Loading...
6 - Review process for the relocation of the landmarked 1890 Union Pacific DepotMEMORANDUM February 7'h, 2007 TO: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board FROM: Susan Richstone, Acting Long Range Planning Manager Bill Boyes, Manager, Facilities and Asset Management Alice Gilbertson, Historic Preservation Intern Chris Meschuk, Historic Preservation Planner James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner SUBJECT: Review process for the relocation of the landmarked 1890 Union Pacific Depot. ITEM & ISSUE: In June of 2006, the City Council reviewed options for the relocation of the 1890 Union Pacific Depot from its current location at the CrossRoads shopping plaza which is owned by the Regency Retail Partners. The Council chose not to opt for a proposal to dismantle and store the building until a final location for the building was secured, but rather to move the building as a whole to a location in the Transit Village Area (see Attachment A). As part of its motion, the Council issued a landmark alteration certificate for the building to be moved, employing the whole building approach as outlined in the staff inemorandum, a condition of which was that details regarding the methodology of the move be submitted for review and approval by the Landmarks design review committee (see page 2, item 2a of Attachment B). To this end, Facilities Asset Management (FAM) has contracted with a team consisting of Margaret Hansen, engineer Henry Lopez, and building movers Rocky Mountain Structural to prepare a detailed report outlining: Steps that will be taken to prepare the building for the move including additional bracing and masonry reinforcement; Detailed methodology for the initial lift and move to a temporary location (either on the Pollard site south of Goose Creek or to a site just north of Goose Creek); S.\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\DEPO'I~02 07.07 Landmarks Board doc 2/1/2007 • Steps that will be taken to mothball, secure, and maintain the building during the temporary storage. • An outline of inethodology that will employed when moving building to its final location. This repart will be submitted to the design review committee by FAM far review and approval by the design review committee once a temporary storage location has been chosen and the consultants complete their moving, mothballing, and maintenance report. It is anticipated that completion and review of the report will occur at the beginning of March, 2007. ATTACHMENTS: A Minutes from the June 6, 2006 City Council meeting B June 6, 2006 Staff Memo to the City Council regarding purchase and landmark alteration certificate for moving of 1890 Union Pacific Depot S.\PLAN\dataUongrang\HIST\DEPOT02 OZ07 Landmarks 6oard doc 2/I/2007 Attachment A Councilmember Schultheiss moved seconded by McGrath, to direct staff to come back with a pmnosal for a greenhouse aas tax with several options for fundins mechanisms. The motion carried 9:0. C. ITEMS RELATING TO THE 1891) UDTION PACIFIC DEPOT PURCHASE AND LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE: - 9:$5 P.M. 1. SECOND READING AND CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE NO.'7473 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS RELATED TO Tl~ PURCHASE OF THE 1890 UNION PACIF[C DEPOT LOCATED AT 2275 3O~ STREET (THE "DEPOT")~ ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS TO MOVE THE DEPOT~ GRANT A RESATE FOR THE GENERAL FUND PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION USE TAX FOR TAE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CROSSROAD COMhiONS PUD AMENDMENT FOR 1'HE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING AND MOVING 7'I~ DEPOT~ AND IMPLEMENT TAE NECESSAHY STEPS TO MOVE THE DEPOT. 2. PUBLIC HEARIIVG AND CONSIDERAT[ON OF A LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE APPLICATION TO MOVE THE 1890 UHION PACIFIC DEPOT LOCATED AT 2275 30TH STREET The hearing on this item will be held under the quasi judicial procedures of Chapter 1-3, BRC 1981. The public hearing was opened: ~ 1. Betty M. Chronic, 4105 Shawnee Dr., noted that 1971 began the saving of the ! depot. 35 yeazs tater Council is faced with another proposal. She is opposed ' to dismanding, and urged Councii to move immediately, and take ac6on now on a policy decision to preserve this jewel. 2. Debra Ordway, 3820 N. 26~, spoke to her concern about the "2°d floor at Whole Foods" and parking lot constraints as well as the construction of the shopping center where the depot curnntly stands. 3. I.ee Peters, 6803 Jay Rd., representing Boulder Pow Wow, requested the removal of option three, and requested the depot be moved intact and promptly. 4. Bud Sorenson, 603 Spruce St., a boazd member of Whole Foods for the past 12 years, suggested Council relocate the depot to a location more in keeping with its historic value. Whole Foods would like to expand the store to benefit shoppers in Boulders. The store is a lazge sales t~ payer, employer, good corporate citizen, key player in the natural foods industry in Boulder, and 100% wind-powered. 5. Curt Williams, speaking on behalf of the Boulder Jaycees, is anxious to see the building move to the transit village. He encouraged council to make relceation and preservation a reality. ~ ]une 6, 2006 6. Will Pazadise, president of Whole Foods Rocky Mtn. division, noted that the local store is arguably the most successful store in the company's hisfory. They want to build the best, the flagship store in Boulder, and to see the depot moved and used. 7. Lynn Segal, 538 Dewey, believes it would be better to have small grocery stores ali over town rather than superstores. She asked whether Who]e Foods would consider moving into an additional smaller store. 8. Deborah Fmbe, No address given, spoke on behalf of Regency Centers. She explained the basic plan and the developers concerns for the Depot. They are very excited about this remodel There being no further speakers the public hearing was closed. Councilmember Gray moved, seconded bv Polk to adovt Ordinance No. 7473 into agreements to move the Depot; Qrant a rebate for the general fund portion of the construction use tax for the redevelo~ment of the Cmssroad Commons PUD Amendment for the puroose of purchasina and movin¢ the depot: and implement the necessarv steps to move the Denot. The motion carried 8:1, Stoakes opposed. Counciimember Gray moved, seconded bv Polk to accent the landmark alteration certificate aDnlication to move the 1890 Union Pacific Depot located at 2275 30th Street with the removal of disassembly option item iii and ]ast sentence in statement # 5(vaQe 36). The motion camed 6:2. A~eton and Schultheiss o~„posed. Stoakes absent. Councilmember McGrath moved. seconded bv Aaeton to suspend the rules and continue the meetine. The motion carried 6:2. 3chultheiss and Eldrid~e onoosed, Stoakes absent -11:18 p.m. D. BTV SQ CONTRACT UPDATE 1. Tim Thomas, 2300 Arapahce Ave., noted the high quality of the video, and that the business plan detail is above standard. He commented that city departments should have so much detail in their business plans. 2. Lynn Segal, 538 Dewey, voiced her support for Channel 54 particularly if they air "Democracy Now". 3. Sally Martin, noted that the 3 PEG channels were supposed to be equal, but it has not tumed out that way. She supports the $10,000 for Channe154, and suggested Council hold a study session regazding the 3 PEG channels. There being no further speakers, the public hearing was closed. - 11:58 p.m. lune 6, 2006 ~ Attachment B CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 6, 2006 AGENDA TITLE: Items relating to the 1890 Union Pacific Depot purchase and landmark alteration certificate: 1. Second reading and consideration of an Ordinance authorizing the city manager to enter into agreements related to the purchase of the 1890 Union Pacific Depot located at 2275 30t° 3treet (the "Depot"); enter into agreements to move the Depot; grant a rebate for the general fund portion of the construction use tax for the redevelopment of the Crossroad Commons PUD Amendment for the purpose of purchasing and moving the depot; and implement the necessary steps to move the Depot. 2. Public hearing and consideration of a landmark alteration certificate application to move the 1890 Union Pacific Depot located at 2275 30th Street. The hearing on this item will be held under the quasi judicial procedures of Chapter 1-3, B.R.C. 1981. PRESENTER/S: Planning & Development Services Peter Pollock, Planning Director Ariel Calonne, City Attomey Maureen Rait, Director of Public Works for Development and Support Services Brad Power, Redevelopment Director Marie Zuzack, Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY- The puipose of this agenda item is for City Council to consider an ordinance approving purchase of the Depot by the city from the Jaycees and approving the rebate of the general fund portion of the construction use tax on the redevelopment of Crossroad Commons Shopping Center, where the Boulder Jaycees Train Depot is ]ocated. The item also includes Council consideration of a landmark alteration certificate approval by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board to move the Depot to a new location with certain cbnditions. If the Counci] supports purchasing and moving the building, staff seeks Council direction on which of several possible moving strategies to pursue. The proposed redevelopment of Crossroad Commons provides an opportunity for the city and the Jaycees, a non-profi[ organization, to realize a mutual, long-term goal of transferring ownership of the Depoi from the Jaycees to the city and relocating this historic landmazk to a more suitable setting. The city and~the Jaycees;have attempted to accomplish this on severai occasions since the mid-1980s. The owner of Crossroad Commons, Regency Retail Partners ("Regency"), has offered to move the Depot from its shopping center parkiug lot to another temporary or permanent location, to be selected by the city, provided this can occur,by Mazch 2007. Relocation of the Depot could facilitate substantial redevelopment of the center, enabling successful retailers to expand, impmving the safety and convenience of site access, and making the pazking lot more efficient. However, the logistics and costs associated with relocating and restoring the Depot are significant challenges. Key issues for this project include: the.purchase of the.De,pot; a rebate of the general fund portion of the Crossroad Commons redevelopment construction use tax; idenufication of the relocation site for the buiiding;,the strategy for relocating,the building; and the.cost of and funding for relocating and restoring the building. STAFF RECONIMENDATION: StafF recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1 Purchase Move Tax Rebate and FundinQ Staff recommends that the City Counci] adopt the attached ordinance authorizing the city manager to: enter into agreements to purchase and move the Depot; grant a rebate for the general fund portion of the construction use tax for the redevelopment of the Crossroad Commons PUD Amendment for the purpose of purchasing and moving the depot; and implement the necessary steps to move the Depot. Because it is anticipated that the funding provided by Regency will not ~, be sufficient to complete the move, restoration and preservation of the building, staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to seek additional funding for'`the project. 2. Landmark Alteration Certi£icate Staff recommends that the City Council approve the landmark alteration certificate, adopting the findings in Attachment H, to move the Depot, subject to the following conditions: J a. The detailed methodology as to how the relocation will occur shall be subject to the review and approval of the design review committee of the Landmazks Board; '' b. Prior to any move, the City and the Jaycees shall be required to enter into a mutually agreeable contract for the City to city to purchase t}ie Depdt; ~ c. Prior to any move, the City and owners of ]and upon which the Depot now rests execute of an agreement regazding the each par[y's responsibilify pertaining to the relocation of the Depot, including financial obligarions; ~d. Prior to or concurrent with any application to move the Depot to its final location, the applicant shall submit an application to re-designate the Depot as an individual landmark in its new location; and ,~ The relocation of th'e Depot shall be moved based on the following circumstances ~~ and conditions: ~ The first preference is to move the building intact to a permanent location in the Boulder Transit Village area if: A. A permanent location for the Depot is deternuned through the TVAP process and is available (including any necessary land purchase) by Mazch 2007 (at the earliest or such later time as Regency needs the building moved), and B. Adequate funding is identified and pledged for moving the building and piacing it on a permanent foundation. ii. The second nreference is to move the to a neaz the permanent site or at the city-owned site at 30`° & Peaz] if: A. A permanent location for the Depot is determined through the TVAP process but it is not available by March 2007 (at the earliest ~Y ~ or such ]ater time as Regency needs the building moved), and ~nu ~~ B. Adequate funding is identified and pledged or otherwise ~ ~-y~1 appropriated foi moving the building, placing it on a permanent U' ~~ foundation, and purchasing land (if necessary), and ~~ ~% C. If the temporazy ]ocation chosen is the citv-owned site at 30~' & Pearl the buildine could be removed b March 2008 (at the eazliest or such later time as the site work or other redevelopment activities on the city-owned site necessitates removing the building). \~ii. The third preference is to disassemble the building and store it at the city- ~~~ owned former "egg fazm" or such other location as detennined by the city manager until a permanent location and adequate funding are secured if a permanent location is not deternvned or not available by March 2007 (at the eazliest or such later time as Regency neens the building moved) and/or adequate funding is not identified and pledged for Phases 1& 2& land acquisition. COITNCIL FILT'ER IMPACTS: • Economic: The Crossroad Commons Shopping Center houses several successful national and local retailers. In fact, Whole Foods Mazket is one of Boulder's top-performing retailers in terms of local sales tax generarion. The proposed redevelopment plan that assumes the relocation of the Depot would almost double the size of the Whole Foods store (to approximately 75,00~ squaze feet), and would develop a new, two-story Bames & Noble store at the corner of 30~' and Peazl Streets. These expanded retailers would not only serve as strong anchors for the shopping center, they would also be key to ensurin~ that other retail centers in the Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC) and the 28~'/30 Street corridor remain viable into the future. Many national retailers desire locations in proximity to frequendy visited stores such as Whole Foods. -7 Environmental: City purchase and relocation of the Depot would likely ensure the Depot's long-term preservation, which is a form of re-use. Social: The Boulder Jaycees, a local, non-profit service organization, will lose the Depot space it has historically used for its ~neetings if the Depot is moved. The Boulder Jaycees have also, in the past, rented this space at a reasonable rate to individuals and groups. Whole Foods has offered to provide meering space for. the Jaycees after the proposed Whole Foods' expansion. During construction, the Jaycees plans to meet at CU. OTHER IMPAGTS: • Fiscal: Depending on the strategy selected for moving the Depot, the fiscal impact of the project could range from $'1,302,500`to $1,733,000.~'This represents the range of total estimated costs for the project not inc]uding Phase 1, which Regency has offered to pay for, and not including the difference between $535,000 and the first phase costs, a difference which Regency has dffered to pay to the city for use on subsequent phases of the project if tlie ~rst phase costs are less ttian $535,000. The total project cost assumes moving the Depot to a temporary location, purchasing land for the permanent location, moving the building to the permanent location, restoring it, and finishing the interior and exterior for a non-specific use. It does not include the cost of purchasing the Depot from the Jaycees, which'will be nominal -$10. Phase l of the project entails moving the Depot to a temporary location: (The details of Phase' 1 for each of four different moving strategies aze provided in the narrative portion of Attachment B.) The $535,000 figure is the amount of an earlier cost estimate fot'Ph'ase 1 of moving the Depot intact to the Transit Viilage area. A number of possible outside funding sources have been identified for the fiscal impact, but aze not assured: `~ • Staff time: Regency will take the lead in [he first phase of relocating the Depot, and will oversee the moving contractors' work and remediarion of the present Depot building site. City staff will assist with any necessary temporary street and utility modifications and associated off-site logistics. The subsequent phases of th'e pmject - placing the building at a final location, finishing, restoring; and maintaining the building - would be city staff's re'sponsibility: If RTD or a private enfify were to lease or purchase the buiiding, less or no further'staff involvement would be necessazy. BOARD AND COMNIISSION FEEDBACK: Because the Depot is a designated landmark, on April 5, 2006'the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Boazd considered a landmazk alteration certificate application to temporarily relocate the Depot untii a final site is ready for the building. The Boazd v.oted 5=0 to issue a certificate to relocate the Depot to the Transit Village azea, subjecYto certain conditions: 1) design review committee review and approval of a more detailed methodology as to how the relocation would occur; 2) execution of a contract between the city and the Jaycees for the city to purchase the Depot; 3) execution of an agreement between the city and Regency Retail Partners regarding the each party's responsibility pertaining to the relocation of the Depot, including financial obligations; and 4) moving the building intact, and the means of temporary storage are not limited to solid temporary foundations. ~ During discussion of the item, board members expressed concem that disassembling the building may no[ be the best approach from a historic preservation standpoint and that a permanent location should be found prior to moving the building so that only one move would be necessary. PUBLIC FEEDBACK: Much of the feedback from the public has been from members of Historic Boulder, Inc. and members of the former Depot Task Force. Most support moving the Depot intact to the Transit Village hub area and preserving it. They aze concemed about storing the building in a temporazy ]ocation without funding eazmazked for the fina] move and restoration. They believe the city should select a permanent location for the building, move it directly there, and plan development around it as a community amenity that is significant in the history of the community. One task force member supports disassembly and suggests fundraising for the reassembiy by having donors "adopt" a stone and also employing tax increment financing on the Crossroad Commons redevelopment. The Transit Viilage Area Plan (TVAP) charrette on May 18-20, 2006, explored the desired chazacter, transportation network and land uses for the Transit Village hub area, and within that, a final location for the Depot. Charrette participants included approximately 50 members of the public and uea property owners, numerous members of Planning Board, Transportation Advisory Board and City Council, designers from two consulting urban design firms, and staff from the Planning, Housing and Human Services, and Transportation departrnents. A consensus seemed to develop for locating the Depot north of Goose Creek at the end of Bluff Street, in proximity to the future rail platform, in conjunction with a civic plaza. The final location and future use of the Depot will be determined through adoption of the TVAP by Planning Board and City Council. The Boulder Jaycees, owners of the Depot, have expressed support for relocating the building as a means to ensure preservation of the building. The Jaycees also have stated that its other major concern - continuing to have a meeting place for its organization - has been met by an arrangement for future meeting space with Regency and Whole Foods. In addition, the Jaycees have made it cleaz that they are not in a position to assist with relocation itself or to take the lead in a fundraising effot to support the project. The Jaycees also warned of a possibility that if the Boulder chapter's membership number remains below Jaycees state organization guidelines, the local chapter's assets, including the Depot building, could convert to state organization ownership. Additionally, they have expressed a desire for the Boulder Jaycees' name to continue to be identified with the Depot, to acknowiedge that the 7aycees were responsible for saving the building from destruction in 1973 and have served as its steward for the last 33 years. Regency Retail Partners, owner of the land on which the Depot sits, has expressed support and pledged funds for moving the Depot. Letters from Regency and the Jaycees are found in Atrachment G. ANALYSIS: Four different strategies have been analyzed that would realize an ulrimate goal of moving the Depot from Crossroad Commons to a more appropriate location, restoring and preservina the historic integrity of the building, and ensuring that it remains a functional community asset. The fifth strategy is to leave the Depot in place. ~ Rationale There are a number of reasons that staff is recommending purchasing and moving the Depot, rather than leaving it as is. Removing the Depot from Crossroad Commons would enable Ihe shopping center to redevelop into a more urban and space-efficient configuration. The BVRC Desigu Guidelines indicate that the district should evolve to an urban character:as redevelopment occurs over time. The guidelines include locating buildings adjacent to streets; the developmeqt:of multi=story commercial buildings, and parking that serves multiple stores. The proposed redevelopment of the Crossroad Commons would place a new, two-story Barnes & Noble store at the intersection. of 30`° and Pearl Streets. The existing pazking conditions on the site aze undesirable, given the high volume of shoppers, particularly at Whole Foods. Addirional parking will ease congestion in the area and will provide Whole Foods and other tenants a better opportunity to increase e~ciency, and the potential to enhance their sales. A redevelopment plan that enables the center to utilize the ground currently occupied by the Depot has the potenrial to further increase the productivity of.W.hole Foods and the other retailers in the center. Another reason is that the DepoYs current setting - in the pazking-lot of a shopping center - is dot suitable given the building's historic significance and architectural distinction. The present siting close to the movie theater building limits visibility and.appreciation of the historic track- side (south side) of the building. In.addition, the pazking lot on'which the Depot sits suffers from poor drainage. This periodically floods the interior of the Depot and further deteriorates the building. If relocated fo the:Transit Village hub area, the building's historic association with public transit could be restored, and the building's use could support and enhance the azea's transit function. Additionally, city intervention is to relieve the Jaycees of the burden of responsibility it assumed in 1973, when it took ownership of the building to prevent probable demolition by the city. This burden has become increasingly heavy; as overhead and maintenance costs for the'building have grown faster than revenues from periodic rental of the building for events and meetings. Since the mid-1980s the Jaycees have expressed a desire to transfer ownership of the building back to the city. As a non-profit community service organization, the Jaycees resources are lunited; the organization believes that its continued upkeep of the Depot is not financially sustainable long- term. The organization prefers td devote its time and resources to service projects, rather than to property management. Furthermore, by intervening and taking ownership of the building, the city can take steps to repair; restore and preserve the building as a historic landmark. Proposed City Actions All the strategies analyzed except the "leave in place" scenario assume the following actions by the city: 1) Purchase the building The city would purchase the building from the Jaycees for a nominal amount, $10. The transfer of ownership would occur when the Depot is removed from its present site. The Jaycees ~~ would have meeting space for its organization in the redeveloped Whole Foods facility. The purchase proposal is in the form of an ordinance, which is included as Attachment A. 2) Rebate construction use ta1c, in return for fnancial assistance from Regency Staff is proposing that the relocation and refurbishment of the Depot be accomplished through a public/private partnership between the city of Boulder and Regency Centers, the owner of the Crossroad Commons Shopping Center. Under the proposal ~~e~~vr~1~=,gay_for the __. ___ _.._ _ . __ fqliowing,~l.~ che~first-phase of;the;m~g,~i£'~2.co'sts ~535;~0 ro`r7iiore"` r~~if the ~rsi pl~ase costs - - - - - - ----__='_- - -.. :-~-; _,._ _... ._~.,:..._-~.T_.. - - . .. -----r - -• " - =._ , _ -.~.. - -- - _ _....,. tlre re~leye~npment.o _ es opp~~n ` The general fund portion of the construcuon use tax from e pro~ect is currently esUmated to be $156,000. However, this is likely to change as Regency's redevelopment plans aze reviewed and modified and costs are refined. The rebate of the ta~c is proposed to the Counci] in the form of an ordinance, which is included as Attachment A. 3) Secure additional funding for completing project Significant additional funding - beyond the Phase 1 funding provided by Regency - will be needed to move and finish building in its final location. The funding shortfall is estimated to be approximately $1,302,500 to $1,733,000, depending on the strategy selected. The table on Attachment C lists a cost estimate and potential funding sources for each phase of the four different strategies. Funding Options The following aze potentia] sources of funds: 0 Prior fundraising: $45,996 is available from prior fundraising for the Depot. This money was raised in the late 1980s by the Depot Project, a coalition of civic groups, individuals and city govemment, as part of a campaign to move the Depo to Central Pazk. Fundraising included selling artistic posters, as well as decorative bricks to be placed azound the building in its final location. The fund is held in trust by the Boulder Pazks and Recreation Foundarion, and its use woul be subject to Pazks Foundation Boazd approval, based on a£nding that the use o the money is consistent with the original intent of the fundraising. The fundraising project budget included moving the Depot, refurbishing it, and enhancing the exterior. However, the project did envision its location in a pazk. The Board may not approve using the funds for a temporary move, and may stipulate that some portion of the fund be reserved to honor the donations for bricks. o Remaining Regency funding: Any remaining funds from the $535,000 minimum that Regency has committed to the initial Depot move will be paid to the city for use to complete the relocation and interior finish of the building. o RTD First Phase Regional Bus/ BRT Facility funding: RTD has a$7.8 million federal grant to design and construct the first phase bus/ BRT (bus rapid transit) ~°~'!~ ~~~ ~ C~ ~G~~~ ~~ G~ ~-G~ t ~~n„n ,~,~.- d Lx~~2~ f G~~CC~(~" /I station on the RTD portion (3.3 acres) of their site at 30~` and Pearl for 2006- 2008. As part of the budget estimates developed for the grant, RTD has identified $25,000 for relocation of the depot, and $250,000 for restoration of the building. Although funding~has been identified in th8 grant, it should'be noted'that RTD is not required to use the9e'federal funds foi the Depot. RTD has stated that if these federal grant funds were used for the Depof; one cbndition of fduding would be that the building would need to be used as a transit function, and other issues, such as building owneiship, use, maintenance and additional funding for relocation ~and rehabilitation; would need to be resolved. Any local or regional transit function for the building would need to be reviewed and approved by RTD. However, "it should be noted that RTD is pursuing train platfonns that have automated ticket vending operations, rather'than stations requiring personnel. It is uncleaz whether RTD would pursue a commercial use in association wifh regional transit service, such as a coffee shop or flower shop. Funding fmm RTD for the Depot as a uansit use woUld be Supp7emental tb ~signifieant other funding sources and should not be seen as potentially the bulk of the funding for the Depot. A secondary concern of city staff is that since construction costs have risen significantly, it is possible that the grant amount may be insufFicient to adeguately cover the bus station and associated infrastructure; let alone the Depot. o Future Commuter Rail'fu"nding: RTD'has been asked wliether funds might be available as part of Fastracks or some other transit source as part of the future commuter rail implementation. RTD plans for commuter rail implementation are in 2014, with planning for the commuter rail after completion of the US36EIS (most likely 2007-2010). RTD Facilities Management is currently iuvestigating this question. Colorado Historical Society grant: The Colorad'o Historic Society (CHS) awazds grants for historic building rehabilitation. Tlie last round of grant awards included funding for'projects up fo $220,000. In ttie past,'larger grants have been awazded, and there is no limit. There aie two gtant cycles annually. The grants are very competitive, as there is great need azound th'e state. A 25% match is required, unless a waiver is granted. In 1999 the CHS funded a report on the Depot by the Jaycees (entitled "The Boulder Jaycees D'epot Building Report on Rehabilitafion, Re=use; and Re-location"). This piecedenf'will sErengthen a grant application for the building's rehabilitation. However, the CHS will not consider funding until the building is on'a permanent fouridation and re-designated as a landmazk. The organization also has indicated that disassembly of the building would likely preclude eligibility for a grant. ~ Federal Transportation Enhancement Funds: Federal transportation funds for the Denver metro iegion aze allocated by the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) through a competitive funding process called the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP process occurs every two years and is governed by TIP criteria adopted by the DRCOG Boazd of Directors. There is no opportunity for funding from DRCOG outside of the TIP process. 1..~- DRCOG is cutrently in the final stages of adopting the 2007-2012 TIP. Project submittals for this TIP were due in September 2005; the next round of TIP submittals will be in the fall of 2007 for the 2009-2013 TIP. Funding in the first yeaz of the TIP is typically very limited, so funding will likely be available in the federal fiscal year 2010, which begins October I, 20Q9. Transportation-related historic preservation projects aze one of seven project types that may be funded through the "Enhancements" funding category. However, the Enhancements funding category also funds bicycle and pedestrian projects, which have been a policy priority for the DRCOG Board and very popular with DRCOG member governments. Consequently, this category is the most over-subscribed portion of the TIP. For the 2007-2012 TIP, 35 bicycle/pedesuian projects with a total project cost of $31.6 million were submitted for a total of $5.8 miilion in federal funds. This demand for bicycle/pedestrian pmjects resulted in the DRCOG Board directing additional funding from another funding category to bicycle/pedestrian projects. Eighteen bicycle/pedestrian projects were funded in the 2007-2012 TIP, as were two historic preservation projects. These were: a Multimodal Historic Interpretation Project submitted by the Historical Society with a total project cost of $458,000 ($343,000 federal, $115,000 local) and the US-36: 3rd Avenue Streetscape Improvements submitted by the Town of Lyons with a total project cost of $300,000 ($240,000 federal, $60,000 local). Two other historic projects have been funded in the TIP since the Enhancement funding category was established by the Inter-modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in 1991. One of them was moving a 1937 concrete gas station, Johnson's Corner, intact 1.5 miles from the comer of Highway 119 and US-287 to the Prospect subdivision, Longmont, in 2003 ($77,000 federal). Project criteria, priorities and funding tazgets for the 2009-2013 TIP will be established by the DRCOG Board prior to project solicitation in fall 2007. If a Depot project application were submitted by the city, it would need to compete under those criteria. o Railway Heritage grant: The National Railway Historical Society awards a limited number of grants for projects related to the preservation of railway heritage, including restoration, education and research projects. The ma~cimum grant awazd is $5,000. A minimum match of 50% is required. Grants aze awarded annually, with applications typically due in late April. Additional funding sources could include: o Private/ public partnership: The city could sell or lease the building to a private entity that would put the building to a commercial use consistent with TVAP goals. In either case, the private party could provide financial support for relocating the building, refurbishing it, and/or maintaining and operating it on an on-going basis. It may be possible to par[ner with RTD for on-going maintenance and operation if the Depot were used for transit activities. /3 o Further fundraising: A non-profi[ organization could assist with raising funds from individuals ancUor groups for any phase of the Depot project. Currently, there is no organization that has indicated an interest or commitrnent to fundraise. City of Boulder funding: The city could allocate money from its budget for any phase of [he project. However, the allocation and management of city resources remains an important focus of the Boulder organization given the revenue and corresponding expenditure reductions of recent years. As Council and staff have discussed, the city's Business Plan is the tool being used to more consistently evaluate information and prioritize proposals more strategically city-wide, not just departrnentally. CounciLdirec6on has guided.and will continue to provide the framework for the city'"s Bu'siness Plan. The 2006 Budget is a fiscally constrained business plan for both our operating and capital budgets; existing resources have been programmed and'in some cases reallocated'to address priorities. The 2007 Budget is also expected:fo:be fiscally constrained given'the modest improvement in on-going revenues. The development of the next phase of the city's Business Plan (the action plan), that.is currently underway, wil] further inform funding priori6es, additional reallocation opportunities and future ballot measures. Strategies•~ - . Staff has considered the five strategies for the Depot, Strategies A-E: Strategies A, B, C, and D all involve temporary storage of the building until a permanent location for the Degot is selected through the Transit Village Area P•lan {TVAP) process. The TVAP is exgected to be completed in December;2006. Further.planning and prepazation of the selected permanent location would be needed before the building could actually be moved there. ff the TVAP recommends'that the Depot be located on the 11:2-acre city/ RTD-owned'Transit Village site, then additional planning to refine the exact building location would occur through master-.and site-planning of the city/ RTD-owned Transit Village site. The latter process is expected to begin towazd the end of 2006, and continue through 2007. This will be a public process in partnership with RTD to develop a master plan for the 11.2-acre site and a specific site design for-the RTD first phase:regional bus station. The process, is anticipated to take approximately one yeaz and would include input from RTD, the pubiic;'Planning Boazd, Transportation Advisory Board, and City Council. The exact location of the Depot would be identified as part of the bus station design in 2007. Construction of the first phase bus facility is anticipated in 2008. RTD has recently stated that RTD is "neutral" about the location of the depot. RTD Faciliries Management has stated that RTD would include the depot as part of RTD's first phase bus station if this is Boulder's desire and additional funding is available for relocation and rehabilitation. Issues such as the level of funding from RTD, the building use and ownership, and maintenance would have to be resolved with RTD. RTD has stated that the Depot would need to have a transit function if any RTD funds are involved in the Depot. A first phase of the housing to the north and west of the bus facility could happen as early as 2008. The city's portion of the 11.2-acre Transit Village site was purchased by the Housing ~~ Division with funding that requires that the land be used for affordable housing. Housing and Human Services invested $7.1 million, includino funds from the Community Housing Assistance Proa am Fund, the Affordable Housing Program Funds, and a portion of interim funding through a Fannie Mae line-of-credit. In order to remain in compliance with funding requirements, if the land is used for other purposes, other sources of funds would need to be used. There has been some discussion of linking the Depot closer to the rail-related activities. If the TVAP recommends that the depot be iocated north of Goose Creek, as part of the RTD future commuter rail, and RTD is amenable, the exact location could be determined most likely in 2007-2010 as part of future RTD commuter rail planning efforts after the US36 EIS is completed. Similar to the RTD bus facilities, RTD has recently stated they aze neutral about the depot as a part of the future commuter rail facility and supports including the depot if the community is supportive, funding is available and the depot use would have a transit use. StrateQV A: Disassemble and Store on Citv-Owned Pronertv Total project cost ("Grand Total" on Attachment B spreadsheets): $1,950,500 -$2,268,000 Under this strategy, the Depot would be deconstruc[ed stone by stone, following cazeful photographic and graphic documentation of the building, and re-assembled on the permanent site when ready. 'Fhe roof also would be disassembied: only historic members would be saved; the rest would be disposed of and replaced with new materials upon re-assembly. The deconsuucted parts of the building wouid be put on pallets, wrapped in plastic, and trucked to a secure, city-owned property. The most likely storage facility would be inside the former "egg fann" wazehouse, owned by the Parks and Recreation Department, on Valmont Road west of Sterling Circle. In terms of the buildina s historic integrity and the possibility of securing grant funds to restore the depot from the Colorado Historical Society, this strategy is the least advisable. In assessing treatments for historic bui]dings according to the Secretary of the Interior's Treatments for Historic Properties, disassembly and reconstruction is advisable as a]ast resort. Also, an `but of sight, out of mind" mentality could delay reconstruction of the building. However, this strate~y is the simplest and most straightforwazd in terms of moving logistics and offers the most flexibility in terms of storage, paRiculazly if funding for reconstruction is delayed and/or if for any zason the pallets need to be moved to another storage location. Additionally, it allows for interior, protected, and secure storage, away from exposure to the imminent construction on the city/RTD-owned site, and the accompanying noise, dirt, and heavy equipment that wiil be involved during construction. It also eliminates the small risk of catastrophic collapse associated with moving the building intact, and may result in a more structurally sound building once reassembled. In terms of phasing costs and funding, under the disassembly strategy, funding from Regency would remain after the move to storage (Phase 1) for use in the move to the permanent location (Phase 2). Strateeies B and C• Move Intact to and Store on Citv/ RTD-Owned Transit Villa~e Site Total project cost ("Grand Total" on Attachment B spreadsheets): $1,837,500 -$ 2,266,500 Strategies B and C would both move the bui]ding for temporary storage on the city/ RTD-owned Transit Village site within the city portion that is not cunently leased to Pollazd Motors. The building would be stored on steel frame cribbing and protected by fencing and lighting. Because it would be stored on cribbin~, if necessary the building could be moved a~ain a shorc distance (up to 300'), for about $25,000 and without geat logistical difficulty. ~~ Strategy B assumes that the same general area, on the south side of Goose Creek, would be selected as the building's permanent location through the TVAP process. In this case, the building would be moved intact, ]ikely in one piece, for storage and then moved again on the same cribbing to the permanent location. ~ Strategy C assumes that a permanent location north of Goose Creek in the proximity of the future rail platform would be selected through the T'VAP process. Because moving the building to the future rail azea would likely require tuming street corners, the building would have to be cut into two pieces. ~ '' Intact moving and storage i5 appropriate from a historic preservation perspective, provided secure cribbing can be constructed and the building is appropriately mothballed and protected from vandalism. Existing cracks may worsen, and new cracks could open, but these could be repaired during restoration. However, this method does carry a small risk of catastrophic collapse of the building during the move. In addition, from a logistical standpoint, intact moving is much more complicated, difficult, and disruptive than disassembled moving, as it entails ciearing and leveling the route-way, dropping power lines; removing trees; clo'sing or diverting traffic, and a larger staging area in the pazking lot cuaently surrounding the Depot. Also, fhe city-ow+ned site is highly visible: There is a risk that a public perception could develop that the temporary storage location is permanent. The building stored on cribbino there could be considered an eyesore, 6ut if also could serve as a reminder and motivator tasecuie a permanent home for the Depot. In teims of phasing costs and funding, there would probably-be little, if any, funding from Regency remaining'after the inove to the temporary location (Phase 1) to use for the move to a permanent fodndauon (Phase 2). Strate2v D• Move Intact to and Store in Proximitv of Future Rail Platform Total project cost ("Grand Total" on Attachment B spreadsheets): $1,915,000-$2,232,500 Strategy D anticipates that the permanent location foi the Depdt might to.be in proximity to the future rail platform, which is north of Goose Creek and the city/ RTD-owned Transit Village site, and moves the building directly there. Although this:location could be selected through the TVAP process that ends in December 2006, it is unlikely that the necessary subsequent site acquisition and prepazation could be carried out betweenTVAP adoption and the move deadline of Mazch 2007. In this case; if the building were to be just moved once, the permanent Depot ]ocation would have to be selected in advance of the TVAP completion. Alternatively, the building could be stored temporarily in the vicinity of the future rail platform on private property leased by the city, until the permanent site nearby is ready to receive the building. Because the moving route from Crossroad Commons to the future rail area would likely require turning street corners, the building would have to be cut into two pieces. Each piece then would be moved intact separately. As with Strategies B and C, intact moving and storage is appropriate from a historic preservation perspective, provided secure cribbing can be constructed and the buiiding is appropriately mothballed and protected from vandalism. Existing cracks may worsen, and new cracks could open, but these could be repaired during restoration. However, this method dces cany a smail risk of catastrophic coliapse of the building during the move. In addition, from a logistical standpoint, intact moving is much more complicated, difficult, and disruptive than disassembled moving, as it entails clearing and leveling the route-way, dropping power lines, removing trees, closing or diverting traffic, and a lazger staging area in the parking lot currently surrounding the Depot. In terms of phasing costs and funding, for Phase i(move to the ! ((/ temporary location), al] the funding from Regency would be used and additional funding would likely be needed. The table below provides an overview of pros and cons of disassembly (Strategy A) versus movin~ intact (Strategies B, C and D). Pros and Cons for Disassembly vs. Moving Intact Disassemble (Strate A) Intact (Strate 'es B, C, D) Pros Cons Pros Cons + less risk during move - loss of historic + supports historic - risk of building damage integrity and state preservation goals during move and/or neazby historical society and state historica] imminent construction or due funding option society funding to vandalism option + flexibility for storage and - higher average cost + lower average cost - disruption of traffic, permanent siting; possibly businesses, and urilities less time-pressure to find during move and prepazation funding and secure for move permanent location + more secure storage - less assurance of + more assurance of - storaae neaz 30`h & Pearl restoration restoration would be hiahly visible and + better structural integrity may be considered an when rebuilt eyesore - risk of public expectation + funding from Regency will that temporazy storage remain from Phase 1 for use location will become in Phase 2 ermanent 3trateQV E: Leave in Place This strategy assumes that the Depot would remain in place and the Jaycees would continue as owners of the building. Redevelopment of Crossroad Commons would likely to be limited to cosmetic changes over time. The challenge for Regency would be to retain their roster of successful tenants in an environment of increased competition for retailers from newly developed locations in communities adjacent to Boulder. Physical]y, the Depot is likely to continue to deteriorate as the Jaycees struggle to fund maintenance and interior flooding re- occurs. Regency has indicated that the current offer of funds to move the building is based on negotiations with current tenants and the Site Review redevelopment plan that was submitted on May 1. Strategy Selection Staff is recommending that either Strategy A, B, C, or D be selected and pursued by staff in January 2007 depending on: /7 - the outcome of the TVAP, - the availability of the permanent site selected for the Depot, and - the city's success in securing enough funding to, at a minimum, move the building to its final location, place it on a permanent foundation, and stabilize it. The conditions for selecting a strategy aze detailed under the Staff Recommendation section of this memo. The logic for selecting a strategy attempts to balance: - concerns about maintaining the historic integrity of the building, - imminent construction on the RTD-owned portion of the Transit Village site, and - possible neaz-term construction on the city-owned portion. The cost of each strategy was not a major consideration, as there is not a great difference among them. Prepazations for the move according to whichever strategy is selected need to get underway by Januazy 2007. Cost Estimates T'he feasibility and estimated costs of Strategies A, B, C, and D were developed and refined by staff from the city Facilities and Asset Management Division and several different engineers: - Atkinson-Noland Associates, whom the city contracted in January for an initial moving feasibility study; - Bob Hunnes with JVA Engineenng, who was recommended by Historic Boulder; and -Regency Retail Partners. Aktinson-Noland and Regency each consulted with several different building movers. Cost estimates for all four strategies assume: moving the building twice, restoring it, and finishing the interior and exterior for a non-specific use. A line item cost for land acquisition is included in each strategy. Staff assumed a number of $36 per squaze foot for acquisition costs. This price reflects a speculative value anticipating increased density in the area. This has not yet been determined. Including a land acquisition cost is a conservative approach: No land is cunently programmed for the Depot, however, it may be possible to trade off land for the Depot for additional density or some other development advantage through a development agreement with a private property owner. The cost estimates are detailed in Artachment.B. The table in Attachment C totals the costs for each strategy by project phase, and also provides possible funding sources. NEXT STEPS: If City Council takes the actions recommended by staff (outlined under Staff Recommendations), next steps for the project will include the following: - Staff will seek additional funding to complete relocation, restoration and preservation of the Depot. - Staff will continue in the TVAP process for determining the final location and future use of tl~e Depot, as well as exploring possible neazby temporary storage locations, if one is needed. - Upon selection of the relocation strategy, staff and Regency will return to the Landrriarks Preservation Advisory Boazd and City Council [o request removal of the landmazk designaGOn of the land beneath the Depot. This would effectively also remove the landmark designation of the building itself. (Any landmazk designation of a building includes both the building and the land ~~ beneath it.) Council wi11 see this request in the form of an amendment to the ordinance that originally designated the Depot as a landmazk. The building will be re-designated as a]andmazk once it is in its final location. Approved By: • ~ ~ ~ ~ Frank W. Bruno, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: A. Ordinance B. Detailed cost spreadsheets and narrative C. Costs and Possib]e Funding Sources by Phase D. Map of Depot location and Transit Village vicinity E. Depot history overview F. Old photographs of Depot G. Letters from the Jaycees and Regency H. Findings for Landmark Alteration Cer[ificate %~ ~VHFRE r['ltE ~~1ARK~T1'1~ACE 1VTEETS ~'_"~(r~rsi~ir~n ~ EARN CREDITS FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION. Choose from over 85 worid class seminars, workshops, panel discussions and tours of Boston's famous landmarks. Architects earn more than 21 Continuing Education Credits. HUNDREDS OF PRODUCTS. Meet face-to-face with over 200 exhibitors and suppliers of historically accurate products antl services for the restoration, renovation and traditionally inspiretl new construction markets. NETWORKING. loin your colleagues and our esteemed speakers for unparalleled networking opportunities, including the Traditional Building Gala Reception and the Traditional Building Pub Crawl.