Matters Planning Board Liaison 10.09.24LANDMARKS BOARD INFORMATIONAL ITEM
October 9, 2024
STAFF
Brad Mueller, Director of Planning and Development Services
Kristofer Johnson, Comprehensive Planning Senior Manager, P&DS
Chris Reynolds, Deputy City Attorney, City Attorney’s Office
Marcy Gerwing, Principal Historic Preservation Planner, P&DS
Karl Guiler, Senior Policy Advisor, P&DS
Geoff Solomonson, City Planner, P&DS
SUBJECT
Informational item regarding a proposed code amendment (Ord. 8658) to remove the Planning Board ex-officio
position from the Landmarks Board.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item is to inform the Landmarks Board of a proposed code amendment to remove the Planning Board ex-
officio position from the Landmarks Board.
The rationale for this change is based on the evolution of the historic preservation program in Boulder since its
inception in 1975. Initially, the ex-officio position was intended to help the Landmarks Board navigate quasi-
judicial processes as a new board. However, over the past 50 years, the Landmarks Board has developed
significant expertise and institutional support from dedicated staff, making the ex-officio role less necessary.
Additionally, the integration of processes between the Landmarks Board and Planning Board has improved, with
the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan establishing clear protocols for the review of projects involving historic
resources. These processes have ensured that both boards collaborate effectively without the need for a direct
Planning Board representative on the Landmarks Board.
The Landmarks Board now typically handles cases involving individual buildings, while larger projects are managed
through a well-coordinated system that includes both boards. Thus, the rationale emphasizes that the Landmarks
Board can operate independently and effectively without the Planning Board's ex-officio member, reflecting its
maturity and the established collaborative processes in place.
This is an informational item only, and an opportunity for the Landmarks Board to provide feedback on the
proposed change. A summary of the Landmarks Board’s and Planning Board’s feedback will be included in the City
Council memos.
Matters - Planning Board Liaison
BACKGROUND
On Sept. 17, 1974, the City Council unanimously adopted the Historic Preservation Code. The ordinance
established the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, charged with the responsibility of carrying out the
provisions and goals of the code. At the first reading of the ordinance on Sept. 3, 1974, Council members
expressed a desire for historic preservation to be integrated with the work of the Planning Board (emphasis
added):
Council Member Trenka stated that he felt the criteria set forth in the Ordinance determining whether a
property qualifies under this Ordinance leaves a great deal to interpretation, and it can mean a lot to the
owner. He expressed concern with the creation of another Board and stated that he would like to see
this tied in with the Planning Board.
Council Member Roberts also expressed a desire that this Ordinance be linked up with the Planning
Board functions; however, she noted that with the number of responsibilities now faced by the Planning
Board it probably is better that this new Board be created than to assign this to the Planning Board.
Mr. Twitchell states that, after looking at the work load of the Planning Board for the next year, he felt
that it would be too much to expect the Planning Board to take on this added work load. He also noted
that it would be within the realm of possibilities that after the Board under this Ordinance has done their
work, it could be phased out. However, he noted that this should be made very clear to this in their letter
of appointment so that when their work is complete, there would be no hard feelings or
misunderstandings with any of the new Board members.
The ordinance passed, with the requirement that “the Planning Board shall appoint two of its members to serve
ex officio, without vote.”
Based on institutional knowledge in the City Attorney’s Office, it is believed that the ex-officio position was added
to help the new board navigate the quasi-judicial process.
On Feb. 18, 1975, the City Council appointed the first members of the newly formed Landmarks Preservation
Advisory Board. The board first met on Feb. 18, 1975 and at their April 16, 1975 meeting, requested that Planning
Board “appoint its two members ex-officio as required by the Ordinance.” On April 24, the Planning Board
selected Claire Lundgren and R. Gage Davis to serve the ex-officio role. One or both members attended the bi-
monthly meetings, and in July 1975, Claire Lundgren “resigned from the Landmarks Board due to an overload of
commitments.” Tom Meier was selected to fill the vacancy. At some point prior to 1995, the code was amended
to reduce the number of ex-officio members from two to one.
For the last 50 years, the Planning Board has appointed an ex-officio member to serve on the Landmarks Board.
The Planning Board also appoints members to the Housing Advisory Board and the Water Resource Advisory
Board.
In 2007, City Council passed Ordinance (Ord. 7522) to amend the name of the board from the Landmarks
Preservation Advisory Board to the Landmarks Board as part of “additional corrections to unintentional errors and
omissions found in Title 1 through 14 since the reprinting of the Boulder Revised Code” earlier that year.
Matters - Planning Board Liaison
Today, Boulder’s historic preservation program is one the oldest in Colorado and is often used as a model for
other communities. With dedicated staff in the Planning & Development Services and the City Attorney’s Office
and regular training for board members, the Landmarks Board is well established and well-versed in quasi-judicial
procedures.
Since the establishment of the historic preservation program in 1975, additional processes have been added to
aid in the coordination between the Landmarks Board and Planning Board. Most notably, Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policy 2.27, Preservation of Historic & Cultural Resources, which reads:
The city and county will identify, evaluate and protect buildings, structures, objects, districts, sites and
natural features of historic, architectural, archaeological or cultural significance with input from the
community. The city and county will seek protection of significant historic and cultural resources through
local designation when a proposal by the private sector is subject to discretionary development review.
In practice, this means that Site Review projects with historic resources are reviewed by both the historic
preservation program for design review and a recommendation on landmark designation, and by the Planning
Board through the Concept Plan and Site Review public hearings. Examples of the successful integration of historic
preservation and development review projects include:
1. First Christian Church, 950 28th St.: Preservation of a Mid-Century Modern Church and adaptive reuse as
part of the redevelopment of the site into student housing.
2. Armory Mess Hall, 4750 Broadway: Adaptive reuse and landmark designation of building as part of a
mixed-use redevelopment of the site.
3. Silver Saddle, 90 Arapahoe Ave.: Preservation of a motor court hotel and adaptive reuse into inclusionary
housing units.
4. Nuzum’s Nursery, 96 Arapahoe Ave.: Preservation of a mid-century modern house and c.1920 barn in the
adaptive reuse for the September School.
5. Attention Homes, between Pine and Spruce Streets at 14th Street: Landmark designation of seven
buildings as part of the development of a supportive housing complex and services for youth.
6. Geological Society of America, 3300 Penrose Ave.: Preservation of a 1971 building to be adaptively reused
for inclusionary housing units.
These projects typically involve larger scale projects, whereas the majority of Landmarks Board cases consider the
demolition, design review or designation of individual buildings, most often residential.
ANALYSIS
Current Regulation
Section 2-3-7(a) Landmarks Board, B.R.C., 1981 reads:
(a) The City of Boulder landmarks board consists of five members appointed by the city council for five-year
terms, two of whom are architectural or urban planning professionals and three of whom may be chosen
without limitation. The planning board shall appoint one of its members to attend the landmarks board
meeting without a vote and advise the landmarks board.
Matters - Planning Board Liaison
Proposed Change
City Council could amend the Boulder Revised Code to remove the Planning Board ex-officio position from the
Landmarks Board.
Analysis
Since 1975, the Planning Board has appointed a member to serve as an ex-officio member to the Landmarks
Board. The Planning Board also appoints members to the Housing Advisory Board and the Water Resources
Advisory Board. In 2024, it is estimated that the Planning Board liaison volunteers an additional 58 hours a year to
prepare for (12 hours) and attend Landmarks Board meetings (36 hours), site visits (2 hours) and Landmarks
Board retreats (8 hours). Removing the ex-officio position from the Landmarks Board would represent a
significant reduction in the volunteer time commitment for the Planning Board. Further, the necessity of an ex-
officio member is no longer as necessary since the Landmarks Board is no longer a nascent board, but one with
decades of experience.
Considerations
If the Planning Board ex-officio position were removed from the Landmarks Board, there would not be a direct
Planning Board representative on the Landmarks Board. However, integration will continue to occur through the
Site Review process and additional collaboration could occur through other venues, including joint meetings or
tours as deemed necessary.
PROCESS AND TIMELINE
City Council may amend the Boulder Revised Code by ordinance.
1.Oct. 8, 2024 – Planning Board Information Item
2.Oct. 9, 2024 – Landmarks Board Informational Item
3.Nov. 21, 2024 – City Council 1st Reading (tentative date)
4.Dec. 19, 2024 – City Council 2nd Reading (tentative date)
Matters - Planning Board Liaison