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Historic Preservation Applications Approved, Denied or Withdrawn in February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?