HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.31.20 LB Retreat Notes
The Landmarks Board and staff meet annually in retreat to discuss accomplishments, identify areas for
improvement, and to prioritize items for the next year’s work program while providing the opportunity to engage in
discussion topics.
Board members present:
John Decker, Chair
Abby Daniels, Vice Chair
William Jellick
Ronnie Pelusio
Fran Sheets
City of Boulder staff present:
Lucas Markley, Assistant City Attorney II
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner II
Clare Brandt, Administrative Specialist (notes)
Introduction: Questions or thoughts from last mini retreat
John reviewed the discussions from the mini retreat on August 14, 2020:
• On the topic of recognizing history of underrepresented communities, board agreed to continue the
discussion. Method to be determined.
• On the topic of pools and their impact on neighborhoods, board agreed to look at language over email.
Clare will circulate.
• On demolition topic, board agreed to start a subcommittee comprising Ronnie and Fran
Next steps: Clare will follow up with guidelines regarding notifying subcommittee meetings.
Landmarking interiors and other limitations of the code
Discussion:
• Fran introduced the topic with an overview of the Boulder Revised Code, which does not include interiors,
but does include defining features. She also noted that Landmarks Board has the ability to change rules and
the code. Fran requested latitude in thinking about the landmark designation of the Boulder-Dushanbe
Teahouse, to include the defining interior features in the landmarking for this property. She asked for
feedback from the board on this and for other properties with character defining interiors.
• Bill asked if the board should consider modifying the code to include the interior in a landmark where the
interior is as important as the exterior.
• Abby noted that there are a number of properties with an interior easement but noted that there are question
of who holds the easement and manages the interior and their character defining features.
• Ronnie agreed with the concept of having a tool that expands landmarks to include interiors where needed.
• Fran asked if designated features would incapsulate everything or should interiors specifically be called out
in the code.
• John asked the board to explore the issue of the code itself, beyond designated features. He noted that it
was sometimes the architect’s intent that the interior was a significant part of the architectural character of
the building. In those occasions, the Landmarks Board needs the tools to protect that interior.
• Bill asked if the National Parks Service recommended preservation of interiors with historical importance
and context.
LANDMARKS BOARD RETREAT
DATE: Friday, August 31, 2020
TIME: 3:00 - 5:00 p.m.
PLACE: Via video conference
• Ronnie noted that buildings with protected interiors are usually in the public realm. He also noted that the
form, function and transparency in mid-century architecture is very different from turn of the century
residential buildings, and this could complicate matters. Suggested looking at examples where other
municipalities manage interiors to see what tools they use.
• John added that the code was written directed at private, residential structures, but that the board need
additional tools for public buildings.
Next steps: With a consensus to give the board the ability (tools, etc.) to designate interiors, the board agreed to
form a subcommittee comprising Abby and Fran. Marcy will look into a NPS preservation brief regarding interiors.
Midcentury Modern and Modernistic Design Guidelines: preservation by age
Discussion:
• John defined mid-century modern architecture as the post war period up until the 1970 and 1980 with the advent
of post-modernism. The types of architecture are diverse and experimental, being different from one another and
from expectations. Complicates having guidelines as a type, because these properties often don’t fit into a
particular type. He asked if there was opportunity to complete a baseline survey to group the inventory by type
(architects specific, or type of experiment, building use, etc.) Historic Boulder, Inc. offered help on this.
• Abby noted that there are existing surveys: Modern Architecture 1947-1977 Survey and the Post World War II
Residential Architecture Survey that are still relevant.
• Bill asked why we need to diverge from how the board treats any modern piece of architecture by a noted
architect. Asked for clarification on why we would need to have guidelines.
• Ronnie agreed, adding that the tool the board need is more guideline to apply design regulation to these
properties that don’t always fit into the current guidelines. Guidelines would give us clarity on how
modifications can be made, relating to these unique materials and structures.
• Bill recollected the interior of the Kahn House by Charles Haertling, and how the interior was consistent with,
and as important, as the exterior. When approaching structures of that type, the board needs expert guidance
rather than written guidelines.
• Ronnie agreed that guideline-related language should start conversations, about how the board relates these
properties to the code without creating more complexity.
• John noted that the challenge is to look at how the board applies guidelines that aren’t so rigid for these
buildings.
• Ronnie noted that a lot of these properties are not in jeopardy and may be reviewed through the demolition
process: Recommend that the board focus on the guidelines, incorporating intent language into guidelines.
• John countered that to accurately develop guidelines we’d need to have some knowledge of the inventory and
the type in Boulder that needs protection. Wants to apply some science to it.
• Bill suggested creating a roadmap to include an objective and expectations.
• John noted that the board should work on collecting existing regulations and guidelines from other
municipalities in the shared folder; allow Historic Boulder access to the folder.
• James confirmed that the 2000 modern buildings survey captured all of architect designed modern buildings –
could use updating. Post WWII survey was comprehensive at looking at suburban housing; regionalist form of
architecture that flourished here for 30 years, using local materials. There are design guidelines to look at and
use as a template. But if we’re looking at guidelines there may be higher priorities like garages. Requested input
from Historic Boulder Inc.
• Jamie, director of Historic Boulder noted via chat: Cheri [Belz] and Joan [Zimmerman] have been researching
existing modern design guidelines in other places, as well as the elements/architects that are somewhat unique to
the area. We have a copy of the modernist survey included in the research, and Abby is right - it’s fairly
comprehensive. We can share what we have to the Sharepoint folder.
Next steps: John and Ronnie agreed to form subcommittee to work with Historic Boulder to synthesize collective
objectives and to review the existing materials. Will report back to the board.
Color and Paint in Historic Districts
Discussion:
• John led the discussion, noting that there is guideline language about paint color, but it’s not specific and
doesn’t fully define the board’s role.
• James clarified that most paint color reviews are administrative and are not reviewed by LDRC or the full
Landmarks Board, because the process is reversible. As part of the LAC review the applicant proposes
actual colors (color chips). A building permit is not required for paint and there’s no other process that
requires a review of the paint color other than historic preservation review.
• Bill asked if there are places outside of Boulder that require consistent historic look through color palettes.
Noted that he would appreciate having a color palette that would help define paint colors.
• Ronnie voiced support for a resource of an optional palette, rather than regulation, to assist people with
color choices and the application of colors: resource that looks at applying paint to detailing and
ornamentation, and the ways in which paint can highlight aspects of buildings; darker colors downplay the
opportunity for architectural details to shine and express themselves.
• Bill added that professional color palettes would be appropriate to take decision making away from staff /
LDRC. We have language that identifies colors should be muted and subdued, but not a palette. Proposed
that the board should provide a more definitive palette with a range of colors that are acceptable to keep
districts in their period of significance.
• Fran asked if we can make suggestions but not regulate.
• Bill countered that through regulation we have a solid basis to what is approved or not approved.
• James noted that staff approved colors are consistently muted and subdued, but a palette would be a good
way to approach decision making. He shared the Arapaho Hills Design Guidelines (page 151), Leadville
Historic Colors (based upon the National Trust's color guide), and the Fort Collins Old Town Historic
District Design Standards (page 60).
• Abby suggested reviewing guidelines from other communities with an eye to creating a paint palette as a
resource or as regulation.
Next steps: Abby and John agreed to form subcommittee to research colors and will work with Ronnie over email
on intent language. Bill recommended finding expert help, noting Natalie Feinberg Lopez as a resource to produce
a color inventory/palette.
Community Outreach Initiatives
Discussion:
• Abby led the discussion about ways to connect an appreciation of preservation to what we do and to the
history of Boulder. She asked the board to consider how they can creatively reach out to the community.
• Ronnie suggested the board come up with specific avenues to expand outreach.
• Abby suggested stories of Boulder and why it’s special, also the historic preservation process that might
seem daunting. She asked the board to think of ways to make the process more engaging, suggesting a
video.
• Bill requested staff locate the video that was produced in the early 2000s. He supported the idea and
suggested producing short (1 – 3 minute) videos.
• Ronnie suggested producing a 1-minute video about properties as they are landmarked.
• Abby asked staff to investigate technical aspect of producing and posting videos on the website.
Next steps: Abby to list topic ideas. Abby, Bill and John agreed to form subcommittee to brainstorm presentation.
Joint meeting with Landmarks Board and Planning Board
Tentatively on October 22 – Conceptional review for First Presbyterian/Grace Commons Church at 1820 15th
Street.
—adjourn—