HomeMy WebLinkAbout6 - Update MemoDecember 7th, 2005
TO: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
FROM: James Hewat, Chris Meschuk
SUBJECT: Update Memo
Code Changes
See Attached.
Energy Efficiency and Historic Preservation
Chris will be coordinating the policy analysis. A schedule for implementation will be
forthcoming.
Preserve America Grant
An application for designation of Boulder as a Preserve America Comr~]unity was
submitted December 1.
State Historical Society Grant
The grant application to undertake a context and survey of non-architect designed
architecture in Boulder between 1940 and 1960 was denied.
Certified Local Government Grant
Staff has submitted an application for fiscal year 2006 to fund the development of district
specific appendices to the General Design Guidelines and for funding to send staff and
three Board members to the National Alliance of Preservation Commission's Forum,
2006 to be held in Baltimore.
Board Training
Staff is looking into setting up a Board training session.
Washington School
Requests for Qualifications for redevelopment of the property have been issued. RFQs
will be reviewed and qualified developers will be invited to submit proposals. Attached
is a copy of the re-survey report.
ARTICLES AND INFORMATION:
Pending Stay's of Demolition and current status.
Current code violations on historic properties.
2005 National Park Service Mountains/Plains Regional Report
Historic Context Report, Tracking Down Boulder, Colorado's Railroads, Silvia Pettem,
1996 (this is for your binder, entry K)
Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
Stay of Demolition Status Summary, December 7th, 2005
. Date of Date Stay Date of ~',= t'°- ~' ~~' ~'
Address Construction '' im osed Ex iration Currerit Status ~~~~:''kt ~
The applicant met with the historic
design review committee of
11/30/05 with preliminary plans to
preserve the fa~ade and 15 feet
2224-2226 Pearl c. 1900 8/3/2005 2/13/2006 of side walls with new
construction in rear. Proposal
included removing roof of
preserved building to provide
interior courtyard
The applicant has received
several quotes to move the fomt
1227 High Street c.1870 10/05/2005 03l08/2006 porti~ns of the house forvvard on
the lot to provide the opportunity
for redevelopment at the rear.
~
W
Reported Historic Preservation Ordinance Violations 2004-2005 ' ~'
F~, ~ . : ~ ~ ~ , ° ,a` ~.,~~~
~~€ras~ior~
~~~l~c~~zr~~ ~ Signed~~ by
,.
'~ ~': ~ ~ -~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~
~~~
~
.
~
,~)~st~t~t~ ~~~ Street # Sireet Name ~ ~~-° ~ioiatinn ~ -~° I~~t~;"~=', ~°~°`~->~~st~ .'~~ Ptannin ~ s ~~~tus, , ~~= I~.A.C. A roved ° z. _ G`oimrrten$s .
Mapleton Repointing without a ~ ~ '
Mapleton Hill 430 A ~andmark alteration 11/28/2005 Pending
venue. cerificate
Pre-trial Conference held
06/16/O5. Currently awaiting
leton Hill 2441
Ma 6th St. Unauthorized window 7/12/2004 Summons Issued Restoration of windows information as to whether
p replacement restorative justice process will
praceed.
, Applicant submitted for review by
' I the design review committee i Notice of violation and stop work
Mapleton Hill 745 Mapleron Avenue Sandblasting oFstone 11/7/2005 Resolved 1 I/23/2005. They will check with I order lifted l 1/23/OS
staff as they proceed with no-
destructive cleaning.
- --- --- -- ----- -- - . _ . - - - _
- - - -
i ~ 5'-tall wood fence at the rear of the i
i
~ i property and conceptually ~
Mapleton Hill ZZZ7 I 8th St. Fence Under Investigation approved the conswction of a
retaining wall at the southeast
corner of the site
Modifications per full board
approval dated 4.15.04 including
Mapleton Hill 2515 Broadway Landscaping & disable Under Investigation ~~ demo of work done and addition
~mP ~ of lift tower accompinied by
rework of walkway and stair
Removal of historic
Mapleton Hill 633 Maxwell Ave. Iraclanounted garage 7/12/2004 Under Investigation No LAC issued ~, 5ummons to be issued.
door
Unauthorized DRc reviewed and approved i$ome landscaping has occurred,
Mapleton Hill 900 Maxwell Ave. landscaping & water 7/12/2004 Pending removat of nine boulders in ; staff will check as to whether
features October. work is a approved.
Mapleton Hill 735 Pine SG Fence Under Investigation
Unauthorized Construction of reaz/side addition
327
Mapleton Hill S ruce St
p demolitionofhouse Under Investi ation
g (HIS-2003-00114)
Rehabilitation and addition ro
Mapleton Hill 80b Spruce St. , Removal of Chimney Resolved house, LAC approved drawings
~ ~ ~ included removal of chimney.
i i j
Ma ~etOri H111 745 I Highland Ave. 'Unathorized Deck and ;~~Zerzoos I ' i Under Investigation ',No LAC issued ~
p ' Fence
' Rehabilitation of existing alley I
~O~~TI1.tQYVIl. ' 1216 Pearl St. Deteriorating alley Pending building; construction ofnew !Applicant is in process of
~ building i ~ residence above. Review in i resolving zoning issues.
~ I ~ iprogress.
j}p~~~~y~ ~~;.:' _! 1346 Pearl St ~ ~ ~ Resolved
CITY OF BOULDER
/ ~ Planning and Development Services
,~~~~'
'~ ~j 1739 Broadway, Third Floor P.O. Box 791 Boulder, Colorado 80306
i~ Phone:303.441.1880 Fax:303.441.3241
n
HISTORIC PRESERVATI~N CODE CHANGES
Background
The historic preservation ordinance (Chapter 10-13, B.R.C. 1981) was originally adopted
in 1974. The ordinance established the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board and
charged the Board with carrying out the provisions of the ordinance. It was passed
largely in response to the loss of significant historic buildings and the recognition of the
need to better preserve Boulder's heritage. It has served as a model for numerous other
communities addressing similar concerns.
The ordinance has four primary areas of concern: the designation of landmarks and
historic districts; the review of proposed alterations to these buildings; the review and
listing of structures of inerit; and, the review of demolition and moving requests for non-
landmarked buildings older than 50 years. The ordinance has been amended and revised
over the years to address new concerns and policy changes. Administrative regulations
have also been adopted, as allowed by the ordinance, to refine rules and processes and
provide more detailed information regarding designation criteria, guidelines, etc..
District Designation Process Changes
In 2003, the Landmarks Boazd directed staff to review the process for designating historic
districts after the attempted designation of the University Hill area raised many concerns
in the community. A public meeting attended by 150 University Hill residents and
property owners was held in January 2003 where issues and concerns about the
designation process were discussed. A work group of seven representatives from both
current and potential historic districts and community stakeholder groups was convened
in September 2003. The group assisted staff in drafting new historic district designation
code language. Many of the concerns about the designation process were related to the
fact that the current preservation ordinance does not require public outreach prior to
submittal of an application and allows little time for outreach once a district designation
is initiated.
For example, once Historic Boulder submitted the designation application for the
University Hill District in 2002, residents felt they didn't have time to understand the
pros and cons of designation and express their concerns outside formal public hearings.
The proposed code changes address these issues. The question of owner consent in
district designation was one area in which the group did not agree. Instead, five options
were identified, based loosely on models used by other communities. The options range
from no change to requiring a majority or super-majority of the owners to sign a petition
on designation.
Historic Preservarion Code Changes City of Boulder
Review of Demolition Permits
Staff has prepared five options for revising the preservation code section regarding
review of demolition permits for non-landmarked buildings over 50 years of age. The
review of this section of the code is in response to the lazge increase of permits from the
housing boom of the 1950s; those houses are now eligible for review. The options focus
on reducing the cost and review time for buildings which aze clearly not historically
significant.
Public Outreach
This project has been underway since 2003, with the following outreach activities
completed:
• January 2003 meering with University Hill residents and property owners to
identify issues and concerns (150 people attended).
• Mazch 20031etter in response to questions raised at the January University Hill
meeting mailed to all participants.
• Four work group meetings (September 2003, December 2003, February 2004 and
October 2005).
~ Check-ins with the Landmarks Boazd in September 2003, October 2003,
December 2003, October 2004, December 2004, Mazch 2005 and Apri12005.
• Neighborhood meefings with Mapleton Hill, Whittier, University Hill and Goss
Grove to review options and pms and cons (October and November 2004).
• Two public open houses in December 2004 and October 2005 (Publicized by
newspaper ads, e-mail invitations, news releases and information on Channel8).
• Options and information on the city website since October 2004.
For each of the neighborhood meetings, five options for the designation pmcess and five
options for the demolition review were presented. Prior to the October 2005 open house,
the staff-preferred options were identified along with the pms and cons of all options.
The oprions for the designation changes aze included as Attachment A and the
demolition review options aze in Attachment B.
Next Steps
December 2005: Additional outreach meetings to review options and pros and cons on all
code changes.
Jan. 11, 2006: Public meeting to review options and pros and cons on all code changes.
Feb. 1, 2006: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Boazd public hearing on all draft code
changes.
Feb. 16, 2006: Planning Boazd public hearing regazding land use implications of all draft
code changes.
Mazch 7, 2006: City Council First Reading on proposed ordinance.
March 21, 2006: City Council Second Reading and public hearing.
For more information on all the changes, including draft code language, go to
~://www.ci.boulder.co.us/buildineservices/historicpres/desi ng ation changes.hhn or
Contact Chris Meschuk at 303-441-4293 or meschukc(c~ci.boulder.co.us
~
Historic Preservation Code Changes
City of Boulder
ATTACHMENT A: HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION PROCESS
Five Consent Options for Historic District Designation:
Five options, based loosely on models used in other communities, were created to
describe a range of owner-consent requirements. All options include the changes
described above. They differ in how owner consent is considered in the designation
process. Staff and the work group have outlined 5 options:
A. No Change
B. Questionnaire Required but not Binding
C. Majority of Questionnaire Respondents Must Consent to Designation
D. Majority of Property Owners Must Consent to Designation
E. Boazd & Council Held to Higher Standard if Majority of Quesrionnaire
Respondents Oppose Designation
Option A (no chauge)
This option is to not chazge from the current standazd
Pros Cans
• Established and lrnown process ^ Mandated timelines may not allow for
^ Properties aze immediately protected adequate ou~each
upon receipt of application •. No requirement other than basic
~ Timely review of application notification for outreach
guazanteed ^ Quick timeframe for review can lead
^ Opportunities for public input at to feeling that designation is being
public hearings forced on owners
^ Provides opportunity for Planning ~ Allows non-city organization to
Boazd input impact private pmperty rights
^ Allows CC to balance interests of • Group of neighbors (less than 100%)
property owners against community can't initiate designation on their own
interests (must request LPAB or other group to
initiate for them)
~ No requirement to measure owner
opinion
• Designation can occur without
majority of owners' consent
/0
Historic Preservation Code Changes City of Boulder
Option B(Questionnaire required but not binding)
This option is most similar to the current process, in that owner support is considered by
the decision-making bodies, but is not required for designation. This option requires a
questionnaire to be mailed to all property owners of record in a proposed historic district
following other education and outreach efforts. The responses to the questionnaire will
be included with any communication to the Landrnazks Board and City Council.
Pros Cons
^ Allows group of neighbors to initiate ^ Requires additional review step when
designation on their own designation initiated by other than
^ Provides additional requirements for LPAB/CC/100% of owners
education and outreach prior to initial ^ Review process may take longer than
public hearing under current standards
^ Provides a mechanism for measuring ^ Removes opportunity for Planning
owner opinion prior to public hearing Board input
testimony • Designation can occur without
^ Allows CC to balance interests of majority of owners' consent
property owners against community
interests
• Recr~oves unnecessary review by
Planning Boazd
^ This option addresses needed e~tra
education time without introducing
owner-consent requirements
Option C(Majority of Questionnaire Respondents Must Consent to Designation)
In this option, the results of the questionnaire determine whether or not the application
goes forwazd to a public heating before the Landmarks Boazd. Should a majority of
respondents to the survey oppose the designation, the application is voided. If a majority
indicates support, the application will go forwazd through the public hearing pmcess.
Some members of the public suggested that a higher threshold than majority support (e.g.
2/3 suppoR) should be required for an application to move forward.
Pros Cons
^ Allows goup of neighbors to initiate ^ Requires additional review step when
designation on their own designation initiated by other than
^ Provides additional requirements for LPAB/CC/100% of owners
education and outreach prior to initial ^ Review process may take longer than
public hearing under current standazds
^ Provides a mechanism for measuring ^ Removes opportunity for Planning
owner opinion prior to public heaxing Boazd input
testimony ^ Puts approval authority in hands of
^ Requires majority support of survey property owners, not elected officials
respondents to move forwazd charged with balancing public interest
• Removes unnecessary review by with property owner interests
Planning Boazd ~ Greater potential for neighbor vs.
neighbor conflicts when decision rests
with owners
7
Historic Preservation Code Changes
City of Boulder
Option D(Majority ofProperty Owners Must Consent to Designation)
This option has the highest requirement for owner consent. Rather than using a
questionnaire to gauge owner support, this option requues a petition or other written
evidence of a majority of property owners in support of designation for the application to
move forward through the public hearing process. Some members of the public
suggested that a higher threshold than majority support (e.g. 2/3 support) should be
required for an application to move forwazd.
Pros Cons
^ Allows group of neighbors to initiate ~ Requires additional review step when
designation on their own designation initiated by othet than
^ Provides additional requirements for LPAB/CC/100% of owners
education and ouh~each prior to inirial ^ Review process may take longer than
public hearing under current standards\
^ Provides a mechanism for measuring ^ Removes opportunity for Planning
owner opinion prior to public hearing Board input
testimony ^ Puts approval authority in hands of
^ Requires majority support of property property owners, not CC
owners to move forward ^ Greater potential for neighbor vs.
^ Removes unnecessary review by neighbor conflicts when decision rests
Planning Boazd with owners
• Requires highest level of owner- ^ Requires highest level of owner-
consent consent
^ Greatest potential for public scratiny /
approval / disapproval
• Saves taxpayer dollars ifpublic
disapproval is realized early
• Most neutral / unbiased approach
^ Puts responsibility on the
neighborhood to show and develop
support '
0
Historic PreservaHon Code Changes
City of Boulder
Option E(Boazd & Council Held to Higher Standazd if Majority of Questionnaire
Respondents Oppose Designation)
In this option, an application may move forward through the public hearing process even
if a majority of survey respondents indicate opposition to the designarion. However, a
super-majority of the Landmazks Boazd (4 of 5) must vote to recommend the designation.
Similazly, a super-majority of City Council (6 of 9) must vote in favor of designation in
order to pass the ordinance.
Pros Cons
^ Allows group of neighbors to initiate ^ Requires addirional review step when
desigaation on their own designation iniriated by other than
^ Provides additional requirements for LPAB/CC/100% of owners
education and outreach prior to initial ^ Review process may take longer than
public hearing under current standards
^ Provides a mechanism for measuring ^ Removes opportunity for Pianning
owner opinion prior to public hearing Boazd input
testimony More complicated process - harder to
^
^ Maintains ability for CC to designate _
communicate to public
without majority support of property ^ Allows CC to designate without
owners, but holds CC to higher majority support of property owners
standard ^ General concerns that this approach is
• Removes unnecessary review by overly complicated
Planning Board ^ Concern about setting possible
precedent requiring super-majority
vote by Council
~
Historic PreservaHon Code Changes
City of Boulder
ATTACHMENT B: DEMOLITION PERMIT REVIEW
Proposed Changes to the Demolition Permit Review Process
Staff has been asked to consider possible changes to Section 10-13-23 which requires the
Landmarks Board to review and approve the demolition of any structure over 50 yeazs of
age. The review of this section of the code is in response to the lazge increase of permits
from the housing boom of the 1950s; those houses are now eligible for review. The
options focus on reducing the cost and review rime for buildings which aze cleazly not
historically significant. Staff has outlined five possible altematives:
1. Maintain the current demolition review requirement, but raise the age threshold
from 50 years to some other number (e.g., 60 yeazs, 70 years, etc.)
2. Require review only for buildings built before an agreed upon date (e.g., 1945,
1950, etc)
3. Limit demolition review only to those buildings over 50 yeazs of age located in
azeas iden6fied in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan as potential local
historic districts
4. Modify the review process to allow staff to administratively review and approve
demolitions of some buildings over 50 years of age, improving the eft'iciency of
the review process.
5. No change &om the current standazd
The analysis below is an initial review of pros and cons for each of the alternatives
identified by staff.
Option 1 (no change)
This option is to not chazge from the current standazd
Pros Cons
a. Maintains the current level of a. Potential for significant increase in
protection for buildings with historic workload as more buildings in
or azchitectural significance. Boulder reach 50-year threshold,
b. Established process and impacting ability of Boazd to focus
requirements that aze already on other duties
familiar to the communiry b. Projected increase in staff workload,
c. Simple threshold easy for the public resulring in the limitation/elimination
to understand and for staff to other program aspects
administer
/0
Historic Preservation Code Changes
City of Boulder
Option 2(Raise the age threshold for review)
This option would maintain the current review process, but would raise the age threshold
from 50 yeazs to some other number (eg: 60 years, 70 yeazs, etc)
Pros Cons
a. Increases efficiency of demolition a. Increases the opportunity for loss of
review for recent buildings while buildings over 50 yeazs old that ~
maintaining a focus on those might have historic or architectural
buildings that have historically been significance.
of most concem. b. The threshold of more than 50 yeazs
b. Relative reducrion in LPAB and is inconsistent with National Register
preservation staff workload of Historic Places criteria for
c. Simple threshold easy for the public eligibility, a national and commonly
to understand and for staff to accepted standazd.
administer c. Establishing a new age threshold for
review may be azbitrary.
d. A different threshold for demolition
review and landmazk requirements
may be confusing to the public.
e. Age threshold may have to be
revisited a ain in the neaz future.
Option 3(Review for buildings prior to a specific date)
This oprion would require review only for buildings built before an agreed upon date
(e.g., 1945, 1950, etc)
Pros Cons
a. Increases efficiency of demolition a. Increases the opportunity for loss of
review for recent buildings while buildings over 50 yeazs old that
maintaining a focus on those might have ]ristoric or azchitectural
buildings that have historically been significance.
of most concern. b. Doesn't recognize the dynamic
b. Relative reduction in LPAB and evolution of history and
preservarion staff workload development. Assumes that
c. Simple threshold easy for the public buildings built after 19XX aze not
to understand and staff to significant.
administer c. Establishing the threshold period for
review may be azbitrary.
d. A different threshold for demolition
review and landmazk requirements
may be confusing to the public.
e. Age threshold may have to be
revisited again in the near future.
~~
Historic PreservaHon Code Changes
City of Boulder
Option 4(limit review to buildings over 50 years old in identified potential districts)
This option would limit demolition review only to those buildings over 50 years of age
located in azeas identified in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan as potenrial local
historic districts
Pros Cons
a. Increases efficiency of demolition a. Increases the opportunity for loss of
review for recent buildings outside buildings with historic or
of potential districts while architectural significance outside of
maintaining a focus on those identified potential districts
buildings that have historically been b. Requires additional survey work to
of most concern. identify potential historic districts in
b. Relative reduction in LPAB and areas not yet surveyed
preservation staff workload c. Requires additional outreach to
c. Allows LPAB and staff to focus potentially impacted azeas
efforts on those areas identified as d. Adding additional azeas for review
having a significant concentration of in the future m'ay be resisted
historic resources e. More complicated threshold for
d. Offers the opportunity to expand the review to communicate to the public
area covered for demolition review if and to administer
neighborhood sutveys identify f.Requires review of newer buildings
potential historic districts. without survey informarion to
understand their context and
si ificance
Option 5(allow staff the ability to administratively review some demolitiou
applications)
This option would modify the review process to allow staff to administratively review
and approve demolitions of some buildings between 50 and 75 years of age, impmving
the efficiency of the review process.
Pros Cons
a. Maintains the current level of a. Pmvides minimal opportunity for
protection for buildings with public notice or input on demolition
historical or architectural decisions for buildings reviewed by
significance staff
b. Relative reduction in LPAB and b. Adds an extra step of review to
preservation staff workload communicate to the public and to
c. Increases e~ciency of demolition administer
review for recent buildings outside c. May call for review of the fee
of potential districts structure
d. Retains the same application process
for applicants
e. This option is consistent with the
National Register of Historic Places
standards
~~
Director's Message:
Workers at Cedar Mesa stabilize
walls in Arch Canyon, a project
funded by a $15,000 National
Trust challenge grant to the
Bureau of Cand Management.
With support from the National
Trust, the project has also bee~
awarded a $225,000 Save
America's Treasures grant.
535 16th Street, Suite 750
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: 303.623.1504
www.nthp.org
Looking back over the work of the
Mountains/Plains Of6ce during 2005,
two major themes stand out.
First, more than ever before, we are
playing a leadership role in projects of
national scope and impact. For example,
our oFCice is coordinating a new National
Trust initiative to preserve cultural
resources on our nation's public lands.
Working with our Public Policy Depart-
ment and other partners, we are seeking
changes to funding levels and poliry ~hat
could help save thousands oEhistoric
resources on lands managed by the
Bureau oF Land Management, the Forest
Service and the Nacional Park Service.
The Mountains/Plains Office is also
providing leadership for the National
Trust's new Rural Heritage Collaborative.
This broad effort is designed to leverage
the skills and expertise of depar[ments
throughout the National Trust to help
rural communities preserve cheir heritage
and achieve sustainable, heritage-based
revitalization. In a region where so many
rural areas are struggling, we think this is
a timely new focus for che National Trust.
A second major theme of our work this
year is partnership. All of thc projects and
successes described in this report are the
resulc of strong working relationships with
our wonderful network oFpreservacion
partners. These include individuals,
organizations and government agencies
at the local and statewide level, as well
as our own National Trust colleagues in
ocher regions and departments. It is a
pleasure to work with so many talenced
and passionate people.
Finally, we are grateful to our many
generous financial partners, who make
all of our work possible.
lj~u~2c-a r~r~
Barbara Pahl
Director, Mountains/Plains Office
Mure dian e~er br.fum, ~~~e
are playin~ a leadership
role i n projecu of national
scope and impacr.
/3
~ Tno challenpe ol
pravrv~n9 bulidlnpa
suGh es t~ie ~BBOs
Phoanlz oHico
compba weo iha
Responding to National locuaolaracanl
Nehanal Trual lorum.
Preservation Challenges
Prot~c~ting [;ultural
Kesour4es on Publi~ L.an~s
A new Pu61ic Lands [niciuive was
launched ~y che Nuional Trusc in
the fall of 2004 [o enhancc ehe
idrntification ~nd proccaion of
his~uric and culmral resources un
lands managed by ~he Na~ional
Park Service (NP$). [hc US Forut
Scrvice (USFS) and the Bureau of
L~nd Minagemene (BLMJ. Praidenc
Richard Moe uked the Mounnins/
Plains OFfice (MPO) ro rake rhe lead
on the developmen[ af ehe initia[ive.
recognizing chat che majority oF our
public lands arc in wcsccrn scua.
~
This ycar [he Publie L~nds lniciacive
mam chu includes snff from ehe
Westtrn Office, and rhe Public
Policy, Law, Communicacians, and
Developmenc Deparcmen~s of ehe
Nacional Trusr, secured ~ granc eo
hire a consult~n~ to compile ruearch
and wri~e a re~on on [he status and
cfFicacy ufculcur~l resuurcc
managemrne pncuces at the BLM.
The BLM managa 29l million acra
u( land cancaining 2G3,000 idenciFed
culcural propereies, ranging fram
ancient Native American sita to
2Uch ccnwry ranchts.
ruourcc sutveys, and using OfF
Highway Vehicle permic fea
ia protcct, monitor and repair
d~mage donc co wieural sices by
recreatiun cnthusiuts. The repurt
also recommends [hze che Nuional
Landscapc Conserva[ion Sys~em
(IdLC$) be esnblished 6y a new
"arganic" law with a eleu missinn m
procecc culrurxl and nuural resources
un chese lands. "Phe National Trusc
included ~he NLCS on rhe 2UU5 Lis~
ofAmcricis 11 Most Endangcred
Places in recogni[ion chat ehe
Nacional Monumen[s and Hiscoric
Tr~ils ch~c are induded in ehe Syscem
wnnin same of che mos~ imponant
hiswric and culrunl si[es managed
by che BLM.
The 6ndings in che repor[ were
p~esenccd io ehe Direccor of che BLM
and rhe Di¢ctoe of Ezeemal ~nd
Incergovernmental Affairs fur the
Departmrn[ of [he (n[erior in eorly
November 6y \acional Trust Presidenc
Richard Moe, Vice Presidrnr for
Public Policy Emily Wadh~ms, and
MPO Regional Oi¢cmr B~rb~ra
Pahl, wi[h a plcdgc m work together
w help rhe 6LM cnh~nce irs ability
ca s~ve hismric and culmral resourco.
Theconsulcancrccendy ~ 5~~'~n~; ~f~<' }Zeccnt I'as[
complcted his report [6~[ indudes i National Trusr snFF, Advisors,
recommcndacions for improving Trusaes, and parmers met in
ihe qaali[y and [iming ol culcunl ~; Phoeniz in March 2005 co develop
guidclinu and s[rategiu for saving
hisroric pl~ca from [he cecent
pu~. Organized by che Trusi's
Mouncains/Plains ~nd $uuthwuc
Uffices, puricipmts in rhe Phoenix
Forum waa asked cough ques~ions
like, "when does spcawl become
hiscoric?" Pu[icipanu used ehe cities
of Phoenix, Sconsd~le, and 7empe
.s living laboruoriu co debeee ehis
quuciun and ochers thosc arou uver
the wurse of rwo day meering. The
resulcs of chose diuussions were
recently published in the fall farum
Journal Dr. An~ha Harzig, che
new Regional ~icecmr af' ehe Truu i
Wutun Office h~s agrced [o takc
up thc rcins ~nd Iqd rhe Trusr's
work m become a stronger advoute
for buildings and scruccura from
chis impor~~n~ period in Americ~n
hismry. Among her firsc cuks will
be eo r~ue Funds ro micch ~ new
Prcurvatiun Fund cndowmrnt
est~blished by Naeional l'rust
Trustee Jennifer Emason and her
husband for s~vin8 hiscorie places
from ~he rccene pas~.
Saving America's Rur~l Heritage
In Februuy, thc MountainslPlains UF(ttc urKanizcJ a
na[ional Runl Heritage Retreu chat rcsulted in a new
scnmgic plan For che Nuional Trusi s work in tural areas.
This plan indades a vision For how chc Trusc can inaase
appreciacian for chc valuc oFour rural heritage and Foster
sustxin~ble, huinge•bued rural revit~lization eFforts. To
implemrnt this vision, thc National Trusc has organizcd
a new Rural Hericage Coll~burativc, which is daigned
co leverage the Full range of Trust programs and services.
Jim Lindbtrg, Dircccor of Pmservuian Initiatives for che
Mountains/Plains Of6cc, is roordinating this cf}~ort, which
indudes scven key str~cegies.
Une uf [hue srraregiu is ru develop public policy favunble ro
runl hericage preservation and developmenc. Wi[h funding
From thc Clancil Founduion, chc Na[ional Trust reccndy
hired ~ Former ~ongressiami aide to assis[ [he Na[ional
Trusi on run! poliry issues and m represmi preservaeion
inmru[s in discussions with other org~niutians reguding
thc 2W7 Fum Bill. An infarmal runl pulicy working group
was formed durinK [he Nuional Trust conference in
Porcland, which ro date indudu advisors from Arkznsas,
lowa, Louisiana. Nebraska, New York. Okl~homa. Oregon,
$ouch Cam~irta, South Dakoca and Wyoming.
Ae the regional Icvd, the Trusc hu begun working intcnsively
on ~hrce rural "pilot" projeas m demonscra[e ~he vxlue of
heringc-b~sed rural developmene. Funding from the W.K.
Kcllogg Fuundatiun is supporcing a fuur ycar Runl Hcricago
Dtvelopmanc Inieiative in che Arkansas Ddr~ and in ~he
Knohs regian of cenrr~l Kenrucky. A rhird runl pilut
pmjecc is underw~y in Martinsville ~nd xurrounding Henry
Councy, Virginia.
called LucalHarvesr. When asked iFnc~y werc using ulder
and hiscuric farm buildings in their operuions, the f~rmers
in [his survey ovtrwhe(ming answered "yei' Their «sponsu
described how hiscoric farm 6uildings provide ucili[y as well
u marketing value for suscaina6le agriculture. We am currenrly
seeking funding co devdop [hrce ncw cue smdies as puc oF
chc BarnAidscrier [hat will demonstn~e how hiswric barns
and out6uildin~s add arrtGetic, funainnal, and economic value
to sustainabie farms and ranches. This informuion will 6e
discribuced via che ineanet and vuious media oudets.
Addicion~lly, BARN AGAIN! hxs organized che N~cional
Barn Survey program in wnjunc[ion with ~he National Bam
Alliance. Already underwoy in Indiana, Iuw~, Michigan,
Ohio and Pennsylv~nia, che survcy pmgnm audinu hismric
bam criteria and idencifies mechods for determining the
num6a and condicion of hiscoric barns chu can bc uscd by
5[ate Hisioric Prcservacion Offices ~nd tharcd nacionwide.
It is hoped that this survey will result in an incre~se in [he
number oFfarms and b~rns nominated to the Nuional
Registtr of Historic Plata and stimulatt an intcru[ in the
prcstrvation of tutal heritage. To ob~ain survey informacian
for your area, including a PowerPoine on fum uchieeccural
elemmts, cont~cc BARN AGAIN! u(303) G23-1504 or
John Olsan@nihp.org. '
Anuther key srncegy is w drvebp ~ prrserwtiun "ruulbox~
For rural ueas. This will include a summary uf cutrcnc
National Trus[ pmgruns and servica related ca rur~l huitage,
a guide ro rur~l heritage informuion ~nd servicu from
sourtes ou[side the National Trusc, and new BARN
AGAIN! case studies on the connec[ion becwern hismric
Farm b¢ildings ~nd susuin~bk agriculmrc.
Thesc case scudies will build upon the «sulrs of a BARN
AGAIN! Program survey tha[ w~s compleced ehis summtr 6y
members of a`6uy local" cooperacive of suscainable fumen
A riwn~ i~~r h~~w chc ~15uai un iucrua.a appracia~inn I
3
(m rl~r valuc.,i our ru~al heu~agc anJ f~»~cr
su~taiu.bic. heuiage-bx.c~ iur~l ievicxlixaiion etf~~ns.
• i
~
~
Around the Region
New l)wncr for Srory 1~i:uision
Once chreacencd by demoliiion, che hiscaric Scory M~nsion
in Bozeman, Mancana will becomc the new home of ~he
Bozeman Humanitia lnstitute af Monrani State Univusity.
The [nscicuce will advance undersnnding of che social,
policical, and culcural signific~nce of che region. Ezcerior
resroracion of chc mansion is underw~y, wi[h funding
providcd ~y ~ HUD Economic Developmeoc Iniciacives
Gnnc Bozoman also rcceivcd a Sxvt America's Trusure
grant For the rtsrora[iun. in 2DU4, che Nacianal Tras~
providcd funds ro study thc Feuibiliry of several idapcive
use scenarios For the Mansion.
New "I'oc:l, For C.)Ider Ne;~hh<1rhe~od~
Tht "ecardown crend" continues ro impaa older and hiscaric
neighbarhoods across [he country, induding communitia in
che MouncainslPlains region.'I'he cerm "[tardown" is okrn
used when older homes are demolished ca make way for
much larger new sauuures [lue some ull "McMxnsions."
In Denver and Sal[ Lake Ciry, preservationiscs and neighbor-
hood groups ha~e recendy come together ro find new ways
[o wmbat chis trend. While vadicional his~oric discricts
are one imporcanc neighborhood prottccion s~ra¢gy, ocher
cools are needed. Ar a recenc luncheon organized by the U[~h
Heriugc Founduion (UHF) Jim Lindberg oF thc Moun[ains/
Plains OFfice oudined huw citics nruund che counery ue
looking ro moraroriums, cha ngos ro wninK laws, conservariun
disviccs and o[her mols ro~ddrcss [he [eudown trend.
Recendyt the UHF worked to develop a new "compaci6le
infill ordinance" ihae will hdp procect che characcer oFolder
neigh6orhood: in Salc Lake Ciry. In Denver, [6e Mountains!
Pl~ins Office convmed x smxll working graup [hn[ is sceking
co devclop new pro[cccian tuols Forthe eity's acablished
neighborhoods, including wnservacion discrica.
Ilcdscm~c Cast(r Protect~~i
Lasr ye~r, we reporred on our efforrs eo save Colorado's
Redsconc Casde and protcu ir for [he fumra We are hlppy
ro report char in 2005, zll consul[ing partiu, including the
National Trusc, agreed ca che cerms of a camprehcnsive
hiscoric preservation asemrn~ for che nsde and surrounding
aaeage, ca 6e hcid in perpecuity by the Colorado Hismrical
Foundacion.'Che eaaemenc pmteca che exmrior and inttrior
facura of che building, u well u che landscapc. The IR$
placcd an cascmmt on the casde and surrounding acrngc and
the propury vru wld ac auctian for $4 million in mid-March.
The buyer, parc-time Aspen raidenc Ralli Oimivius, has
already begun much•needed work ac the aice, including
kitchen rep~irs ~nd +sewer connec[ion. According to news
reports, hc will upen it u a rewrc, wich rours, a full-suvice
spa, horseback riding and hiking on rhe grounds.
Pirc Scrikcs I~<~wntawn Pori S~att
A musivt fim rom through down~own F~. Swa, Kanaaa
in March, severely damaging nine la[e 19[h cencury
buildings a[ che core of the cown. Amy Cole from [he
Mountains/Plains OFficc, along wich Knnsas SHPO and
Kanans Presuva[ion Alliance staff, were on che scene che
within dxys eo provide ~ssistance md informacian, az
city officials tried ro determine their next steps to balance
safery with preservarion. Wirh supporc kom che Sourhwa[
In¢rvencion Fund, the National Trust hired an enginar
ro~ssus rhe buildings chat remained parci~lly intac[ ro
de~ermine if chey could 6e aaved. Of che fire damaged
buildinge, ~hc Miller Block and Ndson Building, nnw
lis~ed on chc S~ecc Rcgisrcr, remain sc~nding mday. In che
hanJs oF~ sympxhccic uwnu, ~hae svuccurrs wuld bc
successFully rchabbcd wieh assistance From cax credics.
L:~ndun Houtic Rcscucd
In Indcpendcna, Kaiuu, Walgreens drugsrora announced
plans co build a luge drugscore on an encire cicy block
roquiring demolition of three hitmric building:, induding che
home of ] 93G presidrncial candidace Alf Candon. Fallowing
a mee~ing wich mnamed lonl ci~iuns, theTruse hired an
uchieecc who developed sevu~l viable xleernadva to
Monlene'a Libby School
demolishing the en[ire block. ln the end, che developcr
donamd the house ~nd paid for the relocacion ca a nnrby
loc, which cook place in Fe6ruary. Addi[ionally, over
SI30.000 has been raised for che rcha6iliution of the
house chu is alrady undcrway. Plana are For che new owncr.
thc lndeptndence Hisrorial Museum, [o [urn it inro a
ctnmr for studying Kansaa political hisrory wi[h a grand
re-opcning in 2006.
l,ibby School Still'I'hre:iccned
The Mountains/Pltins Office and the Friends of che Historic
Libby High Schoal in Libby, Man[ana workad for two years
in an aaempc co persuade che loul school bo~rd [o abandon
cheir plan co demolish Lib6y High Schoal. Builc Rom 1914
co 1717, the Libby School is one of only a h~ndful of his~ocic
buildingz scill scandinK in the community. In a cnmmunity
vote, 7U% of vo[cra supporeed seliing the schoal soYhac ic
could be purchased ~nd rehabbed for an ~Iternative use.
Dupiee this, the school board vomd in Eavor of demalicion.
The Trus[ concinuu [o work wich the local friends group,
che Mancana Pcuervuion Alliance and ConovcrBond
Development in Spok~ne, Wuhingmn on a wmprehensive
economically feasible redevelopmenr plan for ~he sire.
Ne~v l2ehab I'ritner tor Schoi~l C7fficials
Twu new publica[ions ue naw available to inform communiry
decisiuns about hisroric schouls. With the suppore and
usis[ance oF the Nation~l Trust. [he Council of Educaeianal
F~ciliry Pl~nncrr, lnmrna[ional (CEFPI) has published ~
Primer fo~ thr Rrnovarian/Rchabilitation of Older arsd
Hirtorrr Schaolt und Sthaalr for Suttrt~! Commursioirz• un
£lemnu of Smart Gromth. These new publicaciuru encounge
cost-effective rchabilication and wncinued use of historic
neighborhood schools, an essential community ~nchor.
In pumership wi[h ~he American Scudies Depucmenr u che
Universi[y of Wyaming, we are using ehese documcn~s [o
inform planning and sehoo( cons~cuccion decisions made by
thc Wyoming Schoal Faulitics Commission.
In Partnership
F~iii~irai~sin~ ~'<~i~kshoj~ iu C(~)
7'he Nauonal Trus[ s Becter Boards I I
training progrom was hald u che YMCA
of che Rockiu in Esces Puk, Cobrado
in Augusc. ScatT3nd boud mun6crs from
Pruervation Norch Dakoca, Hismric
Georgetown (CO), ~he Georgaawn Trusc,
Colorado Community Revi[alira[ion
Associaoon ind Colorado Pruervacion,
Inc. joined cogecher co Icarn abaue
succusful fundraising scracegies from
Fundreising apecc Andy Robinson.
The workshop wu iniciamd by Mark
~ Rodman, Exccutive Direcror oFColorado
~ Preservacion, [nc, who worked with the
Narional Trusc's Cenrcr for Preservacion
LeadcrshiP in Wuhingcon, DC and ~hc
siaff ol the MountainslPlains OtFce ta
identify and connc[ par[icipanu and
make local arr~ngemenrs.
Srn~ittier Advocacy
Nc.wor't: 1"or ~1T
Thc Monwna Prucrvacion Alliana (MPA)
was selecced m 6e nne of five scacewide
preservacion organizacions par[ieipating
in a new Natiunal Trust pilut project
ro in~rease effec[ive srare advocary For
pruavatian. Thc program is funded
by a gnnr from che Jessic 9all DuPone
FunJ. MPA hu alre~dy demonsv~md i~s
abiliry w achieve prwcrvation succtss in
[he Stace Legislacure. During ihe 2005
scssion, MPA worked wich sc~Ff from che
Mounnins/Plains OFfice co convince che
legulamre ~nd che Governor ro creace
a Mon[ana Main $c¢e[ Program. MPA
alw succusfully aJvocaced for a bill rhac
csta6lished a task fotce to study publicly
owned buildings in che scam, including
courchouscs and schools. As a parcicipanc
in ehe new Nacional Trus[ Adrocacy Pibt,
MPA will rcmivc ccchnical usisnnca and
ueeu ro new rtthnology ~hu will grady
enhanca their ahiliry eu savc Muntanis
Icguy of impornnc hisroric struc[uru.
I)rvtluE~in~ Nr~v ~uurrra
uf l~~un.lin~~ in Nll
Preservacion organiza~ians in che
Mountains/I'lains region xrc consrxncly
sceking ways to diversify and strengthen
their funding bue. This is Pucicularly
challenging for groups [hac have raendy
hired their firse profession~l senfF.
Praervuion North Dalcnca (PND) is
a rcl~cively young sncewide nonpmfic
group thu has gre~dy expanded ~es
programs in rcccnt yucs. In ~ succ wi[h
Eew founda[ion or wrporue tesources,
Fundnising to supporc PND ovcr
che long ~erm will ccquire creuive
approaches. Thc MuuntainslPlains
Office is wurking winc ~he PND snfl~~nd
board co dcvelop a ncw, eomprehensive
fundraising s[ra[cgy. A grant Erom [he
8ush Foundacion of Minnnpalis h~s
~_...... ....~...;
~ ~It' ~'~t:Y11(illlvl~~~]III~ ~)~~iC Id w~)1~111~
w~di ~he Prearrvatn,u North !)ak~u+(I'ND)
~ .~~i i ,n,I b~,~d ~„ d~~cl~,p , ~~~ ,
.nn,pmLcu,iv, ti~ndni~iug.rt~ .~ey.
i
allowed PND io bring in ~wo addi~ianal
cansuleanes to hetp spaifically in ehe
~reu uf individwl giving and rarned
income. In coming ytus. PND huprs co
develop new produces and eervices uound
[he'Praerving Ptairie Placa" bnnd. [f
succasful, ehae new producrs will help
expxnd PND's audience ~nd provide
addicional income. The new PND
Fundraising s[ra[egy will be camplcted
by Fe6ruary 2006.
Nrw 1'reservariou
Incen~ive fur NE
Neb~~sktins c~n now benefic tiom new
t~x ~batement Icgislation For historic
ProPcrcies. AFter m~ny years of efforr un
[he puc of ehe preservuion communiey,
suppon from che Na~ion~l Trusr, and
action ofdedica[cd legislamrs like
Srnuor pon Pederson of Norch Pluee,
[he Iegisluum passed a bill and ic was
signed by the Governar in May. Prior ra
this, Nebraska was the only scate in the
nation thu did noc provide tu incentives
for praervaeion. Now, owners of hiscoric
~uildings in Nebruk~ chac have been
cefnbilineed uid ma scue scanduds un
reccive a reductian in c6e usused valua
of rheir properry for eighr yeus.
I
AI90N~OQl ~N
irr~rwr~n.+
Ppcto al Ia1C fundraisin9 rola-play
dudnp Belter Board~ II wo~kehop.
Share Your Herrtage Workshops
Thc Nuion~l Endowmrnt for thc Arn and the USDA Ruca1 Developmene Office of
Community Deveiopmtn[ provided funding for Four Share Your Heritage workshops
in 2005. These inceractive war{cshops were duigned by the N~tional Trusis Heri[nge
Tourism Program co bring mgechu 30 communiry, regional and scare Iwdera repraencing
a vuiory of disciplinu ro derolop sust~in~blt culeural herirage rourism svacegies. This
__ ycar, ~wo of ~hc local hosu sdcctcd for ehe Shue Your Heriuge workshops wue (mm the
Mounttins/Pltins regian.
The Norchwac Colondo Culrotal Heri[age Tourism Iniuauve hosted a workshop held
in S[eamboae Sptings June 9-1 l, 2005, thac brought [ogether Icaders from chrec couneia
and cen communicia in Colorado's Yunpz Valley m devdap regional culeural corridors
and a mukedng atrattgy £or Nor[hwest Colorado.
~ Thc Wind River Vuirors Council in Fremont County, Wyoming hosced che second
regional ShareYour Heringe workshop in l,ander, Wyoming, Ucrober 2G-28, 2005. Key
stakeholders in Pnmont Counry, Wyoming worked togccher to devclop a counry-wide
`~y>'' rour of sica including his[oric [railt and [he Wind Rivet [ndian Raervauon.
Funtling for Preservation
Tha year, the National Trust awarded nearly 590,000 in graN funding trom 12 regional and
naLOnal tunding programs to 33 preservation pro~ects in all eight Mountains/Plains slate5.
Pro~ects supported by ~hese grants ranged from statewide preservauon conferences, ta a
reuse plan for a Nalional Historic Landmark Missouri River dredge, lo providing emergenry
assistance after fires struck severa) commuNtles in the region. Grants awarded in 2005 are:
COLORADO f5,000 to Nope Communities, Inc. in ~enver tor
~; ~ Kn C,jre~n G.,unrr :%n~o~,sw, t;~;n:ng~v~. ~'r.: architectural teez tor the restoration o~ Ihe 1889
57.000 to the Kit Grson Counry Carousel Mnylair Building. (Granr Fund)
Associafion in Stranan m help sponsor the t00th
birthday wle6ntion of the 1905 Na4onal Nis[oric S 1.SOU to Cobrodo Reservation, Inc. in Denver
Landmuk Kit Qnon Counry Carouul. (Grnrfu~ eo sponsor the 2006 Saving Places Conference.
fGrr+t Fund and GassiN Fund!
SIOn ta Colorado ReservaUon, Inc in Denver
to sponsor the I005 Saving Places Conle~ence.
(Gi~n( fuMl
550C [o the 18BOs National Register-IlsteG
Humphrey Memoria~ Park and Museum in
Everqreen to prepare a strategic plan.lGossuntfw.0
52,o0U lo the Alamosa Uptown 8 Rrver
Association in Alamosa lo prepare an
emergency structural assessmm[ for the
fire-damaged Rialto Theatre. fem~ Fur~
52.5oo to Colaado Preservauon, Inc in ~enver
to complete an adaptive ~euse stody for the 1970
Walsen6urg Middle School. (GozwJ Furxll
S&45 to Bevedy Babb in Littfeton for emcrgency
rooF repairs lor the ~906 Kit Carson Nolel in La
lunta. lGr.vn FunrO
55,000 to [he Sprinq Insldute tor Inteculeural
Learning in ~enver for the preserva~ion and
restoratioo oi the flower-Vaile House, fcm~ vunaJ
KANSAS
51,745 to Heckman & Associates in
Independence to complete aiternative
site designs for the Walgreens
proposed on the site of the Alf
Landon house. (Thorne Fund)
~2] 6amag~d Mil•er Blo~y:. Fort Scott. KS
57,401 to Wallace Engineering in
Kansas City to conduct a strudural
assessment of several historic build-
ings in downtown Ft. Scott, Kansas
that were damaged in a major fire.
(Southwest Intervention Fund)
45,400 to the Greenwood
Foundation in Eureka to complete
emergency wall repairs to the 1883
Greenwood Hotel. (Southwest
fntervention Fund)
51,000 to Lon~o Engineering in
Denver to conduct analysis of
engineering and design studies for
the rehabilitation/replacement of the
Amelia Earhart Memorial Bridge in
AtChiSOn. (Southwestlntervention fun~
MONTANA
(3) `~'i~cr.~Theathr, Hysham. MT
~3,40Q to the Treasure County
89ers in Hysham to complete an
interior structural assessment and
rehabilitation plan for the 1931
National Register-listed Yucca
Theatre. (MitcheN Fund)
52,000 to the Treasure County
89ers in Nysham to complete an
overall rehabilitation plan for the
1931 National Register-listed Yucca
Theatre. (Hughes Fund and Montana
Preservation Fund)
52,000 to the Young Women's
Christian Association in Helena
to complete a historic structures
report for the 1918 National
Register-listed YWCA of Helena.
(Hughes Fund)
NORTH DAKOTA
5500 to Preservation North Dakota
in Buffalo to sponsor the 6th Annual
North Dakota Historic Preservation
Conference. (Hughes Fund)
[4] VangstadAuditorium.'•.~allE:y';;ty, ND
51,250 to Preservation North Dakota
in Buffalo to prepare a structural
assessment of the 1908 Vangstad
Auditorium on the campus of valiey
City State University. fHUghes Fund)
NEBRASKA
[5J Meriwe~her Lewis L~re ;y~~,
Brownvilie, NE
41,672 to the Meriwether Lewis
Foundation Inc. in Brownville
to prepare a feasibility study
analyzing how to utilize the 1931
National Historic Landmark Capt.
Meriwether Lewis Dredge as a part
of the Meriwether Lewis Center for
Missauri River 5tudies. (Hughes Fund)
50UTH DAKOTA
45,000 to the Plankinton Preservation
Society, Inc. in Plankinton for a
structural analysis of the foundation
and roof of the 1881 Sweep/Van
Dyke Hotel. (Hart Fund for Smal!
Towns and Lamon[ Preservation Fund)
~6~ Savo Community Nsl~.
near Frederick. S:7
53,211 to the South Dakota State
Historical Society in Pierre to hold a
three-day workshop on the
preseroation of historic windows
using the Savo Community Hatl near
Frederick as the classroom. (~amont
Preservation Fund)
UTAH
55,OQ0 to the Casino Star Theatre
Foundation in Gunnison to complete
an architectural plan for the restoration
of the fa4ade of the 1912 National
Register-listed Star Theatre. (Utah
Preservation Initiatives Fund)
4Z,500 to the Iron Mission Museum
Foundation in Cedar City to assist
with emergency move of the 1860s
National Register-listed Joseph S.
Hunter House ta prevent demolition.
(Utah Preservation Inifiatives Fund)
51,592 to Santa Clara City to prepare
a feasibility assessment for restoration
of the Staheli-Graff house. (utah
Preservation lnrtiatives fund)
55,000 to the Provo City Housing
Authority in Provo to hire an architect
to implement the design and
renovation of the 1898 National
Register-listed Maeser School.
(U[ah Preservation lnrtiatives Fund)
S3,OOD to the Nine Mile Canyon
Coalition in Holladay to complete
a National Register nomination for
Nine Mile Canyon. (Utah Preservation
fnitiatives Fund)
55,000 to Brigham City Corporation
to prepare a structural assessment
and feasibility study for the adaptive
use of the 1871 Brigham City Woolen
Mill. (Utah Preservation Iniriatives Fund)
[7] Peteetneet Academy. F~ f,on, UT
54,910 to People Preserving Peteetrieet
in Payson to prepare an elevator
feasibility study for the 1910 National
Register-listed Peteetneet Academy.
(Utah Preservation Initiatives Fund)
S2,G48 to Zion National Park in
Springdale to assist with emergency
stabilization of the 1926 West Motor
Car Shed in the Birch Creek National
Register Histori~ District. (National
Parks lnfervention FundJ
S5,D00 to Ephraim City Corporation
to complete a preservation report
and structural analysis of the 1862
H2nSen HoUSe. (Utah Preservation
Initiatives Fund)
WYOMING
42,500 to the Heart Mountain,
Wyoming Foundation in Powell to
prepare a condition assessment and
long-term preservation/ management
plan for the historic structures at
the 1942 Nationa) ftegister-listed
Heart Mountain Japanese American
Internment Camp Site. (Favror fund)
[8] Fre Damage ;n Downto~-m
Cheyenr.e. WY
51,500 to the City of Cheyenne to
prepare a faSade assessment for the
1880s First Bank Building and the
Commercial Building damaged in a
catastrophic fire in the Downtown
Historic District. (Hughes fund)
535 16th Street, Suite 750, Denver, CO 80202, 303.623.1504 www.nthp.org
~~
51,500 to the Episcopal Diocese
of Wyoming in Laramie to hire a
consultant to design and construct
an internal support system for the
collapsing walls of the RoberYs
Mi55ion. (Thorne Fund)
1215 CedarAvenue 5BL1501
COLORADO CULTURALRESOURCE SURVEY
Architectural Inventory Form
Page 1
I. IDENTIFICATION
1. Resource number:
2. Temporary resource number.
3. Counry:
4. City:
5. Historic building name:
6. Current building name:
7. Building address:
8. Owner name:
Owner organization:
Owner address:
56L1501
Boulder
Boulder
Washington School
Washington School
1215 CedarAvenue
Boulder Valley School District RE-2
Boulder Valley School District
6500 Arapahoe Ave
Boulder, CO 80303
Parcel numbe~(s):
'146330208002
l4. National Register eligibility field assessment: Indlvidually Eligible
Local landmark eligibility field assessme~t: Indivldually Eligible
Washington School Resurvay
City of Boulder Plannirg 6 Developmenl Services ' PO Box 791 ` 1739 Broadway Ave
16-Nov-0S Boulder, CO 80306 •(303) 441-1880
Official Eligibility Determination oe~Ptaoa
(OAHP use only) Rev. sl98
Date Initials
_Detertnined Eligible-National Register
_Determined Not Eligide - National Register
_Detertnined Eliglble-State Register
_Detertnined Not Eligible - State Register
Need Data
_Contributing to eliglble Natiooal Register Distrid
_Noncontributing to eligible National Register DisUict
SoAed Ay Resource Numher
Report page: 1
/ ~/
1215 CedarAvenue 5BL1501
(Resource number)
Architectural Inventory Form
Page 2
II. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
9. P.M.: 6th Township: iN Range: TOW
NW 1l4 of NW 114 of 1/4 of 1/4 of Section 30
10. UTM reference zone: 13
Easting: 475992 Northing: 4430949
USGS quad name: Boulder Scale: 7.5
Year. 1978
11. Lot(s) : South 95 feet of Lot 1, all of lots 2 8 3, 8~ the south 95 feet of lot 4.
Addition: Wolffs Addltion Year of addition: 1875
12. Boundary description and jus6fication:
This property encompasses lots 1~ of the Wolffs addition to 8oulder. The site is bounded by Cedar Avenue to the south, 13th
Street to the east, multi-family residential to tfie north, and Broadway Avenue to the west
Metes and bounds exist: ^
III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION
13. Building plan (footprint, shape): Irregular Plan
14. Other building plan descriptions:
15. Dimensions in feet (length x width): ~ength: 90 x Width: 95 Primary Schooi Only
16. Number of stories: 21l2
17. Primary extemal wall material(s): Brick Other wall mate~als:
18. Roof configuration:
Other roof configurations:
19. Primary external roof material:
Other roof materials:
20. Special features:
21. General architectural description:
Metal
Hlpped Roof
Asphalt RooflComposition Roof
Roof TreatmenUFlared Eave
WindowlStained Glass
The original 1903 school building is a 2 1J2 story, symmetricalty designed building. The foundation is comprised of stone and
concrete, and the exterior walls are fired red brick laid in a running bond with colored mortar joints. The entrance on the
south fac~ade is created by a massive semi-circular brick arch, with the entra~ce doors inset from the exterior of the building.
The 1/1 double hung aluminum frame c.1996 replacement windows are covered by painted white wood freme screens. The
window openings have large sandstone lintels and sills. Some of the lintels are partlally concealed by a ~ed colored concrete
covering. The basement windows are mostly square casement type, some with the origi~al4 light painted white wood frames,
while others have been replaced with modem single light aluminum frame wlndows. The entrance doors on the south fayade
are solid steel with a single vertlcal security glass window, Doors on the other entrances to the buildi~g vary with some being
steel doors similar to the main entrence, with others appearing to be the original5 panel painted wood. The hipped roof is
clad in red asphalt composition shingles, terminating in oversized eaves with painted white decorative cut rafters and decking.
The additions to the origfnal schoolhouse are internally linked via a glass and steel hallway and appears to he easily removed.
Additions include a c.1960 1 story classroom building co~structed of concrete with steel modular window walls and dark red
brick, with a pre-cast flat conc~ete roof. A large 2 story gymnasium is connected to this addition, and is constructed of
concrete block with a dark red veneer brick with white mortar Joints. The roof fs a flat pre-cast concrele roof. The final
addition is a c.1977 1 112 story concrete and red brlck addition, and is the most sympathetic of the additions to the original
Washl~glon School Resurvey Sorted by Resource Number
City of Boulder Planning & Development Services ' PO Box 791 ' 1739 Broadway Ave
16-Nov-OS Boulder. CO 80306 '(303) 441-1880 Report page: 2
/ `
1215 CedarAvenue
Architectural Inventory Form
Page 3
5BL1501
(Resource number)
schoolhouse in terms of massing, materials, and window openings. Windows on this addition consist of 1/1 painted white
aluminum fiame windows with brick lintels and silis. The roof is a red asphalt composition shingle hipped roof with flared
oversized eaves with open exposed painted white rafter ends.
Although not physically connected to the school building, a 1956 concrete slab on grade, steel wall classroom building is
joined to the additions with an outdoor 6reezeway. This bullding has painted red steel paneled walls, with 4 and 8 iight steel
frame windows. The standing seam metal roof has gable ends, with a large covered walkway around the north and west sides.
The floorplan and interior flnishes of the original school remains largely intact The majority of the classrooms teatu~e the
origi~al 5 panel wood doora are still in place with the decorative molding and transom window. Although covered with carpet
and vinyl tile, the original wood floor appears to still be intact in many parts of the school. The majority of classrooms also
contain built-in cabinets and storage closets, which may or may not be original.
22. Architectural style: Mixed Style
Late Victorianfltalianate
Other architectural sryles:
Building rype: Schoolhouse
23. Landscape or special setting features:
The school is located on approzimately 3 acres, with play fields to the east of the building, asphalt courts and playground
equipment to the north, and felds and the parking tot to the west In front of the school to the south is tha most heavily
vegetated, with large trees and shrubbery flanking the walkway to the Tront door of the origlnal school.
24. Associated buildings, features or objects: No assoclated bulldings identified.
IV. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY
25. Date of Co~struction: Estimate: Actual: 1903
Source of Infortnation: qssessor's Records, as well as Daily Camera April 6, 1903
26. Architect: Watson Vemon
Source of infortnation: Inventory Record, Front Range Research Asaociates 1986
27. Builder: unknown
Source of infortnatioh:
28. Original Owner: Boulder Valley School District
Source of infortnation: Dally Camera, Apri16, 1903
29. Construction history:
Constructed in '1903, Washingtan School (and its still extant twin Lincoln School 2130 Arapahce) was designed by local
architect Watson Vernon. The school was constructed for roughly 515,000, and was wired for electrlcity, although it was too
far from the downtown to be connected to the sewer system, and therefore was connected to a septic system. In 1909, the
school supposedly received an additlon, although records were not clear on where the additlon occurred on the bullding. In
1916 the interior was remodeled, although it is unknown what work was done. In 1922 anothe~ addition at a cost of 529,479
was constructed, proba6ly the additio~al classrooms at the rear (north) of the buflding. This addition was constructed with
similar mate~ials and design, complementing the original building. In 1949 the tower as well as the roof-top dormers and large
cornice on the facade we~e removed from the school in a failed aKempt to solve a pigeon nesting problem. In 1956 a pre-
fabricated 2,500 square foot steel classroom building was added to the site at a cost of 518,150 and in 1960 the additional
classrooms and a gymnasium were constructed at a cost of 5112,000 dollars at the north and east elevations of the building.
It fs at this tlme the glass enclosed breezeway was con~ected to the rear of the school. In 1977 the library was constructed,
whlch was designed to complement the original school's deslgn. By 1989 the interior of the school was brought up to code
standards including fire sprinklers. Additional work was performed in 1991, and in 1996 all the original school windows were
r¢placed wlth new metal frame windows.
30. Localion: original Date of move(s)
Washington School Resurvey Sorted hy Resource Number
City of Boulder Planning 6 Developmenl5ervlces ' PO Box 791 • 1739 Broadway Ave
16-Nov-0S Boulder, CO 80306 '(303) 44~-1880 Report page: ,
1215 CedarAvenue
Architectural Inventory Form
5BL1501
(Resource number)
Page 4
V. HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS
31. Original use(s): School
32. Intermediate use(s): School
33. Current use(s): School
34. Site type(s): School buiiding
35. Historical background:
In the early 1900's the populaUon in Boulder was rapidly expanding as the University grew and ofl was discovered on Neil U.
McKenxie's farm. With the anticipated growth, the school district decided to construct two new schools. In 1903 a 6ond was
issued by the voters and a single contrect was awarded to build the new schools, Washington and Lincoln, both from the
same pians. The architect commissfoned was a 6oulder local, Watson Vernon. The contract was awarded for 529,370 for both
schools, and construction began in the ea~ly summer of 1903. Both schools were quite a distance from the town (Lincoln:
2130 Arapahoe, Washington 1215 Cedar), with Washington too far north of the town limits to even receive sewer service. 8oth
schools were completed by the end of 1903, and even were wired for electricity. Washington school opened its doors on
January 16, 1904. At that time Washington School served many of the famllies which operated the vegetable truck fartns in
north Boulde~, and children walked to school. Newspaper and oral histories recount the differences in educatio~ i~ the early
days, with dogs running freely on the piaygrou~d, and how children sat at their desks much of the time. As the population
expanded so did the school, with large additions in the late 1950's and eaHy 1960's to accommodate all of the new families
returning to Boulder after the war.
In 1982 the school was closed due to declining enroliment, and was leased to the community schools program, as well'as
space for classes offered by several private and public agencies. In order to reopen the school, it had to be brought up to fire
code and sprinklers were Installed. The school re-opened in 19" as a bflingual school teaching in English and Spanish. In
2003, the school district once agafn closed Washington School, and in May 2005 the Boulder Valley School District Board of
Education declared the school "surplus". The property is currently being leased by the city of Boulde~, in order to coordinate
the process of selling the schooL
36. Sources of infortnation:
Washington School Architectural Inventory Form, prepared by Front Range Research
Associates, 1986.
Barker, Jane. The Story of Boulder's twin schools. Focus Magazine, Octobar 9, 1977.
Located in the Carnegle Branch Library for Local History, Boulder, CO. ,
Washington School, Boulder Dally Camera Clippings Flle. Located in the Carnegie
Branch Library for Local History, Bouider Historical Society Collection. Call number BHS
32&b0666, F17-19. Baulder, CO.
History of Washington School. Located in the 1981-1982 Washington School Yearbook.
Copy located at the Camegie Branch Lihrary for Local History, Boulde~, CO.
Washington Elementary Floor Plans with renovation schedule. Boulder Valley School
District.
Boulder City Council agenda item memorandum regarding Washington School. July 5,
2005.
Historical Photographs, Washington School. Located at the Boulder Pu61ic Libraty,
Camegie Branch Library for Local History, Boulder, Co. Call numbers BHS 217-2-5, 750-2-
5, BHS 141-15-43, and BHS 210-6-19.
Washington School Resurvey
City of Boulder Planning & Developme~l Services ' PO Box 791 ' 1739 Broadway Ave
16-Nov-05 Boulder, CO 80306 '(303) 441-1880
Sarled 6y Resource Number
Report page:
~/
1215 Cedar Avenue
Architectural inventory Form
Page 5
VI. SIGNIFICANCE
37. Local landmark designation: Yes ~ No Q
Designation authority:
Date of designation_
38. Applicabie NaGonal Register criteria:
~ A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history.
~ B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
0 C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a rype, period, or method o( conshuction, or represents the waic
of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguished enGty whose
components may lack individual distinction.
~ D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, infortnation important in history or prehistory.
~ Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A ihrough G(see manual).
~ Does not meet any of the above National Regisler criteria.
Baulder Standards for Designation:
1. Historical Sianificance
~ Date of ConsUuction
0 Distinction in the Development of the Community of Boulder
~ Recognition by Authorities
~ Association with Historical Persons or Events
2. Architectural Siqnificance
~ Artistic Meril
~ Recognized Period or Sty1e
2. ArchitecturalSiqnificance
~ Indigenous Oualities
e Architecl or Builder of Prominence
~ Example of the Uncommon
~ Other, If Applicable
3. Environmental Siqnificance
~ Other, ii Applicable
~ Site Characteristics
~ Compatability with Site
~ Geographic Importance
~ Environmental Appropriateness
~ Area Integrity
Not Siqn~cant
~ Does not meet any of the standards.
39. Area(s) of Significance: Architecture
Education
40. Period of Significance: 1903 - 1955
SBL1501
(Resource number)
41 • Level of significance: National: ~ State ~ Local ~
42. Statement of significance:
Washington school is significant under National Register criterion A and C for its assceiation with the development and
growth of Boulder, and its architectural style. The school also meets numerous local landmark criteria. The new buildings
constructed after 1955 should not be considered contributing to the original school. The current connection to the school
Washington School Resurvey Sorted by Resource Numher
City of Boulder Plannirg d Oevelopmenl Services ' PO Box 791 ' 17398roadway Ave
1&Nov-05 Boulder, CO BD3D6 '(303) 147-1880 Report page:
~ Z-
Y
1215 CedarAvenue
Architectural Inventory Form
SBL1501
(Resaurce number)
Page 6
is through a reversible glass and metal enclosed breezeway.
Under c~iterion A, Washi~gto~ School is important with its association with development within the city, from its
construction in anticipation of a population boom resulting from the discovery of oil and already overcrowdi~g of schools,
to its original enroliment of childre~ from the then rural area north of Boulder. As the population of Boulder expanded
during the population boom of the 1950's, the school grew to meet the needs of the community, and after a brief closure, it
reopened to serve as a bilingual school.
lJnder criterion C, Washingto~ school is significant for its Italianate architectural style, as well as its identical twin Llncoln
School. The large semi-circular arch, symmetrical design, oversized eaves, and large stone li~tels and sills are all character
defning features. If restored back to its original design with the low sloping dormers and tower, those elements should be
considered defining features as well.
43. Assessme~t of historic physical integrity related to significance:
The physical integrky of the school has been altered from its original consUvction with the removal of the tower and
dormers, and replacement of the majority of windows, yet still retai~s much of its integrity on not only the exterior 6ut
interior as well.
Loeation: Washington School retains its integrity of location as it has not moved since its construction.
Design: Washington School retains its integrity of design, although impacted by the removal of the tower and dortners.
Some interior walis have been added, but the original floor plan is still eviden~
Setting: Washington School retains its integrity of setting. While othe~ buildings and additions have been constructed, the
connectfon to the original school is minimal, and the additions are subordinate to the original school.
Materials: Washington School retains its integrity of materlals, and although the windows and some doors have been
replaced, the replacements are compatible in design and scale. The removal of the tower and dormers impacts some of the
integrity of materials. Un the i~terior, the floorplan, most of the doors, transom windows, flooring, and hardware are intact
Workmanship: Washington Schoal retains its integrity of workmanship.
Feeling: Washington School retains its integrity of feeling, although impacted by the removal of the tower and dormers.
Association: Washington School retains its integrity of assxiation.
VII. NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT
44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Individually Eligible
Local landmark eligibility field assessment: Indlvldually Eligible
45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes ~ No ~
Discuss:
If there is National Register district potential, is tfiis building contributing: Yes ~ No ~ N/A 0
46. If the building is in existing National Registe~ district, is it contributing: Yes ~ No ~ WA ~
VIII. RECORDING INFORMATION
47. Photograph numbers): Digital Photographs, PA060271.JPG - PA060324.JPG
Negatives filed at: City of Boulder Planning and Development Servlces
PO Box 791
1739 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80306
48. Report title: Washington School Resurvey
49. Date(s): 10110/05
50. Recorder(s): Chris Meschuk and James Hewat
51. Organization: City of Boulder Planning & Developrnent Services
52. Address: PO Box 791
1739 Broadway Ave
Boulder, CO 80306
53. Phone number(s): {303) 441-1880
Washington Schoo~ Resurvey Sorted by Resource Number
City of Boulder Planning & Developmenl Services ' PO Box 791 ' 1739 Broadway Ave
1&Nov-05 Boulder, CO 80306 '(303) 441-7680 Report page: i
1215 CedarAvenue
Architectural Inventory Form
Page 7
SBL1501
(Resource number)
SITE SKETCH MAP
~
>
Q
~
a
~
~
v
0
L
m
Cedar Ave 30 0 30 60 Feet
Washinglon School Resurvey
Cily of Bauidet Planning 8 Development Services ' PO Box 791 ' 7739 Broadway Ave
76Nav-05 Boulder,C080306 ' (303)4a7-1B8D
Sorled by Resource Nurnber
Repon page:
tiL
1215 Cedar Avenue
Architectural Inventory Form
5BL1501
(Resource number)
Page 8
LOCATION MAP
Washington School Rasurvey Sorfed by Resource Num6er
Cily of 8oulder Planning 8 Developmenl Services ' PO Boz 791 ' 1739 Broadway Ave
1fi-Nov-0S Boulder, CO 80306 '(303) 441-1880 Report page: I
~
~~
Source: U.S. Geological Survey 7.5' Boulder topographic quadrangle - 1978