Loading...
Item 6A - 11.1.2017 Update MemoDATE: November 1, 2017 TO: Landmarks Board FROM: James Hewat, Marcy Cameron SUBJECT: Update Memo Letter to the City Council Each year boards and commissions have the opportunity to write a letter to the City Council to communicate priorities and/or issues to the governing body prior to its retreat in January. This year’s letters are due December 15th, 2017. The Landmark Board’s 2016 letter to the City Council is attached. Boyd Smelter Archeological Report An unanticipated discovery was made during construction of the creek path. See attached archaeological report and recommendations. Colorado Preservation Incorporated Saving Places Conference The 2018 Saving Places Conference will take place Jan. 31 to Feb. 3, 2018 in Denver. Information is available on the Colorado, Preservation, Inc. website. Contact staff if you are interested in attending. ON-GOING PROJECTS Chautauqua Lighting Design Guidelines – Open House and Joint Study Session The City of Boulder and Colorado Chautauqua Association’s collaborative development of a lighting plan and lighting design guidelines for Chautauqua is in process. On October 4, 2017 a fourth Joint Study Session with the Landmarks Board/Colorado Chautauqua Association was held at Chautauqua to gather feedback on the Revised Lighting Design Guidelines. The next Joint Study Session with time for public comment is scheduled for November 1, 2017 from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers. Update at meeting. Atrium Building/Public Market Discussion is ongoing in considering whether the Atrium Building might be used as a Market Hall on a temporary or permanent basis. Historic Boulder has agreed to continue keeping the March 2015 application to landmark the Atrium on hold as exploration of these options continues. Update at meeting. Civic Area The Civic Area webpage has been updated to provide current information on the historic resources in the Civic Area. Update at Meeting. Recently Approved Landmark Alteration Certificates • Request from Deborah to review 1740 Mapleton Ave. Dear Mayor Jones and Members of the Boulder City Council 12/20/2016 The Landmarks Board appreciates this opportunity to communicate with Council. Below are the more important issues the Board would like to call to Council's attention, and attached are individual Board members' responses to Council's broader questions. Civic Area Historic Resources As the Civic Area construction begins the Board would like to highlight the historic resources in this area. The Municipal Building, Band Shell and BMOCA are landmarked. Other City and County buildings are potentially significant such as the north wing of the Main Library, the Atrium Building, and the Dushanbe Teahouse. The City's Planning Department and the Library Commission with the Library Director have asked Historic Boulder to postpone their landmark designation applications for the Library and the Atrium, leading to the next topic. Historic Preservation Program Perceptions Council is aware that many in the public have negative perceptions of the Preservation Program. We hear time and again the rumor that once landmarked a property cannot be changed. In truth the ordinance permits a fair degree of change. The Preservation Program needs to engage the public to obviate these misconceptions. However, when the City itself, by delaying landmark designation of its Civic Area properties, appears not to be in full support its own Preservation Program, it is an even greater problem. The Board recognizes not every Councilor is enthusiastic about historic preservation, however, all Councilors are interested in the City's economic health, and heritage tourism contributes greatly to Boulder's economy, bringing tourists to hotels, to dine, and to shop. The History Colorado website states - "Heritage tourists are defined as travelers that incorporate at least one visit to a historic site or landmark, or visitors whose primary reason for traveling is to visit historic places. Those tourists made 4.6 million trips to Colorado in 1999. In that year alone, those trips generated a total of $3.1 billion for the state economy. It should be noted that heritage tourists typically spend more and stay longer than other types of tourists." We extend an invitation to Council to attend a Meet and Greet event planned for Spring 2017 at a historic districts, intended to help homeowners become more familiar and comfortable with preservation. Perhaps when Councilors are also more familiar then Council and the City will be more comfortable with having Historic Boulder proceed with its landmark applications for the Atrium Building and the north wing of the Main Library. And the Preservation Program can gain positive publicity. Assistance for Owners of Landmarked Properties The Board saw a case in 2016 where the owners planned to landmarked their house, then found they did not have financial resources to remediate structural problems, therefore they withdrew the landmark application and the property is for sale. In another situation a front porch was collapsing on a neglected old house owned by an elderly person who may have been unable to afford repairs. The Board suggests that the City create a historic preservation fund to provide grants for restoration, similar to Louisville's successful grant program. A preservation fund could help income qualified homeowners maintain and stay in their houses, simultaneously encourage them to landmark their properties. Such a program fits with Council's interest in affordable housing. Protection of Small Resources: Housing Tool Another consideration in the housing affordability arena is the Board's Housing Tool proposed for the 2015 Housing Strategy. The tool creates housing diversity while encouraging historic preservation, with particular interest paid to small houses. The proposal is attached to remind Council of the content as you work toward creating housing policies. Chautauqua joint stewardship In the spirit of joint stewardship the Colorado Chautauqua Association (CCA) approached the Board in 2016 to begin a joint update of our respective guidance documents. Council will receive a packet on this topic and the Board looks forward to working with the CCA to coordinate and improve our documents so they provide better guidance for this sensitive historic district. Board Time Commitment The current Board is comprised of a diverse membership; a working student, early to mid career full time employed members, and members nearing retirement. With reluctance we significantly scaled back subcommittee and outreach activities compared to previous Boards because many of us struggle to meet the basic requirements of Board membership. We recognize omitting these activities is detrimental to the program, however, have had no choice. When interviewing future Board members we urge Council to inquire about applicants' ability to allocate the time necessary. Current Board members average between 18 and 22 hours per month conducting basic Board business. Engaging in subcommittee and outreach activities requires additional time. We encourage Council to seek a diverse membership, however, it should be noted it may become necessary to make changes to the program to reduce board time in order to attract applicants. We welcome Council's questions and feedback on these and other topics, and we look forward to supporting Council's work plan for 2017. Cordially, The Landmarks Board Dear Mayor Jones and Members of the Boulder City Council, 12/20/16 I'm writing to Council as an individual Landmarks Board member, to address Council's questions. 1) Improving Public Engagement The forums organized by Boulder Neighborhood Alliance (BNA) on cooperative housing allowed the public and Councilors to converse, in sharp contrast to speaking at Council's regular meetings where it feels a bit like talking into a vacuum. I found the Q&A format effective and I urge Council to adopt this meeting style for sensitive topics. It's important for the City's project webpages (and monthly newsletter) to be loaded with meaty content, not just broad brush stroke and happy images. I was surprised to find we were a couple weeks from start of construction on the Civic Area and there were no design specifics on the website. The City expressed reluctance to be too revealing fearing controversy. There will always be those who are discontent no matter what, however, most people appreciate full and complete disclose. 2) Top Priorities The City is badly in need to Area Plans. To cite an example, the length of Broadway is ideal for increased intensity however in 2016 single family houses continued to be constructed along it. Another example, developers build what banks will finance (currently hotels and rental apartments) to flesh out their portfolios, without regard for city needs. Council should consider a moratorium on variances and site reviews, and possibly halt redevelopment in areas obviously suited for intensity increases, until Area Plans are in place. Site review then should be granted only when there is clearly defined public benefit. Until I moved to Boulder I had not experienced any city that receives so many variance, exception and site review applications. In the Washington, D.C. metro area (including surrounding Maryland and Virginia), where I moved from, it was a rarity to have a developer pursue exceptions of any type; they were reserved for serious hardship. Projects were built by right and developers made profits nonetheless. If Boulder had Area Plans then it can do away with most variances and site reviews. The resources saved could then be directed towards public benefits. Long time Boulder residents are horrified by the recent speed of change, and Council has experienced evidence of that horror through citizen resistance. The community will be relieved if redevelopment were slowed and development becomes predictable through Area Plans. 3) Biggest challenges over next five years Loss of Boulder's Character I'm afraid Boulder is on a path to becoming Every City. It appears both governance and residents have forgotten, or never knew of, the foundation laid by a generation of exceptionally foresightful people who are elderly and some passed away. Their vision created Open Space to restrict sprawl, the Blue Line to preserve views of the hills, the 45' height limit to retain an attractive livable townscape, bike paths and greenways, parks, etc. It's essential to remember those achievements if Boulder is going to retain its uniqueness. Remembering In light of what we learned about Albert Bartlett's contribution to Boulder when his house was landmarked it occurred to me that a way to remember and learn about those who shaped the city is to name municipal buildings after them. For example the Municipal Building could become The Albert Bartlett Municipal Building. Five Story Buildings Now that we can see what 4 and 5 story buildings look like in the Boulder context I urge Council to evaluate and reconsider building heights. If much development is permitted at these heights Boulder will lose significant character defining features; views to the hills and small town personality. Boulder should look to other cities, such as Santa Barbara, CA and Portland, ME, for successful examples of low cities. Code Enforcement The current complaint based system pits neighbors against each other. A proactive enforcement approach is more effective and better for neighbor relations. When I moved here the Environmental Police cruised streets; perhaps it's time to bring them back. Cordially, Deborah Yin, Landmarks Board Chairperson 12/15/14 Proposed New Tool for Boulder’s Comprehensive Housing Strategy Toolkit of Housing Options (authored by the Landmarks Board) Historic Preservation of Smaller Houses and Accessory Buildings  Description: Preserving smaller, historic houses and accessory buildings is important on many levels in addition to historic preservation: these buildings are typically more affordable, their embodied energy makes them greener, and their small size could make aging in place more feasible and allow neighborhood density to increase in an organic, contextual way. This tool suggests creating additional incentives for owners of historic properties to preserve, rather than demolish, their smaller buildings through the city’s landmarking process. Incentives and relief from regulations would be offered only in exchange for landmarking historic houses and accessory buildings. Key issues:  Historic small homes and accessory buildings are being demolished and replaced with larger structures at a rapid rate, especially in Boulder’s central core.  Preservation of smaller, historic homes, advances city goals for retaining the historic character of our central core with structures that tell the story of Boulder’s less affluent citizens.  Removing current barriers to subdivision and designation of ADUs and OAUs in exchange for landmarking (concentration, parking, size, occupancy, permitting, etc.) merits reconsideration.  Smaller homes, ADUs and OAUs provide additional affordability options in existing neighborhoods with amenities and access to services.  Seniors may be able to stay in their neighborhoods and downsize by moving into an ADU or OAU while renting the primary residence to a larger family.  Historic smaller homes, ADUs and OAUs use land efficiently and advance many city sustainability goals.  Subdivision of large lots that contain small historic houses will allow a small, scattered increase in housing diversity in neighborhoods without blanket rezoning or other dramatic changes. Background:  ADUs are a “separate and complete housekeeping unit within a single family detached dwelling unit.” They are currently only allowed in zones RL-1, RL-2, RE, RR-1, RR-2, A or P1 and there cannot be more ADUs than 10% of the single-family homes in a given neighborhood area2.  OAUs are “separate and complete housekeeping unit within a single family detached dwelling unit,” but may be located within a detached accessory structure. They are currently only allowed in zones RR, RE, and RMX3 and are limited to 450 sq. ft. in size.  Subdividing lots to allow an owner to preserve a small home while constructing a second house on the site is not allowed for lots smaller than 6,000, 7,000, 15,000, or 30,000 sq. ft., for RMX-1, RL-1, RE, RR- 1/RR-2, respectively4. 1 Ordinance clause 9-6-3(a)(1)(A) 2 Ordinance clause 9-6-3(a)(2)(A) 3 Ordinance clause 9-6-3(a)(4) 4 Ordinance clause 9-8-1 Table 8-1 Intensity Standards. 12/15/14 Options for Implementation: Incentives for landmarking historic smaller houses and accessory buildings could include  Allowing ADUs and OAUs in lower-density zones, where they are currently not allowed.  Remove restrictions for landmarked ADUs that they cannot exceed 10% of the single-family lots or parcels in a neighborhood area5 (allow landmarked properties outside the “10% saturation rule”).  Allowing detached OAUs that exceed 450 sq. ft.6 If the proposed OAU is an existing house or accessory building, it will be allowed to exceed 450 sq. ft. if the site is landmarked. If the proposed OAU is new construction and the site is landmarked, it may exceed 450 sq. ft. and must conform to Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.  Allow exception of the minimum lot size limitation of 6,000, 7,000, 15,000, or 30,000 sq. ft., for RMX-1, RL-1, RE, RR-1/RR-2, respectively, for subdivisions.  Relaxing parking requirements for use of two dwelling units on a parcel of land (for OAUs and ADUs, one off-street parking space must be provided on the lot for each dwelling unit)7.  Allowing subdivision of property into multiple small, non-conforming lots or create a Planned Unit Development (PUD) with multiple units on one lot to preserve an existing historic house or accessory building. All units would be subject to Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Current land-use regulations allow site review for 5 or more houses, with no provision for 2 to 4 units in most residential zones 8. In addition to preserving the historic resource, the addition of new, small houses will provide more affordable housing options.  Allow relief from Maximum Building Coverage for accessory buildings in rear yard setbacks9 in order to permit a larger additional structure to be built in exchange for landmarking all of the structures on the site. This would ease restrictions when homeowners save historic accessory buildings in the process of building a new garage. CHS Goals Addressed through this Tool:  Strengthen Our Commitments  Maintain the Middle  Create Diverse Housing Choices in Every Neighborhood  Create 15-Minute Neighborhoods  Enable Aging in Place 5 Ordinance clause 9-6-3(a)(2)(A) 6 Ordinance clause 9-6-3(a)(4)(B)(v)(g) 7 Ordinance clause 9-9-6(b)(2) Table 9-2 Supplemental Parking Requirements for Specific Uses in All Zones 8 Ordinance clause 9-2-14(b) Table 2-2 Site Review Threshold Table 9 Ordinance clause 9-7-8(a). The limitation is only in the rear yard setback, either 20’ or 25’ depending on zone. There already is an exception for landmarked properties and historic districts but a larger exception may serve as an incentive for landmarking. ERO Project #6809 1 ERO Resources Corporation Consultants in Natural Resources and the Environment Technical Memorandum Boulder Creek Path Improvements at Boyd Smelter Unanticipated Discovery Boulder County, Colorado Prepared for: City of Boulder Public Works Department September 15, 2018 Project Background On behalf of the City of Boulder (City), ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) completed a pedestrian survey for the improvements to the Boulder Creek path at the Boyd Smelter Historic Landmark. ERO conducted the Level I pedestrian survey at the request of City Historic Preservation staff because the project is taking place within the boundaries of a Historic Landmark (designated 1998). Subsequent to the beginning of construction, excavation activities within the east extent of the LOD exposed the northeast corner of the smelter foundation. The Level I pedestrian survey was completed on March 6, 2017 and was documented in a technical memorandum to the City dated March 10, 2017. The survey identified water control features and portions of the smelter foundation ruins visible on the ground surface outside the project limits of disturbance (LOD) (Figures 1 and 2). Reviews of previously completed documentation on file at the City and the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation indicated potions of the smelter foundation may be extant under the existing sidewalk in the east side of the LOD. The history of demolition in the area and intermixed nature of the sparse artifacts indicated the LOD was heavily disturbed. Unanticipated Discovery Mechanical excavation for utility lines began the week of September 11, 2017. Excavation on the east side of the LOD exposed the northeast corner of the smelter foundation (Figures 2-4). The top of the foundation is 4 inches to 6 inches below ground surface. The foundation walls are poured concrete and 10 inches thick. Minor hand excavation exposed a total of approximately 8 linear feet of the top of the foundation and demonstrates an intact concrete floor is present approximately 3 feet below the ground surface. Inside and outside the foundation the ground is filled with local sandy sediments, boulders and cobbles, and various artifacts including building materials (red and yellow brick of various sizes), industrial trash (large pieces of clinker and slag, porcelain insulators of various sizes) and domestic trash (milk, cobalt, and aqua colored glass fragments, a broken Onondaga Pottery Company/ Syracuse China File and Literature Review Mulberry Riverside Outfall ERO Project #6809 2 ERO Resources Corporation tea cup, broken aqua glass Coca Cola bottle, broken amber glass beer bottle fragments, and pull tab Coors and Coca Cola cans). Artifacts were sparsely intermixed with the earthen fill and were predominantly domestic trash manufactured after 1930; however, the incidence of historic industrial materials increases with depth on the interior of the foundation. Recommendations ERO recommends the foundation, intact foundation floor, and artifacts within the foundation have potential to yield additional information important to the history of Boulder, and that this archaeological component of the site contributes to the significance of the Boyd Smelter Historic Landmark. Therefore, ERO recommends that all future ground disturbance associated with the project avoids the component, and that the City re-buries the artifacts in the foundation and re-buries the entire extent of the exposed foundation for preservation. If you have any questions, please call me at (303) 830-1188 or email to asanocki@eroresources.com. ERO appreciates the opportunity to assist you. Certification of Results _______________________ Abigail Sanocki ERO Resources Corporation Historical Archaeologist Attachments Figure 1. Project area (USGS 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle). Figure 2. Project area (aerial background) Figure 3. Site description (aerial background) Figure 4. Overview photograph of exposed foundation. Boyd Smelter Landmark Boundary Prepared for: City of BoulderFile: 6809 Figure 1.mxd (GS)March 10, 2017 ± Figure 1Project LocationBoulder Creek Path Improvements at Boyd Smelter Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright © 2016 ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved. 0 2,0001,000 Feet COLORADO Location Sections 25 and 36, T1N, R71W; 6th PMUSGS Boulder, CO Quadrangle (1:24,000, 1978)Boulder County, Colorado 1:24,000Path: P:\6800 Projects\6809 Boulder Ck Path Imps at Boyd Smelter\Maps\6809 Figure 1.mxd Boulder Cre e k C a n y o n B o u le v a r d Arapahoe Avenue P e a r lS tr e e t3r dSt r eet 4t hSt r eet F1 F2 F3 F4 Prepared for: City of BoulderFile: 6809 Figure 2.mxd (GS)September 12, 2017 ± Figure 2Site DescriptionBoulder Creek Path Improvements at Boyd Smelter 0 15075FeetPath: P:\6800 Projects\6809 Boulder Ck Path Imps at Boyd Smelter\Maps\6809 Figure 2.mxdImage Source: Google Earth©, October 2015 1:1,660 Sections 25 and 36, T1N, R71W; 6th PMUSGS Boulder, CO Quadrangle (1:24,000, 1978)Boulder County, Colorado Exposed Corner of Smelter Foundation Feature Feature Trail Rehabilitation Limit of Disturbance Concrete Path Limit of Disturbance Boyd Smelter Landmark Boundary C a n y o n B o u le v a r d F3 F4 Exposed Corner ofSmelter Foundation Prepared for: City of BoulderFile: 6809 Figure 3.mxd (GS)September 18, 2017 ± Figure 3Site DescriptionBoulder Creek Path Improvements at Boyd Smelter 0 7035FeetPath: P:\6800 Projects\6809 Boulder Ck Path Imps at Boyd Smelter\Maps\6809 Figure 3.mxdImage Source: Google Earth©, October 2015 1:840 Sections 25 and 36, T1N, R71W; 6th PMUSGS Boulder, CO Quadrangle (1:24,000, 1978)Boulder County, Colorado Exposed Corner of Smelter Foundation Feature Feature Trail Rehabilitation Limit of Disturbance Concrete Path Limit of Disturbance Boyd Smelter Landmark Boundary File and Literature Review Mulberry Riverside Outfall ERO Project #6809 3 ERO Resources Corporation Figure 4. Overview photograph of exposed foundation; view to the northwest (ERO photograph DSC_0087).