opportunity to partner and try and move them?

[59:03] Should we consider that instead? We also looked at different alternatives, right? We all did this together. What happens if we build only on the tower parcel? That doesn't work because it doesn't give us the number of units we want, and it doesn't give us the required parking, and we'll come back to that. What happens if we consolidate the lots, and then use the buildable square footage? Well, we can get the unit yield, but we can't get the parking that is required. So the only path forward to get to these 60 units, which is… which makes the project much more financially feasible, is to consolidate the lots. Alright, so… So why doesn't this work? Why can't we just say, let's keep these houses and incorporate them, or let's attach them to the building? And if you just keep them there. again, our project doesn't become big enough, and we have this parking issue. So this parking's really key, and I want you to ask questions about it if it's not clear to you. It's a… LIHTC partnerships are complicated and complex and detailed and nuanced. But here, the LIHTC partnership on the tower.

[60:09] Required at least 73 parking spaces. Per the partnership agreement. And we went and asked the investor, can we change that? And they said no to us, and then they just sent us a letter that said, no, you can't do this. And reducing that parking, if Prez Manor were to be like, this is for the birds, we're gonna reduce the parking to build more units, it actually is considered a major default in their partnership agreement. That creates over a $10 million liability for this nonprofit that's just trying to provide affordable housing. And, more importantly, it would take away its ownership rights. This nonprofit would no longer have the right to own the property after the end of the tax credit partnership. And this property doesn't have a permanent affordable covenant on it, and I can tell you the bank would turn it into market-rate housing in a heartbeat at the end of the CHAFA's land use restriction agreement.

[61:04] Not only that, the parking's in use. I love the aspiration that we're gonna reduce the number of cars, but it… the reality is. It's full. And the new units will require more, and it's not just parking for the residents, but it's also parking for the required services of senior housing. They have occupational therapists, they have physical therapists, they have home health aides, they have food services, they have laundry services that come in and use those parking spaces to help support our local residents, our neighbors. And if you were to try and relocate that parking, which, to be clear, President Manor has even tried asking for the alfalfa's parking lot. we're creating a hazard for our residents, and I'm not sure that the investor would approve it. So what about this question of incorporating the houses into the new design? We've gone through this. They're not suitable for senior housing. They're not ADA.

[62:00] But if they were… incorporated into LIHTC, they'd need to be ADA, and they'd need to be much more energy efficient. Whether that's common area or as a unit. Basements would need to be abandoned. And then there's this question of that 10-foot buffer between the new building and the existing buildings. So that buffer is required by the International Building Code. Planning Board has no ability to change that code. It is something that is required of every building. And, even if you took away that buffer, it wouldn't create enough space for another row of parking, so we wouldn't get any more parking that we've studied with our architects. Beyond that, If you were to say, what if the building's attached? Because I've seen that done elsewhere. This is a different type of building typology than you've probably seen, and it's also different, types of use. So, we talked about how these finish floor elevations are different, right? That one of the houses would need to be elevated above. So, we'd have to elevate that one, but they're all at different heights.

[63:07] And so, if you were to attach those to the building, and make them accessible from the building, we'd have this Complicated system of ramps needed to make those spaces accessible to the building. And, or, we need to have a full firewall. And that full firewall is the entire back of the house, but it also moves above the house. So we would lose some… We would lose some units, because we'd lose windows on, by attaching these buildings and the required building code, which Planning Board can't change. Alright, so now we're gonna talk about the code, and I won't read the code again, because Marcy just read it all, but I will pull out a full thing… a few things. So, here… We want to know, are we providing significant examples of architectural styles of the past? And this got me to thinking.

[64:01] Are these examples significant, or are they simply representative? And I'll let you read those definitions, but I'll let you also know what I learned in my research. I looked at the opinion report that was provided in the December meeting. I looked at the Front Range Research Associates report, and… When I went through those, I was reading the words, and they said things like, a good example, or representative. So I started reading them for a bunch of neighboring buildings. And what was interesting to me is, as you look at some of the neighboring buildings, they're called out in this same survey as an excellent example, or having a high degree of historic integrity. or even being a distinguished landmark, right? There's a… there's an order here, and… These are certainly representative. I absolutely agree with that. But are they significant? Furthermore, in that 1990 survey, there's a checkbox to say, is this a historic district? And not one of these four houses was in

[65:05] checked as being part of a… eligible for our historic district. So, the data, as I got into it, and I went down that rabbit hole, it just showed me that These maybe aren't the most important. And that's important as we talk about the next part of the code. Because this is all… this is all the very beginning of the historic preservation chapter. It's like, what is the purpose and the intent? So, that was the first part, this is the next part, and it talks about drawing a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest. It is a big problem. Big deal to take away the private property rights. Of a non-profit. These are their properties, they have stewarded them, they have managed them, and they bought them with the vision of developing more affordable housing for seniors.

[66:00] And so what's funny to me about this comment, too, is have a balance between private property rights and the public interest. And the public interest can really be this new senior affordable housing. So, you're actually getting both. You don't have to balance between them, you gotta go all out on both of them. And let's remember that as you make your decision today. The next part talked about being energy efficient and accessible, and the houses just aren't. But the new building will be. And we'd love to help create the density that decreases greenhouse gases in an urban core. Alright, so next part of the code. The criteria for review tonight. And I wanted to call out 3 things. First, is there community and neighborhood support for the proposed designation? There was equal argument. at… in December. And there were equal written comments today.

[67:00] Second, imbalance. Does the proposed designation… is it consistent with the comp plan? And the comp plan is really important, we're rewriting it now. And, yes, historic preservation is in there. It's on a couple of pages. Housing has an entire section. Not only that, when it was When it was amended in 2015, it said there are two focus areas. One of them was housing affordability. So when I look in balance. That housing, it takes… it takes more of a front seat in that comp plan. And then again, being in the public interest, I go back to senior affordable housing. We need it so badly, and we have a local nonprofit partner who wants to provide it. So I'll hand it over to Mark here to, talk about these next slides. Sure. Thanks, Catherine. So, you know, we're asking for your help as the board, really, to deliver more permanently, and it is permanently affordable senior housing downtown, in probably one of the most ideal locations around.

[68:06] We want to build upon our community and the success of the LIHTC renovation that we just recently completed for the 78-unit tower. And I don't think it surprises anybody that there's an affordable housing, and certainly a senior affordable housing crisis that's evident, and it continues to grow. Presbyterian Manor already has a years-long wait list that's only going to get longer. We are a non-profit that's deeply experienced in high-quality senior affordable housing management, and the trade-off is for market rate units versus 60 permanently affordable senior homes. Those houses are not affordable, they are market rate. And I want to remind everyone that Prez Manor has already made significant contributions to historic preservation. We restored and preserved the 1962 Hobart Wagner-designed tower, and we specifically made sure that we did no significant changes to the exterior of the building.

[69:08] It would have been much cheaper, and certainly easier to remove the railings, and instead, we repaired them, replaced them, refinished them, so that there would not be any significant changes, and it would reflect its historic place. And if you go into the first floor of our building, you'll notice that there's a series of photographs and maps that talk about the history, not only of the tower, but of the property itself that we own. And in January, at our meeting, we offered up a relocation proposal that I want to make sure that we are offering up again, and make sure that we understand it. And that's upon approval of our demolition applications, we would donate those four houses for relocation by any qualified partner. That partner would provide relocation plans and relocate any or all of the houses in accordance to the timeline that's there on your right.

[70:07] The community partner would bear the cost, identify the locations, and physically relocate the houses. And if the relocation plan is not confirmed by June 30th of 2027, demolition would occur. And the manner would not… we would, extend the timeline if indeed we did not receive the LIHTC award in 2027. So finally, I just want to say how much we appreciate the collaboration and the time since our very first LRDC meeting in October, and the five following Landmarks meetings. We've gotten together quite a bit, and I think we've really worked together well. Relocation offers the most realistic path to balance the preservation goals with flood safety and community housing. And remember, this decision is legislative.

[71:01] So it means that the Landmarks Board may consider any factors in their decision. and all of the houses are representative of the Craftsman Bungalow form, they are not significant. So after an extensive analysis, as well as multiple options that we've discussed together, there is no feasible path that preserves the houses on-site. While also delivering the permanently affordable senior housing project. And Presbyterian Manor will not move forward with the proposed development in the event of designation. So we respectfully request, once again, that the Landmarks Board approve the demolition permit tonight. And you know, while I was preparing for tonight's meeting, the thought occurred to me that our missions are actually quite similar. The Landmarks Board's mission is to preserve historically significant structures and the stories behind them. and the mission of Presbyterian Manor.

[72:02] It's to preserve Boulder seniors who can tell those stories. Thank you. So that concludes the applicant's Presentation. Questions? Mercy, are we… Oh, can we ask questions? Yes. Okay, does any board member have any questions for the applicant at this time? I don't… I don't see any hands raised, so now we can move to public comment.

[73:01] If you wish to speak during public comment, please raise your virtual hand now. At this point, should we get a count of how many virtual members. There's 53 participants. Or, it looks like, so far… We're at 20 hands raised, and counting. So I believe it's the board's decision on, How much time you'd like to allot everyone. Yeah, so, do we wanna, Adjust the times, which requires a motion to allow for, that 3-minute to be 2 minutes. I move. That we revise the 3 minutes to 2 minutes, given that we have greater than 12.

[74:01] Willing public speakers. Okay, do I have a second? I'll second that. I roll call vote. John? Aye. Chelsea? Hi. Abby? Aye. And Michael? Bye. And I say aye, motion passes. 5 to 0. So, we'll move to public comment. If you wish… if you wish to speak during the public comment, raise your hand. Virtual hand. Virtual attendees, please raise your hand or press star 9 if you want to speak. You will need to state your full name and raise your hand and swear to tell the board the whole truth. Great. You, you will have permit. Okay. No, I'm just trying to read, like, all through the little things. You will each have 2 minutes per the speakers.

[75:05] Okay, and I'll just go in order of the hands that I see raised, and I'll, kind of queue up the next person. So first up, is Susan Connolly, followed by Teresa Brown, and I will run a 2-minute timer in the corner of my screen if you want to, look there. And I'll allow each of you, to unmute yourselves. So we'll, again, we'll start with Susan Connolly and then Teresa Brown. Susan, you can go ahead. Hey, good evening. I don't know if you can see me or not. Susan Connolly, 7393 Poston Way in Boulder. I served as the Executive Director of the Colorado Chautauqua Association 2003 to 2015. I have a deep understanding, and appreciate… tell the truth. Sorry. Yes, of course. Okay.

[76:00] Just… this is Chris Reynolds, attorney for the board. It's a legislative matter, and so it's not quasi-judicial, so we actually don't need to swear anybody in tonight. Oh, okay. I like your instinct. Good to know on the first one. Okay, start the two minutes over. Go ahead, Susan. Okay. Apologies. I served as the executive director of the Colorado Chautauqua Association for 12 years. I have a deep understanding and appreciation for historic preservation. I speak tonight, having served for the last 5 years on the Fraser Meadows Board of Directors, another long-time nonprofit senior living organization in our community. And I speak in support of the Presbyterian Manor Development Proposal, and against the landmarking recommendations. Boulder is an aging community. Housing for seniors, particularly for income-qualified seniors, is in very scarce supply.

[77:05] The proposal to build 60 units of permanently affordable senior housing is a rare and precious opportunity in our community. The four bungalows may meet the technical requirements for significance, but they are not precious to the Boulder community. Preventing 60 units of affordable senior housing to preserve 4 tiny market-rate homes would not be seen as being in the public interest by our broader community. Please do not initiate the landmarking process for these bungalows. Please do issue the demolition approval so that this important project can move forward and serve our community. Thank you. Thanks, Susan. Great, thank you, Susan. Apologies, this'll just take me a second to get used to running the timer at the same time.

[78:11] Alright, next up… oh, I think… Oh, I'm sorry. Next up is Teresa Brown, followed by Lynn Kendall Wilson. Teresa, you have 2 minutes. Good evening. Thank you for letting me speak on behalf of the Presbyterian Manor's application. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Just, I graduated from CU Law School in 1987, and have been in the area for most of the time since then. Therefore, it's my contemporaries, meaning people in my age group, who are the most interested in having additional affordable senior housing in Boulder. However, my comments tonight are not directed at the proposed new use of the land.

[79:03] But rather, whether the houses individually are worthy enough to be considered historic for indefinite preservation. In my opinion, they are not when considered individually. Hundreds of craftsmen bungalows can be found throughout Boulder. So how can that be a reason? Is a soffit that might have a small, interesting, excuse me, interesting design, or unusual porch hood. Be enough to preserve a whole house. Has anyone heard of the former residence of any of the houses? These are not Frank Lloyd Wright homes. In fact, the architects are unknown. Only the builders. Therefore, are any of these, therefore, significant buildings? I think the clear answer is no. Therefore, the only real consideration of this board relates to the historic district Ding.

[80:02] Including the four houses together. I know that under Policy 2.1, the board needs to consider The neighborhood-serving uses that foster commercial uses… uses that strengthen overall neighborhood character. I want… oh, shoot, my two minutes are almost over. I want to note that past boards have not preserved similar houses on that Arapaho… that part of Arapaho Avenue. I believe those past boards accepted the changing neighbor… nature of the neighborhood to commercial, public, and multifamily housing. I guess that's the end of… Sorry about the, little music in the background there. Thank you, Teresa. Great. Next up is Lynn Kendall Wilson, followed by Martha Patton.

[81:00] Lynn, you should, be able to unmute and go ahead. I just did. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to this proposal. I speak in favor of what Presbyterian Manor is proposing. I, too, am a senior citizen, and I realize that this is an aging population. I also realize that this is a community that really needs affordable housing. I have worked, I have done classes and meetings at Presbyterian Manor. And found that the community is very active and engaged. We did a course on flourishing in the third third, which really… Put to death the stereotypes of older people. And this opportunity would give many people the chance to have a community. It's also very important that current research is showing that the elderly age better if they are in their own home.

[82:13] And these 60 units would give 60 more people the ability to age healthily. Happily and joyfully in their own homes. Yes, there are many craftsman bungalows around, and I do not think that the sacrifice, or of four of them. It's really worth it. is… I mean, I think that it is worth sacrificing those four houses, moving them somewhere else, so that 60 more people may be able to live in their own homes and flourish in the third stage of their life. Thank you for listening to me, and I hope that you will find in favor of demolition and in favor of Presbyterian Manor. Thank you.

[83:08] Thank you, Lynn. Next up, we have Martha D. Patton, followed by Gail. Promboign. Go ahead, Martha. Thank you. My name is Marty Patton. I'm a former resident of Presbyterian Manor. As the following 5 or 6 facts suggest, Boulder has a housing crisis. Boulder is hollowing out its middle class. Less than 10% of Boulder's housing stock is permanently affordable. There is a growing gap between supply and demand for middle as well as low-income residents. A majority of Boulder renters are cost burdened. Boulder's high rent-to-income ratio disproportionately affects seniors like me.

[84:03] The projected growth for Boulder's senior population is dramatic. We have a problem, but solutions are possible, especially if we come to a close understanding about what constitutes public interest, historically significant, and the scale of our affordable housing crisis. We might contemplate what cities elsewhere have done. For example. in Vienna, Austria. Vienna has one of Europe's densest collections of historically significant buildings, but its ongoing efforts to protect some historically significant buildings coexist with a commitment to providing a significant amount of affordable housing. Even if Boulder doesn't aspire to support affordable housing on the scale that Vienna does, let's simply keep in mind that many historically rich cities don't compromise on housing.

[85:04] Boulder could be a modeled U.S. city with cultural integrity and sufficient affordable housing, including and especially for a growing population of seniors. To this end, I implore the Landmarks Board to permit the manor to demolish a few houses in order to pursue its effort to address Boulder's affordable housing crisis. Thank you. Thank you, Marty. Next up… We have Gail, Promboign. Followed by Colleen Ryan Mellon. Hi, I'm Gail Promboign. Like many of the people who would hope to live at Presbyterian Manor, I'm old. And I can tell you that there's a real difference between living alone and living in a community.

[86:03] And that's something Presbyterian Manor offers, that… So many elders in our community. and being the fastest growing population of Boulder, really need. I am very fortunate to live at Fraser Meadows. And the only difference between me and the potential residents of Expanded Presbyterian Manor is our economic circumstances. Now, I can't fix that, but I hope I can persuade you to put the human needs ahead of… the… Perhaps not overwhelmingly significant historic… Qualities of those homes. Living in community is very different from living alone, and I've been learning that, particularly in the last 3 years since my husband died. Because if I didn't live at Fraser, my life would be so much poorer. And I want people at different income levels to be able to experience that same sense of community that I know Presbyterian manor offers.

[87:07] That's really all I had to say. Great, thank you, Gail. Next up, Colleen Ryan Mallon, followed by Tim Plass. Good evening, my name is Colleen Ryan Mallin, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of Presbyterian Manors being able to remove or demolish the four houses on Arapahoe to add affordable senior living. I've worked in senior living for more than 35 years, and never has there been a more urgent need for additional housing. We often hear the community cries for affordable housing, and this project would provide just that. I love history, and have frequented many of the historic museums in Boulder County. It seems that these are the places where the history of the four houses being reviewed tonight should live. Many of the slides shared tonight would be wonderful assets for their… for this purpose.

[88:06] The reality of the situation is that while these houses may have a bolder history, they do not add any beauty to the neighborhood, and likely would not be missed by many. And at the end of the day. They don't support a population in need. It also occurs to me that if Presbyterian Manor were to sell these houses, they would likely be of interest only to people who would want to tear them down. And build something new. I urge the board to make a statement about the importance of older adults and affordable housing by voting to approve the removal of the four homes to make way for an expansion of Presbyterian Manor's critical mission. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Colleen. Next up is Tim Plass, followed by Christy Henrix.

[89:01] Hi, I'm Tim Plass, the President of the Board of Directors of Historic Boulder, and I'm speaking tonight on behalf of Historic Boulder, and I ask you to initiate landmarking of the four bungalows this evening. Landmarking over the owner's objection is rarely undertaken, and rightly so. In fact, just a tiny percentage of the demolition requests that are reviewed by the Historic Preservation Program are initiated this way, and Marcie highlighted that tonight. In this case, the action is warranted, however. Staff has ably highlighted the value of the buildings and their importance as a group. In addition, I would submit to you that when the request for demolition comes as part of a larger development proposal, as it does here. The calculus changes. In the discretionary review process, think concept review and site review of planning board, the applicant will be asking for relief from certain limitations and constraints. Think setbacks and height limits, for example. In return, the city rightfully seeks community benefit. Of course, one of those benefits is affordable housing. Another is historic preservation. The way the process works right now, putting the onus on the Landmarks Board to initiate landmarking before the review at Planning Board creates an unlevel playing field tilted against preservation.

[90:06] At the last Landmarks Board meeting on this application, I thought I had stepped into a planning board meeting, and I feel the same way tonight, and I served on Planning Board. In the future, let's work to fix this process so we don't end up here again. I know the applicant also has concerns about the process, and we have found common ground to approach the city to fix this issue. I urge you to keep the possibility of saving these worthy historic buildings in play until the matter reaches the planning board for its review. I believe that planning staff would not have made the recommendations they did if they did not believe that there was a fair chance of meeting both historic preservation and affordable housing goals. If you live the stay tonight, we will never know the answer to that question. On behalf of Historic Boulder, I respectfully request that you initiate landmarking as recommended by the staff. Thank you. Thank you, Tim. Next up is Christy Henricks, followed by Rosie Vivian.

[91:08] Good evening. And thank you so much to the Landmark Board and to the City for the time that you've given and attention that you've given to this. And also, a shout out to the Presbyterian Manor, for their long-standing commitment to, to this important need. My name is Christy Hendricks, and I'm the President and CEO of Frasier. I have worked in the senior care housing and support field for more than 30 years. I'm passionate about ensuring that older adults have the housing and support needs met when they need it and where they need it. Boulder is growing old, and already has inadequate housing options, especially affordable for, How's… housing. And… Presbyterian Manor has already mentioned that they have a year-long waiting list, so the demand is here before our readiness. We have an opportunity to help deliver stable and dignified housing for low-income seniors, so it seems like the right time to act on it.

[92:09] Presbyterian Manor has demonstrated its commitment to preservation through the careful stewardship of the historic tower, retained their independent expert, finding that the houses lacks historic significance, and also has a willingness to donate the homes. They're working hard to find a win-win for everybody in this situation. The other thing that's important to me, and has been mentioned is, oftentimes, Elders, older adults, suffer when they're staying in their own homes, and that's primarily due to loneliness and isolation. So, the location of this building, surrounded by the amenities and surrounded by the others that live there, will help prevent that loneliness and isolation, and, and help older adults have

[93:04] the ability to age successfully. So, for these reasons, I respectfully urge the Landmarks Board to approve the demolition permit. Thank you. Thanks, Christy. Okay… Next up is Rosie Fibian, followed by, Kathy, and Kathy, when I unmute you, if you could just let us know your last name, too. Oops, oops, sorry. Go ahead, go ahead, Rosie. Hi, my name is Rosie Vivian. And I'm a Colorado licensed architect, NCARB-certified architect, long-time AIA member, and currently a chartered member of the Royal Institute of British Architects. I've lived and practiced architecture in Boulder for more than 20 years. I'm writing in support of the applicant's proposal to provide senior affordable housing on their site and the demolition of these four buildings. I watched the landmarks hearing from December in its entirety after reading the article published in Boulder Reporting Lab.

[94:12] And found it problematic for several reasons. It seems highly unfair to the applicant to delay their project based on what was presented. The way information was presented was misleading, at the very least, and full of misinformation. Architectural terms were misused, and it seems to be a stretch to call these buildings anything other than ordinary. They lack the detailing, window styles, and proportions, building form, and craftsmanship that is characteristic of a craftsman architecture. Landmarking these buildings at this time is an extreme act that puts an unnecessary burden on the applicants and the Boulder community and its future residents. I have a very long list. I've sent a letter to the Landmarks Board earlier today with a very long list of things that were presented in the hearing that were inaccuracies, as well as a detail of each home and why

[95:08] I don't see it meeting the standards of what's characteristic of a craftsman bungalow, and I'm probably going to run out of time before I can read this 5-page list. So I'm going to skip, to the end and see how much time I've got left. I'm not seeing a clock on my screen, by the way. Landmarking for buildings is extreme in that it sets a precedent. that… Any one-story home with the gable roof and a small porch addition is landmark eligible, which is problematic in that so many buildings in Boulder could fit this description. These buildings are not attributed… Typically, what's that? I'm sorry, that's your time. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay, next up is Kathy, and Kathy, if you could please tell us your full name, followed by, Niall Cease.

[96:11] Kathy, you should be able to unmute. Yeah, got it. Sorry, thank you. Kathy Perger. Thanks for listening. I come to this as an economist. I was trained in a city where air rights, so the right to light and sky, is bought and sold, so I understand development math, but I also understand value, and not all value shows up in a financial model. So, when developers invoke affordable housing, it can be a noble argument. But it can also be used to push projects to the maximum legal envelope, to the curb, to the sky, and in this case, to squeeze every allowable square foot and negotiate down to the last parking space, regardless of what we lose in character and civic space.

[97:01] What I haven't heard mentioned, this evening is the fact that these four bungalows sit across from our beautiful library beside the Boulder Creek in the heart of the Civic District. And that openness, that scale, that sense of history, that's not incidental. It's why people live here. It's why they visit. Tonight, I ask that you weigh the true value of the air and the light and the space and the historic continuity. I ask that you please initiate landmarking for these four historic homes. Thank you. Thank you, Kathy, and my apologies, would you mind stating your full name again? I think our mics just overlapped. Sure, it's Kathy Bergard, it's B-U-E-R-G-E-R-T. Thank you so much. Thanks. Okay, next up is Niall Cease. Followed by Len… Siegel?

[98:06] Hello, my name is Niall Cease, and I live in the West Pearl neighborhood, less than a mile from the houses being discussed today. And I've lived here in Boulder for the past 8 years. And I would like to speak against these 4 houses being designated as a historical landmark, and in favor of the redevelopment of this site into affordable housing for seniors. I live very close to this site and pass by all the time and do not notice the architecture of the houses as special or notable, and they look like many other stated single-family homes throughout Boulder. To me, they even feel out of place, and I think higher density buildings would fit in better, and help make the area around the library and creek path more vibrant and active, which this landmark process is trying to block. And I also appreciate that the previous residents were engaged community members, however, I think you could find people as engaged as them in nearly any residence in Boulder where we have many engaged community members. We cannot landmark every house where someone notable has lived in.

[99:05] One of the residents was a union member, and as an engaged member of my union and advocate for the working class, I do not think landmarking these homes to prevent building affordable housing are consistent with working class or union values, and would not honor the residents' legacy. I also think building more housing so close to Pearl Street can help revitalize our downtown that has many businesses struggling right now. I think supporting local businesses with more customers through more residents and workers, supporting the residents. Nearby would be the best way to honor the businesses… the business owners who previously lived in these homes. And landmarking this location without the support of the property owner will add a burden to city staff, creating more work hours in a time when the City of Boulder is facing budget constraints. I believe landmarking this location will be a waste of valuable city resources and staff time during this time.

[100:00] And as a resident of this neighborhood, I feel incredibly privileged to live here and enjoy all that downtown Boulder has to offer. Living here should not be reserved for the lucky few. Hey, thank you, Niall. Great, we've got, Len Siegel up next, followed by Jeeva… something in. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thanks, Lee. This is Leonard Siegel, I'm the Executive Director of Historic Boulder, and I'm speaking on behalf of the organization. First thing I want to say is, thank you to, the development team and the Landmarks Board for your thoughtful presentations tonight, and your willingness to hear out different sides of the story. I want to say that the preservation staff are experts in historic preservation, and they've determined that the properties meet the standards as landmarks, and voting to landmark these houses is the… is logical, based on that expert and authoritative staff recommendation. It's also certainly living up

[101:13] to your mission as members of the Landmarks Advisory Preservation Board to uphold the Historic Preservation Ordinance. You're clearly being put under a lot of pressure tonight because the developers are threatening to stop their project if you vote to landmark the houses. However, your vote tonight to initiate the landmarking process is the right one. It will open up and clarify the conversation with the planning board about the mutually beneficial community values of senior housing, historic preservation, and even environmentalism. The mission of the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board is focused on evaluating projects based on the historic preservation ordinance. The Presbyterian Manor Development Team has presented many non-historic issues to sway your evaluation of the historic merits of these properties. Please don't be distracted.

[102:04] You took on the role as a member of the Landmarks Board on behalf of the Boulder community. Your task is to evaluate whether the preservation staff's recommendation to landmark these properties meets the standards of the Boulder Historic Preservation Ordinance. This project can be a demonstration that housing developments and historic preservation are often mutually beneficial. There are many instances in Boulder where the preservation of a historic property has leveraged reductions in zoning restrictions to the betterment of the new housing, often resulting in lower development costs. I just finished my… Oh, oops, I'm sorry, Leonard. Thank you, Leonard. Okay, next up we have Jeeva… Bentlin then, followed by Gavin McMillan.

[103:06] Good evening, Chair Galobic and members of the Landmarks Board. My name is Jiva Santel-Nathan, and I am speaking tonight on behalf of the Boulder Chamber of Commerce in strong support of the demolition applications at 976, 986, 990, and 1004 Arapahoe. to allow the Presbyterian Manor to move forward with approximately 60 permanently affordable senior apartments. From the Chamber's perspective, this is not simply a land use decision. It is an economic sustainability decision. Boulder's long-term economic strength depends on housing diversity. Many of our seniors are retired educators, healthcare workers, small business owners, nonprofit leaders, and long-time residents who help build the Boulder we value today. When older adults are priced out, we lose stability, civic leadership, volunteerism, and local consumer spending that support small businesses. Permanently affordable senior housing allows long-time residents to age in place, strengthening neighborhood stability and preserving the economic and social fabric our community depends on.

[104:07] This site is economic strategic. It is located in one of Boulder's most walkable and service-rich areas across from the library and near retail, transit, and community services. 60 seniors living within walking distance of daily needs creates steady economic activity while reducing transportation and infrastructure demands. This is exactly where higher density affordable housing belongs. There is also a clear opportunity cost. Preserving four market-rate rental houses serves very few households. Replacing them with 60 permanently affordable homes represents a 15-fold increase in housing impact on the same footprint. There is an important property rights consideration as well. The Landmarks Board has not initiated a historic designation against a property owner's wishes since 2019. Do these houses truly justify that action when the owner seeks to create deeply affordable housing for seniors?

[105:02] Hair preservation would come at the direct expense of urgent community need. We respectfully urge you to approve the demolition application so this important project can move forward. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you, Jeeva. Next up is Gavin McMillan, followed by Lynn Siegel. Oops, I'm sorry, Gavin, I accidentally just, promoted you to a panelist. Hold on one moment, please. Here, can you hear me? Oh. Sure, go ahead. Hello? Yes. Hello? Oh. -Oh. Gavin, we can hear you. It seems that you can hear me, maybe, but I cannot hear you. Can I get a thumbs up? Okay, I'll start talking.

[106:02] My name is Gavin McMillan, I'm a Boulder resident, and I'll just start by saying, well, you know, this is… this is complicated stuff. The code's complicated, the development deal is complicated, the historic preservation question's complicated, and I want to first acknowledge that these are difficult decisions to make, and When we have competing interests of affordable housing and historic preservation, I think that's when your job and the discussion can be really difficult. So, I'd like to thank the Landmarks Board, City Staff, and Presbyterian Manor for your time and consideration of the issue on behalf of our community. I'm here tonight to speak in support of Presbyterian Manor's demolition application, and against landmarking the four homes. Boulder has a growing senior population and a real shortage of affordable housing, and demolition approval tonight is a critical step toward creating 60 permanently affordable homes for older adults in a, really a perfect location. It's next to the AgeWell Center, the library, it's a short walk to Pearl Street, healthcare, transit, the Boulder Creek Path, it's really ideal. So, you know, Boulder often says we want to make more kinds of this affordable housing, especially for seniors, and this is a great chance to make that happen.

[107:07] And to me, the decision is really about trade-offs. I don't think that preventing 60 units of affordable housing To save 4 houses is a good trade-off, so… I also understand that Presbyterian Manor is willing to donate the houses, so that's just another plus and positive in my mind. So, for all these reasons, I respectfully urge the Landmarks Board to approve the demolition permit and allow the project to move forward. Thank you. Thank you, Gavin. Next up is Lynn Siegel, followed by Shelly Durkey. Lynn Siegel, yeah, I follow five city boards, Planning Board, Landmarks Board. Transportation Advisory Board, Open Space Board of Trustees, and Water Resources Advisory Board, when I can, which I can't tonight, Housing Advisory Board.

[108:04] I didn't think that these issues are supposed to be conflated, so I don't even want to address all the reasons I'm 72 years old, and I love living alone in my house. That's just fine with me. And… I don't think it's a matter of that. I think it's… and I don't think it's a matter of… how much affordable housing we need, because there are plenty of LIHTC funds. They're coming straight from Don Trump, and they're coming straight to Boulder to build this place up as high and as… every square inch as it can be. And there's plenty of spaces for elders on the perimeter, and this is a space that I use, and I like, and I commuted to 25 years to Denver to be able to afford a house in Central Boulder. And I want to be in Central Boulder for a reason, because I like

[109:01] the housing, and I like the architecture, and I want to see it. It's a cultural aspect. a cultural asset that is irreplaceable. Irreplaceable. And I hope you really think about what you're doing here, because this is… so useful to the people in front of the library. It's the prime area of downtown Boulder. where people can appreciate this. Not an exclusive group. An exclusive group of seniors who can appreciate it. No, this is, all of Boulder to appreciate these bungalows. Keep them. Great, thank you, Lynn. Next up is Shelly Durking. Oops, I'm sorry. Shelly, I think your hand went down, so…

[110:02] If you'd like to still speak, please, there she is. Sorry, Shelly. Shelly Durking up next, followed by Emmy. Hi, thanks for the opportunity to speak. I'm Shelly Dierking, I'm the Executive Director of St. Benedict Health. We are the only 100% free clinic. nonprofit organization in Boulder County. We're a mobile clinic. We go out into the community, caring for the most vulnerable. The unhoused, low-income, older adults. And anyone who has a need. We've existed in Boulder for over 20 years, and I've been the Executive Director the last 6 years. We provide monthly free clinics at Presbyterian Manor, and I'm speaking in support of their proposal for demolition and for more affordable housing.

[111:04] Having cared for the unhoused in Boulder County for… since June of 2020, when I became the Executive Director. More than 80% of those that we see who are unhoused in Boulder are older adults. And… in partnering with Presbyterian Manor and other low-income housing for older adults in Boulder. I've seen what a great job Presbyterian Manor does in caring for their residents. We were on-site during the renovation. We saw the care and concern that they took in maintaining the historic tower, in taking care of their residents, and I know that they would do the same for these new 60 units of proposed affordable housing that is much needed. I feel like there's a win-win here that Presbyterian Manor is offering in donating and relocating these homes that are already on a floodplain and are going to require

[112:07] Additional work for these homes. So I encourage you to please allow the demolition permit to go forward, so that more of our unhoused seniors can be housed in Boulder. Thank you, Shelly. Next up is Emmy, followed by Daniel Howard, and Emmy, if you could please give us your, full… full name? Hi, my name is Emmy Valentine. And I'm 17 years old. Thank you to the Landmarks Board and City staff for taking so much time to look at this carefully. I also want to thank the Presbyterian Manor for everything they've done for seniors in Boulder over the years. I sometimes play piano and join the sing-alongs at Presbyterian Manor, and I've seen how much that community means to the people who live there.

[113:00] It's not just housing, it's friendship, support, and a place where people feel like they belong. But I've also learned there's a long waitlist, Boulder doesn't have enough affordable housing for seniors, and this project would create 60 permanently affordable homes in an amazing location near the library, transit, and healthcare. As a young person, it would make me happy to see older residents living here, rather than Preserving these houses that don't seem to offer anything to the community. Opportunities like this are rare. I respectfully ask you to approve the demolition permit so this project can move forward and help more seniors be a part of this community. Thank you for your time. Great, thank you, Emmy. Followed up, our next… next up is Daniel Howard, followed by Kristen Lewis. Hello, I am Daniel Howard. I'm a resident along Alerapo Avenue in West Boulder, and I'm against the historic landlord designation of these properties. These properties and present buildings do not serve me or my neighbors as a form of public interest, especially given the opportunity cost of living in affordable housing.

[114:05] that Presbyterian Manor is not permitted to develop properties as it intends for older seniors. Affordable housing is a greater priority in the BVCP compared to historic preservation. I conclude these properties are not eligible for historic landmark status. My basis for my stance goes beyond my finding that the structures do not serve current or future public interest. Presently, these individual parcels do not encourage community gathering or foster community connection, now or in the future. Instead, I envision seeing Presbyterian Manor's future development as being my own future home, a community home that will foster connection with other senior neighbors and Boulder community members at large. In my later years, I would like to be able to age in place, move to this facility when I'm older, and the types of opposed units by Presbyterian Manor would allow me to stay locally in Boulder when I am on a fixed income. This will allow me to agent place in a walkable area near the Boulder, Maine Public Library and downtown Pearl Street Mall. Nonetheless, I'd rather spend my time today engaging with the new Jim Crow author, Michelle Alexander at CU Boulder, where the pillows here are eerie, repronizing the historic landmark process, in this instance, for an owner who did not want the properties landmarked, as I argue, a modern practice of Jim Crow-era exclusionary ideologies. We quote an article in the Atlantic.

[115:06] What Historic Preservation Doing to American Cities by Jacob Ann Binder, the nation's very first historic district, that of downtown Charleston, South Carolina, was created in 1931 as part of a Jim Crow-era zoning code whose aim was to encourage the segregation of the city. Although the zoning itself did not use racial labels, which the Supreme Court had already declared unconstitutional. Observers understood that this intent was to increase the neighborhood's appeal to white people who left the area and to encourage Black residents who lived there to move elsewhere. I contend that the landmarking these properties is directly intended to further segregationist policies of the 20th century and exclude lower income and perhaps even seniors of color from being able to call downtown Boulder their home. I respectfully employ this board to uphold the integrity of the historic preservation process, and only consider landmarking properties with cultural significance, and not further a cult of antiquarians. Please decline to name all of these properties and allow the demolition and development process to proceed. Thank you. Thank you, Daniel.

[116:01] what, St. Mary, but… Next up is Kristen Lewis, followed by Gail Stromborg… Stromberg. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay. My name is Kristen Lewis, I'm a retired architect, and much of my professional practice has involved work within historic districts. I've always consistently sought opportunities that can arise from thoughtfully integrating new development with historic structures, and I'm very sorry to hear that it is an either-or situation here. I feel the process has really been faulty. And, I do support the staff recommendation to landmark the four bungalows on Arapahoe. They do represent a meaningful period in Boulder's history, and the modest scale of these houses, which, by the way, is really different than

[117:03] a lot of the craft… most of the craftsman houses in town. And I think they're important as a grouping, not… not as single buildings at all. But anyway, they're a valuable transition to the street while leaving most of the site available for the proposed low-income housing development, and it is reasonable to assume the houses should remain as is and continue as rentals. They would add Needed housing diversity, and if their use does not change, they should… there should be considered for exemptions for certain curr… for current requirements. There is a meaningful opportunity here that will be lost if landmarking does not proceed. The site is unique due to its grade change, downtown location, the possibility of providing low-income elderly housing in an area with abundant services. See, I think they can all go together, and it's… and unfortunately, not landmarking them, really doesn't…

[118:00] continue that conversation at all. And these fa… anyway, the preservation staff are experts in historic preservation, and based on their research, they've determined that these houses meet the criteria, and I think… need to honor our past while continuing to support a vibrant and inclusive community. And so I really feel like there's room for both, and it doesn't have to be either-or. Thank you, Kristen. Next up is Gail Stromberg, followed by Annie, Becky. Well… It's gonna get totally… Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you, Gail. Go ahead. So, I'm Gail Stromberg, I reside here at Presbyterian Manor. I worked for the Housing Authority of the City of Boulder, now called Boulder Housing Partners, for 23 years. And then… retired and became a contract inspector for 4 years, so I visited many, many

[119:05] Senior buildings in Boulder County. from north in Longmont up to Nederland, out to… The edge of Superior. And, in Lafayette, all the senior buildings they've built. So when it came time for me to retire, I knew where I wanted to go, and that was Boulder House, that was Presbyterian Manor. Presbyterian Manor has an excellent management, has wonderful staff, has a board that is very responsive. And we have a community that's strong and engaged. In different issues and active. I am part of the Baby Boomers. And I remember when John Torres would say he was the director of Golden West Manor. that we have a tsunami coming. We have a silver tsunami. It's not just a small group. So, the seniors, like me.

[120:06] Of the boomer, era. Many of them, they come to the door, and at our door, Presbyterian Manor, asking, how can they get into this building? You know, but our list only opens once a year, And it's very long. And they say to us, well, how do we know when there might be one available? Well, the truth is, is that one of us dies. If one of us dies, that's when a new person can get in. or the family has to take their parents. So I'm begging you, begging you to not designate those bungalows as, as whatever preservation. I don't know anything about preservation. Thank you so much! Thank you. Thank you, Gail. Let's see, we've got one more with a hand raised, Annie Bakke, unless there's anyone else, here is your opportunity to raise your hand.

[121:12] Hi there. Hi, Annie, go ahead. Hi, my name's Annie Bocce. I am the CEO of a homeless service provider in Boulder called Together. We actually work with youth and young adults experiencing homelessness, but we're very familiar with the shortage of affordable housing in this community, especially for seniors, as we see that population growing. So, I want to thank the Landmarks Board and City staff for taking the time and care that you've given this issue, and I want to thank Presbyterian Manor for their long-standing commitment to providing quality, affordable housing in this community for seniors. I am here to respectfully seek support for approving Presbyterian Manor's demolition application. We have a well-established need for affordable housing, especially for seniors. We've heard about the years-long waiting list here already.

[122:10] I also want to speak to the location of this for affordable housing in our community. I can't really imagine a better site for seniors. It's next to the AgeWell Center, the library, and a short walk downtown where folks can access healthcare services and many of the amenities we all enjoy. I know we have an experienced service provider here already in our community, and this is a very rare opportunity for downtown land that's suitable for affordable housing. This is a trade-off that seems very clear and is something we should take into consideration. It also appears to me that this designation is an extraordinary action. Initiating a designation over a property owner's objection is rare in this community and should be taken very seriously. And I also understand that preservation has been taken very seriously by the owners of this property.

[123:05] And for all of those reasons, I respectfully urge the Landmarks Boards to approve the demolition permit and allow this important senior housing project to move forward in our community. Thank you. Thank you, Annie. We do have another hand raised, we'll go to Gary Llewellyn? Gary, go ahead, you've got 2 minutes. Yes, yes, thank you for the time. I, too, am a very lucky and blessed resident here at Presbyterian Manor. I speak in favor of the demolition permit, because even though it's so tempting to close the door behind you and just keep things the way they are. The need is so great that I've experienced that recently in my life, trying to find a place. I was raised here in Boulder, since 1967 in third grade. I raised my children here.

[124:14] And it's just… a real blessing to be able to be here and to enjoy this community. So, I just wanted to say, even though it's tempting, to just you know, close the door and let everybody else worry about it, now that I'm in. We really need to open up these 60 places, and I look at these four… Craftsman-style bungalows every day, and I, you know, I just… it seems like… It would be a terrible trade-off to slow this process down or to stop it. For those 4 houses. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Gary.

[125:02] I don't see any other hands raised at this time. Oh, I… I think that concludes our public comments. Okay, so we can move to, the applicant. You will have an additional 3 minutes if you'd like to respond to anything that was said during public comment. Would you like to respond? Yeah, just real quickly, thanks to everyone who came and spoke today. It's always great to see people involved in the public process, from, I think, high schoolers to… seniors, and thanks to Historic Boulder, They've worked through this process with us, and we look forward to continuing to work with them. It did kind of raise a question for me, and I would love to know the answer. It's my understanding that if you vote tonight to designate That… then there's a designation hearing.

[126:02] And that… that bell can't be unrung. You can't withdraw the… the designation. And I just… I'd like to know some clarification on that, given some of the comments we heard. Sure. So, to be clear, the decision in front of the Landmarks Board tonight about designation is, does the board want to start the designation process or not? If the board votes to initiate designation, to start the designation process, then the designation hearing is scheduled at the Landmarks Board level between 60 and 120 days. At that hearing. the board then decides, do we recommend approval of the designation to City Council, or do we recommend denial of the designation to City Council? And then it goes to City Council, after that. I also heard some comments assuming that tonight was the decision about whether these properties would be designated, and I just want…

[127:03] To be very clear, today is, does the Landmarks Board want to start that process this evening, or not? Catherine, did that answer your question? That was helpful, yes. Mark, or Mark, or… Alex or Tom, I just want to make sure you all didn't have anything else. I did not. I don't, either. Okay, so… We move to board discussion. Let's see, just trying to find the paperwork. Have everyone mute their computers, and we're gonna move forward with… Discussing…

[128:04] We need to first discuss them individually, so, 5A976 Arapahoe Avenue. Anybody want to start… the conversation. I'm happy to start if my colleagues don't mind. Go ahead, Abby. And in many respects, I don't want to be the first one, or have to even weigh on… weigh into this. Renee, if you'll give me just a few seconds to, thank everybody who has sent emails to us, who spoke tonight, who take… took their time to do this. Catherine, you've been amazing to work with, and I want to add my voice to the chorus of saying. how great Presbyterian Manor is, what great stewards they are. I mean, just by Mark and, not only your very, very eloquent remarks, but just your willingness and your respect for the Landmarks Board and our own process.

[129:10] I just have been so impressed with, The comments tonight, the speakers taking the time and effort to join us, and just… how articulate and how persuasive and compelling every speaker was, no matter what they were, encouraging us to do tonight. And in a perfect world, this would have gone to planning board first, and the onus wouldn't be on us. to do this. I, I still see this process as, maybe the most graceful word I can use is clumsy, and so I feel like, It's unfortunate that that process, even though it may be going on a parallel path now, really didn't start first, and

[130:00] I heard and was moved by all the voices talking about affordable, permanent housing for seniors. As someone who's well into my senior years. I hear that, I applaud that, and I do that. But likewise, as I scour the preservation ordinance. I don't see where we have the luxury to vote simply by believing in a noble mission, or, you know, we… we… in the… 8 years I've been on the board, and the 12 years prior to that, when I used to come and speak to the board on behalf of Historic Boulder, use is not something under our purview, but I heard that, and I appreciate it. And I think because of where this process is. I will on… I'm sorry, Renee, I've already lost the, the address that's first up, 968? 976.

[131:00] I wasn't even close. 976 Arapaho Avenue. Because of the process, and because tonight, what is before us, there's the perfect world and the real world, and before us tonight is the first step in a three-step process of potential. designation of this one house, 976 Arapahoe Avenue, and because of staff's recommendation, I will be supporting it tonight, because I think it gives us that chance to find out planning board's invaluable input, and as we all know, there are many examples throughout Boulder where designation does not preclude future development. Thanks, Abby. I, I, I wanna, just because I think this is the first project

[132:04] that I, like, we're gonna go through this, again, these words that we keep talking about, which I think will come up again, so we can be clearer on it, and you know, Abby and John and maybe Chelsea have been on this, path before, but it's really, like, so at this point. We're looking to, have a hearing, and this hearing proposes an, you know. Claire or Marci, you can kind of have a feedback. This hearing then… we then are in the hearing. All of us, again, are in this hearing for, historic… to see if these buildings are going to be, landmarked, individually landmarked. Is that… Like, we're voting tonight on whether we want this to go to a hearing, and in that hearing, we're gonna say,

[133:04] Yes, we want these individually, so we're gonna have, again, this… a similar discussion about these individually landmark… landmarked buildings, is that correct? Yes, so the, process you're most familiar with, because it's most common, is when an owner nominates their property for landmark designation. And so, it goes directly to the designation hearing, where it's a public hearing. Similar to this form board's criteria for review is based on the significance criteria and consistency with, the intents and purposes of the hearing. The code is designed that when a application for, designation comes from anybody other than the owner, there's a step prior in the process called the initiation hearing. That's what is happening tonight, which is a longer list of criteria to consider in a legislative format

[134:05] to say, does the board want to start that designation process or not? And so, let me put maybe up on the screen the options in front of you. tonight, just to be very clear about what the potential outcomes of this hearing is, so the first one is the board could vote to initiate designation of the property as an individual landmark by adopting the resolution. That would start the landmark designation process, which means that we would schedule a hearing in front of the Landmarks Board For that designation hearing between 60 and 120 days, so that's… the end of April to the end of June. Your second option is to not initiate landmark designation. In that case, the stay of demolition would continue until the end of March, and if the board doesn't take action before that time, then the demolition applications are automatically approved.

[135:06] The third thing you can do is proactively approve the demolition applications tonight. The process ends for historic preservation, and that approval is valid for one year and cannot be extended. Can I ask a follow-up question? Oh, sorry, go ahead. Oh, you… I just wanted to make sure that, my understanding is that they… your staff recommendation is number one. Yes. Okay. Okay. Chelsea, you can go ahead. Okay, just a clarifying question on this process. Since this is different than what we usually go through. We haven't had a lot of these go through this process. Usually applicants withdraw, because they're scared. But I, Had a question about the… cause…

[136:01] It has been seeming to me like in… we've had several meetings where we've discussed this, where we've had a hearing, where we've had presentations from both the staff. the applicant and the public, and so I'm curious about… beyond what could potentially happen with the planning board, what new information could we have at the next hearing that we don't have now? It… maybe, Chris, why don't you go first? Sure. So I can't really answer the question, like, what new information might you have at the next hearing, but the rules that you apply are different. their sworn testimony, the criteria is different. Tonight, they're, is criteria to consider, but you're not bound by it. It says without limitation. So, you can think about other factors that might be important

[137:04] to whether or not you want to initiate designation or not. If you decide, if the board decides to initiate designation at that next designation hearing within 60 to 120 days, the board won't have the option to consider, things that are outside of criteria. It'll be… need to be a criteria-based decision, in, in the code. And so, the methodology that, the board would come to its decision would look a little bit different. But, the decision… the information, the facts. I would assume, like. pretty similar. You know, these properties are going to be the same properties if we get to a designation. hearing, and so, just… You know, as we've said, tonight's about whether or not we want to start the… formally start the process of designation.

[138:00] So… Okay. Yeah, no, that's super helpful, and I think it's helpful for us all to hear, because I think, that… moving forward with initiation is… is an intent to initiate. And so… I don't think… I just want to make sure we're all on the same page, that it's not just a delay in making the decision, and that tonight we have the opportunity to weigh much more of a broad spectrum of priorities that the community has, because this is a legislative matter, you know, we can weigh the balance of The public interest and property rights, and the community good, that this project would have, whereas in a designation, we… wouldn't be able to do that. So, yeah, I just wanted to highlight that, I guess, before we continue the discussion.

[139:09] Michael, it looked like you had your hand raised. I did. I was waiting. So… so what I… what I heard in… in a lot of the… the public comment, which it's kind of hard to not be influenced by to a certain degree, although Abby, I think, put it correctly, that… that it's really not our… It's not our purview to expand Opportunities for housing. It's really not. And I would challenge the development community, whoever, all of the people that spoke in favor, that they need to initiate housing all over Boulder, not just in these historic sites. So I sort of think Abby is on the right track there, but… but…

[140:03] and I'm gonna ask this… this is a question for… for Chris or for Marcy. How possible is it to initiate designation With a contingency that the houses be moved. off of this site. How… how wedded is designation to the sites versus the houses, because we've… what I was expecting, honestly, is to hear a little bit more progress from the applicant in terms of What is… who has come forward to… to offer to take these houses and move them? That's what I think we all want to hear. Right? In terms of having… having it both… having it both ways. So, what can… can the Landmarks Board do anything that That encourages or motivates the applicant to get serious about Having these houses moved.

[141:08] And preserved, but in another location. That's my question to either Chris or Marci. I'll… and I'll… I'll take… take the first bite at that. Thank you for the question, Michael. I don't… I don't think that the Landmarks Board has, within the scope of its authority, a way to force Anybody to move… Their house, against their… you know, like, there's no way to force Presbyterian Manor to say, you know, you shall move the… preserve these houses. But shall move them from their location to another location. I don't think that there's a legal mechanism that exists, that's within the scope of the Landmark Support Authority, or really Any authority that the city would have, although… just focusing on landmarks board.

[142:03] I don't think that that's going to be a possibility. Can I am… amend that? I mean… what I would understand the process to be is that they would be designated, and then in the eventuality over time, and we're talking about a compressed schedule of time, that there might be a landmarks alteration application to move them, to make way for… I mean, if there was a more prolonged process, that happens, does it not? That would be the process, and that's what I understood, Michael, your question initially to be. So, the designation is more… is the property, the building, its features, protected? And then any changes, whether that is, you know, any exterior changes, including relocation, that's reviewed through a landmark alteration certificate.

[143:01] So it is more of a… two separate… considerations. One is about protection, two is how a building changes over time. Thanks. Okay, sorry, another clarifying question, because I think Michael mentioned that that… you know, the project that is before us and other factors are not within our purview, but it's my understanding that those factors are within our purview tonight, you know, because we are here looking at it through a legislative lens. Can you just Remind us again, the, The scope of what we're able to consider when making this decision tonight, which is different from how we make decisions typically.

[144:01] Alright, Marci, that was for you. Oh, I'm so… I thought that was the code criteria question that, Chris was. So, sorry, your question was about the board's purview this evening, and how it's different than, like, your typical. Yeah. Yeah, because I think there's a, you know, there were some comments made about how we have to look at the criteria, but that's actually not the… framework of… like, obviously that's part of the framework of decision making, but that's actually our… scope of decision-making is much broader, when we're here under legislative intent, and since we have some board members who haven't been through this before, if you could just remind us again of what we're able to consider, beyond the criteria that we normally do. Yes. And, Chelsea, you're correct. The board can consider any factor in its decision this evening. And that's very different than every other hearing you all see, whether it's a landmark alteration certificate, demolition hearing, landmark designation,

[145:03] Those are all quasi-judicial with specific criteria and findings. And so this is the one point in the process, the one type of hearing the Landmarks Board sees that is legislative. Thanks. John, you have your hand raised. Yes. I… I think I need to hear from the applicants once again, in… in… Since we're in this stage of legislative discussion, which we only get this opportunity to do. I want clarification on… The issue of…

[146:06] Not designation, but just initiating the process of designation. what… was I hearing correctly that that would be fatal to the forward progress of the project? That was kind of… What it sounded like the position we're put into is, is even to decide to go one more step in the designation project or process, would… would arrest the The possibility of this project. Renee, should we… Ask the applicants that. Oh, I'm fine with asking the applicants. Okay.

[147:00] I think Mark should take this question. He's able to speak on behalf of the board. Okay, thanks, Catherine. Siri. There we… come on. Hey, I'll… yeah. Yes, if… If indeed that, you move forward in the event of designation, we will not move forward with the proposed development. Okay, but that's the… as you're saying, the event of designation. Right. So… So, were we to vote tonight, to initiate Which is a… Initiating a process that also extends the period of Alternative discussion on How… well, it, it, it… It expands the types of discussions that your side would have with other parts of the city.

[148:06] process. And consequently, could yield Options that we don't even have access to through our process. If we were to do that. Is that the point when it completely arrests the process, or the project, or… Does it have to go to full designation? In other words, we've come to the point of saying we're going to recommend to the City Council that this be a preserved group of houses. Yes, if that is your recommendation, that essentially you want to designate these houses as historic. We will not move forward with the proposed development. Okay. You know, and to answer a question that came earlier, we have had someone who's come and looked at.

[149:04] One of the houses, and we've not marketed them at all, because it hasn't been approved. We've come to you to say, this would be our proposal. And if, indeed, the demolition permits were approved, we then would offer those houses to be donated. So we're… That's one of the reasons you haven't heard anything from anyone, is because no one has said, hey, we have 4 houses. Historic houses, per se, that would… that are available. I think… I think it's fair to say, and Mark, correct me if I'm wrong, the vote… tonight, or to initiate designation. And seeing as the next meeting It's quasi-judicial, and you can't take into account

[150:00] All of the support for the affordable housing. It would be our conclusion that The designation would occur. And they continue to spend… Resources from a non-profit. On additional design work, and a project that Seems as though it won't happen. wouldn't be… A good steward of… Of the nonprofits. Financial resources and time. And we think that, that together, we have discussed option after option after option. and to, you know, Chelsea's earlier, you know, comment, I'm not sure what other information That… that will be gleaned out of any other meetings. And it… you know, you've seen some of the same slides over again.

[151:01] And we've, you know, we've met with Historic Boulder, we've met, with you, and really think that we have hammered out What could be a good win-win for both of us in keeping those houses, but allowing them to be donated and still go forward with what we think is a very vital project. Okay, thanks. I think that's the clarification I'm asking for. Okay, thank you, John. It's a good question. I appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion a little bit, too. Yeah, I mean… I, you know, it's hard that we're on this, like, virtual… I always feel like it goes, you know, when we're all together, but, I mean, I… I… we're stuck between this really interesting… dynamic, right? Because if we put… we initiate…

[152:01] the conversation, and I've heard this brought up several times, there is a board meeting for Planning Board on April. And… that… allows Planning Board to take a look at This in a different light than if we were to… Not create almost like another stay on these buildings to create an opportunity to, again. work with a conversation about what we do with these buildings. Is that… like… I mean, I just… I just kind of want to water it down and get to, like. You know, a place where we can, you know, get into the nitty-gritty of it is… I know Chelsea has her hand raised, and sorry to… to jump in, Renee, but I… I think… I don't think it is…

[153:01] initiating the designation just to… just to extend the stay. I think we… if… if we conclude as a board that these houses are worth, or the one property that I guess we're really talking about right now, 976, If they are… Worthy of designation. it would be our intent that we designate them at that hearing in… in whenever it is, in… between April and June. I don't… I don't think it's just to afford the applicant more time to come up with a solution. Okay. That's… that's what I think. Sorry, Chelsea, I know you had your hand raised. No, that's super helpful, and I… Michael, I agree with you, and based on… and Marcie and other staff can correct me, but based on the lengthy conversation we had at the beginning of this meeting, it seems to me that Planning board, their main… the thing that they can do

[154:02] Is recommend initiating designation, which is… what we're already doing right now, or, like, have the opportunity to do right now. So, it essentially just, like, even if, like, planning board may not do that, they may say, we don't like these buildings, but they don't actually have any power, it sounded like, to recommend demolition. They just have the power to initiate, or to recommend initiation. So it's essentially just delaying what we're already doing. And, and Marci, like, others can please correct me, because I'm somewhat confused about it. Yeah, the curious thing I have about that is what we just heard from the applicant is that if we initiate designation tonight. wouldn't they then withdraw their application to the planning? There would be no planning meeting, because they're telling us they wouldn't move forward with the project. So I guess I would like to hear that from the applicant. Is that true? That you… That's what I…

[155:05] asked. That's what he's doing. I heard that… so there would not be a planning meeting? For this project. For this proposal. Yes. Catherine? Can you please? You know, in terms of, like, the planning board concept review, those… those pieces. Yeah, I… I believe their… their plan is not… is to cancel that concept hearing, because they can no longer get a project of the scale needed, or get the parking required to remain in compliance with the financial. And so, if the… if the homes remain. All of the studies we've been doing over the last year of the property. Doesn't allow both things to happen on this site. And so… They… they wouldn't continue. They would withdraw their application for the planning review.

[156:01] Since you mentioned the parking. I'm not sure I really understood that, but it's… it's… it sounds like it's directly related to the financing. Correct. That's it. Our investor… our investor has clearly stated we have to have those parking spaces. We asked them again, and we have a signed letter from them that says, no. I understand, Mark, I get that. And I guess the challenge that I have is I'm also hearing how much this is a great location for the… for the… for your population, your demographic, because they can walk to downtown, and they… they like to be, you know, they want to be in the downtown location, so I guess I'm a little conflicted with respect to the need for Cars and parking if The location is ideal. And… and I guess I would challenge your investor. I don't… I don't have really the resources to do that, but that rubs me really the wrong way, and I know that's out of your hands, but I would say, find another investor. I don't…

[157:12] It's cheeky, it's cheeky for me to say that, but if we're… if we're loud… Catherine can answer that one. Yeah, if we're allowed. If we could get rid of parking, we would. Sorry, if we're allowed to consider all of the things, and we are no longer restricted to our are the blinders of historic preservation, I… I think I'm allowed to say that comment, that the parking part is really what's bothering me more than anything, because I just… I just think that's… that's the opportunity to save the houses on this site. Is what I'm hearing, too. Catherine? Yeah, I think it's a very fair comment, Michael, and… I, too, would love to change. The number of cars in the parking. I think there's two pieces of information. So, the tax credit partnership that has this parking requirement.

[158:04] It's a 15-year partnership, and it started in 20… I can't remember, 2022? So it's got… it's got another more than 10 years left on it, and you can't replace the investor, because they paid upfront for these tax credits that they receive over the next 10 years. And they have to… and then the building has to remain in compliance for the tax credit period. So we can't just go get another investor. It's not… It's not something that works with the tax credit program. And then the other thing I'll say about parking is, I think it's, you know, we're looking at a hundred and… 138 spaces? I'm trying to remember my… my chart, 138 spaces, or 138 units, but only 91 total spaces. So that's a lower parking ratio than any of the, market rate. But…

[159:00] deals we're doing, or a lot of the affordable that happens in town as well. Most things are at a one-to-one, for… to attract investment. I… I think that we have to very quickly Use… use the opportunity afforded this… this legislative status in this discussion. And… Address, as a board, the process that we find ourselves in. And… and… it's… it's something that I've been feeling and saying is that… to be… to be put… We're… we're… our charge is… To look at and determine the validity of preservation.

[160:04] When brought for us… before us in that sense. But… what has happened is… The process of demolition has landed on us first. Over and over again. And in this case, Disallowing it, based on Our application of what we see as our criteria and our purview. Is fatal to a project. that… In a full legislative consideration, we… Probably all support. And… and… It just… the situation is, is that demolition is a very complex thing to consider, and approval of demolition should not be laying

[161:02] In our purview, by… by the accident of how the process is structured. Planning board, and other levels of authority in the city should be making that decision. So, I've said that. It's out there. And, I'll let the… Discussion continued. I mean, I think, John, I think that's what I was trying to get at, like, this is a lot for… You know, and maybe we just need to sit here, you know. I think, Michael, you brought up, like, hey, let's… Let's talk about 976 Arapaho.

[162:03] You know, like, I… I… the problem is these four buildings together… I think are stronger than them individually apart, but we cannot consider them, and Chris will come on here in a minute, I'm sure, we cannot consider them as one piece. And so, do we sit here and talk about 976 Arapaho and bring it up on the screen, and talk about how and why We think this building is… could strongly get a landmark designation. Chelsea, you're… Jay, I mean, just, like, let's speak candidly, because I don't know if we're gonna get anywhere if we don't, so… Actually, I can jump in on that. My inclination is to take no action.

[163:00] Okay? Because it's not resolvable from the standpoint of where we find ourselves. To make a definitive call either way. Okay. Chelsea? Hmm. You were just unmuted, but if you don't want. Oh, okay, I can't find… Oh, I'm unmuted. Okay, sorry, I couldn't find the window where you all were sitting. Okay, yeah, I'm happy… I'm sorry, Chelsea, do you mind if I jump in real quick? Oh, yes. Just to address something that John just said, I just want to remind the board that, you know, the decision to initiate designation. It's not a definitive decision for designation. So, I just, from a legal standpoint, if the board decides.

[164:00] to initiate designation, nothing is definitively decided. And, The record, which part of an attorney's job is to protect the record, does seem to be a bit unclear right now as to what the applicant's intention would be if The board tonight decided to initiate designation, which is the start Of the formal designation process. It sounds like perhaps there's some confusion as to whether that means their project would go up in flames, or if Hypothetically, we got to a designation hearing, if tonight we initiated designation, you initiated designation. And then we got to a designation hearing. and then the property was designated, if that would be the trigger that would make this project go up in flames. The record seems to be unclear on that point, and so I just wanted to point that out. Because the definitive action tonight kind of would be, not taking…

[165:05] Action, which means the demolition permits would then issue, So… just wanted to point out what I'm observing here, and then just clarify John's statement about definitive action, because initiating designation is not a definitive action. Okay. Understood. It doesn't change… it doesn't change my inclination. in terms of what I just said, taking no action. is… it… To me, it's preferable than Going ahead and voting demolition. Because that says that there is no… historic value or preservation value or community benefit to preserving these things, which is not, in my understanding of this in its wholeness.

[166:08] the group of four, which I'm not supposed to be dis… Considering in this… specific instance of the addressed property. At the same time, It's a legislative matter now. And the urban designer in me has to consider the grouping as opposed to the individuals. So, my inclination is still… To advocate for taking no action at this point. Throwing that out. If I may, just to clarify a little bit what Chris was saying, is… If there indeed is the initiation of designation, that is an intent. From our perspective, on moving toward designation.

[167:04] Yeah. Therefore, we would not go forward with the project. And maybe, Marcy, you could, step in and… and make a little bit… just, like, a future… like, if it is for, intent to landmark it. these individual landmarks. What… like, there's a whole different criteria than what we're looking at tonight, or is there… Or is there similar criteria, and then… We're, ramping that criteria up a bit. Yeah, so I'm hearing an assumption that if the board initiates the designation process tonight, the properties will be designated as individual landmarks, and I just want to clarify that that's incorrect. It's… a vote tonight is to start the process, which means that you feel that there's merit, and there are reasons to start that process. The designation hearing is its own quasi-judicial

[168:07] process and public hearing with the criteria in the code, and the Landmarks Board is not the ultimate decision maker. You all make a recommendation to the City Council. So, I just want to clarify, because it sounds like there's an assumption that if the board votes to initiate the process, therefore the properties are designated, and there are two distinct steps with two different review bodies City Council being the ultimate decision maker that would, Need to occur to decide the outcome of the designation. I agree. one… I guess one more… Thing that occurs in this legislative discussion is the fact that I think that…

[169:03] It's important for us, because we so rarely find ourselves in this particular position. It's… it's very important to consider the… The… implications of… Initiating against the wishes of the property owner. And particularly a property owner of this type. This type being a non-profit. Delivering a community benefit. And there's a certain enormity in doing that. Abby and Chelsea, just jump in.

[170:05] Abby, do you want to go? Thank you, Chelsea. I didn't know, Renee, if you had seen I'd raised my hand. This is hard, this is challenging, and John. you know, I have so much respect for you, and I hear your thing about The inclination to take no action. I personally can't do that. I think of the time and effort that staff has put in, the recommendations, the time and effort that the applicants have given us. to see the property and then discuss it additionally, you know, we… we've now really are getting pretty familiar with this property and the houses, and for me personally, I… I… I would like to vote on… I mean, there might be a motion to vote for demolition, there might be a motion to, initiate, but for me, I think that's the path I'd like to see as travel rather than taking no action, because,

[171:09] you know, serving on the Landmarks Board, there are sometimes very hard decisions, and I think this proposal and the noble efforts of these applicants is… one of the most challenging decisions I've ever had to make while serving on the board, but I personally will try to plow through for each property and, do what I think we're being asked to do tonight. But, you know, we all have the luxury to vote the way we want to vote, once there's a motion before us. Renee, I do want to say you said something very interesting, and I think staff has done a great job since we've had this, before us since December is that we have to vote individually on the four properties. But… but there is a beauty and strength in the collection of them, and I think one of the reasons I will also be supporting staff's recommendation tonight on 976 Arapahoe Avenue is I…

[172:13] I would really lament losing that rhythm down that block. that these houses have, and then ending as you get further west with the former church. So, there is something about that… that rhythm and the four together, but I think we're more than capable of voting individually on each house, knowing that, for some, that may be a thread throughout our boats. Okay, Chelsea, on to you. Okay. Yeah, I just really want to thank… it's been a while since we had the public hearing, but I just really enjoyed hearing from everyone, and having people tell our stories about what these houses mean to them, and what they don't mean to them, and what it would truly mean to have more affordable housing for seniors, which is something that we

[173:11] Have the authority to consider in our decision tonight. And… I know that, like, our criteria and what we're looking at is really subjective judgment. You know, we can have one architect that says, this is absolutely not significant, and another that says, this absolutely is. And that's why it's not easy for all of us. I don't admire the positions we're all in. I wish it wasn't the case, but at the same time, I really, like. take this responsibility so seriously, and want to put as much thought into it as we need to, to make the right decision. Not just for us as Landmarks Board, because I feel like that's kind of… where I feel like I'm missing a little bit of the conversation tonight, like, we have legislative intent, we need to look at the community needs outside of historic preservation.

[174:05] And consider those as we make our decision, because This is much more than just our standard process and criteria. So, yeah, when I look at the degree to which Those criteria are met, like, here, whether it's the, you know, our criteria for designation or our legislative criteria, which in part states that the City Council does not intend for this To preserve every old building in the city, but instead draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest. And I just find it impossible to not find that affordable housing You know, 60 units of affordable housing for seniors isn't in the community's best interest. And also, knowing that, like, historic preservation is not… if it's only something we as a board enjoy, then it's not really worth having, because the community needs to buy in. And, I mean, I… you know, we had 18 people show up here in support of

[175:16] demolishing these homes in… in… to have this housing, and… and only 5 who supported designation. I think we really need to take that and other, you know, comments into consideration. So, yeah, so particularly in the absence of broad community support, and we're also being asked to weigh this against the private property rights and against an applicant who has made substantial efforts to find alternatives. Probably more so than any other applicant I've seen in the four years that I've been on this board. So, like, I just think any criticism of them for not going far enough is… I don't understand that. But,

[176:08] yeah, like, they've tried to explore ways to incorporate the buildings. They've walked through every single approach they have tried to make this work. It really seemed like they would love nothing more than to not have their project be, you know, in our hands. So, they have done everything that they can to make it work with the buildings there, and it just simply doesn't work. And they're offering to donate the buildings, like, going to great lengths. To… to keep these houses for those who think that they're important enough to keep. So, I… I don't think I need to get into the criteria. I talked about this at our December hearing. Like, if we're looking at the criteria, I don't find these houses meet the standard of landmark designation. You know, when we look at it one by one, like, the builders and architects are unknown. The past residents.

[177:04] Yes, they were members of the community, but there's really not a lot of evidence that the contributions made, like, rise to the level of historical significance. I thought, one of the public speakers had a great point that, you know, these houses were working-class houses, and the people there, you know, worked for unions, and I think about what they would have wanted us to do in this scenario. And that's an interesting question to think about. But… Yeah, and I'm just also unconvinced that these properties meet the threshold for environmental significance. Like, again, looking at, okay, what are… what meets… what is the argument for environmental significance? Well, it was that they were described as visually prominent, and, like, in my view. you know, that does… that term doesn't establish any meaningful value. Like, simply being visible from the street is not the same as defining the character of a neighborhood, by which a lot of people here showed up tonight and said it wasn't defining for them.

[178:13] And who are we to say what's defining for a neighborhood where people live? I myself lived in this area, and I did not find this to be what made this area special. And, okay, sorry, I'm almost done, and then I'm not gonna talk on the other ones, but when I think about… you know, historic preservation, and I think about the places that are truly exceptional, and buildings and spaces that are celebrated as a clear public good, and whose preservation unquestionably enriches future generations. And, like, the proposal is 60 units of permanently affordable housing for seniors in a walkable neighborhood next to the library, and within easy reach of downtown.

[179:03] you know, services and amenities, and it's an opportunity for older adults to age in place, remain connected to community, and live with dignity in, like, the heart of the city that they call home. And I just really, like, I think about the legacy we create through our decisions here. If we want to start the process to designate these properties over the owner's objection and block this project. these houses will no longer simply be, you know, modest examples of 1920s construction. Like, they will become to represent something else, and it will come to represent what could have been affordable housing that was never built For seniors who needed it, because we thought that these Four houses were more important than that. So in the end, I do not believe that the evidence supports moving forward with landmark designation. I do believe that the community benefit of permanently affordable housing for seniors in this location is clear and compelling.

[180:10] And I want to be a part of supporting that, despite it being really hard to say, these buildings are important, but it… But compared to the future interest, which we have the authority to look at right now. It doesn't meet that threshold. And, like, I… I want our program to be something that we're proud of, and something that, in the future, they look at these decisions and say, you know what, that was a hard decision, but they made the right call. And I think that that would be the case if we either approve the demolition or, simply… or make the decision to just allow the proposal to move forward, which I think is also a decision as well. Even though we're not voting on it, I do think it's a decision

[181:01] What… either way, to… to just let the, application move forward, and… Even if we don't approve the demolition. Okay. Thank you. Well said. Thanks, Chelsea. Michael has his hand raised. And I'm glad that Chelsea recognized that it's subjective. In terms of our interpretation of… the historic and architectural value. I have… I have a question for Marcy. How many of the criteria need to be met for historic designation. And I should know that, I know, but I'm sick and I'm tired. So, I can't… Are you talking about the designation hearing, not the hearing tonight? Correct. Yes, so other communities have more of a metric where you have to have 3 out of the 5 or 4. We don't have that here, and so it is,

[182:09] a consideration of the architectural, historic, and environmental significance, and finding that the, designation is consistent with the purposes and standards. So, it's a. So it could be one. It could be one. It could be one. single criterion. So… I mean, the criteria is broader, it's not just one of the significance criteria. It's more the purposes and intent. Right, so… Since we can't consider… I'm gonna… I'm gonna… sorry, I'm gonna lower my hand, because that's annoying, but, Since we can't consider all four of them, and that… there's… obviously, there's… we're saying, I think, that there's… there could be some comprehensive value, but we can't really look at them that way. One does stand out to me.

[183:04] As having architectural, significance and criteria, and it's 990. That one, if I look at… look at them individually, That one is different. And that one does exhibit, regardless of what a modernist architect might say about whether it meets craftsman style, not craftsman, as defined by the great architects that were associated with the invention. an articulation of that particular architectural movement. But this is… 990 is an example, a good example, and I would… I would actually say it's an excellent example. of craftsman-style bungalow architecture in Boulder, as exhibited in other places. And we're not here to designate every monument of somebody who was famous who lived there. It's to preserve these sorts of things. And so, where I'm leaning

[184:03] To be honest, is… For the other three? I, I would agree with, with, I don't know about the no action part, but with 990, I think I would fall on my sword about designation, and I have an interest In the intent to designate 990. Arapahoe Avenue, and I wonder if I can get support from other board members. For the one. I'm just re… I'm just… Going through the, memorandum from staff. And beyond that, outside of my architect… I mean, I'm… I'm on the board as an architectural professional. That is… that is my… my purview. Right? So that's the value I bring. I look at that house, and it is different than the other three. And if I'm an architect, I think that… and Chelsea, I'm glad you… I must have had my numbers off with respect to pros and cons in terms of the public hearing, but the ratio is the same.

[185:17] It's… You know, it's… it's… Call it 25%. Right? So… so here's the one that we could save to represent that… that minority. Right? I believe… That any skilled architect can develop this property. Around the 1. And still… still main… still get the parking, still get the 60… 60 units. Could we… Bring… can we see what the applicant says?

[186:00] No. I… I… Chris, you can… you can comment on that, but I… So, I appreciate, you know, what you're saying, Michael. But, in terms of, you know, procedure, you know. Each of these properties have to be considered, On their own, for the purposes of You know, making… making a motion, since the board, Moved to have this hearing Tonight, for each of these properties, and so… you know, I would caution the board against, Sort of making… Conditional motions, or things like that. But it's not conditional, is it? If… and let's just go down this path. If I was to make a motion, and who knows how the vote turns out, but if I was to make a motion to initiate designation for 990 Arapaho.

[187:04] Isn't that what we're talking about? Each of these properties deserves its own motion? Right. I guess what I'm saying is that when we… when the board started these deliberations, I believe Renee kind of announced that it was for 976, and so we're kind of still in. We gotta go down the list. land, and so I would just… you know, take them A, B, C, D, and then, you know, the board can vote how it wants to vote on each of those. But in terms of, you know, talking about the different properties, I understand it's difficult. There was one staff presentation, there was one applicant presentation, and then we have four. or different properties to consider, but I would suggest that the board, perhaps consider, you know, once it's done deliberating, consider, you know, a motion for, item A, then B, then C, then D, just so the record is very, very clear.

[188:02] Yeah. so that, you know, we know what's happening, the applicants know what's happening, the community knows what's happening, and so that's what I would just kind of Say, at this point is that, you know, just making sure that we're… Taking them kind of one at a time, even though I recognize that is hard. So, I mean, I think, 976 Arapaho Avenue. So let's, I mean, keep this page up here, Marcy or Claire, whoever's running. Because 976 Arapahoe Avenue, you know, is… you know, has a different base floodplain elevation than the others, and so this has a different… I feel like this one has… If we're gonna designate this, I mean, the… to bring it up to a standard and life safety issue at this point.

[189:02] I think this one is… you know, I… I would… B in favor of… Not doing designation on 976. Arapahoe Avenue. Renee, are you… Making a motion. Are you making a motion? I think you should. I nominate you to make a motion. Studio… Shoot. Well, so, it's between do not initiate and approve demolition, right? So, these are our systems. There's 3 points. Right. So, do not initiate designation. So… but this doesn't designate demolition. So, yeah, not 3. And not… one. on… 976 Arapaho Avenue. And… and let me be clear, like, I have a hard time

[190:08] doing this over the owner objective of landmarking, because I think if the… it's… this is… we're in a tough position, we really are, because we are the first people in the city to review this, and I think they all hold a criteria for, you know, creating a escape that we really all particip… like, we all I mean, I think we're all here because we love these type of buildings, and we love discussing this every month about these properties, and so, but… so I'll make a motion. Man… Come on, I'll do it, if you don't want to. Yeah, I was gonna say. Bye! But… I… I don't feel nearly as conflicted. Excuse me.

[191:01] No, I'll, I'll move to… I'll move that the Landmarks Board not initiate the process for landmark designation. on 976 Arapaho, item 5A, Finding that it does not meet the criteria for such initiation pursuit to Section 9113, initiation of designation for Individual Landmarks and Historic Districts of The Boulder Revised Code 1981 and in balance is not consistent with the goals and policies of the Section 2.27 of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Do I have a second? I will struck it. Sorry, Chelsea. Thank you, John. We will do a roll call vote. John. Aye. Chelsea.

[192:00] Aye. Abby. No. Michael. Aye. The vote passes… 4 to 1. Renee, did you vote? Oh, I. Sorry, you're right, I didn't vote. I. Now we can move on to item 5B, 986 Arapahoe Avenue. Can we have the… yeah. So, this is the Craftsman Bungalow, owner's name, less per Scott, you know, for me. Let's… 986, okay, I'm just pulling up my notes. Does anyone else want to talk about, like. does anyone feel… I mean, Abby, why don't we give you a little… I mean, I'm putting you on the spot, but how do you feel about, why you feel you're gonna go with staff's recommendation on

[193:01] this bungalow. for historic designation, and then can I have, Chelsea… state. I mean, I just kind of want to hear everyone's view on this one, because we're moving forward, unless we all want to just make motions. I think my comments would be the same as… 976. Mine as well. And mine as well. I'll make a motion. that we… Hey, how'd you know? that we… can you pull up the do not designate motion? Okay, I will make a motion that, I move that the Landmarks Board not initiate the process for landmark designation, finding that it does not meet the criteria for such initiation pursuant to Section 9-11-3, initiation of designation for individual landmarks and historic districts.

[194:14] of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981, an imbalance is not consistent with the goals and policies of Section 227 of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. You want to state the item number? And the address? Oh, shoot. Can you go back? For 986 Arapaho. Item 5B. Item 5B. Okay. Do I have a second? I'll second. Okay, let's take a roll call vote. Michael. Yes. Abby.

[195:01] No. Chelsea. Bye. John. Aye. And I vote aye. So the… it passes 4 to 1. Now we move on to item 5C, 990, Arapaho Avenue. You wanna pull up the… So… . again, I'm gonna say that the details are much clearer to me, that this… this meets Craftsman-style bungalow construction, detail, care, not just from the front elevation, but those side gables have incredibly beautiful brackets, it's kind of hard to deny the uniqueness of this hood. I don't know that I've really seen that expression in a bungalow-style house, or a craftsman-style house.

[196:03] And… and I support its… Designation, or an interest in initiating its designation. D, should we… Interesting. Progression, or you want to make motion? I'm happily… happily make a motion. Cool. Okay. Go ahead. I'm open to discussion. Well, I'm just curious, since we… I feel like we've tried to be… cognizant of what we're doing, what the applicants is doing. This is a very new idea, and so I just wanted to… I wanted to hear from the applicants what this would mean if Potentially one of these… Structures was landmark. Although, Michael, I hear they're offering these buildings for free if you want to take it. I mean, I… I… I… I mean, I don't know how the rest of the board feels. I feel like…

[197:03] You know, we're trying to make a, a… Criteria-based decision on each of these buildings. And it's really not… I mean, we're taking in a lot more. We're taking in the fact that, you know, it's… I mean, I don't think any five of us would not deny that having a Low-income, situation in this area is not… it's not a bad thing. Right? But it's also shouldn't… shouldn't… We're voting on whether this building is you know, part of a… so, like, that's where I, like, this is where I'm torn, because I think that… you know, and the owner objective is where I'm getting into this area where I don't know I'm getting into yet. So… But… but if we are voting on individual landmarks

[198:03] balance, is to say, you isolate this one as though There's nothing but modern development all around it. Right. Pretend. Yeah. Does it deserve to be saved? I hear you. I… all I'm… and I totally hear you, and the criteria that we are evaluating is different. tonight, than it is usually. It's not just, is this… I'm supposed to say we all… We're coming from different perspectives about the value of historic preservation versus low-income housing. You're right. For this, for this specific site. For this specific site. Right? I, I, all… I'm gonna be… I'm on board with you if we're talking about low-income housing everywhere in the city where there isn't historic properties. that reflect an architecture that I think is, you know, here's one more that we're gonna throw into the…

[199:04] into the, you know, recycle bin, because we recycle these buildings piece by piece in Boulder. Yeah. That's what I'm saying, is, Chelsea, I'm not… I'm not… I'm not anti-housing, low-income housing, I mean, I'd love to see more low-income housing. On this particular site, I just don't think it's… This is… this is a reasonable discussion, because this one is definitely A much more unique example Of… of the form of… of a craftsman Type bungalow to me, to my… limited knowledge, I guess. It's definitely more interesting, and… it presents… An opportunity to talk about the criteria again in the face of

[200:03] We still have the issue of This would be contrary to the owner's objection, but… it's… also… only… As you said, 25% of the ask. So… I think we need to have a little more discussion about this, because I could… I could be convinced on this one. That it's worth exploring initiation. If we're gonna have this discussion, I… look, I'm not asking to have the applicant's word be, like, we just adopt it and whatever it is is. I'm just asking that we've had a process where we have gone back and forth and talked about different proposals. I'm just asking… I just want to hear from them. What… what does this mean for them?

[201:06] Thank you. There is. You're kidding me. then that feels unfair to me, like, if… Like, let's just hear what they have to say. Yeah, I think that's legitimate. Chelsea, at this point. So, it would be… Good. Okay. I would just advise the board, you know, since we're deep into deliberations, kind of against inviting the applicant to deliberate with the board. It's not… really a specific question about a factual unknown, and so it… Seems like we're really inviting the applicant to deliberate, and I would just caution the board against that. Yeah. I totally hear you, but this is an unknown, because we've been talking about what is possible on this site. with the applicant, with the understanding it was either for or nothing, and we have not heard from them on this, so it's a factual question.

[202:04] What is the implication of their proposal and their application if this were to be The situation that they have to deal with. But, I mean, Chris, aren't… we aren't… again, but we're not… They have agreed to lump this together, but at the same time, we are required not to lump them together. So… Sorry. Go ahead. risk. Right, so I would say that because, you know, the board is taking them individually, and that was, you know. stated at the beginning, that they've really had their bite at the apple to talk about what, you know, their presentation. You know, if there's a factual question about, you know, a specific issue, but asking the board, or asking the applicant to weigh in on now, during board deliberations.

[203:01] for this one property, what would it mean if it was… a designation was initiated for it, is really inviting them to just deliberate, rather than provide some sort of factual unknown. And so. Again, I would strongly advise the board not to ask the applicant's position on that in this manner. And Chelsea, I really understand the path you're trying to travel down. I do see the significance in this building that Michael has so, well articulated. I do know when we have these hard situations in the past, the one thing, because it… I don't see it as factual, I see it as more hypothetical, because Perhaps this is moved somewhere on the property. And then incorporated redevelopment somehow, and we don't know if, if at the next level, if there isn't a designation hearing for this, if…

[204:09] that will get recommended to City Council, and then will City Council do it? So, I think it's an intriguing idea to pursue this, because this isn't the final say. There's still the April 7th Planning Board meeting, and I find it intriguing, even if we don't have all the answers and all the input, we would always… Abby, you went muted. At the end. I'm done for the moment. Okay. As the applicant, we can't provide, Chris, according to you, just a factual statement. Not a… not a debate or a declaration. I'm advising the board to not invite you to deliberations.

[205:00] Yes, that's… that's right. Well, what if I do? What if I… I don't understand what my, my… What my power is to… ask anyway. Chris, do we take a motion on asking, or are we, like… I think Abby's a no, I'm… Abby's head is shaking, so that's why I'm saying no. I'm… I'm a no in asking Mark Or the applicant. So… I'm… I'm taking advice to not at this point, because… We have to stick to procedure as… I think we take advice to the council, is my… perspective. Yeah, exactly. That's fine. I guess, well, without any information, then I just, like, I just feel like I have to assume that the designation of… any one of these four properties has the same impact as designating all of them. So, I don't know that's the case, but I… You can assume that.

[206:11] I… my assumption is that they can rework the plan and figure it out with 3 out of the 4. I guess for me, I'm not willing to risk 60 units of affordable housing for seniors. Like, not… I'm just not willing to risk it, without having that information. Seems like a really simple thing. We've asked applicants. in the middle of our deliberations before, basic questions, I don't understand why this is different. Seems like a basic question. I… yeah. I'm ready… I'm ready to make a motion. And I can't see it because… the panels are obstructing it. And then, Michael, just make sure that you note it's… 5C990, Arapahoe, item 5C.

[207:04] For item 5C, Address 990 Arapahoe Avenue, I move that the Landmarks Board adopt a staff memorandum, dated February 25th, 2026… sorry, 2026. As the findings of the Board adopt the resolution attachment A to initiate the process for landmark designation, finding that it meets the criteria for such initiation pursuant to Section 9-3-11-3, excuse me. initiation of designation for individual landmarks and historic districts of the Boulder Revised Code 1981, and imbalances consistent with the goals and policies of Section 2.27 of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. I seconded it. Okay, well, we can either have an additional discussion, or we'll do a roll call vote. John. Aye. Chelsea.

[208:00] No. Abby. Aye. Michael. Aye. Hmm. And… I vote… I… And I vote aye. Motion passes 4 to 1. Now we get on to, item 5D, 1004, Arapaho Avenue. Do we have a motion? I'll make a motion. The no action motion. Couldn't… yeah. For… For 1004 Arapaho, I move that the Landmarks Board not initiate the process for landmark designation.

[209:02] Finding that it does not meet the criteria for such initiation pursuant to Section 9-11-3, initiation of designation of individual landmarks in historic districts of the Boulder Revised Code 1981, and imbalance is not consistent with the goals and policies of Section 2.27 of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Thank you, John. Do we have a second? I'll second. Thank you, Michael. Let's do a roll call vote. Chelsea. Bye. John. Aye. Abby. No. Michael. Aye. And I vote aye. The motion passes. 4 to 1.

[210:00] Marci, can you please go over the next steps in this process? Yes. Okay, so with that, the Landmarks Board has voted to take no action, or rather, do not initiate landmark designation for 3 of the four Properties. For those properties, 976, 986, and 1004 Arapahoe, this day of demolition will continue until March 26th. 2026. If the Landmarks Board allows the stay of demolition to expire, the City Manager will approve the demolition application after March 26, 2026. I will note that, it is our practice and in the code to require archival documentation of buildings if they are found to be eligible, but then ultimately not preserved through this process, and so we'll follow up

[211:01] With more detail about what level of documentation, we would require, if those buildings are approved for demolition. For the property at 990 Arapahoe, the board voted to initiate the designation process for, that property by adopting resolution, included as Attachment A. That means that a Landmarks Board designation hearing will be held, between 60 and 120 days. That's between April 26, 2026, and June 25th, 2026. And we will follow up, with the owners to, schedule, that date. And that's the end of the next steps. Thank you. Do I keep reading? Thanks. As a reminder, the next Landmarks Board meeting is Wednesday, March 4th, and will be hybrid. As a reminder, that is Abby's last meeting.

[212:10] Council will appoint, appoint the new board and commission member on Thursday, March 5th. The meeting is adjourned at… 9.34 PM. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Thank you.