Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5C - Recommendation to the Boulder County Historic Preservation Advisory Board regarding modificatioMemo to fhe Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Re Flagstaff Amphitheater Restoration and Alteratlons CITY OF BOULDER LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD MEMORANAUM Meeting Date: February 4, 2004 TO: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board FROM: Ruth McHeyser, Directar of Long Range Plamm~g Bohdy Hedgwck, Historic Preservation Planner SUBJECI': Public hearing and consideration of a recommendatton to the city of Bouldar Open Space Board of Trustees and the Boulder County Histonc Preservation Advisory Board regarding restoration and alterations to the Flagstaff Amphrtheater site to allow for disabled access. Applicant: City of Boulder Open Space & Mountain Parks PURPOSE: City staff and the Landmarks Preservahon Advisory Board have been asked to comment on proposed alterations and restoration work at the Flagstaff Amphitheater, a Boulder County Landmark. Three alternatives have been proposed, including a"do-nothing" option, to build an accessible path from the parking area to the Sunrise Circle. A separate project to restore historic features is also presented for review and discussed at the end of this memo. These reviews are part oFthe Community and ~nvironmental Assessment Process (CEAP) required for sigmficant city of Boulder caprtal improvement pro~ects. Background informahon on the history and significance of the amphrtheatre, the review process and Landmarks' role ~n that process, and the Americans with Disabilihes Act (ADA) is provided. Staff recommendations are included regarding the restoration work and alternatrve path proposals. The Landmarks Board is not an approving body for the proposed alterations; however, the Board's comments and recommendations will be passed along to the approving bodies, mcludmg the Open Space Board of Trustees and the Boulder County Historic Preservation Advisory Board, along with other comments from the CEAP review, The memo includas the following sections: I Review Process p, 2 II. Review Criteria p. 3 III Flagstaff Amphitheater History & Significance p. 4 IV. ADA & Historic Preservation p. 9 V. Project Background p, 11 VI. Description of Alternatives p. 12 Memo to the Landmarks Preservahon Adwsory Board Re Flagstaff Amphitheater Restora4on and Alterahons VII Alternatives Analysis p. 13 VIII Restoration Proposal Rev~ew p. 17 IX Staff Recommendations p 17 X Questions for the Boatd p 19 I. REVIEW PROC~SS: The Flagstaff Amphitheater properly is owned by the city of Boulder and managed by the Open Space & Mountam Parks d~vision of the crty. The property is locatcd outside crty limits, withm Boulder County The amphitheater struclure and surroundmg site is a destgnated Boulder County landmark As a s~gmficant ctty capital improvement pro~ect, the proposed stte alterations are required to be reviewed through the city's Community & Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) The CEAP is a formal city rev~ew process to consider the impacts of pubhc development pro~ects. The CEAP was msUtuted by City Counc~l m 1987 and is referenced m the Boulder Revised Code (B R C Section 2-1, Appendix IX, Procedure m Handlmg Ma~or Capttal Improvement Pro~ects) The purpose of the CEAP is Yo assess potential ~mpacts of conceptual pro~ect alternaCives m order to mform the selection and refinement of a preferred 1lternativc. The CEAP provides the opportumty to balance multiple commm~ity goals m the design of a capital pro~ect by assessmg a pro~ect agamst the pohcies outhned m the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and departmental master plans The CEAP allows "fatal flaws" mherent in the concept design of a pro~ect to be discovered, thereby suggestmg elimmalion of certain alternatives Pro~ects that will requ~re the CEAP review are identified durmg the annual Capital Improvement Pro~ect (CIP) and budget process The CEAP Review Group, comprised of representatives of various city departments, reviews all pro~ects l~sted in the annual CIP and ident~fies the appropriatc review and approval process for each pro~ect. The list is then reviewed by the Plamm~g Board and adopted by the City Council w~th the budget The followmg criteria are used for determmmg which cap~tal pro~ects should be evaluated through the CEAP rev~ew• 1 A pro~ect or a potential alternative could have a significant impact on an env~ronmental, social, or cultural resource. 2 The pro~ect is anhcipated to generate enough neighborhood or community controversy to require a pubhc hearmg or board review 3 There ~s more than one possible conceptual alternative that will require staff or community mput m the selectton. 4 The pro~ect reqtures external review on the county (1041), state, ar federal level (NEPA) (An mternal crty CEAP should be performed pnor to submrthng to the exteinal agency ) Memo to the Landmarks Preservahon Adwsory Board Re Flagstaff Amphitheater Restorafion and Altera4ons Generally, the CEAP Review Group cons~ders pro~ect alternatives priar to rev~ew by the decision-makmg adv~sory boaid and pnar to complehon of final engineermg and destgn Th~s is to msure that staff, publ~c, and review board comments can be mcorporated mto the final plans As thc Landmarks Board is not the approvmg advisory board for this project, Aie Board's comments are bemg requested as part of the CEAP review Those comments w~ll be forwarded to the approvmg city and county boards along with other comments from the CEAP Review Group The Review Group will meet February 23rd to discuss the pro~ect and offer comments. Foliowmg complehon of the C~AP review, and assummg that review determines the pro~ect is ready to move forward to the approvmg adv~sory boards, the prefeired alternative and CEAP comments will be brought to the Open Space Board of Trustees aud Qie Boulder County H~stonc Preservation Adv~sory Board The decision of the Open Space Board will be ehgtble for call-up rev~ew by City Council. II. REVIEW CRITERIA: The following questions guide the staff review of the CEAP They should also be referred to by the Landmarks Board as it considers the comparahve impacts of the proposed work Does staff agree wath the ampact assessment ~ a Is the analysts complete ancl accurate~ b Are there assues that are not:dent~fied tn the assessmenl~ c Are there follow-up questaons or assues that need to be addresse~l~ 2 Does staff agree wzth the preferred alternatave as adentrfled by the pro~ect manager~ a Are the trade-offs of the preferred alternatave acceptable~ b Are there potential conflacts wtth other CIP pro~ects~ c Are there potential regulatory assues that need to be resolved praor to final destgn and constructton ~ Are there anttczpated communaty concerns or pubhc process consrderataons that should be addressed~ 4 Is the CEAP ready for board revaew ~ In addrtion to the above queshons, a crtizen advisory group, appomted by Open Space & Mountam Parks to assist with the development and review of alterations proposals, developed deta~led cntena for evaluating alternatives (see Attachment A Sunnse Circle Amph~theater on Flagstaff Evaluation Sheet). Those cr~teria spec~fically reference the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Htstortc Properttes / Cultural Landscapes Those standards and recommendarions are detailed m Attachment B and are used for analysis of the alternatives below Memo to the Landmarks Preserva4on Adwsory Board Re Plagstaff Amphtlhealer Restoration and Allerahons III. FLAGSTAFF AMPHITHEATER HISTORY & SIGNIFICANCE: ~ Flagstaff Mountam is parC of tlie crty of Bouider's Open Space and Mountain Parks land. The city purchased the eastern slope of Flagstaff Mountam from the Umted States government ui 1898 The city pehtioned tl~e government for addrtional land west m 1899 and again in 1907 The first structure on Flagstaff Mountam was the Flagstaff Road Ongmaily only 10 feet wide when constructed m 1906, the road w1s lengthened and widened over hme, uicludmg an extension m 1926 and additional improvements ui the 1930s by the Civihan ConservaUon Corps (C C.C.) The first park shelters were builY by the Lion's Club, starting w~th the "Panorama Park Shelter House" m 1919 A city work relief commrttee constructed the loop road and the parking area on the top of Flagstaff in the early 1930s Civilian Conservation Corps The Civilian Conservat~on Corps (C C C.), a federal work relief program, began rehabilitatmg the thiee park structures thlt had been built by the Lion's Club m 1933, and constructed the Amphitheatei m 1933-34 The C.C.C was the first of President RoosevelYs "New Deal" programs to be implemented after his election Wtlh thts action, he brought togetl~er two resources, the young men and the land, m an effort to save both The C C C was ongmally planned as a fight agamst soil erosion and declmmg rimber resources, by util~zmg thc unemployed of large urban areas, but shortly grew mto other publ~c improvement pro~ects Wnhng m a 1935 Canon City Record newspaper article, Guy U. Hardy descnbed the goal of the program: ""Che big ob~ect m the CCC camp movement was to give relief to needy families by employmg boys out of ~obs and to develop manhood among boys who would otherwise be on the streets - and on chauty m many cases "(see Attachment C Haidy Newspaper Article) Colorado had numerous C.C.C camps throughout rts undeveloped and forested land. Various federal agencies oversaw the d~fferent pro~ects, whicl~ eventually grew to mclude a wide range ofpublic ~mpiovements The U S Forest Service employed C C C men to protect timbered areas from fire, msects, and d~sease The Soil Conservat~on Service established areas of soil eiosion control by employmg prachces such as stnp croppmg, arhficial reseeding, contour cultrvation, terracing, furrowmg, corrugation, pasture management, the stabil~zation of irrigatton systems and the construction of gulley plugs, drversion dams, and diversion ditches The U S. Dtv~sion of Grazmg mstituted pro~ects ~ Porhons of this sechon of the memo weie completed w~tU the assistance of Deon Wolfenbaiger 4 Memo lo the Landmarks Preserva0on Advisory Board Re Flagstaff Amphdheater Restorahon and Alterahons which stopped m~ury to the public grazmg lands through eros~on and mismanagement This work mcluded the development and conservation of water through the construchon of tanks and stock reservoirs; the diggmg of wells; dam construchon, revegetahon, eradication ofpo~sonous weeds, rodent control, flood control, waterhole development, and the buildmg of bndges, fences, truck trails, driveways, and range corrals. The Bureau of Reclamation supervised the rehabilitation of existmg storage and ~rngation systems, the development and construct~on of supplemental storage fac~l~hes for areas affected by drought, and the constructton of recreahonal facihhes at imgation reservoirs Work for the National Parks and Monuments and State Parks mcluded buildmg or enlarging campgrounds and p~emc areas, extendmg nature trails, constructmg parkmg areas, and opemng new park sect~ons. This work was a~med at the protectron and conservahon of the scemc, htstoric, archaeological, and geological resources of the National Parks and Monuments The work produced by the C C.C. at Flagstaff Mountain fell under the direction of the National Park Service. Camp SP-2-C was the C C C group responsible for the work on Flagstaff Mountam. The camp was establ~shed on July 2, 1933, and was origmally made up of inen from Oklahoma These men were later replaced wrth unemployed men from Colorado aud Wyommg In addrtion to bu~ldmg the amphitheater, the men of SP-2-C built Green Moimtaiu Lodge, thmned trees, replanted trees, improved the old well on Flagstaff Summrt Road, set up erosion control, cleared fire lanes, repa~red and added guard rails to Flagstaff road, and constructed 25 miles of foot and bndle trials on Flagstaff Mountam. Landscape architect Bemard Edelmeu of the Boulder C.C C, along with Gifford Preston, drew up a master plan for the Boulder mountam parks area. This plan had mne maps, w~th one covermg the Flagstaff summ~t (Hyman Chester, Boulder Daily Camera, 1937, Sec 2, pg.6) The Flagstaff Amplutheater, also known as the Sunrise Circle Amphrtheatre, was designed by noted landscape architect Saco R. DeBoer m 1933 and was constructed between September 1933 and March 1934 (see Attachment D DeBoer Plans) Historic SigniC-cance of the Site The Flagstaff Amphitheater is designated as a local landmark by Boulder County, as pari of the FlagstaFf Mountam histonc site A h~stonc mventory survey form prepared for Mountain Parks m 1994 has further determmed that the amphitheater is "field eligible" for the Nat~onal Register of H~storic Places under cnteria A and C The Colorado SHPO accepted the results of this survey Crtterion A applies to sites, bu~ldmgs, structures, and ob~ects that "are associated with events that have made a s~gnificant contribuhon to the broad patterns of our history." Criter~on C applies to resources that "embody the distinctive characYeristics of a type, penod, or method of construcrion, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a sigmficant and distmguishable entity whose components may lack mdividuai d~stinction " Under criYenon A, the amphitheater would l~kely be el~gible m the areas of recreataon and socaal hastory In the area of recreataon, the amphrtheater is an ~mportant design Memo to the Landmarks Preserva4on Advisory 8oard Re Flagstaff Amphitheater Restorehon and Alterahons feature of the Flagstaff Mountain park This park was thc begummg of the city's ambrttous program of protechng the uruque natural environment m and around Boulder through strategtc purchases After mihally acquinng ihe land on Flagstaff Mountam around the turn of the cenhiry, however, the city did not develop tts recreational potential for several decades The mty had long been urged by citizcns to provide some sort of recreahonal opportunrttes on Piagstaff Mountam, but did not have the resources to do much more than bu~ld a short stretch of road m 1906 As the nation's financ~al situation worsened m the early 1930s, rt seemed as if the city would be unable to build much on the mountam. The Civilian Conservation Corps, however, turned ihe dreams of Boulder crtizens for a nat~onally renowned park mto reality. The amphitheater may also be el~gtble m the area of soceal htstory as representative of the many pubhc pro~ects which were Uuilt across lhe country by the C C C The C.C C was the first program of President RoosevelYs "New Deal" - one of the largest coliecttons of soc~al programs ever undertaken m this country Roosevelt mihated these programs m response to the terrible economic condit~ons of the period. The stock market crash of October 1929 and the resulYmg economic cond~tions tn the Umted StaYes triggered a world-wide depression By 1932, U.S mdustrial output fell 54% and uncmployment reached nearly 30%. Addmg to the nation's woes was the extensive drought that created the "Dust Bowl " Extendmg ovcr a(arge region of the Great Plams, mcludmg portions of Colorado, this forced many agr~cultural famihes from theu homes and created an even more depressed outlook for the American people RoosevelYs "New Deal" mcluded a program of strong government regulation and a package of massive publ~c works pro~ects aimed at addressmg the d~re economic srtuatton of the county while bui(dmg a more modern mfrastructure and providmg ~obs One of RoosevelYs measures was the Emergency Conservation Work (ECW) Act, more commonly known as the Civilian Conservahon Corps Workers were paid $30 per month, and were required to send $22 of that home to their families They were also provided clothing shelter, and board. Camps were under military disciplme, with officers diawn from the U.S reserve officers The work produced by the C C C. at Flagstaff Mountam fell under the d~rection of the National Park Serv~ce, and is therefore sigmficant as an example of a publ~c park pro~ect dunng the Great Depression The Flagstaff Amphitheater is also likely elig~ble under criter~on C in the area of landscape archztecture It embod~es the distmctive charactertsttcs of a type, period, and method of construchon The amphitheater is an excellent representatrve of rustic park archrtecture. Prmciples of informalrty and natural~sm, rooted m the landscape archrtectural pnnciples of landscape preservahon and harmomzation, were applied to man-made features wrthm parks. Natural~stic effects for buildmgs and structures mcluded the roughened, irregular character of stone masonry walls, the battermg of boulder foundations to give them the appearance of havmg spning naturally from the ground, and the overscalmg of archdectural features m motmtamous areas. Concern for the harmonization of constructiou and nature was evident m thts new type of park plannmg and design (Linda Flmt McClelland, BuildmQ the National Parks) Memo to the Landmarks Preservalion Advisory Boartl Re Flagstaff Amphitheater Restoration and Alterations Flagstaff Amphitheater is also ehgible under criter~on C m the area of landscape archetecture as a representahve of the work of a master - landscape arclntect and city planner S R DeBoer. Saco Rienk DeBoer was born in the Netherlands, and opened h~s landscape office there after attendmg the Institute Poutsma and the Royal Tmperial School of Horiiculture He moved to New Mexico m 1908 for health reasons, and then succeeded Reinhard Schuetze as Denver's Landscape Architect He served in that post until 1931, and conhnued to serve Denver as a plamm~g engmeer and park consultant m later years. He opened a private c~ty plannmg and landscape des~gn prachce m 1919, and contmued m that untii his death m 1974 His pro~ecis were diverse and far-rangmg, mcludmg the preparation of a 1946 comprehensive plan for Boulder DeBoer was elected a Fellow of the Amencan Society of Landscape Archrtects and ts mcluded m the publication Paoneers ofAmerican Landscape Design It was said that he "did it all" zoning and plamm~g schemes for towns and cities, ., park, parkway, population, traffic, mass transrt, and rmg road regional studies and plans, civic centers m the Grand Manner, mstitutionat development plans, and grand estate gardens DeBoer's career, however, was a personal crusade . to plan for beauty and thus livability. . DeBoer's work changed both the way the West looks and the way the West looks at itself Indeed, the patterns he established are a significant part of the framework that mforms the prachce of both plannmg and landscape design m the region today (Charles B~rnbaum & Robm Karson, Ed , Pioneers of American Landsca~e DesiQn) DeBoer's design for a"Plan for Outdoor Amphitheater Flagstaff Mountain" was prepared for the National Park Service m September 1933 Previous studies of DeBoer's work were not aware of his mvolvement m this pro~ect The amphitheater ~s therefore also sigmficant for the potential to add to our knowledge of th~s nationally recogmzed landscape archrtect and is worthy of further research m order to properly place it withm the context of his entire body of work. DeBoer designed the Flagstaff Amphitheater within a"natural amphrtheater" which had been cleared of debris by local residents durmg the spnng of 1933 as part of the Reconstruchon Finance Corporatron (R.F C) rehef program The completed amphrtheater was very stmilar to the onginal DeBoer plans Elaborate dedication ceremonies were planned for March 1934, complete with a nattonal newsreel cameraman present (m order to spread the news of the amphitheater nat~onwide) These ceremomes had to be cancelled twice due to mclement weather, but the cameraman still recorded some of the features James P Sloan was the engmeer m charge of the pro~ect, and a bronze plaque honormg h~m is set m the last row of the Amphitheatet National Signi~cance Any historic resource which is hsted on the National Register of Histaric Places may bc eligible at three differenC levels - local, state, or naC~onal The vast ma~ority of histonc properttes on the National Register are hsted at the local level of signtficance In order to be considered ehgible at the nat~onal level, the histone property has to possess addirional 7 Memo to the Landmarks Preservation Adwsory Board Re Flagstaff Amphdheater Restoradon and AI[erapons significance - either m~ts design, construction, or h~story Theie ~s sufficient data to support the suggcshon that the Flagstaff Amphrtheater is of nat~onal significance In addition, it may be elig~ble for l~stmg as a National Histaric Landmark For those few resources that are ehgible far the National Reg~ster at the nlrional level, some may furlher be eligible as National Historic Landmarks - the nation's l~ighest level of honorific designation for histonc resouices.2 The quahty of nationa] sigmficance for these resources is ascrtbed to those that possess exceptional value or quality m illustratmg or mterpretmg the herriage of the Umted States and that possess a very high degree of mtegriCy (t.e., lritle Co no alterations). (U S. Department of the Intenor, "Nahonal Register Bulletm 16A") Factors which suggest the amphitheaYer's potenhal for national sigmftcance mclude the numerous references to the amphitheater m publ~cattons, both at the time of the structure's construction and up through the present day It was featured m two key trammg publ~cations of the Nattonal Park Service. The purpose of both of the two trammg publ~cahons was to illustrate new park architecture design prmciples for park professionals Herbert Maier, the archrtect in charge of Dtstnct III for the National Park Service in the 1930s, served as the park service's expert on the prmc~ples for designing park structures He developed a photograph~c rospector's handbook m 1934 with photos that outhned design prmciples to be followed m park work, rather than des~gns to be simply copied (Lmda Flmt McClelland, Buildm~ the National Parks, 1998, p 390) Twenty-iwo pro~ects were mcluded, representmg work from Yosemite, Yellowstone, aud the Grand Canyon The designs of only two amphitheaters were mcludcd for illustrahon Yhe log amphitl~eater at Yellowstone, and the masonry amphitheater at Flagstaff Mountam Flagstaff Amphrtheater, from Maier's notes, iilustrated the prmciple that "amphitheatres should be located, wherever possible, m nahnal bowls Usually the stage should be to the east so that the audience will not face the afternoon sun Masonry seats, as shown m the photo, can be curved, whereas log seats result m a more defimte geometnc pattern and are, therefore, mare conspicuous." (Herbert Maier, "Inspector's Photographic Handbook", 1934 ) As this manual was intended for design professionals withm the National Park Service, it is especially noteworthy that a mumcipal pro~ect w1s mcluded. The importance is described well m the headlme of I-Iardy's anc~le on the CCC wark m Boulder: "I3oulder Hus Shown the World How CCC Camps May Be Used to Develop Mountatn Parks " Another National Park Service publication m the 1930s prommently featured the amph~theater Albert H Good wrote thiee books illustratmg prmciples of rushc park archrtecture' Th~rteen amphitheaters were mcluded m th~s book, a full page was devoted to the Flagstaff Amphitheater Good wr~tes, Z There are currently less tl~an 2,500 Nattona] Historic Landmarks nat~onw~de and only 17 m Colorado A hst of Colorado landmarks ~s mcluded as Attnchment E 3 Thesc books have smce been combmed and were repriuted m 1999 (Albert H Good, Park and Recreahon Structures • Admimstration and Bas~c Service Facil~hes Recreahonal and Cultural Facilrties Ovemight and Or@amzed Camp, 1999) Memo to the Landmarks Preserva4on Advisory Board Re Flagstaff Amphdheater Restore4on and Altera4ons The value of the distant view as backdrop for the stage of an amphrtheater is heie manifest... When rime has provided walls of evergreens as a Uackdrop for the seatmg, and as a frame far the panoram~c backdrop, this example will have come mto rts own. The amphitheater has conhnued to be recogmzed mto contemporary t~mes, another mdication of rts national level of historic sigmficance. IC is mcluded m the book by Lmda rlmt McClelland Buildm@ the National Parks• Histottc Landscape Design and Construction (1998) McClelland works for the National Register of Historic Places, Cultural Resources Division, Nahonal Park Service This book traces the history of America's era of naturahstic park design, which contrasted s~gmficantly wrth previous park design (especially those bu~lt pre-1916) Earlier parks tended towards the momimental, and represented "man over nahire " Naturalisric park design, in contrast, emphasized structures built m harmony wrth nature The amphitheater was an early example used to spread th~s new design philosophy across the country The amphitheater will also be featured m a planned book on histor~c amphrtheaters to be written by a professor at the Umversrty of Cahforma-Davis In addition to the amphitheater's national recogmhon by design professionals throughout the years, its role as a prototype used to tram designers m the new style of rustic park architecture also adds to its national stgnificance The amphitheater, as well as many other features of Flagstaff Mountam, offer excellent illustrations of harmonious landscape design The actual design of the amphdheater was not meant to be repeated m park afier park, but the prmciples of des~gn which it illustrated have been applied m other settmgs across thc county Smce a very high level of mtegr~ty is required for these destgnations, sigmficant alterat~ons may dimmish Yhe elig~bility of this hisYonc resource for National Historic Landmark listmg Any alterations should be considered m light of this resource's "national" level of sigmficance and potential for Nat~onal H~stonc Landmark hshng IV. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT & HISTORIC PRESERVATION" Accordmg to the CEAP apphcahon, "the purpose of this pro~ect ~s to build a path from the Amphitheater parkmg area to the Sunrise C~rcle area to allow wheelchair access and access for people wrth mobilrty impairments ADA requires that all publtc facilit~es be accessible to disabled mdividuals by December 31, 1995." The Amencans wrth Disab~hhes Act (ADA) makes access to properties open to the publ~c a civ~l right At the same time, Congress has recognized that our nation's historic resources should be preserved for present and future generations As a result, the ADA and other federal legislation and guidelines have been developed to balance the nced for accessibilrty wiCh histonc preservation " Portions of this section of the memo were completed w~th the ass~stance of Deou Wolfenbarger 9 Memo to the Landmarks Preservahon Advisory Board Re FlagstaR Amphdhealer Restoration and Alterations Under Title II of the ADA, state and local govemments must remove access~bilrty bamers either by shiftmg services and programs to accessible buildmgs, or by makmg alterations to ex~stmg buildmgs Historic properties are not exempt from all ADA requirements To the greatest extent possible, historic buildmgs and sites should be made as accesstble as non-h~staric buildmgs However, it may not be possible for some histonc properhes to meet those general accessibilrty iequirements. Congress therefore estabhshed withm the ADA alternahve requiremenYs for properties that cannot be made accessible without harmmg the~r signtficance. Both the Umfortn Federal Accessibihty Standards (UFAS) and the Americans wrth Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelmes for Buildmgs and Facilities (ADAAG) contam proceduies for buildmgs either eligible for or listed m the Nat~onal Reg~ster of Historic Places Act; the Flagstaff Amphitheater has been determined eligible far the National Register In addition, ADAAG has procedures for historic buildmgs which are designated under locallaw; the Flagstaff Amphitheater is designated under Boulder county law as a local landmark. If it is determmed that meetmg the higl~est level of accessibility will harm the histor~c resource, then muinnal altemative requirements may be used Examples of mmimal alternative requirements mclude an access~Ule route from only one site access pomt, a ramp steeper than is ordmarily permitted; or the accessible entrance does not need to be the one used by the general public If comphance with the mm~mum methods of access would also threaten the historic resource, theu alternat~ve program methods, such as aud~o-visual progratns, may be used. (U.S Department of Justrce, The Amencans with Disabilittes Act• Title II Techmcal Assistance Manual, Sea II-6 5000) Histonc landscapes can sometimes pose different problems than providmg access to historic buildmgs, although the plamm~g proccss is similar to that of other historic properties. Careful research and mventory should be undertaken to determme which mater~als, ieatures, and design elements convey the landscape's historic s~gmficance (often referred to as "character-defining features") By identifymg those features that are contnbuhng or non-coninbutmg, a sympathehc solut~on can then be developed This assessment should be completed by a qualified professional who mmimally meets the federal guidelmes for historic preservation consultants (36 CFR 16) Specific experience related to historic and cultural landscape assessments should also be required Only after assessm~ a landscape's mtegrtty and sigmficant features can accessibility solutions be cousidered As noted m the federal bulletin "Makmg Historic Properties Accessible," Full access throughout a htstonc landscape may not always be possible Generally, it ~s eas~er to provide acccssibility to larger, more open sites where there is a gteater vanety of pubhc expenences However, when a landscape ~s uniformly steep, it may only be possible to make discrete portions of a histor~c landscape accessible, and viewers may only be able to expertence the landscape from selected vlntage pomts along a prescr~bed pedestrian or vehtcular access route. 10 Memo to lhe Landmarks Preservahon Adwsory Board Re Flagstaff Amphitheater Restoration and Alterations This bullehn goes on to provide three common historic landscape situations, and the ADA accepted soluhon. The example most relevant to Flagstaff Amph~theater ~s crted below. Mornmgside Park m New York City, New York, designed by Fredenck Law Olmsted, Sr , and Calvert Vaux m 1879, is s~ted on generally steep, rocky terram. Respectmg these dramahc grade changes, wlnch are only accesstble by extensive flights of stone stairs, physical access cannot be prov~ded wrthout destroymg the park's mtegrity In order to provide some accessibihty, scemc overlooks were created that provide broad v~sual access to the park Research and mventory findings of the Plagstaff Mountain's histor~c character-defimng features and level of mtegrity have not been presented Therefore, rt is not possible to deCermme if full accessibilrty, mimmal alternat~ve accessibility, or program accessib~hty would be required by ADA. V. PROJECT BACKGROUND: The proposal to improve accessibilrty at the Flagstaff Amplniheater has recerved considerable pubhc mput A full discussion of publ~c mvolvement is mcluded m the CEAP accessibihYy path apphcation, Section 5. (see Attachment F. CEAP Access~bility Path Applicahon) In summary, city staff and consultants have coordmated with the D~sability Task Force, the Landmarks Board, the County Histonc Preservahon Advisory Board, and an 18-member crtizen adv~sory group over the past 2+ years The advisory group mcluded representatives of the preservat~on and disabled commumhes That group met for several months, begiimmg m the fall of 2002, to determme pathway selection criteria and to try and reach consensus on a des~gn In the end the design criteria were developed but consensus on an alignment proved to be elusive (see Attachment A Sunrise Circle Amphitheater on Flagstaff Evaluation Sheet) A smaller group of eight was charged with explonng a new alignment that entered between the two existmg northern and southem entrances Actual design work was assigned to a still smaller group of three Eventually, this middle route, along with a revised southern route, were mocked up on srte m order to allow for a better understandmg of the potential impacts of each on the character of the amphitheater These proposed routes were reviewed by some members of the advisory group as well as by James Stratis, Preservahon Pro~ects Manager for the Colorado Historical Society At a meetmg of the entire advisory group m December 2003, it became clear that there was little support foi the center entrance and that some members st~ll preferred a northem alignment over the southern route A northern route designed by Margaret Hansen early m the process was recommended for reconsideratton. Members of the group also recommended mvolvmg a profess~onal landscape arch~tect m the revtew (and potent~ally design) process 11 Memo to the Landmarks Preservation Adwsory Board Re Flagstaff Amphdheater Restora4on and Alterahons Three alignments were presented to Ph~l Flares, semor landscape architect with Norris Dullea, and Mr Strlt~s in December the proposed southern route, the center route, and the arigmal Hansen north route That review, which mcluded a visit to the srte, resulted in both gentlemen recommendmg that the southern route was the most appropriate means of gammg disabled access mto the amphrtheater Both also recommended that changes to the stage would be iuappropriate. LeYters documentmg those opimous are mcluded as attachments to the CEAP Accessib~liYy Path application VI. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATNES The CEAP Accessibility Path application descubes Yhree alternatives for the site. a south route, a north route and a"do nothmg" option. Alternative A, the south route, proposes construclion of a fiilly ADA-compliant path along the southern edge of the historic amph~theater The route would begm ~ust west of the extstmg rock and mortar stairs on the southern end of the amphttheater and descend to an entry pomt mto the amphitheater at the row above the lowest groupmg of stone benches The total route is approximately 265 feci long. A combmation of guatdra~ls and handiails will be required along the path for approx~mately the fiist 120 feet The iouYe will Ue built at grade w~th rock walls, retammg walls and fill, and a hardened crusher fines surface Less of this path would requ~re handrails and/or guardratls than Alternative B, and no railmg would be requ~red beyond the pomt marked "C" on the plan and illustrated m the apphcation materials A six mch tall stonc curb rumm~g the entire length of the path is required. Altemative B, the north ophon, proposes construction of a fully ADA-comphant path leadmg from the northern end of the parkmg lot through a forested area below the northern edge of the amphitheater and entering mto the amphitheater at the row above the lowcst groupmg of stone benches The route will be partially hidden m the ad~acent forest and will be below the grade of the amphitheater foi much of the route, further obscuring the view to and from the amplntheater The route will be built at grade with rock walls, retammg walls and fill, and a hardened crusher fines surface This route ~s approx~mately the same length as the south route, but would require signi£icantly more handrails and/or guardrails (all but about 10 feet would require raihng on at least one side of the path.) A s~x mch tall stone curb would run the entire length of the path Two elements depicted on the plan, mcluded as Attachment A to the CEAP apphcation, are not achially proposed as part of this alternative Port~ons of the stone benches are mdicated as needuig to Ue removed to allow for wheel chair access That alteration is not required and is not proposed at th~s time The plan also mdtcates that the steps on the northern edge of tlie stage would be repiaced with a ramp That aspect of the proposal has also been withdrawn - no changes to the stage are proposed m any of the alternarives. As this proposal moves forward, the plans should be updated to remove those elements from them 12 Memo to the Landmarks Preserva6on Advisory Boartl Re Flac~stafl Amphdheater Restorahon and Alterahons Alternative C, the "do nothmg" opt~on, proposes no changes to the site to improve accessibiLty In all alternahves, no modificahons to the stage are proposed m arder to allow access for mobilrty disabled persons. Instead, a management plan to provide a temporary ramp has been suggested Details of that proposal are mcluded as Attachment G Stage Management Plan VIL ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS There are federally iecommended methods for ~dentifymg, documentmg, and treatiug cultural landscapes 5 Before undertakmg any project plannmg or work on a htstonc site, a thorough understandmg of the historic context and development of the site is needed That research should mclude the preparatron of period plans, documentmg change in the landscape and stnxctures over time; mventory and documentatton of existmg conditions, and, an aualysis of the mtegr~ty and sigmficance of existmg features (Charles B~rnbaum, Protecttng Cultural Landscapes Plannang Treatment and Management of Htstorac Landscapes, Sept. 1994) This research establ~shes a landscape's historic period of sigmficance and brmgs greater understandmg of tl~e associations that make the landscape sigmficant It provides the foundation to make decisions for pro~ect treaYment, management, mamtena~ice, and mterpretahon The Secretary of the Interior has establtshed profess~onal standards and advice on the preservation of cultural resources hsted m ar ehgible for l~stmg in the National Register of Historic Places The Gu~delmes for the Treatment of Cultural Landscaoes are used to illustrate how to apply the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Histor~c Proverties There are four treatment options which can be considered• preservat~on, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruchon Choosmg the most appropriate treatment for a resource requires careful decision-makmg about the site's histor~cal significance, physical condrtton, and mandated code requirements Accordmg to the CEAP apphcation materials, the c~tizen commrttee agreed upon critena to evaluate potential accessible paths for the amphitheater (see Attachment A) These crderia mclude conformmg to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Preservat~on Preservataon is defined as the act or process of applymg measures necessary to sustam the exishng fonn, mtegnty, and materials of an histaric property New extenor adddion; are not wrthm the scope of this treatment; however, hmrted and sensitive upgradmg requ~red by code to make propert~es funchonal is appropriate The Preservatton standards require retention of the gieatest amount of historic fabnc, mcludmg the 5 Culturnl Landscnpe - a geographic atea (mcludmg both cultural and natural resources and the w~ldl~fe or domeshc ammals therem), associated with a h~stonc event, actrvity, or person or exh~brtmg other cultural or aesthehc values There are four general types of cultural landscapes, not mutually exclusive h~storic sites, histonc des~gned landscapes, histonc vemacular landscapes, and ethnogiaph~c landscapes 13 Memo to the Landmarks Preservahon Adwsory Board Re Flagstaff Amphitheater Restorahon and Alterahons landscape's historic foim, features, and details as they have evolved over time ~ Alternatives A(south route) and B(north route) are discussed below relatrve to the Secretary's preservation guidelmes Note Uiat Alternative C, the "do nothing" option, is d~sm~ssed m the CEAP apphcatton as not meehng the ADA requirements As d~scussed above, m some circumstances ADA does allow for mmimal alternattve accessibility or program accessib~lity rather than full accessibilrty wrthm historic landscapes Becattse a fiill assessmenC of the sile has not been completed, rt~s difficulY to say whethei ar not oue of Chese altematives allowed by ADA inay be more appropr~ate. Although it ~s clear that much hme and effort have gone mto the discussion of options far prov~dmg accessibility at the Flagstaff Amphitheater, thc guidelmes for the plannmg for cultural landscapes have not been followed A complete and thorough assessment of the bistory, sigmficance, and existmg condrtions at the amphrtheatei, as well as the ent~re Flagstaff Mountam, should be completed by a qualified professional m order to plan for future changes State grants may be available to fund that effort ~ Desprte tliat flaw m the piocess, however, the combmed expert~se of the vanotts members of the cit~zen group, consultanYs and staff l~as resulted m options that largely meet other aspects of the gwdelmes A discussion of those guidelmes follows 1. Spatial Organization a~-d Land Patterns Recommended • Identifyz~ig, retaming and preservang tl~e exasttng spatial orgaraazatlon and land patterns of the landscape as they have evolved over tame Prcor lo beginnang pro~ect work, documenttng all features whach defcne those relataonshcps One apparent character-definmg feature of the stte is the view from above the amphrtheater looking to the south and southeast Early plans for a southern route sigmficautly impactcd that v~ew. The current plan, however, has been refined to ihe pomt that the impact on that view appears to be mm~mal In panc~ular, thc necessary hand or guard rail is restrtcted to the inrtial 120 feet of the path, with no railmg along the lower section where it enters the amphitheater The ma~onty of grade difference is handled by the mitial port~on of the path, headmg away from the amphitheatre, allowmg the ra~lmg to be concentrated m that arca The lower portion of the path requires only a 6" stone curb. b Rehahditntron s[andards acknowledge the need to alter or add to a cultural landscape to meet conhnwng or new uses whde retammg the landsc~pe's historic characler Rectorahon standards allow for the depichon of a landscape at a panc~ular hme m US h~story by preservmg matenals from the perwd of s~gn~ficance and removmg matenals &om other penods Reconsh uchon standards establ~sh a framework foi ~ecienhng a vamsl~ed o~ non-survrvmg landscape wtth new matenals, pnmarily for mtetpretrve purposes ' Grnnts may also fiind professional design work for new alternahve routes whtch have tUe lower ~mpact on dus signtficant h~stonc resource If an acceptable route could be found that mcorporates part of the ongmal h~storic struchue, then the construction costs of the ADA ramp would also quahfy for a Sta[e Historte Fund grant 14 Memo to the Landmarks Preserva4on Advisory Board Re Flagstaff Amphithealer Restorahon and Altera6ons The north route is largely naturally screened from view by the existmg grade and vegetation That route would, howcver, require sigmficantly more hand/guard rail than the southern (nearly the ent~re path would requue railmg on at least one side) As noted, the south plan has been improved significantly over time Similar attention to the north route may reveal that the amount of ra~lmg reqwred can be similarly mmim~zed 2. Topography Recommended • • Identzfyang, retatntng ancl preservtng the exasttng topography Documentang topographac variatton praor to pro~ect worlc Topography has been documented Plans depicting the cut and fill ~mplications of the proposed routes should be provided to approvmg boards m order to better illustrate the impact of the proposals on the current topography. As shown, the south route appears to iequ~re sigmficantly less modification to the exisUng topography. It should be noted, however, Yhat Chat plan has been improved sigmficantly over t~me. Similar attention to the north route may reveal that the amoLmt of grading required on that side of the amphrtheater can also be mmimued 3. Vegetation Recommended • Identafyang, retnanang ancl preserving exastang spataal vegetataon Documentang broad cover types, genus, spec~es, calaper, and/or stze, as well ns color, scale, form and texture Both routes w~ll requ~re the removal of some mature pme trees and non-natrve species The south route will require removal of two trees, while the north route will requtre removal of approximately seventeen Because histonc views from the s~te have been impacted by the overgrowth of such trees, panc~ularly to the norih, this removai may help restore the origmal views toward Longmont Some of the trees on the narth will need to be removed no matter what route ~s selected as they are damagmg h~stonc rock walls. Such removal is appropnate Any tree removal should be selective and plant matenals should be salvaged where possible 4. Circulation Reeommended • Identafycng, retaanang and preservtng the existtng etrcu[ahon systems przor to pro~ect work All carculataon features should be documented, frona small paths and walks to larger transportataon corrtdors, inclucl~ng alagnment, surface and edge treatment, wtdth, grade, materials and znfrastructure Neither proposed route will sigmficantly impact exishng c~rculatron routes, except at lhe pomt where the new path meets the ex~stmg That mtersection should be treated carefiilly, to assure that matenals and grade blend naturally Because the preservatton standards would generally not allow mtroduction of new circulation paths, the 15 Memo to lhe Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Re Flagstaff Amphitheater Restoration and Alterahons rehabahtatron standards may be more appropr~ate in this case. The ongmal DeBoer plans mdicate a"bi~dle patl~" running along tl~e southern side of Yha amphitheater Additional research could provide msight mto the history oF this feature of the plan 5. Historic Structures Recommended • Identafyang, retaanang and preservang existang structures, furnrshings and ob~ects prtor to pro~ect work • Documentcng the relataonship of these features to each other, thear surrounds, and thear materaal composataons • Evaluattng the condattons and determanang the ages ofstructures • Retaanzng the hzstorac relataonshaps between the landscape and tts bualdangs, structures, and ob~ects. Erther proposed route will have some impact on the histoi ic structures, through the mtroduction of a new ad~acent feature The ~mpact of those routes appears to be mmimal, but will need to be more carefully assessed when more detailed des~gn drawmgs are submitted Documentation of the historic structures and the relat~onship of those features to each other should be completed prior to any modificahons on the s~Ce Alterations to the stage, the central feature of the siYe, are mappropnate The proposed management plan to provide access to the stage via a ramp are appropriate, meetmg ADA requ~rements without permanently altenng this character-definmg featute 6. Accessibility considerations The work is assessed far its potential negatrve ~mpact on the landscape's h~storic character For this reason, particular care must be taken not to obscure, alter, or damage character-definmg features Recommendecl • Ident~ang the culturnl landscapes' character-definrng features, materaals and finashes so that accesscbdzty code-reguared work wzll not result in thetr damage or loss. • Complyang wath bnrner free access requ~rements, tn such n way that character- clefintng features, matertals und finashes are preserved • YYorkang with loeal accessabtlaty and preservataon spectalrsts to determane the most appropraate solutaon to access problems whzch wtll have the least ampact on character-definangfeatures • Prov~ding barner free access that promotes ~ndependence to for the dasabled person to the highest degree prneticable, whale preserving szgn f cant character-definzng landscape features, materaals and fin~shes. • Finding solutions to meet accessabalaty requarements that mznamaze the ampact on the cultural landscape 16 Memo to the Landmarks Preservation Adwsory Board Re Flagstaff Amphitheater Resloration and Allerehons Add~honal research and analysis would help define the site's character-definmg features and assure that accessibility improvements do not impact them Such a report could conclude that providmg accessibility ophons less than those proposed is the only means of respectmg the historic mtegrrty of the site Overall, the southern route appears to provide a stmple approach to meetmg the ma~ority of cr~teria defined by the citizen group wrth mmimal impacts to the htstoric site The narthern route also appears to meet many of these criteria, and witl~ addihonal refinement of the design, the negative aspects of th~s alternat~ve may be mrtigated There are addrtional concerns from the disabled commuruty, however, regarding the northern route that will not be sahsfied by those refinements The decis~on not to pursue modifications to the stage ~s appreciated, as it preserves a key feature of the site Despite this apparent agreement with the relevant criteria, additional mformation from a cultural landscape mventory could result m different conclusions on the appropriateness of the alternatives VIII. RESTORATION PROPOSAL REVIEW In addition to the CEAP review for the new accessibility path, Open Space staff has also submittcd an appl~cahon for CEAP review far restoration work at the amphitheater (see Attnchment H CEAP Restoration Applicat~on ) Tliat work ~s not sufficienCly detailed to allow for careful review of the specific aspects of the proposed work However, the recent approval of a State Histor~c Fund grant mdicaYes that revtew at the state level found the work appropnate Details of the restoration work will need to be reviewed by the County Historic Preservation Advtsory Board Staff trusts that that body will assure that all work is m keeping with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommendations are offered m the context of the CEAP review queshons. 1. Does staff agree wide the impact assessment? a. Is the analysis complete and accurate? b. Are there issues that are not identified ln the assessment? c. Are tlsere follow-up questions or issues that need to be addressed7 Staff believes that the analysis ~s accurate but not complete. The followmg additional mformat~on should be required prior to final approval. ~ Gradmg plan detailmg requ~red cut and fill and necessary retaining wall construchon • More detailed illustrahon oFrailmg design m sectton and elevation • Photos or rendermgs illustrahng v~sual impact of proposals from key v~ewmg 17 Memo fo the Landmarks Preservahon Adwsory Board Re Flagstaff Amphitheater Restoration and Alteralions pOllltS Evaluation of the proposals in light of tl~e "national" level of significance of the amphrtheatre, with a discussion of the potent~al impact upon Nahonal Histortc Landmark l~stmg In addirion to these iequirements, a cultural landscape assessment would prov~de a better foundation for assessmg current and future proposals UiroughoLrt the Flagstaff Mountam site. That analysis, as iccommended m federal gu~delmes, would assure that character-definmg features of the site are ident~fied so that ADA requirements may be appropriately balanced with the historic sigmficance of the stte Staff also has reservations about the response to two queshons m the Goals Assessment secrion of the CEAP apphcat~on Queshon 2 states that there is no tradeoff among crty policies and goals m the proposed pro~ect alternatives Attachment I contams Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan policies relatmg to the proposal. While staff feels that tl~e proposed path will not negatively impact character-definmg features of the site blsed on the mformation presented, due to the level of sigmficance of this resource and its potenhal eligibiliCy as a National H~stortc Landmark, addttional mformation could help confirm Yhat opuuon Question 6 under Goals Assessment states that the pro~ect will comply with fedetal ADA regulat~ons As stated above, the ADA regulat~ons allow for a vanety of apptoaches when dealmg with historic properties It is possible that proposals A& B actually exceed the requirements of that act 2. Does staff agree with the preferred alternative as identdfied by tlte project manager? a. Are the trade-offs of t/te preferred alternative acceptable? b. Are there potential conflicds with other CIP projects7 c. Are t)aere potential regulatory issues that need to be resolved prdor to ftnal design nnd construction? Based upon current mformation, staff agrees that the southern route will not have a sigmficant negative impact upon h~stonc resources and ~s generally m conformance with both thc Secretary of the Interior's Standards and the agreed upon crtteria adopted by the cihzen group The northern route may also meet many of those cntena, particularly as related to preservation concems, if equal hme were devoted to refinement of that approach Further analys~s of the site, m the form of the cultural landscape assessment, could potentially determme that nerther of those routes are m conformance with ADA standards if they result m a sigmficant negahve impact on the srte. 18 Memo to the Landmarks Preserva6on Advisory Board Re Flagstaff Amphitheater Restoration and Alteradons 3. Are there anticipated commurTity co~ccer~is or public process constderations that slaould be ad~lressed? The opportunit~es for pubhc mput on this pro~ect have been substantial Staff beheves that this and other public heanngs that are scheduled and requ~red for review will provide sufficient publ~c mput opporhmdies and feedback far the decision makers 4. Is the CEAP ready for board review? Wl~ile staff believes that a cultural ]andscape assessment of thc Flagstaff area would add to the understandmg of the site, its character-defimng features, and its evoluhon over time, the substantial publ~c mput and experiise of the various parties mvolved appear to have resulted m a preferred alternative that meets the potenhally competing commumty goals of preservmg a significant histonc landscape while allowing for mcreased accessibility withm the site That recommendahon is based upon our understandmg of apparently mm~mal changes to the site over trme. Approvmg boards are encouraged to consider the added value that would result from the lanclscape assessment, and the Open Space department ~s encoured to pursue fundmg for such a study no matter what direct~on the current proposal takes, m order to form a better foundation for review of future proposals througl~out the FlagstaFf area X. QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD a. Do you agree with the staff recommended conclusions in response to the four CEAP review questions? b. Are there additional recommendations you would like to include in the CEAP comments? XI. ATTACHMENTS A Sunrise Circle Amphitheater on Flagstaff Evaluation Sheet B. Guidelmes for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes C Hardy Newspaper Anc~le D DeBoer Plans E Colorado Nat~onal H~storic Landmarks F CEAP Accessibility Path Materials G. Stage Access~bility Management Plan H CEAP Restoration Appl~cahon I BVCP Pohcies J Photos 19 AT1 ACHMENT A: SUNRISE CIRCLE AMPHITI-IEATER ON FLAGSTAFF EVALIUATION SHEFT ~. __ _ ~ _. _. ~ m. _ ~. . . .. _. , s~.~°~,aE..;y ;i~~i~~il~ ; , ~~~ _ ~~tt `'i'.-(7~ £! ~ i"f)laf:i~~! ti`!"; ~15:i „ir}~t°~; ~l1~' .i~l~tlC~il{"(~~.''s sd~lftf( ~le~~ 18C.~:~i i1Yit{~~~Y!(1(_tli)t7~.lllli~f~ ~~i7 ~~Bt`. f:~lf?I.~~anei~~ i')62fY1~~.7t3~ ~tl`si'~~' if(7i{~.~~'¢~ t ' 3 s7 s z)~`il ('.i''.,~~Tta~~~)ih!l~{tt~ f~i~ )~~:~~P1,<C~r7 t~,o i'~9[~l ~1t f'~~t(I~I ~~~~~l3!';~t~itC` `;Ctl)r""(Ilfk`'S ~ ~ ~ ~ -. ,_ ._ ~ . _ .. . . . ._... _. _ _ _ _ _ _-- Criteria 1. Provide shortest length possible 2. Provide entrance point as close as possible to current entrance __ ~~_ 3. Provide access to 3 points b. "'arena"" / tront row c. sta e 4. Provide visual connection with am hitheater to the extent ossible 5. For maximum extent feasible, the accessible design shall coincide with the route for the general public ADA 6. To the extent possible, modifications for access will benefit the greatest number and diversity of visitors, staff, and the pubic, and be integrated with, or in proximity to, the primary path of travel for entrances and from parkinq areas. 1. Retain and reserve historic character a. Do not rernove distinctive materials b. Alter as little as ossible character-definin features, s aces, and h sical s atial relcitionshi s 2. Re air deteriorated features rather than re lace 3. New addifions should be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale, proporfion and massin CCC desi n conce ts • a. Ca ture scenic views b. Protect viewshed to east/southeast c. Clear vistas to Denver/Lon mont d. Protect si nificant ve etation & rockwork e. Use local native building materials and traditional construction methods for areas in public view, but differentiate new construction from historic f. Utilize natural contours where ossible, or naturalistic earth fill . Naturalistic radin for cut and fill h. Reduce switchbacks usin onl where radual curvin u hill trail is im ossible i. Features should be harmonious with natural surroundinqs use Uesi~n will be grant eligibl Use least cost construction to ~d ~ ATTACHMENT B: Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Preservation Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes 1. Spatial Organization and Land Patterns Recommended • Identif}nng, retaaning and preserving the existmg spatial organization and land patterns of the landscape as they have evolved over time. Prior to begmning pro~ect work, documenting all features which define those relationships. Not recommended • Undertakmg pro~ect work wrthout understanding the effect on existmg spatial organization and land patterns. For example, constructing a new structuee without researching a property's agricultural and development history which may have created new spatial divisions 2. Topography Recommended • • Identifying, retammg and preservmg the existmg topography. Documenting topographic variation prior to project work. Not recommended: • Executmg pro~ect work without undertakmg a topographic survey. 3. Vegetation Recommended. • Identifying, retainmg and preservmg exishng spahal vegetahon. Documentmg broad cover types, genus, species, cahper, and/or size, as well as color, scale, Form and texture. Not recommended • Undertaking project work that impacts vegetation without executing an "existing conditions" survey of plant materials. • Undertakmg work wrthout understanding the sigmficance of vegetation. 4. Circulation Recommended: • Identif}ang, retaining and preservmg the existing circulahon systems prior to pro~ect work. All circulation features should be documented, from small paths and walks to larger transportation comdors, includmg alignment, surface and edge treatment, width, grade, matenals and infrashucture Not recommended • Undertaking project work that impacts circulation systems without undertakmg an "existing conditions" survey • Undertaking work without understanding the importance of circulation systems. ~~ 5. Historic Structures Recommended. • Idenhfying, retairung and preserving exishng structures, fumishmgs and objects prior to project work. • Documentmg the relationship of these features to each other, their surrounds, and theu material composihons. • Evaluating the condrtions and determ~ning the ages of structures • Retammg the historic relationships between the landscape and its buildings, structures, and ob~ects Not recommended Undertakmg pro~ect work that impacts shuctures, furnishings, and ob~ects wrthout undertaking and "existing conditions" survey. Undertaking work without understanding the significance of structures, furnishmgs and ob~ects 6. Accessibility considerations The work is assessed for its potential negative impact on the landscape's historic chazacter. For this reason, particular caze must be taken not to obscure, alter, or damage character-defining features. Recommended • Identifymg the cultural landscapes' character-definmg features, matenals and fimshes so that accessibility code-required work will not result in the~r damage or loss • Compl~nng with barrier-free access requirements, in such a way that character-definmg features, matenals and finishes are preserved. • Working with local accessibihty and preservat~on specialists to determme the most appropnate soluhon to access problems which will have the least impact on character- defirung features. • Providmg barner-free access that promotes independence to for the disabled person to the highest degree practicable, while presernng sigmficant character-definmg landscape features, matenals and finishes • Fmdmg solutions to meet accessibility requirements that mirumize the impact on the cultural landscape. Not recommended: • Undertaking code-required alterations before ident~Fymg those features, matenals and finishes which are character-definmg and mixst therefore be preserved. ~ Damaging or destroymg character-definmg features in attemptmg to comply with accessibihty requirements. • Altenng character-defimng features, matenals and fimshes without consulhng with local accessibility and preservahon specialists • Making access modifications that no not provide a reasonable balance between access and preservation of character-defimng landscape features. ~~ • Makmg modifications for accessibility wrthout considenng the impact on the cultural landscape. For example, mtroducmg a new access element (ramp or lift) that destroys the symmetry of a formal garden 23 ATTACHMENT C: HARDY NEWSPAPER ARTICLE Boulder Has Shown the World How CCC Camps May Be Used to Develop Mountain Parks By Guy U. Hardy Canyon City Record August 22, 1935 Boulder has profited more from work done by CCC camps than any other community in the state. This statement is made not from study of statistics but from casual observatrons and is beheved to be mare or less correct Certamly Boulder has forward-lookmg men in the community who know what they want and who have the ability to go and get it. For years Boulder has been build~ng a great system of mountain pazks. When congress passed an act some years ago to permit cities to buy public domam in the vicimty at $1.25 an acre for pubhc park purposes Boulder gradually acquired 5,050 acres of as fine mountaan scenery as you will find anywhere As you dnve into Boulder you will observe off to the left a high ndge of wooded mountains. On a high peak, 1000 feet above the city, you may observe a flag pole from which the American flag proudly floats m the mountain breeze on proper occas~ons. The lugh ridge and peak are known as Flagstaff mountain This mountain, for about six miles long and two and a half wide, is Boulder City park~ne of them. Boulder has another mounta~n park of 400 acres stretchmg along a good fishing stream about 12 miles to the northwest-but that is another story. When government first started CCC camp achvities back in 1933 Boulder recogmzed ~ts great opportunity. Flagstaff mountam belonged to the city. There were no stnngs to it There were no obstacles m the way. Public sp~nted cihzens and city officials got busy. They presented the merits of Ftagstaff mountam park so forcibly to government that they were rewarded by being given one of the first CCC camps located m Colorado That was July 5, 1933. The situation appealed to the imaginahon of those m Nahonal Park Service who have to do with park development so strongly that one project has followed another---one camp was stretched to two and six month penods grew into years In all, with two camps now workmg, one still embelhshmg Flagstaff mountam and another m the canyon park 12 miles away, Boulder has had the benefit of work of seven CCC camps of six months each. It is estimated that government expends in the neighborhood of $200,000 for a six month penod of a CCC camp So it will be seen that govemment has spent something like $1,400,000 in developmg Boulder's mountain parks. Z~ The actual amount of work done does not measure up to the cost of the enterprise measured by standards of contract conshuction. But that is easily understood when it is recalled that CCC camp work is done by boys under 21 and is a relief ineasure. The big object m the CCC camp movement was to give relief to needy families by employmg boys out of jobs and to develop manhood among boys who would otherwise be on the streets-and on chanty in many cases. Boulder has been well-pleased wrth results accomplished in the parks and the merchants on Pearl street-the main business street of the town-have had some benefit from the civilian payroll-which aside from the CCC camp boys pay runs about $1700 a month- about $71,000 for the seven camp periods. One day last week I drove up to Boulder to look at this park development and to visit my good old democratic friend, Col. L. C. Paddock, publisher of The Boulder Daily Camera. I visited much with Col. Paddock on a tnp to New Orleans recently when he told me about how Boulder got the first CCC camp and of the big work the camp had done in mountam park development. James Roy Youngs, superintendent of the CCC camp drove with me through Flagstaff park-or I might say up and over Flagstaff mountain-for the dnve is up or down most of the way-quite a ways up m fact A good mountam road leads its wmdmg way up the mountamside. Along the way you observe much of the work done by CCC boys- parkmg spaces; picnic grounds; outdoor fireplaces; water supplies, safe and attrachve protectmg walls of solid stone; oblrteration of old trails and roads by gradmg and planted; substanhal stone culverts and bndges which take the place of unsightly glanng galvamzed iron tubes; trees protected from washand slidmg rocks and other little thmgs that are not so showy but all oF which go to make an attractive outdoor mountain park. For the magnificent view seen as you ascend the mountain side-higher and h~gher. Mr Youngs modestly remarked, the CCC camp boys claim no credrt. It was there before the first trail was built. But the CCC camp boys have made it easier for you and me to go up and see The dnve leads, if you are not diverted by the many enticimg side trazls, to the flagstaff we had observed at the top of FlagstafF mountain. Here we walk out to the ledge and look down at the beautiful city of Boulder among shade trees-and out over miles of plams too the east-fields of farms and plenty-yellow fields of wheat in the shock, green fields of alfalfa bemg cut-lakes and reservo~rs-paved roads as straight as a Ime drawn-h~ghways leadmg to Denver, Cheyenne, Chicago-everywhere-North, South, East. The scope and magmficence of the view from Flagstaff is not excelled by the view from any mountaindrive I have taken in Colorado unless it might be the view from the top of Pikes Peak. as Here at the top of Flagstaff is Sunrise circle. The CCC camp boys have built a Roman- like amphrtheatre. A lazge stone rostrum and stone seats all around a great stone fireplace Here are held sunrise services by many-orgamzahons throughout the year- and here around a great glowing campfire gatherings assemble at mghts. One of the projects worked out by the CCC camp boys was the building of 7 miles of 4- strand barbed wire fence. This fence is not to keep people out bat was put up to keep cattle from commg m and feeding upon the grass, shrubbery and trees. Another-the building of a number of attractrve cattle guards to help protect the premises Many trails have been built and much road work donw within the park limits. ~~ ATTACHMENT D: S.R. DE BOER PLANS ~7 _ --,~.-~.,..,,~ x~~ana.i~oSd'rp~t~N'.wxr+-.q~;R ~ w"'~y'4~.' v'MStr~ .m,.e„ «F~M+M .~~%uYdwuur~~ ~.~ >~ffw i ~ - .,...m.~........ .~~~ ~ i- .~t„1e<x~~.~~~P~4,St+~.r~... ~ , ~ i . , i i, •~ .•~.. ....~-.-r.i-_m ~b...Y..o.aark~~- ~ o•br~ :rN I' ~ ' ' . ~ ~ ' ~ ~t~ i~ v ~w~ ~. ~ ~. .i ~. ' ~ .. n ~v i~~ ~ ~ • ~~j1 t ~ 1 0 ~ ~ , ' ~ O P ~8 ' r `ef~' ~+ ` ~ ~~0 ` ~+~ . ~ . ` ~ I ~p I o \ i . ~ ~ ` r. " . v ~i\ ~ 1 2`Y < L1I,~. • . ~ . ~,~a~"n~~'ei ~.. „ " ' ,-.~1 ~ ~ ~ , 'r ~ ; , `; `'` „ o-tAJ9~ oP dlil~oOP~'71'/~At~ ~1a~dr.nrF.3aaiJ~>,ain ' ~ ae~,e dLr~i~b~,2,~;v~v.~,~op 'S ,,::,1'l,~Qi).~~',!''il~NT;~#~Y~X~'L~,~ J ~ ~" ~ µ ~ ' ' ~ N ~ Y ~ fr• ~ r~ , , . i r~ „ -pS .~ 1 , :~ ,. ~ ~ j„ ' . .. ' ~ i ; ! , ;~ , r ° ~ ` „ ~ ;~a ~~:~„a;~, ~.~~.<~,; , s -, •~ , ~, ~; ; < ' ~~~~ ~a,k,.,,,,o~~ ~ ~n~, n ~ . , < ; , ~', ~ ~ ~ ,~ r '' ~ as . : :~r~ ~ ~K n r. ,r, t _ '"'~,,. s ._ ~' ~~ ~t. ~C^ ., V ~i. ` , ~ ~rs ww m ~ ar ~. ...r~~+-_'_ e... ~ ~i '~ , . ~'t ' 2$ Attachment E NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARKS SURVEY NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 1849 C Street, N W Room NC-400 Washington, DC 20240 LISTING OF NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARKS BY STATE COLORADO (17) BENT'S OLD FORT ...... . . , .... ., . ,. „ , , „ „ , OTERO COUNTY,COLORADO CENTRAL CITY/BLACK HAWK HISTORIC DISTRICT , ., CENTRAL CITV, GILPIN COUNTY, COLORADO CRIPPLE CREEK HISTORIC DISTRICT ., ., ., , , CRIPPLE CREEK, TELLER COUNTY, COLORADO DURANGO-SILVERTON NARROW-GAUGE RAILROAD LA PLATA AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, COLORADO GEORGETOWN-SILVER PLUME HISTORIC DISTRICT . , CLEARCREEKCOUNTY,COLORADO LEADVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT , LEADVILLE, LAKE COUNTY, COLORADO LINDENMEIER SITE ., . .,. „ „ ,,,,, „ ,,, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO LOWRYRUIN.. , , , , MONTEZUMACOUNTY,COLORADO MESA VERDE ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT MESA VERDE NATIONAL PARK, MONTEZUMA COUNTY, COLORADO PHILADELPHIA TOBOGGAN COMPANY CAROUSEL #6 , BURLINGTON, KIT CARSON COUNTY, COLORADO PIKE'S PEAK . .... . . . .. ..... . . .. ... . EL PASO COUNTV, COLORADO PIKE'S STOCKADE , . . . , CONEJOSCOUNTY,COLORADO RATON PASS (A/so (n New Mex~co) LAS ANIMAS COUNTY, COLORADO and CdLFAX COUNTY, NEW MEXICO ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK ADMINISTRATION BUILD~NG.. ESTES PARK, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO SHENANDOAH-DIVES (MAYFLOWER) MILL .. . .. . .. ... SILVERTON, SAN JUAN COUNTY, COLORADO SILVERTON HISTORIC DISTRICT .. . . SILVERTON, SAN JUAN COUNTY, COLORADO TELLURIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT , TELLURIDE, SAN MIGUEL COUNTY, COLORADO APPENDIX A ••• • • • .. . ... 12/19/60 • • • • . . .. , 07/04/61 • . . .07/04/61 . .. .... .. ... .... 07/04/61 . 11/13/66 . • . . 07/04/61 • ••• ... . . 01/20/61 . . .. ... .. ... ..07/19/64 . . .. .05/29/87 , 02/27/87 •• • . • . . ..07/04/61 . . 07/04/61 • •. .. .. .. 12/19/60 •~•• ••• • . .. .01/03I01 . .... ... . . . . . 02/ 16/00 • . .. . .. 07/04/61 . . , 07/04/61 The numerous designations within the National Park System sometime confuse visitors. The names are created in the Congressional legislahon authorizing the sites or by the president, who proclaims "national monuments" under the Antiquities Act of 1906 Many names are descriptive -- lakeshores, seashores, battlehelds --but others cannot be neatly categonzed because of the drversity of resources w(thin them Ir 1970, Congress elaborated on the 1916 National Park Service Organic Act, saying all un~ts of the system have equal legal standing in a national system National Park [NP7 These are generally large natural places having a wide variety of attributes, at times tncludfng signlficant historic assets Hunting, mining and consumptive activ~ties are not authorized National Monument [NM] ~~' The Antiquihes Act of 1906 authorized the President to declare by public proclamation landmarks, structures, and other ob~ects of historic or scientific interest situated on lands owned or controlled by the government to be national monuments National Historic Site ~tvHS] Usually, a national historic site contams a single historfcal feature that was directly associated with its sub~ect. Derived from the Histonc Sites Act of 1935, a number of historic sites were established by secretarles of the Interior, but most have been authonzed by acts of Congress Nationat Historlc Park ~rvHP~ This designation generally applies to historic parks that extend beyond single properties or buildings National Memorial [NMem7 A national memorial is commemorative of a historic person or episode; it need not occupy a sde historiiaify connected with its sub~ect National Battlefleld [NB~ This generai title includes nat~onal battlefield, national battlefield park, national battlefield site, and na4wnal military park In 1958, an NPS committee recommended national battlefield as the single title for all such park lands Other Designations [oo~ Some units of the National Park System bear unique titles or combinations of titles, like the W hite Houso APPENDIX B NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM UNITS AUTOMATICALLY LISTED IN THE NATIONAI~ REGISTER INTERNATIONAL HISTORIC SITE [IHS] NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD [NB] NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK [NBP] NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD SITE [NBS] NATIONAL HISTORIC SITES [NHS] NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK [NHP] NATIONAL MEMORIAL [NMEM] NATIONAL MILITARY PARK [NMP] NATIONAL MONUMENT [NM] COLORADO BENT'S OLD FORT NHS HOVENWEEP NM (SEE ALSO UTAH) MESA VERDE NP YUCCA HOUSE NM ~ Attachment F CITY OF BOULDER OPEN SPACE AND MOUNTAIN PARKS DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS -ACCESSIBILITY PATH- SUNRISE CIRCLE AMPHITHEATER ON FLAGSTAFF MOUNTAIN, City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks Property Description and location of the project: This pro~ect will build an accessible path accoidmg to Che Ameiican wtth Disabilriies Act sCandards from the parkmg area to Che Sunrise Circle at the Amphitheater on Plagstaff Mountam in Boulder County, Colarado This pioperty is located m Boulder County and is owned by Crty of Boulder, Colorado and managed by the Open Space and MounCaias Paiks DepartmenC 2. Baclceround, purnose and need for the project: The Sunrise Circle Amphitheater was built by the United States of America sponsored Civilian Conservation Corps in 1933 and 1934 For the citizens of Boulder This facility has nol Ueen changed or modtfied m any significant mannei smce the 1934 completion The purpose of this pro~ect is to build a path trom the Amphitheater parkmg area to Sunrise Circle area to allow wheelchair access and access for people with other mobility impauments ADA iequires that all public facilities be accessible to disabled mdividuals by December 31, 1995 The change m elevation from the ADA paikmg spaces to the central gravel area/ old fiie pit area is over 24 feet at the present time 3. Description of proiect alternatives and summarv of maior issues: Due to the htstoric significance of lhe site, several altematives have been developed to provide an ADA accessible pathway from the parkmg area near the t7agpole to the Sunnse Circle area. All proposed pathways are planned to have 60 mch wide hardened cruaher fines lread with 6 mch high ra~sed edges for wheel stops followmg ADA standards for slope and landing locations (slope = 1 12 with 5 foot long IIat landings for every 30 feet ot sloped trml). a. Do nothing - This alteinative does not saUsfy the ADA requirements. b Build ADA path on the north edge of the historic amphitheater - Alternative A- This ioute ~s Ceas~ble with tiome enviionmenCal impacts such as ma~or soil d~sturbance duni~g the iemoval ot L9 pine trees. Numeious Call trees ulo~g this iouCe obstiuct scenic viewti Thiti ioute will be paitially hidden m the ad~acent foiesC The ioule will be built ~it grade wdh iock walls, ictainmg walls and till, uicluding hand and euaid iails as needed, and haidened crusher lmes smface and 6 mch inised iock edgmg as wheels~ops. The iequired guardiail will impact tlie view at the entiance to the Amphitheatei middle nisle. The Sumise Ciicle, as a destmauon, is obtitiucCed tiom view along most ol the path due to many large sr tiees This alCeinative has the most expense due to moie rock retaimng walls and guardrails. c Build ADA paLh on tl~e souLh edge of the historic amphitheater - Alternative B. This ioute is teasiUle and will have the least environmental impacts such as the iemoval of only 2 or 3 pme tiecs The toute will be built at grade with iock wall, retaimng walls ~ind iill, mcludmg hand and guard rails as need, and hardened ciusher lmcs surface Witli 6 mch raised iock edging as wheelstops, no handrails oi guardrails will be needed neai the entrance to the Amphrtheater mrddle aisle Non-nahve ~rass species have infested lhe proposed route and will be addressed duimg constiuction The Suniise Circle area as a destmation is visible ftom all locutions along the proposed ioute, Tl~is altemative has the lowest cost estimate 4. Preferred pro,ject alternative: The preferred alternative to accomplish the goal of access to the Sunrise Circle and seating area is to build the AllA path on the south side of the amphitheater - Alternative B. 5. Public input to date: There has been significant public mput mto this pro~ect a. An open house was held on December 5, 2001 at the East Boulder Recreahon Center The purpose of this open house was to sohcit pubhc mput concernmg possible renovation or improvements to the amphitheater and surrounding area Additionally, at this open house, we presented the ADA accessible path concepts and guidehnes Most public comments on the accessibility pro~ect quesrioned the trmmg of the pro~ect and the impacts to scheduhng of weddmgs at the amphitheater over the summer construction time period b. OSMP staff has been attendmg the Disability Task Force (DTF), a sub-committee of the City of Boulder Human Relations Board on a monthly basis since January 2001 to present the design ideas and solicit feedback for the accessible path design The DTF supports the Alternative B due to its beautiful views, southern exposure, and its mclusiveness - front door versus what is perceived to be a"back door" entrance/north path. c. OSMP statf piesented the design alternatives to an mPormal ~omt meetmg wrth CiCy oY Bouldei Landmarks Pieservltion Advisory Board (2 board members) and the Bouldei County Historic Preservation Advisory Board (3 board members) This meeYtng was co-chmred by th~ CiCy ot Boulder aud Boulder County Plannmg Dep~irtment StatP on January 30 and f^eb 20, 2002 to solicit mput on poss~ble hi5loiic impacts lor each alternative d. OSMP stafi p~eseuLed tlic dcsign alleinatives to the City ot Bouldei Landmaiks Piesecvation Advisoiy Bowd (LPAB) on Maich 6, 2002 and received then comments The LPA13 also committed to hefp with design details. e. OSMP Stal1 piesented ll~e design allernalives to Boulder County Hislonc Pieseivation Advisory Boaid (HPA[3) on Maich 7, 2002 The board felt that the~r charge was Co ieview buildmg peinuts once they have been submitted The Botnd will ieview and oificially comment on the pio~ecl when a buildmg permit ts submitted f. In the fall of 2002, HPAB ~tpproved u~equest by City st~tf to assign a Htstoric Landmark status foi the Amphitl~eatci site. g. In the tall of 2002, seveial cit~zens reviewed oai pro~ect tiles Based on this cihzen ieview, staff put togetl7er an 18 mcmbei cit~zen design ieview committee that consisted ot private citizens, members oi the City of Boulder Landmarks Pieservations Board, Bouldei Co~inty Histouc Preservation Board, Boulder Disability Task Foice, Center Yor Pcoples with Dtsabilittes, and Histouc Soulder This group met for several months to determine pathway select~on criteiia and lo try to reach consensus on one design In the e~d the design cnteria were developed but consensus on an alignment proved to be elusive AC that pomt, a suggestion was made that perhaps a pathway that entered m between lhe lwo existmg entrances (a center approach) would work and would Ue acceptable The comzmttee empowered a smaller committee of e~ghC, four each from the disabled aod histonc commiYtees to take the selecUOn cntena that had been developed and design an acceptable ahgnment entering m the middle This committee of eight m turn empowered a committee of three to develop the alignment This subgroup met over the summer of 2003 and developed several altarnatives The larger group was then convened on December 3, 2003 where the alternatives developed by the subcommittee were presented and discussed by the larger group h. State Historic Society Review - The committee of three met atartmg in early 2003 Usmg the design criteria developed by the larger committee, they destgned a pathway that entered between the existmg stairways und wound around the flagpole before exrtmg and re-entering along the northern wall in order to provide access to the center cross aisle. In convetsattons with stakeholders, ~t became cleai that, while many tnterested people on both s~des support this alignment, there were still some who could not To ~tnswei Some of theti concerns, a much ievised southern ioute was developed (Attachment B) Both of these plans weie mocked up on site usmg lathe uud iope lames Sliaitus, Pro~ecls Managei ioi Colorado Historical Society (CHS) was asked lo arpculaCe the StaLe IIrtitouc Preseroauon OtFice's (SHPO) op~mon as to the appiopuatenens ~~t each alignment Thal opuuon was expiessed in a letCei Lo OSMP ,vtating Lhat Lhe SHPO tavo~ed the southein alignment (Attachment E) Tliis was conveyed to ~he laiger committee oi e~~hteen. At llie ineeting o[ ihe taigci committee, it w~i5 clear thaL Ihere was liltle Support foi the centei onuance appio~ich but lhai Some membeis tiull piefeired a uoithern alignment that 3Z had been devised by Maigaiet Hansen, Aichrtect, wilh Hansen, Handley, and Associates, and a membei ot HisCaric Bouldei (Attacl~ment A). It was also suggested that iC would be lielpful to have anothei l~tndscape architect ieview lhe plans To answer these conceins, Phil Flores, landscape aichitect for Norris, Dullea, was mviled to rev~ew the proposed southein ahgnment, the center ahgnment, and the Hansen no~thein alignment, and to evaluate them foi appiopnateness James Straitus was also mv~ted Co look at the Hansen northein alignment At ChaC tirne, both gentlemen expressed theii opinions verbally, on site, that the southein alignment was the preferred alignment In addiCion, lhey both stated Chat in their opm~ons, no changes should be made to the Amphriheatei stage since any changes would ne~atively affect lhe resource. Two letters from Georgianna Conhgulia, Coloiado State Hrstoric Preservation Officer, dated October 20, 2003, and January 13, 2004, Attachments E and F, and Phil Flores, Norris Dullea, dated 7anuary 15, 2004, Attachment G are attached Georgianna Contigulia's letter outlines that the southern route produces "less vasable tmpact to the sate and remaans the preferred access ramp route" Phil Flores' letCer outlmes that South Trail alignment °~s signlficantly better thr~n the other two alternaCaves It as a niore sensaCave and sarv~ple fit wcth the hastorically sagnafica~it Surirase Carcle Amphztheater facal~ty, both envaronmentally and hastoracally. Thas altgnment provades an open, vasibly sens~tive, accessable route to the amphrtheater The trailhead ad~acent to the soudi eratry staars provades all users w~th an alternative way to access the central sectaoia of tlae amphttheater seattng area. The tratlhead and tratl wtll pravide an opportunity to interpret the hastonc and natural attnbutes of the Sunrise Circle Amphztheater f'acaliry The south corrcdor provides ari opportunity f'ar users to expenence spectacular vaews to [he soutlieast as tliey approach Che mt2phatheater The visator can visually see the entzre traal alagnme~it as they arrave at the traclhead a~2d arnmed~ately establ~sh a"sense of place ° with the Sunr~se Circle An2phatheater, Flagstaff'Mountatn, the front range a~zd the plains beyaid. Tl2is trail alignment wall he vcsibly secure froni the access drive mzd parkcng areas The proposed trarl alcgnryie»t licts a good solar aspect anct u workable crass slope far co~astructrnn of u sacle hall rrazl Tleere w~ll be a/i~nited m~~ourxt of retaaixing wall needed tn suppurt d2as traal alignment Land Jon~i gradin,r,> along the tratl vvrll be larnttecl. T72ere wrll be tiame ,~~rada~~g ucl~ustments needecl at t/te ectst e~2d of die tratl as ~t arrrves at tlae c~i~~pltiatheuter A l~naated iaun2ber of tress wall need to be re~noved wiih the constructann nf ~h~s alag~~me~~t The trarl tiu~face rvrll be n/ a/rrni, stable uncl no~~-slcp mutertctl thctt w~ll al/aw full access by wheeled apparatus The fi~ial traal tlesegn atthczpates the use of a 6 inch ,storae curb edgu~g alorag euclt sade o~ ihe traal 73and raals wall be provided where rieeded to meet safety coder fo~ Irual des~g~a Tl2e ~aatave stone ca~rb ancl retaa~zang walls wall be clesagnecl to blend wuh the exasttng /tt.rtor~c fecitures of the stte " See attachment C and U. Maantertimece of tl2as trua/ alagnnient wall be mi~limal. There wtll be srncall up hall clratnage pockets~ Ihat be dratned ct~ider the traal With the provt~ton ot 2% cross ,slope of rurfc~ce r~~nnff froin die trc~~l there wall be nr~ ,srg~aiJicant erosao~z The ~ropo,sed 60 inch wadth of the tratl witli rts 6 t~2ch stone curb w~ll allow fnr pu.reang alnng the enttre lengCh of the trai/ ancl wall act as a gu~de far the vasaially antpairecl users " It shonld be noted lhat lhc linal delails oi consuucuon des~gn and matenals will be woiked out with mput fiom the Landm~iiks Preservation Advisoiy Boaid, the Historic Preservahon Advisory Boaid, Histoiic Boulder, 5tate Historic Fund, Colorado Historical Society, Disability Task Force, and Center for People with Disabilities Additionally, all work w~ll be done m accordance with the Sec retary of the Interior's Preservation Standlyds and will meet ADA standaids. ATTACHMLNTS: A. ADA Path Alternative "A" B. ADA Path Alternative "B", Preferred Allernative C. Cross Section C-C D. Amphitheater Railings information, by Hansen/Handley & Associates E. Letter from Georgianna Contigula, Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer, dated October 20, 2002, Re: Sunrise Circle Amphitheater. F. Letter from Mark Wolfe, Colorado Deputy State Historic Preservation Of~cer, dated January 13, 2004. G. Letter from Phillip E. Flores, FASLA, CLARB, Landscape Architect, Norris Dullea, Denver, Colorado, dated January 15, 2003. 6. Staff project manager: Glenn D. Carriere, P.E., Open Space and Mountain Parks Department, 7315 Red Deer Drive, Boulder, CO 80301, 303-413-7623. 7. Other consultants or relevunt contacts: I3ansen/Handley, Architects, Boulder, Colorado, Margaret A. Hansen, AIA,'I00 Logan Mill Road, Boulder, CO 80302, 303-4A3-7659. Goals Assessment: Using the BVCP and department master plans, describe the primary city goals and bene(its that the pro,ject will help to achieve: Sustainability - None Community Design - Prnvide ADA accessibility to city facilities. Fucilities und Services - Provide ADA accessibility to city facilities. rnvironment- None Cconomy - None Transportation - None Housing - None Social Concerns and Human Services - Provide ADA accessibility to city facilities and protect the historic site. 2. What are the trade-offs among city policies and goals in the proposed project alternative? None. 3. Is this project referenced in a master plan'? If so, what is the context in terms of goals, objectives, larger system pl~ns, etc.? If not, why nut? Yes, all Crty facilitres shall be ADA accessiUlc. 4. Will this project be in conflict with the goals ur policies in any deparCment master plan'? No 5. List other city projects in the pro,ject area that are listed in a departmental master plan or the CIP? None 6. Will this project exceed city, state, or federal standards and regulations? Pro~ect will comply with Federal ADA iegulations Impact Assessment Usmg the attached checklist, identify the potential impacts of the proposed pro~ect or (if apphcable) the pro~ect alternahves Clty Of Boulder CommunltY and Enulronmemal Assessment Checkllst fi ros~t~~~ ~ee~~c - Negative effect 0 No effect Pro~ect Title: ; t c Accessible Structure to the Sunrise Circle - v r a - = Amphitheater on Flaqstaff Mountain, Boulder ~ r ">_ ">_ Countv, Colorado. ~~ d ~ ~ ; ~ v v, am ¢ a Areas or Features 1. Disturbance to species, communities, hahitat, or ecosystems due to a. Construction actrvdies 0 0 0 h. Veqetation removal c Human or domestic animal encroachment 0 0 0 d Chemicals (including petroleum products, fertilizers, pesticides, herb~cides) 0 0 0 Behaworal displecement of wildlite species (due ta noise from use f Introduct~on of non-native plant species in the site landscapin 0 0 0 to aroundwater or surface runoff h. Discharge of sediment to any body of water 0 0 0 i Wind erosion 2. Loss of mature trees or siqnificant plants~ B Riparian Areas/Floodplains 0 0 0 1 Encroachment upon the 100•year, conveyance ore h~gh hazard flood zones? 0 0 0 2 Disturbance to or fraamentation of a rioarian corridor~ 1 Disturbance to or loss of a wetland nn site~ n wMai~iTnr.n i ra~u n~ c m~, i<i is i uo~ -~- D Geoloav and Soils 0 0 0 1 a. Imqacts to unique eolo ~c or phys~cai features~ 0 0 0 b Geolo ic development constraints~ 0 0 0 a Substantial chan es in topo raphy~ 0 0 0 d. Chanqes in soii or fill material on the site~ 1 Impacts to water quality from any af the following~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 b Chan e in hardscape - - 0 c. Chan e in site round features 0 0 0 d Chan e in storm dreina e 0 0 0 e. Chan e in ve etation 0 0 0 _ f Chanqe in pedestnan and vehicle traffic 0 0 0 _ q. Use or storage of chemicals 0 0 0 2 Ex posure of groundwater contamination from excavation or pumpmq~ F 1. Short or lonq term impacts to air quatity (C02 emiss~ons pollutants)~ 0 0 0 a. From mobile sources? 0 0 0 b. From stat~onary sources~ G. Resource Conservation 0 0 0 1. Chan es in water use? 2. Increasesin ener ~ ~ ~ ~ _ gy use 0 0 0 3. Generation of excess waste~ H Cultural/Historic Resources 0 0 0 _ 1 a. impacts to a prehistonc or archaealoqical sde~ 0 0 0 b Impacts to a buildin or structure over fifty years of aqe~ 0 0 0 to a historic 0 0 0 d. Impacts to si nificant aqricultural land~ 1 a Effects on scenic vistas or public views~ - ' 0 b Effects on the aesthetics of a stte open to publw view? 0 0 0 c Eftects on views to unique geolo ic or physical features~ 0 0 0 1. Health hazards, odors, or radon~ 0 0 0 2. Site hazards~ K Physiological Well-being 0 0 0 1. Exposure to excessive noise? 0 0 0 2. Excessrve liqht or alare? 3 Increase in vibrations~ Serwces Additlonal need for a. Water or sanrtary sewer services? 0 0 0 b Storm sewer/Flaod control teatures? 0 0 0 c Maintenance of pipes, culverts and manholes? 0 0 0 d. Pohca serwces? services~ f. Recreation or perks facilities~ 0 0 0 a. Librarv services~ h Transportation improvements/traffic miti ation7 0 0 0 ~. Affordable housmg? 0 0 0 k. Open space/urban open land7 0 0 0 I Power or enerqv use~ H\A MPHITHhA 1 I R\CCAP CHL('KLR I UOC -3- m Telecommumcations? n. Health care/social services? 0 0 0 M S ecial Po ulations 1 Effects on a Persons with disabilities~ + + 0 b Senior o ulat~on~ + + 0 c Chddren~ + + 0 d. Restricted income ersons~ 0 0 0 City of Boulder Communitv and Environmental Assessment Process Checklist 6luestions- Note: The following questions are a supplement to the CEAP checklist. Only those questions indicated on the checklist are to be answered In full. A. Natural Areas and Features Describe the potential for disturbance to or loss of significant: species, plant communitles, wildlife habitats, or ecosystems via any of the activities listed below, (Significant species include any species listed or proposed to be listed as rare, threatened or endangered on federal, state, county lists,) a, Constructlon activities - No long term effects are anticipated. b, Vegetation removal - Construction activities will remove at least two (2) and not more than 17 pine trees and any non-native species along the construction route. Where practical, native piants will be salvaged. Restoration of the impacted areas will be done with native plants. c, Human or domestic animal encroachment - none d, Chemical to be stored or used on the site (including fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides) - none e, Behavioral displacement of wildlife specles (due to noise from use activities)- Local wddlife wdl be affected by noise and construction vehicle traffic oniy for the duration of construction. There will be no - long term effects. f, Introduction of non-native plant species in the site landscaping- Non-native grqsses are on the site now. Reclpmation efforts will be implemented using native spec~es. g. Changes to groundwater (including installation of sump pumps) or surtace runoff (storm drainage, natural stream) on the site, Existing surface drainage wiil be maintamed. Some local drainage/erosion wdl be repaired. h. Potential for discharge of sediment to any body of water either short term (construction related) or long term, - No impact. i. Potential for wind erosion and transport of dust and sediment from the site. - No impact. 2, If potential impacts for disturbance to or loss of mature trees or significant plants. ~~ If potential impacts have been identified, please provide any of the following information that is relevant to the project: • A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts, Disturbed areas will be reclaimed with native species. There are no long term impacts from this project. • A habitat assessment of the site, including: 1. a list of plant and animai species and plant communities of special concern found on the site; 2- 17 ponderosa pines will be removed depending on selected alternative. Due to large forest in area, no replacement of trees is planned. 2, a wildlife habitat evaluation of the site. The prominent mammals in the area are the Abert squirrel, mountain lion, and mule deer. These mammals should return to the prea after the project is completed. • Maps of the site showing the location of any Boulder Valley Natural Ecosystem, Boulder County Environmental Conservation Area, or critical wildlife habitat, None in area. • A stormwater management plan consistent with state and locai regulations, (A state stormwater discharge permit is requlred for city projects which disturb more than 1 acres,) Area less than one (1) acre. • Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for chemicals to be used or stored on site, MSDS sheets will be available during construction. There will be no storage of chemicals after compietion. B. Riparian areas and Floodplains 1, Describe the extent to which the project will encroach upon the 100- year, conveyance or high hazard flood zones, Will not encroach. 2. Describe the extent to which the project will encroach upon, disturb, or fragment a riparian corridor. No impacts. If potential impacts have been identified, please provide any of the followmg information that is relevant to the pro~ect: • A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate idenYified impacts to habitat, vegetation, aquatic or aquatic life, N/A • A map showing the location of any streams, ditches and other water bodies on or near the project site. The nearest stream is thousands of feet to the south. • A map showing the location of the 100-year flood, conveyance, and high hazard flood zones relative to the project site, This pro~ect is located on top of Flagstaff Mountain which is several thousand feet above Boulder Creek and Gregory Canyon 100- year floodway. C. Wetlands 1. Describe any disturbance to or loss of a wetland on site that will result from the project, There will be no impacts to wetlands. If potential impacts have been identified, please provide any of the following information that is relevant to the project: • A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts. Not applicable. • A map showing the locatlon of any wetlands on or near the site. Identify both those wetlands which are jurisdictional under city code (on the wetlands map in our ordlnance) and other wetlands pursuant to federal criterla (deflnitlonal), There are no jurisdictional wetlands on or near the project site. D. Geology and soils 1, Describe any, a, impacts to unique geologic or physical features; No Impacts. b. gelogic development constraints or effiects to earth conditions or landsllde, erosion, or subsidence, None c. substantial changes in topography that will result from the project, No impacts. d, Changes in sotl or fill matenals on the site. None If potential impacts have been identified, please provide the following: • A description of how the proposed pro~ect would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts, No applicable. 37 . A map showing the location of any unique geologic or physical features, or hazardous soil or geologic conditions on the site, There are none. E. Water 62uality 1, Describe potential impacts to groundwater or storm water quality that may result from the project, No Impacts. 2. Describe potential increases in storm water discharges that may result from the project, No Impacts. 3, Describe potential water quality impacts to streams, ditches and other water bodies from the project, No Impacts. 4, is there a likelihood of groundwater contamination from past history on the site or an adjacent site? No If potential impacts have been identified, please provide the following; • A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts, Not Applicable. • Information from city water quality files on sites with soil and groundwater impacts within 1/4 mile radius of proJect or site, Not Applicable. • If impacts to site are possible, either from past activities at site or from adJacent sites, pertorm a Phase I Environmental Impact Assessment, No Impacts. F. Air 9uality 1. Describe potential impacts to air quality resuiting from this project, Distinguish between impacts from mobile sources (VMT/trips) and stationary sources (APEN, HAPS). No Impacts. G. Resource Conservation 1, Describe potential changes in water use that will result from the project, a. Estimate the indoor, outdoor (irrigation) and total daily water use for the facility, No impacts. b. Describe plans for minimizing water use on the site. (Xeriscape landscaping, efficient irrigation system) Reclamation will be done using native grasses and forbes. 2, Describe potential increases in energy use that may result from the project, a. Describe plans for minimizing energy use on the project or how energy conservation measures will be incorporated into the building design, Refer to the 2000 International Energy Conservation Code??? Not applicable. 3, Describe the potential for excess waste generation resulting from the project. Describe plans for recycling and waste minimizatlon (deconstruction, reuse, recycling, green points). Not applicable. H. Cultural/Histonc Resources 1. Describe any impacts to: Amphitheater rock walls and stage area. 2. a, A prehistoric or historic archaeological site, No Applicable. b, A building or structure over fiffy years of age - The pro~ect will be built adjacent to the existing amph~theater structure which is 70 years old. Special attention wdl be taken to not disturb any existing rock walis during the installation of foundations for the pathway structure. c, A historic feature of the site such as an irrlgation ditch, No Impacts. d, Significant agricultural lands. Not Applicable. If potential impacts have been identified, please provide the following; • A descriptlon of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts. See H.2.(b) above. I. X Visual6luality 1. Describe any effects on; a. Scenic vistas or views open to the public, Guardrails slightly impact views to the south and southwest at the southern alternatives' access point from the parking lot. However, existing pine trees in the background to the south of this guardrail wdl diminish or nullify this impact. Guardrails wiil impact views to the north along the north aiternative if the trees are every removed (or burned). b. The aesthetics of a site open to public view, Pathway will be designed and built to be compatible with the existing structure and, at the same time, be distinguishable from it. c, View corridors from the site to unique geologic or physical features, No Impacts. J. Safety 1. Describe any additional health hazards, odors, or exposure of people to radon that may result from the project, No Impacts. 2, Describe any additional site hazards that may result from the project. (Including risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances such as oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) No Impacts. If potential impacts have been identified, please provide the following; A description of how the proposed proJect would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts, Not Applicable. K. Phvsiological Well-being 1. Describe the potential for exposure of people to excessive noise caused by any phase of the project. There will be some noise from large trucks, jack hammers, welding and hammermg durmg construction. There are no long term noise impacts. 2, Describe any excessive light or glare that may result from the project. No Impacts. 3, Describe any increase in vibrations that may result from the pro~ect, There is the possibility of some vibration during the installation of foundations. There wdl be no long term impacts. If potential impacts have been identifled, piease provide the following; A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts. Concerning construction noise, the construction area will be fenced off to keep pedestrians from any temporary no~se impacts. Vibration will be monitored to insure there are no impacts to the existing rock walls. L. Services 1. Describe any additional need for the foJlowing services as a result of the project; a, Heaith care/social services - No Impacts. b, Water or sanitary sewer services - No Impacts. c, Police services- No impacts. d. Fire protection- No Impqcts. e. Recreation or parks facilities- No Impacts. f. Librarles- No Impacts. g, Transporfation improvements/traffic mitigation.- No impacts. h. Parking- No Impacts. i. Affordable housing- No Impacts. j. Open space/urban open land- No impacts. k, Power or energy use-No Impacts. ~ I, Telecommunicatlons- No Impacts. 2. Describe any impacts to any of the above existing or planned city services or department master plans as a result of this project, (e,g. budget, available parking, planned use of the site, public access, automobile/pedestrian conflicts, views) None M. Special Pooulations 1, Describe any effects the project may have on the following special populations: a, Persons with disabilities- Pro~ect will provide safe access to the Amphitheater seatmg area for people with mobdity disabilities. b. Senior population - Pro~ect wdl provide safe access to Amphithepter stage and seating area. c. ~hildren - Pro~ect wdl provide safe access to Amphitheater stage and seating area for small chddren and children in strollers. d, Restricted income persons- No Effects. If potentipl impacts have been identified, please provide the followmg; 3Q' A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts, Impacts to visual quality due to guardrail have been minimized by environmentally sensitive path design which piaces the rails where backdrop pine trees will mask or blend the rails with the viewscape. ~~ ~ 4RrhC ~ 'C-~ GRAPHIC SCALE FLAGSTAFF AMPHITHEATER HISTORIC BOULDER'S PROPOSED ON GRADE PATH e-14-02 NEIY 'iRAIL LENG7HS: poiking ta seating = 265 feet to lower seating = 19 tcet to stage = 29 feet guardrail = 15 feat ~QUwdmA ~ ~IkalN~g ~dl xn rw~mau o~y .. '~rnnAer nne polh ! bx~tli nir,o~iad ta rMd chok i_ i ~noa. .nea ~nwr ~ ~L . a.. m m ~w.a i~ ~i~~ I~~I~ ,i \ ~` / ~i~Jll~ . ~ ~ ni+u PnRxin~ ~ \ ~~ ~ ~ ~ , , ~ ~x i~~~,', , - _ i ~ ,~ i _.,~~;~,. / .~~I!~o ~~.. ,,_ ~ '~t\., _~ ~ ~-r~~. ~~ ~ ~i, ~ `9` ~I,. a n~.~iP.n~ % ~ ~a~ ~ J ~ ~ -i ` ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~r , j , -% i/ . ~, ~ ; ; - .~,„- 9 9~~ ~ / ~ .,i; ~ ~ ~ 9~~~~ ~ i ` / /...~~ c- // ~, ~ ~ Landmarks Board 2/4/04 Item 5C Page 40 \ ~, ~`. '--~'~I"'--- '<4- '~,,~a. ~n ~. , ~ ~ ~ ` .~ '~ ~~ ~~~2-- ~ tia:~` ~t ~ '?s x _ _- t~~~ ~ ~vJr Y ,~^" . ^,~, ~, ~ . \ \~ a ~C ~~ , i ,~ . ~ `~Tras `~~ , ~ "~~~~. ``~.. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~_ ~ 'ir ;~ Q~ ~• ' ,j~ ~\ '3'~'`"'.' ~~ _ ---~ . --~ ? •__. ~~1~ I~i ~e'(owelt~ ~ ~~ ~'~x._;~ ~ ,,~, ~'r 1 ` S'~, ! ( ;~~ , ~ ~ Gy' I _ ~ I `-'S"~ ~~~ ~. ~~~ "~ ~ GS/'~7 'a. ,a~ x ~ J~ ~ j - j ' ~,. / ~d ,~ ~"I ~, ry~ ~~ ~y J i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~. `~.~ ~. ..~ f Lr~ ~ ,~ ~~~ ` ~, , ~ ~ ~ r; ~a , ~. , ~ , `, , _ '. '~ :, ~ i / / ~ . ~n ~~. ~. ~ ~w ,~ / ~~~` ;~ _ i: l ~ -- ~ ~TUCIUNF ~' y~5'~ 4~y ~/ / tl/ $T ~_..__.. i :~. ~ '.I % - / - , , . ~ ! ~ / 1 ~ / I "~% ~P 1 1 _ - ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ' ~ ~ \ ' ~ ~a 'Yf / ~ ~ _ i { ~ ~~ j o '~~ / ::,: ~ ,/3'~ ~ ,~ j ~ I ~) ~t. ' ~k \~ '~i ~/ ' -'~+..,~r~~f ~~ ~ ~~#~ ~ 4 I ~~ ~ ~~ ~+` , ~ \ /`"~v~ S I ~ ~ ~~l I a, t~ ~ ~ 4- ~,,~ ~' ( I ; . ~ PATH WITH HANDRNL ~~ as 'i ~ ~ . { .*r~~ ~--'~ l ~> - ~. , , ~ / ~ ~~ & GUARDRAIL ~~,. ~. i i ~ ~ i ~ ~~ ~ ~ . f ` : ..~ _ ,.~ ~ .. ' ~ '` ~ ~~ ~ ~ / z~ ~~ \ " ~} ~, ~ ~ - .- ! „_;..r~}-~.#~' y ,,- a.~a:~..~;=-` `~~ ~.~ ~ ~,_ . a ~~ ~'~M1~ "~~ "'i"`\ss ~ ~- ~ ~~ ~ , . ~ '~`~, \~~', ~~ I \\\' '~'\ ~ \ ``\ ~ -~. \ _ ~ t, .,\ ~ ~ a~•,~ '~\~ \ '~• `3~>}'"~~ ..,~ . \~ ,. . ~., \\.~ ,\\j%~- % . ~ _ __, - s . ~ c~~rs .,u._x: ~q J ` / ; ~+' /- % -'~o ~~ ' 7s R/ ~VIEW AFtEA,~/ - ~ i ~ ; / ,~ ,~ac~~ ~-J _ ' I ~ _ . ~k?`~'~ ~ '\~V ~ a~ ~ ~ i ~ PATH WI1N 6 HIGH `" a-~ ~* u ~~ ; _ / ' _.i ~ ~~ ROCK EDGE ONLY ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'p,~ ~i ~r . .. , ` s' zo ~ " . . _. ` . ~ u+3~ , ; • ~ ~ '~ - , ~ , ' j ~ - - ----- ~~'. ~ °~~~" n '.z _, . ~-= ~' . ~r,; ~ " YOORD OON1IX113~ ~ ~ ~ . ~(a,Y~ L~ : . : _ ~ ~ ~ ~as~ % ~~ __~~ ~.' _ . / u, , ~ _. -- „~., .- ,~ ~y~ _ ,,,. ~ ~•~ :~ ~ 1-0CQ, •'~ __ -~_ ~~~ , ...__ .- ~. . ~ ~ , : , . ,. . -- / /, , ~ .. ; ~t _ ~- __.. ~ - , i . ~.. ~ , , . ~ . . , ., , . ~. ~ '- - ; _ '' f].6u i' . ~ , / _ ~ l; ` /~./ .~ ~- / i~ ~ ' .~~ ..~~ f / , ; ~ / ,j , " ' ~~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ --- ------ ! / . , e / ~ %,s / i r ! .- ~ . 1 ~ ~ , .. .... . ~ ~ ~ ~ --- - - __ ~ .' J ~`ky' ~ ~ I / I . , _ ~ , _ , D' _ ~, /. . , ~ i - ... -. ~/ ~ ' ~~'-i' / .:,' -_- _ . ' '." ~ i ~_.. _~ ~~ LEGEND "` i ~ /-- / ~ ~~ %~~~ ,~-~ ~ / . __'~.- '~~~ / / ~-' ~ ZO 0 2D ~D = " ~ ; °- TREES TO BE REMOVED ~ -J/~ ~ / GRAPHIC SCALE ~ --- i i~i;~ ,~ ~'- PAI FI WITH 6" HIGI-I ~, j~ i ~~~~n = zo et ROCK EDGE ONLY - ; ' ; '~----- oi-os-oa ~ „ : : ~ ,~`' ;' ~~ ~ ~ PATH WITH HANDRAIL j ~ ~' % & GUARDRAIL ~ ~~'~ ~ ~ .~e.~ ~ oa`F /'~/ I CROSS-SECTION /; ~~~ ., B., f~~,%'~~ ~ ~~ ' / ~~ ~ / ~/ i _ ~ / ~ /,'i . ~~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~~ ,~ ~ ( ~ ~ _ '~/ %,~,/ ~ ~ )' ~ /~~~ ~/ `_ -~ ~ ~ ~-'~ ~! n~. ~,,,._~1+ __ ~ /, 1\ ~ : ~ '- ~ ~ I,' ; r~/ . ~ t/l ~: _'/~_ }~~ %~~ l/ ' ,, s q~:~ ~ % r ~~ j s~' ~cs . 7 ti~ ~ ~'~•' i `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Landmarks Board 2!4/04 Item 5C Page 47 i ~ ..~, ~f .. : Y~ ~;~~ +~•- 1 1' p~l F :M ~~.u: ~ . , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'"~ p~ .~~`"~.: . ~ . . ~ ~~;A~~~ ~~ P ~ ~~a~~,~ £° ~ ~ ~~~~C~ -.~n~ ~Q~ bW~~ `! d~ . .~ 1"~w ..y.,~ ~ y~~: .. . .. VIEW AT "C-C" :~.~~ 1, ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~. J'( No~e: "I'he existing rock wall is tlush rnortared. '1'he iiew palh's rock wall will similar in color to the existing rock wall. The new mortai• w'rll be recessed as shown in the new wall below the pr•o~~osee# ~;uard r~iilin~. '1'he Yiew at-};rade path is sl~r~wn in the hoCtom of the pictiire. N01'E: Guardraii ~rids on lhe lower ti•ail as shown on ttae very left edge o(' ~icture. n yy~~4 ti •n yZ - ,~-1iC~~~,~-~- p HANSEN/HANDLEY & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS AMPHITHEATER RAILINGS railing structure steel, painted dark gray brown (tree trunk-ish) The following has not been engineered, but is the aim top guard rail 3x2 steel tube, 3" dimension horizontal, top at 42" above path surface verticals 2x2 tubing at 6' o c(desired, 4' o c worst case) "intermediates" 3/,s"~ steel horizontal cable through verticals at 4" o c handrail 1'/2"G~ steel, attached to verticals at 34" above path surface (changes, suggestions~~) 9 11 11 I O(, ~A N M I I I B q A D (i O tJ L U I 4 <<l I O R A I) O il 0 l U 2 1 J 0 i 1 4 A 3 ] fi 5 9 y3 q" ~-f~~~- ~ Oclobei 30, 3UU3 Mi ~nn Ree~ei City ol Buuldei Open Space and Mountau~ Pacl:s 7;15 R~d Deei Diive, Bouldei, CO 80306 Re SumiseAmphrtheatei,FlagstaffMo~mt~in Dcai Mr, Reeder, This lettei attempts to ait~culate the State H~stoi~c Preservatioi~ Office's (SHPO) histonc pieseivation piionty in the context of the above md~cated l~istoric s~te with the accepted piogiauimahc goal of access foi the mobility disabled under Title III of tl~e Ameiicans with Disabilities Act The detennination is limited to two final schematic solut~ons after several months (perhaps years) of dehberation mvolvmg many representattves of youi office, Histonc Boulder Inc, iepiesentatives oftl~e local disabled communrty and 7ames Strans of our office This letter does not attempt to comment on the adequacy of the piocess eacept to aclaiowledee that peisons wrth uutially opposing v~ewpoults weie bioueht toeether to biautstonn toward consensus This situatiou involves Uie application of the Americnns ~ntli D~saUlities Act Aichrtechual Gwdelines (ADA~G) as those guidehnes apply to an lustorically desi;~lated s~te, wt~eie the pio~ect itself has the poteutial to "tlueaten or desrioy" the Ivstouc ~esouice In such cases, the SHPO role as defined m the federal law ~s to seel: ieusonable acconuZ~odat~on uid to mntgate potent~al adveise effect to the tesource When applied to the Swu~se Amphrtheatei ll~e issues ~ie the establishme~~t oCan accessible enuance, the development of an uccessible ioute to the,amplutheater nnd Che display oF wiittcn ntlonnatton The fi~st uvo issues will be yddicssed in Lhis IetCer Thc iinal ~hice clesien scl~emcs piesen~c~l uffeie~ access Pioiu iluee ditfaient io~itas I) hom the centc~ I~eliuid Ihe fl~t~*~»le ~iie~i ~) hom ihe norlh ~~enmete~ m~d 3) liom the ~ouLh pm imatei All ui tl~ese oplions woul~l un~~i~~.tte G-om lhe ~veslem pa~lung a~ea It is om cons~detecf opmton tllat the tl~ud tltei~~auve is the onfy one tl~at nte~ts the applic~iblc Sltiu~aids I n rr+ mnnm ov Tn~ ~~ ~~CLGR;.D(? f-~ISiQRICaL ~OCiCTI' °15 :~ [ 6ui yvenue ~uiYe ~GO ocivi~i !'ol oi~no ~u ^o~ ;a~ JGo J., ,ix :o", r,as zon~ www olnranohicioiy oa~,n ~~q yy n ~ o i u rc i c.. r ra t o t rc v w ~ i ~ rv ~.-: Tlie ptoposecl centei staircase would emerge fiom an lrea of secondnry histonc s~gnilicance, at the uppei level tlag pole platfonn and ~lescend and penetrate tli~oudh onc of tl~c two stone bulwark-lil:e components ol the outei i~ng of the Gi eel:-theaCei Tlus could leave some sembl~tnce ol the ougmal feature by ietaining the iemainui~ perpendiculai wmg w~tills This is clea~ly disr~ipnve, I~owevei, to ~l~e symmet~y of thc outei im~ and should be .tvo~ded g~ven the extens~ve modi6ca[~ons necessary to provide a iamped acecss to the centei of tlie amplutheater seatmg aiea The logeion oi sYage is uot ieadily adaptable foi ADA.AG compliant access The combinat~on of access tiom the cenCei oi to tlie logeiou wo~ild clearly huve an adveise impact on the q~ialities ofhistonc signtficanc,~ ~hat cleCinc lhis pioperry A ro~igl~ but effecllve mocl<up mdiciimg, wrtl~ colored iopes, Cl~e hand i vl and plaCfonn elevations (gunidiail at tlle inghei 42" was ilot mcluded) foi botl~ noith ai~d south perunetei desi,,~i concepts was certainly an effective aid m the cons~derahon of these two iemamm~ alternatives I have attached some photographs ns I nnderstand ChaC the moc]< up was removed after visitahon and revte~v by tlie parties mvolved tn the process The difficult choice was made easier when the guardrail wrth spacmg not to exceed 4" sphere deusity, requued aUove ? 1" (unvenfied), was envis~oned The north access ramp desi~7ed Uy Maigaret Hansen (an architect and the Piesident of Historic Boulder Inc ) would mipose a density of ~uaidia~ls aud a handrail vis~Ule from the seatmg ai ea of the theatei This would unfortunately diminish the qualrties of the open, nature-integiated Greelo-style theater and rts suiTOUnding landscape context This complextty of iailmg, m this location, would uimecessarily ustup the iirteuded histonc design chai acter of mmnnalist uiteivention, which utrlized the blendmg of ]oca] gray, tan and red stot~es of the aiea, and whicl~ is fiu-ther characteiized by the absence of a defined Uorder other Uzan che edge of the seatmg When considered m plan rt was hoped that tl~e trees that have ~own up suice the or~gmal CCC constniction would l~elp shield the ~mpact of tl~e i amp with the tequned compamon iailnlgs at this northern locahon The moclc up mforms otlierwise The southern ioute as designed Uy city engmeer Glemi Can~ere doubles baclc to the west, below the existm~ parlnng area Uefoie iesuming tn an easterly d~rection where it effechvely lhghts at tl~e center aisle of the seatmg area wrth only a 2 1/2" or so diameter liaudtail inteilmttently (4'-6'~) supported Uy similar metal posts Tlte density of code compli2nt guaidtail ~s eliminated with the smgulai, low side only and lower ul height handrlil Tl~e pl~ns conside~ed wrth the mocl: up cleaily illnstrate the feastUil~ty of hmited access Crom tl~e south side tl~at wi11 leave suffiment Izistoric charactei mtact so ~is uot to tlueateu the site, smictute or histouc des~,~intion status Theie w~is disctission about blocl:mg ~ieccss to ll~e eaislii~e [7an1<mg stune stai~cnses Il'oii~ tl~e pailnng ~ueu ttnd thereby di~ecimg aIl visito~s to ~he new soiithem iamp, eifechvelv (orcing ~ill visitois to ~ pi~maiy new entiance Whilc lhis add~esses the civil liberhes focus oi oquality of acecss rt does pose some concem (t om the standpoint of negattve imp~ict lo the fisLoi ~c coodition ~md the ii~teertty ol I tlci (posC CCC) ~voi I< which uiociuced ~he uppet tieis ~tnd, u is belicved the two westcnt ddge staucascs as well The latei ~l~ite oi coi~stiuct~on dn~l ihe ielat~ve S~~mFcunr,e ol these let~tiues ie~v~im unsLibstantiatc~l ~is oi~tliis date ~'ltilo it is an acc~ptable tieatmcnt ~o utilizc Hawthome bushes ~ls a i~~iau~il and revcis~blc b~ulic~ide of thcse io~ighly synu~~etncal hvin ~ippe~ stans n woalcl bc tm unCoit~inlte alimuuu~on of ilie moie diiect aeeess Ilmeuon Aftui ftinthei consuleiution of the mobilriy disubilriios, beyond the use oi t whcel chau, and ~ilici consi~l~iing and ie~cc[mg the ceuti~il staii indic~ued in llie N~insen plan, I su~gest thul yo~1 icconsiclei the H~~wthorne plantuigs and l~ave the I~isCOiic staus ~uib~~rncade~l The Colouido f~islonc ll 5oc~ety wislics you ~vell u~ yo~n contui~ie~l 5te~~~~lidsiup oi ~hc v~iluable and uiic Civilinn Cans~n~alion Coip leg~lcy on Flagstalf N[o~int~un The couCmucd m~untenai~ce ~u~d ~he adaptauon loi unpioved physicul ~iccess uie impoitxnt me~is~ues oCyo~n public icsponsibilitv, 111 the ~vl~ile ~iCiectmg tieatin~nts m accoid~incc ~vitli thc Seciet~uy oCtlie lnLeno~'s Piese~v~tihoi~ TieaCimei~t Stand~uds This alot~~ with yo~u p~iblu p~ocess repieseuts ~i la~idable un~ert~l:~ng Suicerely, ~~ ~~ Ow~.L ~~~~i ~ D r-~ ~-y~ ~7-'~-- ~`~~1 lre0trlfll711fl COIl(I~Lllla Coloiado State Histoiic Pieseivahon Officer Cc ^ Dan Corson-I~itei-Governmental Seivtces Duector ^ Dale Hecl;endom Nation2l & State Re~~ster Cooidmato~ shaied un SHF (h )!s[atiQames,~tlgstttAmphThn doc y~ ~4~~~- ~ 7anuary l3, 2004 Mi. Jim Reeder Boulder County-Parks & Open Space P.O Box 47l Boulder, CO 80306 Dear Mr Reeder~ Pursuant to you~ mv~tahon t~ agam cons~der the proposed walkway proposals to Che north and south ot the Sunnse Amphrtheuter 7ames Stratis of ou~ office aCtended a walkthrough on 17 Decembet 2003, with landscape archrtect Philip r. Plores, FASLA An alternahve northern route was traversed, ditferent trom the ioute des~gncd by architect Margaret Hanson as was referred to m the SHPO letter to you, dated 20 October 2003 The route analyzed m December would impact the site's qualities of sigmficance less than the earlier Hanson northern proposal Our recommendation is m concert with that of the landscape archrtect's conclusio~, which is that the southern route, as represented m the 20 October letter st~ll produced less visible impact to the srte and remams the preferred access ramp route In addihon to the alternate northern route we discussed a proposal to produce a low bench wall at the back s~de of the or~gmal small stage This would clearly establish a strong v~sual as well as phystcal border to that component of the amph~-theater The histonc nnd present near seamless honzon would be mtemipted This modificahon along wrth a I~ft or ramp to access the stage would be an unfortunate demgration to the implemented histonc plan and the successful mtegration oF the stage feature mto the natural landscape We strongly urge you to consider alternatives to this proposed addition and m compliance with the ADA consider programmahc alternatives for the disabled m heu of the suggested stone bench wall. We have noted your State Historical Fund applicahon For stone and path preservatton treatments which is currendy under the 04-02 applicahon round, review process A fmal determmaaon of these grant awards ts expected by the end of this month We wish you well m your stewardship of this impoRant historic resource and remam available should you have any quesrions or concerns regarding the appropnateness oF future treatments. Smcerely, Mark Wolfe Colorado Deputy Slate Histonc Preserv~hon Otficer Cc. Dan Corson - CHS Inter-Govemmental Services Director X \Gifts\Document\121 15848 doc y!e ~~w~ ~ , i u w.,, c ~ir~, n~~ Uurvu (_olornAo %u>Un tu ibi tl9_' 119h 1'honc: 30i e`lZ 11 AG ww~v,norn~d~~ilu ~um January 15, 2004 Mr. Jim Reeder, Division Manager Open Space & Mountain Parks - Land & Facilities Services P. 0. Box ~91 Boulder, Colorado 80306 ~ NoRRIS Du~~~ Reference: Sunrise Circle Amphitheater on Flagstaff Mountain - Disabled Access Trail Evaluations Letter Report DearMr Reeder~ ~ ~ This is in response to your request to provide a professional evaluation of the three current alternaUve trad alignments and designs for disabled persons trail access to the Sunnse Circle Amphitheater. My evaluabons are based on the following, our meetmg and discussions December 1 ~, 2003 at your oifices with you, Glenn Carr~ere, James Stratis, and Betty and 8dl Chronic; our sde v~sit to the Sunrise Circle Amphitheater that afternoon with the group and Margaret Hansen; and, the various afternative plans, cross se~tions, photos and details you have provided. The three options that were analyzed and evaluated include the following. Alternative A~ North Trad Alignment with a trailhead adjacent to the existing north access stairway to the amphitheater and ending at the north end of the central amphitheater aisle. Aiternative 8- ~South 7rad Ali~nm.e_nt with a trailhead ad~acent to tha existmg south aceess stainvay to the amphithea~er and ending at the south end of the central amphithc~ater aisle Alternahve C- Cantral Trad Alianment with the traiihead north of the flagpole m~~~~~^^^'~ °^~~A~sing back and foKh through the existing rock walls on the west side of the hill ending at the exisGng north gravel pathway at the northwest comer of the amphrtheater. The analysis and evaluation of each altemative were consitlered apprying Universal Trail Design Standards for the planning, design, construction and maintenance of accessible trails in mountain environments within a h~storically significant context With all tl~b .,.,c,,,~ucration, it is my professional opinion as a Senior Landscape Architect that Alternative B- 5outh Trail Aliqnment is signihcantly better than the other two alternatives. It is a more sensitive and simple fR with the historically significant Sunrise Circle Amphitheater facility, both enwronmentally antl histoncally. The foilowmg outlines both ihe assets and constraints of this trad corridor :• This alignment prowdes an open, visually sensihve, accessible route to the amphrtheater. The tradhead, ad~acent to the south entry stairs, provides all users with an alternauve way to access the central section of the amphitheater seating area, The tratlhead and trail will provide an opportuniry to interpret the histonc and natural attri6utes of the Sunrise Cucle Amphitheater facdiry. ~ Y7 1-IIY 1 VVY/VVY ~-YYI 710 Wu~ CoIY~+. nv. L)vnvu (~nlorodo ~u2iri l vu .iUi n`J? I I NC Phonr, 363 fl92 I IGG www nnrmdulli i c~m Page 2- Sunnse Cucle Amphitheater Access ~ NORR15 DuLLE~ :• The south trad comdor provides an opporturniy for the users to eXperience spectacular views to the southeast as they approach the amphitheater. The wsitor can wsually see the entire trail alignment as they arrrve at the trailhead and immediately establish a"sense of place" with the Sunnse Circle Amphitheater, Flagstaff Mou~tain, the front range and the plains beyond. This trail alic~nment will be visibly secure from the access tlrive and parking area :• The proposed trail alignment has a good solar aspect and a workable cross slope for construction of a side hill trail. There will be a hmi~ed amount of retaining wall needed to support this trad alignment Land form grading along the trail wiil be limited There will be some grading adjustments needed at the east end of the trad as it a,,, __ ~,,. amphitheater A limited number of trees will need•to be removed with the construction of this alignment, The trail surface will be of a firm, stable and non-S~~P material that will allow full access by wheefed apparatus. ilie final trail design anticipates the use of a 6 inch stone curb edging along each side of the trail. Hand rads wili be provided where neaded to meet safety codes for trai( design. The native stone curh and retaining walls will be tlesignP~+'^ "'^^~ ~^~~+h the existing historic features of the site 'r Maintenance ot this trail a~~,~ment wdl be mmimal. 7here wdl be small up hill drainage pockets that can be drained under the trad JNith the provision oi a 2% cross slope for surface run oH from the trad there should be no sigrnficant surface erosan. The proposed 60 mch width of the trail with tts 6 inch stone curb will allow for passing along the entire length ol the trail and will act as a guide for tHe visually impaired users. In my professioaal opmwn, Alternative A- North Traii Alignment has some positroe aspects to provide a viable accessible route to the Sunrise Circle Amphitheater. The length ot the trad al~gnment is similar to that of the south alignment. However, this alignment will cause more enwronmental impacts to the north facing slopes and the existing vegetation found there. 7he following outlines hoth the asseis and constraints ot this alignment: 'r The tradhead would be ad~acent to the north entry stairway and trad to the amphitheab,r. The location is convenient to the paved parking~area and is in an appropriate location to provide accesS to the trail. •:• The most of the north tr~~~ ~~~^^ ;~~~~ ~~~~~I be enclosed and in shade all day, The trail is a secluded route thraugh an evergreen forest i ne trail ahgnment has an average of 1%2 to 1 existing cioss slope. This site condition will require an extensive length of constructed retaining walls with handratls to support the trail alignment. To accomplish the consiruction of this trail alignment will require the removal of a number of existing trees. In addition, the trad will have io be aligned around a small rock outcropping ad~acent to the amphitheater wall. Most of the trail wdl not be visual~y secure frc ~ , bt. = Maintenance of this trad ali~nment will be more difficult and time consuming than the south trail alignment Because of the north aspect of this alignment snow will accumulate on the trail and remain there unttl spnng. This situation will cause the trad to be wetted for long penods of time which wtll in turn 'lu W~~.i C.~I(u~ Ajt 11CI1vpL C'~~lurntlq AULVq 1-.ix' ~G3 tl'12 1 I Rfi Nhonc 10i n9) I lfiG www nainsdull<a.cam Page 3- Sunrise Circle Amphitheater Access ~ Nortrtis Du~~~ cause the trail surface to data~n`aro ai an accelerated rate The trad surface wdl have to be repaired andlor replaced regularly In rny professional opmion, Alternative C- Central Trad Alianment is not a viable altern2tlve to provide a full accessible trail to the Sunrise Cirde Amphitheater. The existing system of historic retairnng walls woultl not allow a reasonable trad ahgnment to be designed in this location The central area, with its 1r~~~ i' ,~s and rock outcroppings, is the natural backdrop for the amphitheater Constructing this alternative wnuld severely impact the histonc and environmental integnry of the histonc placo. fn addition to the above, I was asked to evaluate the prowsion of an accessible ramp from the floor of the Sunrise Circle Amphitheater to the floor of the stome stage In my professional opinion, as a ~andscape arehitect who has been involved with the treatment of histonc landscapes over the years, the historic integrity of the central feature of the amphitheater should be maintained in its onginal configuration , ~ With this letter report I herby render my professional opinions as a Senior Landscape Architect to the City of eoulder Open Space & Mountain Parks in this most important matter If you have any quesUons or need further clarification please call on me. Sincerely, ~~~~Z~ ~~2.c^~,,, Phdlip E. Flores, FASLA Senior Landscape Archllect y~ ATTACHMENT G: STAGE ACCESS FOR MOBILITY DISABLED PERSONS Sunrise Circle Amphitheater The City of Boulder Open Space and Mountam Parks Department w~ll provide access for mobility disabled persons to the Amphitheater Stage by use of a portable ramp. This ramp wtll be of light weight alummum construction that folds down and is stored at the Flagstaff Nature Center. The ramp will be made available~ • When requested at time of reservation of the facil~ty • With 24 hour notice of need • Or w~thout notice, when staff at Nature Center are available Every effort will be made by Open Space and Mountain Parks staff to accommodate stage access needs under the above condttions ~~ Attachment H CITY OF BOULDER OPEN SPACE AND MOUNTAIN PARKS DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS -RESTORATION- of the SUNRISE CIRCLE AMPHITHEATER ON FLAGSTAFF MOUNTAIN, City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks Property Descriation and location of the proiect: This pro~ect will perform restoration work to the Sunrise Cucle Amphithcatei on Flagstaff Mountam This propeity is located in Boulder Counly and ts owned by Cdy of Bouldei, Colarado and managed by the Open Space and Mountams Parks Department 2 Backaround, nurpose and need for the nr~iect: The Sunrise Circle Amphitheater was built by the Unrted States of Amenca sponsored Civihan Conservation Corps m 1933 and 1934 for the cittzens of Bouldei This facility has not been changed or modified m any sigruficant manner smce the 1934 complerion. The puipose of this pro~ect is to restoie the whole Sumise Circle Amphitheater on Flagstaff Mountain strucCUre 3. Descrintion of pro.ject alternatives and summarV of maior issues: Due to the historic sigruficance of the site, there are only two (2) alternatives for this pro~ect a. Do nothing - If nothmg is done, the site will contmue to deteriorate from tree roots and freeze thaw cycles. b Restoration - RestoraUon work will save the structure from further deterioration for future generations of citizens to en~oy. 4. Preferred projectalternative: The preferred alternative to restm~e the site. 5. Public input to date: Theie has becn tiigmficant public input ~nto lhis pro~cct. An open l~ouse was held on Decembet 5, 2001 at the East Boulder Recreation Centei. The puipose of this open house was to solicit public mput concermng possible iestor~Cion or unprovemente to the amphilheatei and s~rroundmg aiea Addit~onally, at this open IioLise, we piesented the ADA accessible path alteinatives. Most public ~JL~/ comments on the accessibility pro~ect quesCioned the Cimmg of the pro~ect and Che ~mpacts to schedulmg of weddings at the amphitheater over the summer. b OSMP Staff has been aYtending the Disability Task Foice (DTF), a sub-committee of Che Ciry ol Boulder H~iman Relauons Boaid on a monthly basis smce January 2001 lo piesenl the design ideas and solicit teedback foi the re5toration pio~ect The DTF supports lhe proposed restoration work The Open Space and Mountam Paiks Advisoiy Board has been advised and supports this pro~ect d A giant has been submitted to the Colorado SYate HisCoi5cal Society Co fund lhis work. The appioval oi denial of this giant will not be known until the end of Januaiy 2004.. 6. StafF project manager: Glenn D. Carriere, P.~., Open Space and Mountain Parks Department, 7315 Red lleer Drive, Boulder, CO 80301, 303-413-7623. 7. Other consultants or relevant contacts: Atkinson-Noland & Associates, Inc., Consulting Engineers, 2619 Spruce Street, Boulder, CO, Attn: Mike Shuller, P.E., 303-444-3620. Goals Assessment: 1. Using the BVCP and department master plans, describe the primary city goals and benefits that the project will help to achieve: Sustainability - None Community Design - None Facilities and Services - None Environment- None Economy - None Transportation - None Housing - None Social Concerns and Human Services - Restore Historic Site 2. What are the trade-offs among city policies and goals in the proposed project alternative? None 3. Is this project referenced in a master plan? If so, what is the context in terms of goals, objectives, larger system plans, etc.? If not, why not? Yes, all histonc facilities shall be mamtamed/restored for future generahons to enjoy 4. Will this project be in conflict with the goals or policies in any department master plan? No 5. List other city pro,jects in the project area that are listed in a departmental master plan or tlie CIP? Installation of ADA ramp at site in summer of 2004. 6. Will this prqject exceed city, state, or federal standards and regnlations? Pro~ec~ will comply with Federal ADA regulahons Impact Assessment 1. Usmg the atlached checkhst, idenhfy lhe polential impacts of the pioposed pro~ect or (if apphcable) lhe pro~ect alLeinaCives: 5~ City Of Boulder Communlty and Enulronmental Assessment Checkllst + Pos~tive effect • Negative effect 0 No effect Pro~ect Title: w > y rn c Restoration of the Sunrise Circle Amphitheater on m ~ v~ 't _ Flaqstaff Mountain Boulder Countv Colorado ~" > , v ~ ~ o ~ N C W W a¢ .d+ a A. Natural Areas or Features 1 Disturbance to species, communities, habitat, or ecosystems due to: a. actrvities b. Ve etation removal ~ 0 0 c Human or domestic animal encroachment 0 0 d Chemicals (mcluding petroleum products, fert~lizers, pestwides, e. Behavioral displacement of wddlife species (due to noise from use f. Introduction of non-natrve plant species in the site landscapin ~ ~ 0 0 p. Chan es to roundwater or surface runoff 0 D _ h. Dischar e of sediment to any body ot water i. Wind erosion 0 0 2. Loss of mature trees or si mficant plants~ ~ B. 1. Encroachment upon the 100-year conveyance ore hi h hazard flood zones~ ~ ~ 0 D 2. Disturbance to or fra mentation of a ripanan corridor~ C Wetlands 0 0 1. Disturbance to or loss of a wetland on site~ H\AMPHITHGATCR\Rf57ORA I ION CLAP CI IF,CKLIST DOC -1- D. Geoloqyand Soils 0 0 1. a. Impactsto unique geologic or physicalfeatures~ 0 0 b Geologic development constraints? 0 0 c. Substantial changes in topography~ 0 0 d. Chanaes in soil or fill material on the site~ E. Water Quality _ 1. Impacts to water quahty from any of the following? a Excavation 0 0 b. Changein hardscape 0 0 c. Change in site ground features 0 0 d Change in storm drainage 0 0 e. Change in vegetation 0 0 f Change m pedestnan and vehicle traffic 0 0 g Use or storage of chemicals 0 0 2 Exposure of groundwater contammation from excavation or pumping~ 0 0 F Air Quahty 1. Short or long term impacts to air quality (C02 em~ssions, pollutants)? a. From mobile sources? 0 0 b From statianary sources? G Resource Conservation 1 Chan es in water use? 0 0 2. Increasesin energy use~ 0 0 3 Generation of excess waste~ 0 0 H Cultural/Histonc Resources 1 a Impacts to a rehistonc or archaeolo ical site? 0 0 b Impacts to a building or structure over fifty years of a e~ - + - + sz _ c. Impacts to a histonc feature of the site~ 0 0 d Impacts to siqnificant a ricultural land~ Visual Effects on scenic vistas or uublic views~ __ b Effects on the aesthetics of a site open to public view~ 0 0 _ a Effects on wews to unique geologic or physical features~ 1 Health hazards, odors, or radon~ 2. Site hazards~ 0 0 _ K Physiolo ical Well-bem 0 0 1 Exposure to excessive noise? 2 Excessive li ht or glare~ 3 Increase m vibrations~ 0 0 Add~tional 0 0 _ a. Water or sanitar sewer services~ 0 0 b. Storm sewer/Flood control features~ 0 0 c. Maintenance of pipes culverts and manholes~ 0 0 d Police services~ ~ ~ e. Fire urotection serwcec? f Recreation or parks facdrties~ ~ .. 0 0 h Transportation improvements/traffic miti ation~ ~ _ _. _ 0 0 ~ Affordable housinq? 0 0 k Open space/urban open land~ _ 0 0 H\AMPHITHGA7I,R\RIiSTORA910NCCAPCHPCKLISI DOC -3- ' ~ k m Telecommunications? n Health care/social services? 0 0 M S eciai Po ulations 1. Effects on: a. Persons with disabdities~ 0 0 b Senior o ulation~ 0 0 c. Chddren~ 0 0 d Restncted income persons~ 0 0 53 City of Boulder Community and Environmental Assessment Process Checklist 6luestions- Note; The following questions are a supplement to the CEAP checklist, Only those questions indicated on the checklist are to be answered in full, A. Natural Areas and Features 1, Describe the potential for disturbance to or loss of significant; species, plant communities, wildlife habitats, or ecosystems via any of the activities listed below, (Significant species include any species listed or proposed to be listed as rare, threatened or endangered on federal, state, county lists.) a. Construction activities - No long term effects are anticipated. b. Vegetation removal - Construction activities will remove at least two(2) and not more than 17 pine trees and any non-native species along the construction route. Where practical, native plants will be salvaged. Restoration of the impacted areas wdl be done with native plants. c. Human or domestic animal encroachment - none d. Chemical to be stored or used on the site (including fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides) - none e, Behavioral displacement of wildlife species (due to noise from use activitles)- none f. Introduction of non-native plant species in the site landscaping- Non-native grasses are on the site now. Reclamation efforts will be implemented using native species. g, Changes to groundwater (including installation of sump pumps) or surtace runoff (storm drainage, natural stream) on the site, Existing surface drainage will be maintained. Some local drainage/erosion will be repaired. h. Potential for discharge of sediment to any body of water either short term (construction related) or long term. - No impact, i, Potential for wind erosion and transport of dust and sediment from the site. - No impact. 2. If potential impacts for disturbance to or loss of mature trees or significant plants, If potential impacts have been identified, please provide any of the following information that is relevant to the project: • A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts, Disturbed areas will be reclaimed with native species. There are no long term impacts from this project. • A habitat assessment of the site, including; 1. a list of plant and animal species and plant communities of special concern found on the site, 17 ponderosa pines will be removed. Due to large forest in area, no replacement of trees is planned. 2, a wildlife habitat evaluation of the site. The prominent mammals in the area are the Abert squirrel, mountain lion, and mule deer. These mammals should return to the area after the project is completed. • Maps of the site showing the location of any Boulder Valley Natural Ecosystem, Boulder County Environmental Conservation Area, or critical wildlife habitat, None in area. • A stormwater management plan consistent with state and local regulations. (A state stormwater discharge permit is requlred for city projects which disturb more than 1 acres,) Area less than one (i) acre. • Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for chemicals to be used or stored on site, MSDS sheets will be avatlable during construction. There will be no storage of chemicals after completion. B. Riparian areas and Floodplains 1, Describe the extent to which the project will encroach upon the 100- year, conveyance or high hazard flood zones, Will not encroach. 2. Describe the extent to which the project will encroach upon, disturb, or fragment a riparian corridor, No impacts. If potential impacts have been identified, please provide any of the following information that is relevant to the project: • A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts to habitat, vegetatlon, aquatic or aquatic life. N/A • A map showing the location of any streams, ditches and other ~ water bodies on or near the project site, The nearest stream is thousands of feet to the south. A map showing the location of the 100-year flood, conveyance, and high hazard flood zones relative to the project site, This project is located on top of Plagstaff Mountain which is several thousand feet above Boulder Creek and Gregory Canyon 100- year floodway C. Wetlands Describe any disturbance to or loss of a wetland on site that will result from the project. There will be no impacts to wetlands. If potential impacts have been identified, please provide any of the following information that is relevant to the project: A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts. Not applicable. A map showing the locatlon of any wetlands on or near the site. Identify both those wetlands which are jurisdictional under city code (on the wetlands map in our ordinance) and other wetlands pursuant to federal criteria (definitional), There are no jurisdictional wetlands on or neqr the pro~ect site. D. Geology and soils 1, Describe any; a. impacts to unique geologic or physical features; No Impacts. b. geologic development constraints or effects to earth conditions or landslide, erosion, or subsidence, None c, substantial changes in topography that will result from the project, None d, Changes in soil or fill materials on the site. None If potential impacts have been identified, please provide the following; A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts. No applicable. A map showing the location of any unique geologic or physical features, or hazardous soil or geologic conditions on the site, There are none. E. Water Quality 1. Describe potential impacts to groundwater or storm water quality that may result from the project, No Impacts. 2. Describe potential increases in siorm water discharges that may result from the project. No Impacts. 3, Describe potential water quality impacts to streams, ditches and other water bodies from the project. No Impacts. 4, Is there a likelihood of groundwater contamination from past history on the site or an adjacent site? No. If potential impacts have been identified, please provide the following; • A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts. Not Applicable. • Information from city water quality flles on sites with soil and groundwater impacts within 1/4 mile radius of project or site. Not Applicable. • If impacts to site are possible, either from past activlties at slte or from adjacent sites, perform a Phase I Environmental Impact Assessment, No Impacts. F. Air 6Zuality 1. Describe potential impacts to air quality resulting from this project, Distinguish between impacts from mobile sources (VMT/trips) and stationary sources (APEN, HAPS), No Impacts. G. Resource Conservation 1. Describe potential changes in water use that will result from the project. a. Estimate the indoor, outdoor (irrigation) and total daily water use for the facility, No impacts. b, Describe plans for minimizing water use on the site. (Xeriscape landscaping, efficient irrigation system) Reclamation will be done using native grasses and forbes. 2. Describe potential increases in energy use that may result from the project. a. Describe plans for minimizing energy use on the proJect or how energy conservation measures will be incorporated into the building design, Refer to the 200Q International Energy Conservation Code??? Not applicable. 3, Describe the potential for excess waste generation resulting from the project. Describe plans for recycling and waste minimization (deconstruction, reuse, recycling, green points). Not applicable. H. Cultural/Historic Resources 1. Describe any impacts to; Amphitheater rock walls and stage area will be restored. 2. a, A prehistoric or historic archaeological site, No Applicable. b. A building or structure over fifty years of age - yes, these historic rock walls will be restored. c. A historic feature of the site such as an irrigation ditch, No Impacts. d, Significant agricultural lands. Not Applicable. If potential impacts have been identified, please provide the following; • A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts, See H.2.(b) above. Visual 6Zuality 1, Describe any effects on; a. Scenic vistas or views open to the public. No impacts. b. The aesthetics of a site open to public view, Will be improved. c, View corridors from the site to unique geologic or physical features, No Impacts. J. Safety Describe any additional health hazards, odors, or exposure of people to radon that may result from the project, No Impacts. 2. Describe any additional site hazards that may result from the project. (Including risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances such as oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) No Impacts. If potential impacts have been identified, please provide the following: A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts. Not Applicable. K. Phvsiological Well-being 1. Describe the potential for exposure of people to excessive noise caused by any phase of the project. No noise impacts. 2, Describe any excessive light or glare that may result from the project, No Impacts. 3, Describe any increase in vibrations that may result from the project, No impacts. If potential impacts have been identified, please provide the following; A description of how the proposed project would avold, minimize, or mitigate Identified impacts, L. Services Describe any additlonal need for the following services as a result of the project; a, Health care/social services - No Impacts. b, Water or sanitary sewer services - No Impacts. c, Police services- No Impacts. d. Fire protection- No Impacts. e. Recreation or parks facilities- No Impacts. f. Libraries- No Impacts. g, Transportation improvements/traffic mitigation.- No Impacts. h, Parking- No Impacts. i, Affordable housing- No Impacts. S/o ) ~ j. Open space/urban open land- No impacts. k, Power or energy use-No Impacts. I, Telecommunications- No Impacts. 2, Describe any impacts to any of the above existing or planned city services or department master plans as a result of this project. (e.g, budget, available parking, planned use of the site, public access, automobile/pedestrian conflicts, views) None M. Special Populations 1, Describe any effects the project may have on the following special populations; a, Persons with disabilities- No effects. b, Senior population - No effects. c, Children - No effects. d, Restricted income persons- No Effects. If potential impacts have been identified, please provide the following: A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts, All impacts are positive. AITACHMENTS: A. Flagstaff Mtn Amphitheater Restoration Pro~ect Area Landmarks Board 2/4/04 Item 5C `p o~ .c. `~; '~°'~ ,7 j ~' ~ ~f~ `~ ~' a - .~ ,~ ~.+~~ii /~,~~~ '. /i -~/ i ~ ~u~ ~ l/ ~ ~ :/ IJ ~~ :~/`~/~~ ~t~ ~ a~l ,W.,.o.,.-=;~~ i~,~' 1 ~~ / ~ /~, ~ APHIC SCALE c~.w c - m-e-o~ ~'' TREFS 7Y1 BE REYOVED ~ ~~ LAG ~'~' A]~ ~' I~ ~' ~ AI~[ ~P I~ ~'I' ~[ ~E A'~' ~ ~ ~~ES'~~~A'~'~~]~ ~P~~~~~'~ A~~A ATACHMENT I: BVCP POLICIES 2.30 Preservation of Historical and Cultural Resources. Buildings, districts, and sites of histoncal, architectural, archaeological, or cultural sigmficance shall be idenhfied and protected The city and county will encourage preservation of such resources through mcentives programs, designation of landmark buildings and distncts, design review, pubhc improvements and other tools. Protection will be required by the city when a proposed action by a public entity mvolves a potential important resource Protection of important resources will also be sought by the city when a proposal by the private sector mvolves discretionary development review (e.g., site review, use review, rezomng). 2.31 Leadership in Preservation: City- and County-owned Resources The crty and wunty shall evaluate their publicly owned properties to determine their histoncal, architectural, archaeological or cultural significance. Ehgible resources shall be protected through local designat~on. Secondary structures that are part of and convey the cultural significance of a site such as a farm complex and alley structure should be retained/ preserved as well. 2.35 Preservation of Archaeological Sites and Cultural Landscapes. The city shall develop a plan and processes for identification, designation and protection of azchaeological and cultural landscape resources such as open ditches, street and alleyscapes, railroad nghts-of-way, and desi~ed landscapes. s~