Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permit Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic Preservation Advisory Board approves one-year trial to streamline historic-permit reviews
Summary
The board unanimously approved a one-year trial of revised Article 15 operational policies to reduce historic-review workload: routine solar permits (ground-mounted or on secondary/tertiary elevations) and common building-type work would bypass full historic review, with staff training and director-level policy adoption. The change will be evaluated after one year.
The Boulder County Historic Preservation Advisory Board voted unanimously Dec. 4 to adopt a one‑year trial of operational changes intended to reduce the historic‑team’s permit workload.
Board member Kathy Kaler moved the motion and Elizabeth Gehring seconded; the motion passed with all members voting aye. The trial instructs county staff to implement policy-level changes allowing certain routine permits to bypass the historic review process for one year, subject to later revision.
County preservation staff, represented by Denise, explained the approach is driven by staffing reductions and the need to keep workload manageable now that one full‑time historic preservation position will remain. “We process 500 building permits a year and another 75 land use applications a year, through the historic team,” Denise told the board, framing the volume of routine work the changes aim to reduce.
Key elements of the trial policy include: excluding historic review for solar permits that are ground‑mounted or located on secondary or tertiary elevations (reviews will continue for panels on primary, street‑facing elevations); creating an “easy BP” pathway where building clerks or zoning reviewers can accept routine permits for common building types (for example basic ranch houses, split‑levels and raised ranches from the 1950s–1970s) without routing them to preservation staff; and preserving staff discretion to route any permit that raises concern.
Board members asked for clarifications about definitions (primary/secondary/tertiary elevation and what constitutes a common building type) and the reversibility of certain changes. An unidentified board member noted that style changes are often reversible and can be restored if a property later becomes landmark eligible; Denise reiterated staff will retain discretion to escalate cases and that the trial is intended to be reversible if it proves problematic.
The motion directs the director to adopt the policies administratively and instructs the historic team to try the approach for one year, after which the board may review and recommend adjustments. Members emphasized training for staff to identify primary facades and common building types and agreed to monitor impacts to preservation outcomes.
The board also welcomed news announced at the meeting that Jessica will be a full‑time historic preservation staff member next year, which Denise cited as a helpful staffing improvement during implementation of the trial.
