The Boulder Landmarks Board on Nov. 5 debated what to recommend to City Council as a priority project, focusing on how demolition review currently occurs before discretionary site review and whether that sequence weakens incentives to preserve historic resources. The board’s letter to council is due Dec. 19 under a two-page template staff provided.

Public comment set the tone. Tim Plass, president of Historic Boulder, told the board that when demolition determinations happen before site review "it's very likely that the historic resource may well be approved for demolition before the site review has begun," and asked the board to "level that playing field again." Marcy (historic preservation staff) clarified that the landmark alteration application for the carriage house at 1105 Spruce Street had been withdrawn and therefore ‘‘that decision has not been made,’’ and that four demolition applications on Arapahoe Avenue are scheduled for the December hearing.

Board members sketched several possible projects for the council letter. The options most frequently mentioned were:
- Clarify the interaction between demolition review and site review so that eligibility and preservation options for historic resources are considered in the discretionary review process rather than automatically decided beforehand;
- Update the window-and-door design guidelines to allow more flexibility for noncharacter windows and to reflect changing technologies and energy concerns; and
- Conduct focused outreach or an educational event for the development community to explain preservation goals and potential incentives.

Marcy noted constraints: council wants proposals that can be completed in roughly 7–12 months, the letter must fit a two-page template, and any staff-intensive proposals will require planning and work-plan adjustments. Several board members suggested a subcommittee of two members be appointed to draft language, or for each board member to submit ranked priorities to staff to avoid violating open-meetings rules on serial communications.

The board weighed trade-offs. Some members argued landmarking over an owner’s objection is a rarely used but important tool; others said the board lacks the legal authority to broker development incentives and that those discussions belong with planning staff and council. On the windows question, staff referenced recent code changes: in 2025 the city adopted a permit requirement for residential window replacement that could increase the number of applications the preservation program reviews. Board members cited Denver and other cities that classify windows as 'character' vs. 'noncharacter' and allow replacement material flexibility when the character-defining features are retained.

Next steps: staff will circulate the council-letter template and a summary of tonight’s ideas; board members agreed to send their top priorities to staff and consider a publicly noticed subcommittee or a special meeting to finalize the recommendation prior to Dec. 19.

Procedure note: the board approved the October minutes by roll call, with John Decker, Michael Ray and Chair Renee Globick voting yes; Abby Daniels was not present at the prior meeting and was noted as absent for that vote.