Historic Preservation Board Meeting – August 4, 2025

On August 4, 2025, the Colorado Springs Historic Preservation Board met to discuss and consider adoption of the Historic Resources Survey and Context Plan. The plan, developed by Ron Sladek of Tatanka Historical Associates Inc., was funded largely by a State Historical Fund grant with a $9,000 city cash match. It aims to guide the community in assessing historic resources, evaluating past surveys, and identifying future projects. The board heard public comment and engaged in extended deliberation over priorities, cost estimates, and next steps, ultimately voting to table the item for final revision and reconsideration at the September 8, 2025 meeting.

Consent Calendar

• None.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Diane Bridges, representing the Historic Neighborhood Partnership (HNP) and the Historic Preservation Alliance (HPA), thanked the board, city staff, and the consultant for their work. She stated that the plan is "well done" and appreciated the comparison of past and current resources, the insights at state, federal, and local levels, and the ideas for next steps. She indicated HNP and HPA have resources and will partner with the team leading the effort. She also mentioned she had communicated five macro-level suggestions to city staff.

Discussion Items

• Staff Presentation: William Gray, Senior Planner, presented the plan. He noted that the work was a board priority, meets a board function to survey historic properties, helps maintain Certified Local Government (CLG) status, and complies with PlanCOS and HistoricCOS. He highlighted that multiple presentations and reviews had occurred, including with HPA and HNP. He requested the board consider setting a hard cutoff date for edits or bringing the plan back in final form.
• Consultant Presentation: Ron Sladek said he had received additional comments and would address them. He stated the goal is to get board approval, then submit to the State Historical Fund for final approval.
• Board Discussion: Chair Lowenberg reviewed the scope of work bullet points and affirmed that most criteria were met, including conducting a thorough search, reviewing existing surveys, holding public meetings, and completing reconnaissance surveys. She noted that prioritized recommendations could be strengthened and suggested the board write a cover letter or memo on next steps.
  • Priorities vs. Realism: Board Member Beerbaum expressed concern about what is realistic given staff time and financial resources, urging the board to identify easy wins like updating the city website and cataloging city-owned properties. She noted the plan references Denver’s program and recommended that Denver-specific items be removed or replaced with local information. Chair Lowenberg agreed on the need for an accessible process.
  • Cost Estimates: A key debate centered on a State Historical Fund condition to provide estimated costs for prioritized survey areas. Ron Sladek objected, arguing that costs change over time and vary among consultants, and that providing unreliable numbers would be counterproductive. Chair Lowenberg and Planning Director Kevin Walker argued that even a rough baseline (e.g., a Class 5 estimate) is useful for budgeting and grant applications. Ryan Tefertiller suggested using dollar signs to indicate relative cost (e.g., $, $$, $$$). Board Member Fitzsimmons supported this approach. Chair Lowenberg suggested dated estimates with caveats.
  • State Review Conditions: Board Member Musick raised concerns about a list of conditions from the State Historical Fund (Jenny Dykman), including adding a list of already-designated properties, introductory information about historic registers, and cost estimates. Sladek said he had already added introductory information and plans to add a neighborhoods map, but he objected to the cost estimate request. He said he would discuss it with the state.
  • Website and Accessibility: Board members emphasized the need for a centralized, accessible online repository for historic property information, photographs, and maps. Chair Lowenberg and others suggested using the city website as an easy first step.
  • Additional Edits: Chair Lowenberg and Board Member Musick requested editorial changes to improve readability, including adding bullet points and bolding key phrases for public scanning. Chair Lowenberg also asked that the responsibilities of the Historic Preservation Board (advocacy and education) be better addressed in the report (page 11), and that references to the Pikes Peak Library District and the Pioneers Museum be included earlier in the document. She requested a stronger call to action.

Key Outcomes

• Motion to Table: Board Member Beerbaum moved to postpone the item to a date and time certain (September 8, 2025) to allow Ron Sladek and staff to incorporate all discussion edits, including those from board members, HPA, HNP, and the state. Board Member Musick seconded. The motion passed unanimously (7-0): Aye: Chair Lowenberg, Board Member Musick, Board Member Baumgartner, Board Member Fitzsimmons, Board Member Potter, Board Member Beerbaum, and Board Member Hines.
• Next Steps: Plan to be revised by Ron Sladek and staff, with written comments due to Sladek and Gray that week. The final draft will be presented for formal adoption at the September 8, 2025 meeting. The plan will also be presented to City Planning Commission and City Council for informational purposes.
• Future Agenda: Communication was received that Kim King from Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services will give a presentation on the City Auditorium at the September meeting. Chair Lowenberg requested a standing agenda item for board member communications or announcements.