Loading...
03.02.22 LB Presentation•The city has engaged with community members to co- create a vision for productive, meaningful and inclusive civic conversations. •This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board/commission members as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences, and political perspectives. •More about this vision and the project’s community engagement process can be found here: https://bouldercolorado.gov/services/productive- atmospheres Public Participation at Board Meetings 1 The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld during this meeting. •All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. •No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person.Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. •Participants are required to sign up to speak using the name they are commonly known by,and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted online. Public Participation at Board Meetings 2 March 2, 2022 Landmarks Board Meeting Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation4 Agenda 1.Call to Order 2.Approval of minutes from the February 2, 2022 meeting 3.Public Participation for Non-Public Hearing Items 4.Discussion of Landmark Alteration, Demolition Applications issued and pending •Statistical Report for February 5.Matters from the Landmarks Board, Planning Department, and City Attorney •Preservation Month •East Boulder Subcommunity Plan engagement opportunities •Historic Places Plan update •Paint color discussion 6.Debrief Meeting / Calendar Check 7.Adjournment Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation5 Statistical ReportLink to dynamic map Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Applications Approved, Denied or Withdrawn in February 6 -1-1 Ii. 0 a. a, a:: 7 ftl u ·-"" u, ·-"" ftl -1-1 en 7 Historic Preservation Applications Approved by Case Type (LAC) in February 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Staff review LDRC review Landmarks Board review Planning & Development Services I Historic Preservation -1-1 Ii. 0 a. a, a:: 7 ftl u ·-"" u, ·-"" ftl -1-1 en 8 Historic Preservation Applications Approved by Case Type (Demo) in February Non-Designated On Site Relocation Non-Designated Pre-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Non-Designated Post-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Accessory Building 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ■ Administrative Approval ■LDRC Approval ■ Referred to Landmarks Board Planning & Development Services I Historic Preservation Matters Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation12 •Preservation Month •East Boulder Subcommunity Plan engagement opportunities •Historic Places Plan update •Paint color discussion Board Member Recruitment - Timeline Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation13 •Feb 28 –Mar 4:Candidates interviewed by 2 Council members and one staff •March 8:City Council members to nominate appointees •March 15 –31:Transition and onboarding •April 6: First Landmarks Board meeting •May 4: First LDRC meeting https://bouldercolorado.gov/government/boards-and-commissions 14 Overview PROJECT BACKGROUND: In March of 2019, City of Boulder Parks and Recreation applied for a survey and planning grant from History Colorado, State Historical Fund (HC-SHF) to develop a Historic Places Plan (HiPP) for twelve BPR owned and managed resources. In August of 2019, the department was awarded the full funding request of $190,000 from HC-SHF to develop the HiPP. The department contributed a $77,000 match, bringing the total original project budget to $267,000. The twelve resources included in the HiPP are historically designated at a variety of levels including: -Local landmark status.-State Register of Historic Properties.- National Register of Historic Places -National Historic Landmark.Boyd Smelter Archeological Site 1880s WHAT IS STAFF SHARING WITH LB: BPR is recapturing general project information to ensure shared LB has a solid understanding of the HiPP, and LB role in the planning process. WHAT IS BEING REQUESTED OF LB: BPR requests LB feedback on consultant work completed to date. Existing Planning Documents + Future Initiatives Glen Huntington Bandshell Past: full HSA, Paint Analysis, full Structural Feasibility Study, Feasibility Study, Relocation Study, conceptual drawings of the latter; Civic Area Master Plan *** CCSRT Funding Roney House & Platt Farmhouse Past: Cultural Resources of Valmont; Valmont City Park Plan (North + South) Harbeck-Bergheim House Past: Exhibit and Brochure on Historical Context, Historic Exterior Building Analysis; Interior Contributing Features Study Rolling Stock Resources  Past: Directory of Railroad Properties, Locomotive Evaluation, Condition Assessment NO. Downtown Boulder, Pearl St. Pedestrian Mall:Downtown Urban Design Guidelines *** CCSRT Funding Boyd Smelter Site Past: “Boyd Smelter Site: Preservation and Interpretation Plan” 2002 Recent Past/Current: Level I pedestrian survey was completed in 2017, archeological monitoring with summary completed by consultants. Columbia Cemetery Past: Preservation Master Plan, Marker Documentation; Conservation Manual Chautauqua  Park Past: Colorado Chautauqua Lighting Design Guidelines; Collaborative Stewardship of the Colorado Chautauqua: Guiding Principles for Place Management and Fiscal Sustainability; Guidelines; The Chautauqua Park Historic District Cultural Landscape Assessment and Plan; Chautauqua Environmental Sustainability Plan, Executive Summary; Chautauqua Interpretive Services Plan; Chautauqua Master; Signage Plan; Collaborative Stewardship of the Colorado Chautauqua: Guiding Principles for Place Management and Fiscal Sustainability; Landscape Design Guidelines; Master Exterior Lighting Plan; Colorado Chautauqua Association Strategic Plan; Concurrent: Chautauqua Sustainability +Resiliency Plan23 What Work Is Being Completed –Project Phases of the HiPP Valmont, Colorado (1900s) o Project kick off, archival research, collection of existing materials/planning documents, review goals and objectives, complete introductory visits to sites PHASE 1 (August 2020 –January 2021) Project Kick Off & Background Research o Base mapping for 6 select resources o Record existing conditions of 9 resources o Assess current and potential use of all resources o Prepare ADA assessment and identify safety issues o Prepare Existing Condition Assessment Plan PHASE 2 (October 2020 –June 2021) Assessment and Inventory of Existing Conditions o Develop historical context snapshots, assess defining and contributing features, analyze spatial relationships PHASE 3 (October 2020 –June 2021) Historic Context Development + Resource Evaluation o Integrate historic integrity, significance, existing features, overall conditions, and current and future use in treatment recommendations o Identify management approaches and align with the city’s Asset Management Program o Draft graphic illustrations and sketches detailing recommended treatments and priorities o Determine how preservation approaches within the plan align with applicable county, city, and departmental planning documents and initiatives o Explore funding strategies and estimate potential proposed costs 6. Develop options for community involvement, programming, and education PHASE 4 (June 2021 –June 2022) Treatment Recommendations, Prioritization + Implementation o Compile, illustrate and integrate all resources into the Management Report and final HiPP plan o Prepare final Management Report o Include tailored results from the maintenance Condition Assessment Reports, Cultural Landscape Reports, ADA assessments, list of prioritized resources and individual features for management decision making) o Prepare final Historic Places Plan PHASE 5 (February –November 2022) Complete Historic Places Plan 24 EXAMPLE: BOYD SMELTER (Graphic Sketch, Phase 4 –Treatments, 3 approaches) 􀀁􀀁Minor Changes 􀀁􀀁Rehabilitate landscape to reveal historic setting 􀀁􀀁Etch outline of historic feature 􀀁􀀁Active excavation site 􀀁􀀁Markings removed as excavation progresses 􀀁􀀁Park environment where public spaces are integrated with archaeological features 􀀁􀀁Showcases Boulder’s mining history25 Windows of Engagement ENGAGEMENT WINDOW 1 (October 2020 –August 2021) Secure technical community experts as project stakeholders following gathering of background and assessment data in phase one through phase three. Solicit expert feedback and records from a Stakeholder Group of industry experts, to close these information management gaps. Integrate all relevant plans and analyses completed prior to the grant award, and all survey and planning work funded as part of this project, into one concise planning document, including those done to inform capital decisions, programs and operations. ENGAGEMENT WINDOW 2 (August 2021 -June 2022) Utilize feedback from the community, aligning outcomes of the public engagement process for both the HIPP and the Master Plan update to help separate, define, and integrate Historical & Cultural resources across a variety of departmental practices to balance levels of service, operations and maintenance, financial sustainability, service excellence, and program quality. ENGAGEMENT WINDOW 3 (June 2022–November 2022) Integrateall public input to form the draft plan and informed,data- driven decision making. COMPLETE PHASE 4 + Begin Phase 5 o Recommendations proposed for each resource align treatments that inform physical alterations,regular operations and maintenance,community building and funding explorations. o Treatment recommendations developed in phase four will not propose specific “options” or “designs” for physical alterations, rather the project documents alignment and acceptance of future planning, community building and operational work at each site. o The Bandshell physical treatment recommendations were completed first as a sample. Feedback has been received by the state and stakeholders. These will be shared with LB in June of 2022, allowing PRAB review, likely in late May 2022. NEXT STEPS: PROJECT PHASES 28 NEXT STEPS: LANDMARKS BOARD Feedback Requested: •Work completed by consultants to date (Phase 1 –3) is in one report •Contact Caitlin and Clare for a copy •Feedback due before April 6 What Future Documents will be Shared with LB for Feedback? When Will They be Shared? 1. Draft of All Treatment Recommendations LB June-July 2022, following May 2022 PRAB review 2. Draft of Management Planning Recommendations LB June-July 2022, following May 2022 PRAB review 3. Draft of the HiPP LB Sept/Oct 2022,following Aug/Sept PRAB review 29 THANK YOU + QUESTIONS? 30 The Purpose Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation31 •Create a framework to make more consistent decisions on exterior color choices in the historic districts •Provide a tool to give us a common terminology to justify and explain decisions (rather than a palette for making decisions) •Provide a tool to assist property owners in making color choices that are consistent with the historic context Why? Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation32 •Color is subjective •Tastes and trends change •The technology of color / paint changes •Color proposals that aren’t consistent with the historic district context or historic color schemes 33 General Design Guidelines (2007) ‘Historically,paintcolors were more muted tones than those used today because they depended upon a far more limited source of pigments. Most wood-clad buildings were painted entirely, generally with one base color and one or two additional accent colors on details and trim. For masonry structures, the natural color of the brick or stone was dominant: paint was applied to wood trim elements around doors and windows and in gable ends.' ‘When repainting,select colors appropriate to the historic building and district.’ ‘Historic paintcolors in Boulder are conservative, emphasizing muted shades or tones rather than pure hues.New paint colors should not be brightor garish.” Chamberlain Historic District Design Guidelines (1996) ‘Some inappropriate applications of color may hinder one’s ability to perceive the character of the architecture.For example, if a building with jig-saw brackets and moldings is painted one color with no contrast between the background and the details, and little opportunityfor expression of shadows, the perception of the character of the building may be diminished. ‘ ‘Conversely,details should not be highlighted with excessively contrasting colors.Thus, use and choice of color collectively determine the impact of a color scheme on the historic resource.’ Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines (2004) ‘Colorado’s architectural expressions were conservative, emphasizing muted shades or tones rather than pure hues.’ ‘Color choices should not be brightor garish.’ Selectedpassages of paint color guidelines History of the Project Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation34 •Subcommittee met •Proposed creating a palette •Survey of colors •Proposed tool –based on the color language Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation35 Paint color selection in our historic districts is specified through language contained in our General Design guidelines. Many individual districts also have language in their district guidelines that address color and paint as well. Paint colors were obviously important to the original creators of these districts so it is the historic preservation program’s job,as it is with all Preservation BRC ordinances and guidelines,to ensure that the intentions of these guidelines and ordinances are followed. There have been concerns raised recently over the application of paint that might not be appropriate to the district in which the building resides. The Landmarks board decided to examine this situation through the formulation of a subcommittee. How to present this? Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation36 •By Historic District? •By type of house?