11.07.18 Landmarks Board Study Session - Historic Preservation Update Memo Landmarks Board Study Session, Page 1 | 12
M E M O R A N D U M
November 7, 2018
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Jim Robertson, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Debra Kalish, Senior Counsel, City Attorney’s Office
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
Caleb Gasparek, Historic Preservation Intern
Holly Opansky, Landmarks Board Secretary
SUBJECT: Study Session #2 to Provide Feedback on the Five-Year Update to the Historic
Preservation Plan
PURPOSE
The City of Boulder’s Historic Preservation Plan was accepted in 2013 and has guided the
Historic Preservation program over the last five years by helping to establish priorities and
informing the annual work plan. The Five-Year Update will focus on documenting progress to
date toward the goals, reconfirming the Goals and Objectives, and revising the
recommendations to provide clear direction and align with the goals.
On Sept. 5, 2018, the Landmarks Boulder provided initial feedback on the Goals and
Objectives, Draft Progress Toward Goals Chart and proposed process for the update.
The purpose of this second Study Session is to review and discuss the feedback from the Oct.
18 Internal Coordination Team meeting, the Oct. 19 Community Working Group meeting, and
the Nov. 7 Community Open House. The board will also be asked to provide direction on
revisions to the recommendations.
QUESTIONS
1. Does the board have comments on the feedback received to date? See Attachments C
and D.
2. Which recommendations does the board consider are in need of revision?
FEEDBACK TO DATE
Internal Coordination Team – Oct. 18
An Internal Coordination Team was formed and is comprised of representatives from Public
Works, Development Review, Information Resources, Open Space and Mountain Parks, Energy
Futures, Carnegie Library, Parks and Recreation, Facilities and Asset Management, and Housing
and Human Services. The group met on Oct. 18, 2018 and were asked to provide feedback on
the Goals and Objectives, Work to Date Chart, and to flag recommendations in need of
revision.
Landmarks Board Study Session, Page 2 | 12
In general, the group considered the Goals and Objectives are still relevant but suggested they
be condensed for clarity.
No items were added to the Progress Toward Goals Chart. The group suggested reformatting
the chart to better convey how the recommendations relate to the goals and objectives.
Discussion on recommendations in need of revision included the following topics. Please
reference Attachment B: Notes from Oct. 18 Coordination Team Meeting for a summary of the
discussion:
• Update the plan to reflect current sustainability programs.
• Establish an archaeology program.
• Increase coordination between development review and historic preservation
processes.
• Add a recommendation to recognize significant Native American cultural sites.
• Increase training opportunities for other city departments, applicants, historic
preservation staff and board members.
• Leverage social media and web-based programs like Story Maps to expand community
engagement efforts.
• Affordable Housing is currently missing from the plan; explore opportunity to align goals
and efforts through incentives and adaptive reuse; Address pending Accessory Dwelling
Unit ordinance as a possible new incentive for landmark designation.
Community Working Group – Oct. 19
A Community Working Group was formed and is comprised of seventeen members including
owners of designated properties, design professionals, and representatives from the Colorado
Chautauqua Association and Historic Boulder, Inc. The group met on Oct. 19, 2018 and were
asked to provide feedback on the Goals and Objectives, Work to Date Chart, and to flag
recommendations in need of revision.
In general, the group discussed and considered the Goals and Objectives to be relevant but
made suggestions to expand and clarify them. Please see a summary of the discussion in
Attachment A: Notes from Oct. 19 Community Working Group Meeting.
No items were added to the Progress Toward Goals Chart. The group also suggested
reformatting the chart to better convey how the recommendations relate to the goals and
objectives.
The group discussion centered on the following themes:
• Increase predictability of the outcome of the demolition and design review processes.
• Foster a more collaborative relationship in the design review process and with individual
property owners.
• Establish new incentives that are relevant and compelling; look to neighboring
communities.
• Streamline the design review process; consider over the counter approvals or shifting
Landmarks Board Study Session, Page 3 | 12
some cases from LDRC to staff.
• Increase outreach to potential buyers of designated or potentially eligible buildings so
they are aware of the regulations before the sale is final.
• Increase internal coordination so process and sequencing is clear and predictable; and
reduced conflict between codes and goals (i.e. accessory buildings in the ROW; flood
regulations; fire-proofing requirements).
• Add a recommendation to recognize and protect underrepresented histories (i.e.
Native American, African American, Latino).
Community Open House – Nov. 7
The first Community Open House to gather feedback on the Five- Year Update to the Historic
Preservation Plan will be held immediately before the Nov. 7 Landmarks Board Study Session.
Feedback from that meeting will be included in the packet materials for the next Study Session.
SCHEDULE AND PROCESS
The following outlines the project’s anticipated process and timeline:
Phase I: Draft Assessment of 2013-2018 Progress Toward Goals; Confirm
Goals and Objectives (September - November)
Confirm goals and objectives and gather feedback on the progress to date and proposed
process.
• Landmarks Board Study Session (Sept. 5)
• Coordination Team Meeting #1 (Oct. 18)
• Working Group Meeting #1 (Oct. 19)
• Community Open House #1 (Nov. 7)
• Landmarks Board Study Session #2 (Nov. 7)
• City Council Information Packet Item (Nov. TBD)
Phase II: Draft Revised Recommendations (November - December)
Review draft revisions to prioritization chart (recommendations, time frame and roles)
• Coordination Team Meeting #2 (TBD)
• Working Group Meeting #2 (TBD)
• Landmarks Board Meeting (Jan. 2)
Phase III: Final Recommendations (January – February)
Finalize revisions to prioritization chart (recommendations, time frame and roles)
• Coordination Team Meeting #3 (TBD)
• Working Group Meeting #3 (TBD)
• Landmarks Board Meeting (Feb. 2)
Phase IV: Adoption (March-April)
• Community Open House #2 (March 6)
• Landmarks Board Meeting (March 6)
• City Council Meeting (TBD)
Landmarks Board Study Session, Page 4 | 12
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Historic Preservation Plan (link)
Attachment B: Draft Notes from Sept 5, 2018 Landmarks Board Study Session #1
Attachment C: Draft Notes from Oct. 18, 2018 Coordination Team Meeting #1
Attachment D: Draft Notes from Oct. 19, 2018 Working Group Meeting #1
Attachment E: Revised Work to Date Chart (2013-2018)
Landmarks Board Study Session, Page 5 | 12
Attachment B: Draft Notes from Sept 5, 2018 Landmarks Board Study Session #1
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN UPDATE
Landmarks Board Study Session #1
September 5, 2018 from 5 to 6 p.m.
City Council Chambers
Landmarks Board Members
Eric Budd, Chair
Fran Sheets
John Decker
Bill Jellick
Ronnie Pelusio
Staff Members
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner II
James Hewat, Sr. Historic Preservation Planner
Caleb Gasparek, Historic Preservation Intern
Holly Opansky, Landmarks Board Secretary
Deb Kalish, Senior Counsel, CAO
Board Discussion
3. Does the Landmarks Board agree with the Draft Assessment of Progress Toward Goals
2013-2018? Is anything missing?
The Landmarks Board agreed with the Draft Assessment of Progress Toward Goals and
discussed past efforts.
4. Are the Historic Preservation Plan goals and objectives still relevant?
The board agreed that the Goals and Objectives are still relevant.
5. Does the Landmarks Board have comments on the proposed process for the five-year
update of the Historic Preservation Plan?
The board did not have any questions or comments on the proposed process.
The Board made the following suggestions:
• Expand 2.11 Honor Property Owners for Careful Stewardship of Historic
Properties to identify additional ways to recognize and honor community members
who exemplify preservation;
• Aligned with 2.3 Foster Greater Understanding of Historic Preservation and
2.4 Share Stories of Boulder’s Historic Places, publish property history and
Landmarks Board Study Session, Page 6 | 12
research (LB memos) as a way to raise interest in historic preservation.
• Expand on 2.5 Revitalize the Structures of Merit Program to promote awareness
of the program.
• Increase the priority of 2.2 Collaborate with owners of Existing Landmarks and
Properties in Designated Historic District; Establish Neighborhood Liaisons
and establish neighborhood liaisons for all historic districts.
• Expand 3.9 Coordinate Existing Environmental Sustainability and Historic
Preservation Programs to offer addition points for designated properties in the
energy code review of building permits.
• Expand 1.6 Initiate New Incentives. Explore establishing a city fund to purchase
properties threatened with demolition. By relieving the pressure of a pending sale, the
City can help connect a significant property to a property owner who will be a sensitive
steward.
• Expand 2.3 Foster Greater Understanding of Historic Preservation and 2.7
Distribute Historic District Design Guidelines and increase education and
outreach to potential buyers of designated properties so they understand the
regulations before they complete the purchase.
• Expand 2.10 Engage the Community in Historic Preservation Activities to
increase outreach and community engagement efforts to build support for historic
preservation.
Landmarks Board Study Session, Page 7 | 12
Attachment C: Draft Notes from Oct. 18, 2018 Coordination Team Meeting #1
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN UPDATE
Coordination Team Meeting #1
October 18, 2018 from 4 to 5 p.m.
Park Central Conference Room 401
Welcome
Michelle Allen, Planner II, Housing and Human Services
Caitlin Berube-Smith, Historic and Cultural Assets Coordinator, Parks and Recreation
Joe Castro, Facilities and Fleet Manager, Public Works
Kim Dugan, Project Specialist, Public Works
Caleb Gasparek, Historic Preservation Intern, Planning (Notes)
Wendy Hall, Branch Librarian, Carnegie Library
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner, Planning
Jenny Immich, GIS Analyst, Information Resources
Julie Johnson, Cultural Resource Supervisor OSMP
Gretchen King, Communications Specialist, Planning
Background, Scope and Process
The Historic Preservation Plan was adopted in 2013 and has guided the Historic Preservation
Program over the last five years, helping the Landmarks Board set priorities at their annual
retreat and informing the staff workplan.
The scope of update includes documenting work to date, confirming Goals and Objectives, and
revise recommendations to be measurable and aligned with Goals and Objectives. A larger
update is anticipated in 2022.
Review Project Charter
Group Discussion
1. Do the Goals and Objectives resonate? Could they be edited or expanded to better
relate to your program’s goals?
In general, the group considered the Goals and Objectives are still relevant but
suggested they be condensed for clarity.
2. Is anything missing from the Progress to Date Chart? Have we partnered on a project
or revised our code or process that’s not reflected in the chart?
No items were added to the Progress Toward Goals Chart. The group suggested
reformatting the chart to better convey how the recommendations relate to the goals
and objectives.
Landmarks Board Study Session, Page 8 | 12
3. Which recommendations did you flag for revision? Identify gaps, especially when it
comes to areas you see as opportunities to further collaborate.
The group provided the following feedback on revisions to the recommendations:
• The plan should be updated to reflect the current Sustainability program (i.e. Green
Points no longer exists)
• Interest in expanding or giving higher priority to recommendation 1.9 Explore the
Establishment of an Archaeology Program.
• Clarify recommendation 3.11 Pursue Collaborative Approaches to Integrate
Historic Preservation with Other City Operations to provide greater clarity on
how to better integrate the historic preservation and Development Review processes
(sequencing and communication).
• Aligned with the goals of “Ensure the Protection of Boulder’s Significant Historic,
Architectural, and Environmental Resources,” add a recommendation to address
preservation of Native American heritage, related to the City Council’s ordinance to
recognize Indigenous Peoples.
• Aligned with 2.3 Foster Greater Understanding of Historic Preservation, the
group voiced support for training around the Historic Preservation processes for other
city departments and for applicants in addition to staff and Landmarks Board members
to ensure consistency (3.1).
• Revise 2.4 Share Stories of Boulder’s Historic Places to expand outreach for
Historic Preservation through social media (i.e. bring back Throwback Thursdays) and
interactive web-based programs like StoryMaps.
• Affordable Housing is currently missing from the plan; explore opportunity to align goals
and efforts through incentives and adaptive reuse. Address pending Accessory Dwelling
Unit ordinance as a possible new incentive for landmark designation.
Next Steps
▪ Nov. 7 from 5-6 p.m. – Community Open House in City Council Chambers
▪ Scheduling Coordination Team Meetings #2 and #3
Landmarks Board Study Session, Page 9 | 12
Attachment D: Draft Notes from Oct. 19, 2018 Working Group Meeting #1
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN UPDATE
Working Group Meeting #1
October 19, 2018 from 10:30 to 12 p.m.
Brenton Building, 1136 Alpine Ave.
Welcome
Group 1
Harvey Hine
Dale Hubbard
Larry Kaptein
Ruth McHeyser
Jeff Medanich
Catherine Schweiger
Carol Taylor
Group 2
Jim Bray
Felicia Furman
Kristin Lewis
Joel Smiley
Winter Roybal
Brad Schell
Unable to Attend
Karl Anuta
Kathryn Barth
Erin Decker
Bob Myers
Staff Members
Marcy Cameron
James Hewat
Holly Opansky
Caleb Gasparek
Background, Scope and Process
The Historic Preservation Plan was adopted in 2013 and has guided the Historic Preservation
Program over the last five years, helping the Landmarks Board set priorities at their annual
retreat and informing the staff workplan.
The scope of update includes documenting work to date, confirming Goals and Objectives, and
revise recommendations to be measurable and aligned with Goals and Objectives. A larger
update is anticipated in 2022.
Review Project Charter
Small Group Discussions
Group 1 – Marcy Cameron and Caleb Gasparek
Goals and Objectives
Edit goal to read “Ensure the Protection of Boulder’s Significant Historic, Architectural, and
Environmental Resources and Cultural Sites” to address need to recognize Native American
heritage.
Work to Date Chart
No additions were suggested to the Work to Date Chart. Suggestion to reformat the chart to
better convey how the Goals and Objectives relate to the Recommendations. “Establish
Neighborhood Liaison” will be removed, since the intention to continue liaisons from the 2013
Historic Preservation Plan working group was not realized.
Landmarks Board Study Session, Page 10 | 12
Feedback Recommendations in Need of Revision
• Prioritize 1.1 to be more proactive, set priorities and develop strategies.
• Assess each recommendation with SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and
time-based) goal criteria.
• Prioritize 2.2 and establish neighborhood liaisons for each historic district.
• Build community support and understanding of historic preservation:
o Identify what is working/what’s not working from the community’s perspective
o Approach design review collaboratively; address flexibility of design guidelines
with homeowners.
o Establish educational outreach focused at newcomers to Boulder.
o Increase awareness and celebrate significance of mid-century modern
architecture.
o Emphasize the positive impact of historic preservation with examples – celebrate
the successes.
o Create a non-contiguous Haertling district or one related to Boulder’s scientific
history.
• Increase predictability in the review process
o Largest issue from community is unpredictability of the outcome of a demolition
review for buildings outside of historic districts.
o Create a resource plan that identifies potential eligibility for landmark
designation for all properties over 50 years old. Rely on list to replace/streamline
demolition review process and increase predictability for homeowners. Revisit
periodically.
o Ask the community which buildings they think are worth saving.
• Streamline the design review process
o Over-the-counter approval for minor alterations (changes to non-contributing
buildings; roofing or mechanical reviews; some signage).
o Revise design guidelines to better address changes to non-contributing buildings.
o Consider shifting review from weekly LDRC to administrative to shorten time
commitment and possible review time.
o Increase internal coordination in the review of applications (i.e. clearly defined
sequence of review between historic preservation and development review).
Expand Incentives for Historic Preservation
• Look to neighboring communities (Longmont and Louisville) for lessons learned.
• Offer financial incentive in form of building permit rebates
Group 2 – James Hewat and Holly Opansky
Work to Date Chart
No additions were suggested to the Work to Date Chart. Suggestion to reformat the chart to
better convey how the Goals and Objectives relate to the Recommendations. Summarize work
to date and reduce it to 1-2 pages.
Landmarks Board Study Session, Page 11 | 12
Goals and Objectives / Revisions to Recommendations
Ensure the Protection of Boulder’s Significant Historic, Architectural, and
Environmental Resources
• Create or revise a recommendation to address current conflict between historic
accessory buildings that are required to be moved out of the right of way (sometimes
encroaching 6”).
• Address current conflict between OAU regulations that require existing buildings to
meet current setback and the desire to adaptively reuse historic buildings in their
historic location.
• Add an objective to include archaeology.
• Add an objective to recognize underrepresented groups, i.e. African American, Latino,
Native American people and history with regard to significance, culture, and sacred
lands.
• Add objective regarding Socio-Economic Vitality. i.e. impact of historic preservation on
the local economy; integration into affordable housing goals; creative incentives to
encourage preservation of small buildings.
Actively Engage the Community in Historic Preservation Efforts
• Increase engagement of those not currently involved, i.e. students, non-historic property
owners, renters, the community at large through bike tours, scavenger hunts,
advertising.
• Change the perception and awareness of what landmark designation means. Advertise
benefits/incentives (ADUs, establish grants like Louisville), economic longevity. Add
warmth of the process.
Make Review Processes Clear, Predictable, and Objective
Focus on increasing the predictability of the process and outcome:
• Subjectivity makes this difficult, and sometimes different LDRC meetings can produce
wildly different, even contradicting directions.
• Feature project examples on the website to illustrate before, during, and after
pictures/drawings/elevations along with the process and how much time the process
took.
• Request for more professionally trained people on the board.
Make the Review Process Collaborative:
• More design collaboration opportunities at the LDRC level.
• Landmarks Board meeting not conducive to collaboration; it is costly and time
consuming and often uncollaborative, threatening, and a wild card.
• Change the code so that it takes more than one person to call up a case to the LB.
• Increase building code / zoning flexibility for historic structures and property. Expand
upon the existing considerations for existing conditions (i.e. accessory buildings in the
ROW and fireproofing eaves).
Continue Leadership in Historic Preservation and Environmental Sustainability
• Increase integration of sustainability and historic preservation regulations with regard to
Landmarks Board Study Session, Page 12 | 12
wildfire zones (ie. Hardie plank, ignition resistant class, and exposed eaves).
• Increase integration in flood zones to allow leeway and flexibility for life safety.
Encourage Preservation of Historic Resources:
Help prospective property owners understand the regulations prior to purchasing a designated
property:
• Add a recommendation to create an inventory of eligible buildings to set expectations
for prospective property owners.
• Provide more comprehensive information on website: similar to a land-use map that ties
in ditches and other tags, to also identify Historic Districts, Landmarks, Structures of
Merit, and buildings over 50 years old.
• Mandate (via ordinance) that new owners sign a binding document at property closing
that states the property is in a Historic District, a Landmark, a Structure of Merit, and/
or is a building over 50 years old.
Increase incentives for landmark designation
• Make incentives more relevant and accessible.
Allow for broad interpretation within existing design guidelines:
• Give greater consideration of modern additions. Don’t require traditional materials to
mask the addition and make it look “old” with shingles etc., and instead design the
addition with mass and scale in mind to address compatibility and synchronicity with and
reverence to the primary structure.
Next Steps
▪ Nov. 7 from 5-6 p.m. – Community Open House in City Council Chambers
▪ Scheduling Working Group Meetings #2 and #3