The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6 - Update MemoJuly 5, 2006 TO: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board FROM: James Hewat, Chris Meschuk SUBJECT: Update Memo Historic Preservation Ordinance Changes Second reading is scheduled for July 11'~. This meeting will include a public hearing and council will vote regarding the changes. The ordinance will require a 3rd reading as a result of some re- organization of chapter 10-13-4 after the first reading. 1890 Union Pacific Depot City Council voted to purchase the depot, refund the sales tax to assist in the move, and decided on moving the building in 1 or 2 pieces only. They removed the provision allowing the building to be dismantled. The move and re-location to somewhere near the proposed rail platform has become a part of the Transit Village Area Planning process, and the development of a staff team of the various city departments is now underway. Landmark Alteration Certificate Application revisions Enclosed is a draft of the new application, staff is seeking board input on the application. We will discuss this under matters from the Planning Department. 16`n Street Historic District Application On Tuesday June 27'~ Historic Boulder submitted an application for Historic District Designation of 5 houses on 16`" Street, 700, 701, 704, 711, and 716 16~' Street. You will be hearing this application at your August 2n8 meeting 700 16`h Street Individual Landmark Application On June 19`" the Stern's submitted an application to individually landmark their house at 700 16'" Street. You will hear this application at your August 2nd meeting. ARTICLES AND INFORMATION: Pending Stay's of Demolition and current stams. Current code violations on historic properties. Lighting ceremony announcement of the newly restored Holiday Drive-in Marquee Re-survey of the Casey Intermediate School Boulder Valley School Disvic[ Facilities Master plan Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Stay of Demolition Status Summary, July 5, 2006 Date of Date Stay Date of Address Construction Im sed Ex iration Current Status Staff has met with the owners and 3805 North Broadway c.1920 5/3/2006 10/10/2006 ~Qaltor regarding the options for potentia~ buyers to restore or save the house. The applicant has met with staff, and has redesigned the project to not 563 Arapahoe 1904 5/3/2006 10/10/2006 remove the existing front gable. As the project no longer involves a demolition, they intend to withdraw iheir application. Staff has been working with the 2958 6th Street 1938 5/3/2006 9/25/2006 applicant to explore alternatives to the demolition, and has met with them on two occasions. 7 Re orted Historic Preservation Ordinance Violations 2004-2006 ~ ~~ Street ~ Violation ~ District Street # Name Violation Date Status Previous L.A.C. A roval Comments MapletonHill 73S PineS~ Feixe Undcrlmesiigmion Maple[on Hill 327 Spruce SI. Unauthurrzed demoh~ion of house UiWcr Imesligulmn Conslmcbon oRcar/side addihon (IIIS-2W i-qll 14) Summons Mapleton Hill 20i0 IOtq St Work wiihoul an IAC or bmlding permit Issued/ResNution I.AC issued Ior replucement of tbe pomh railing mdy. ~PP~~cam has cnnr Iu UNC with Ox misnnry work,:~i~:~pplicnUOn u Pending s~ill ~xnding regarding Ihe benJ b:mrd, and Vun wod 1}ivdcy wull conswcted higlxr lhan Landmark 62G 131h Sveei appmved - m color coal on nugM1bors 7/120~5 Resolubon Pending Conqruchon of pnvacy wall ~o n heigh~ o( no inure than 7' Apphcml hus mnr lo DRC, SUd( is worAing on rcsoluunn side DRC direcliun was fnr Ihe Reslur:nion of wmdows, a(ICr MaplelonHill zui Gth51. UnaWhon<edwmJowreplacencnl 7/122W4 ResoluhonPenJmg vioWl~onl,ACwasappheJforlhereplacement,andwds Pendingreslnralive)uslicc denicJ Ma leron Hill P `ra~ Muxwell Ave. Unamhor~zed IaiMscaping 8 w:ucr feamms 7q2/2Wd Nesulmion Pendin b' ~~kC revicwed and appmvcJ rcimval o( nirc MmlJers in ~~i~~r. Smrc landvcaping L.ts wcurred, slill ~xndmg Vnlf vcnfic.ninn ~OWIILOWII 1216 Peur15~. Delenomlingalleybuddin6 unknown W RSVP TO LIZ WOLFERT WOLFERTL@BOULDERCOLORADO.GOV ~CIXO~MlO H~11MKwt SU(IRY cw~~~s~on l wraros~< o~wvwr~on ~ • Boulder Housing „ Partners ~~ Alhxiurr{AU~lmn fim: I'Y,r. ~IOLiDAY ~ Boulder Housing~~~ Partners ~~ d Hoinwg.-0ulBnntySm~r ]')M16 Media Contacts: Liz Wolfert Development Division Intern Boulder Housing Partners ~zo-564-46i9 wolfertl @bouldercolorado. gov Laurie Dunklee Public Relations Specialist State Historical Fund 303-866-2049 laurie. dunklee@ chs.state.co.us Media Advisorv Historic Holiday Drive-In Marquee to Light North Boulder Again Boulder's Holiday Neighborhood to Celebrate with Relighting Ceremony wI3~: The general public, press, residents of Boulder's Holiday Neighborhood, Holiday Neighborhood Home Owners Associations, Boulder Housing Partners, the State Historical Fund, and honorary guests WHAT: A lighting ceremony to take place at dusk to commemorate the restoration and reinstallation of the historic Holiday Drive-In marquee, first installed in i953• Festivities include food and drinks provided by local businesses. wHE~: The corner of State Highway 36 and Lee Hill Drive; Boulder, CO. Parking is available along Lee Hill Drive and 14th St. WHEN: July 5th, 2006 at 8:0o p.m. ~1': The Holiday Neighborhood is built on the site of the old Holiday Drive- In Theater in Boulder. Boulder Housing Partners, with a generous grant from the State Historical Fund, is restoring the marquee as a tribute to the site's history and heritage. The sign is designated as a local landmark. H~w: The sign restoration project is primarily funded by a State Historical Fund grant of $24, 56~ and a cash match by Boulder Housing Partners for $8,i89. Interview Opportunities: Staff from Boulder Housing Partners, the State Historical Fund, and representatives from other entities will be available for interviews. Photo opportunities with residents, children, and the Holiday Marquee will also be available. C Resource Number: SBL5911 Address: 2410 13'" Street OAHP1403 Rev. 9/98 COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Architectural Inventory Form Official eligibility determination (OAHP use only) Date Inrtials Determinetl Eligible- NR Determined Not Eligible- NR Determined Eligible- SR Determined Not Eligible- SR Need Data Contributes to eligible NR District _ Noncontnbuting to ehgible NR Distnct I. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number: 56L5911 2. Temporary resource number: WA 3. County: Boulder 4. City: Boulder 5. Historic building name: Northside Intermediate School 6. Current building name: Casey Middle School 7. Building address: 241013th Street; Boulder, CO 80304 8. Owner name and address: Boulder Valley School District RE-2; 6500 Arepahoe Ave.; Boulder, CO 80303 II. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 9. P.M. 6th Township 1N Range 70W SW Y< of NW Ya of section 30 10. UTM reference Zone 13; 476170 E 4430131 N 11. USGS quad name:, Boulder Year: 1978 Map scale: 7.5 12. Block 8, North addition, BO; and Block 3, Sunset Hill addition 13. Boundary Description and Justification: The legal description (Item 12) includes all the land currently associated with the school building property. III. Architecturel Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Irregular plan 15. Dimensions in feet: Length 290 x Width 150 16. Number of stories: 3 17. Primary external wail material(s): Brick 18. Roof configuration: Flat roof 19. Primary external roof material: not visible 20. Special features: decorative cornice, decorative terra cotta 1- ~ Resource Number: SBL5911 Address: 2410 13~' Street 21. General architectural description: The original 1924 portion is a 3-story symmetrical cream brick school building with flat roof on a concrete foundation. It featured a modified H-plan, with an additional wing extending from the center rear. The fagade is divided by brick pilasters that feature angled terra cotta caPs at the sill and lintel level on each floor. There are additional sill bands of molded terre cotta between the 1' & 2"a stories, and beneath the cornice. 1/1 windows (not original) have angled terra cotta sills. There are terra cotta panels with stylized columbines between the 181 & 2"" stories; these panels are monochromatic on the side elevations, and blue and white on the front (west) elevation. The front extending wings of the "H" plan do not have any fenestrations. There are two entries on either side of these extensions, with deeply recessed openings featuring shallow-arched spandrels of blue & white terra cotta decoretions. The double metal entry doors are not original, and feature multi-paned trensoms above. The cornice is marked by protruding terre cotta molding and coping. Floral motifs are placed at regular intervals along the lower cornice. The central bay on the fagade has a terra cotta parepet with shields, and lower terra cotta parapets are above each front entry. Extending to the rear of the original portion is a shallow-pitched gable roof auditorium wing with parapet end. Attached on the north by a fiat roof b~ick conneetion is a 2-story addition (1956). lt features an "interrupted" folded plate roof, with clerestory windows on the north edges and diamond-shaped windows on the fagade beneath the eaves. The wall material is light red brick and metal panels, with metal louvers over the windows. The original louvers on the 2n° story windows have been removed. Attached to the front of the original school building is a 2-story flat roof brick addition (1970). Constructed of cream brick matching the original, it sits on brick columns and is open on the first level with paving below. The columns extend above to form pilasters dividing the second story. This addition is attached to the original building at both ends through second story doorways. Between the pilasters are recessed brick panels or groups of 1/1/1 windows. A final flat roof addition connects the originat portion to the 1956 addiiion and extends to the rear. It is two stories and is constructed of light red brick. 22. Architectural style/building type: Late 19'" and early 20th century revivals/schoolhouse 23. Landscaping or special setting features: Set on an approximate 8.4 acre site, with a small gressed median with sidewalks and lined with deciduous trees is on the west; a small paved seating plaza is on the southwest; a paved parking lot on the south; two half-basketball courts and two tennis courts on the southeast; and large fields on the east, with addition parking set on the hill to the east. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: Basketball courts, tennis courts. IV. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 25. Date of Construction: Actual: 1923-1924 (original); 1956 (north addition); 1970 (west addition); 1983/1990 (rear addition) Source of information: "Casey Junior High School" clipping files; Carnegie Brench Library for Local History, Boulder Public Library System; telephone interview with Don Orr, BVSD, 8 June 2006. 26. Architect: Robert Fuller (original); Milo Ketchum (1956); Atchison, Kloverstrom & Atchison (1970) Source of information: "Casey Junior High School" clipping files; Carnegie Branch Library for Local History, Boulder Public Library System; telephone interview with Mark Ketchum, Structural Engineer, 29 December 2005, by Deon Wolfenbarger. 27. Builder/Contractor: A. Danielson & Son (original); Faith Contracting Co. (1970) Source of information: "Casey Junior High School" clipping files; Carnegie Branch Library for Local History, Boulder Public Library System. -Z- Resource Number: SBL5911 Address: 2410 13'" Street 28. Original owner: Boulder School District Source of information: "Casey Junior High School" clipping files; Carnegie Branch Library for Local History, Boulder Public Librery System. 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): Original portion constructed 1923-1924. North addition built in 1956, west addition completed in 1970; rear addition 1983 or 1990. See also Item 21. 30. Original location X Moved _ Date of move(s): V. HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS 31. Original use(s): School 32. Intermediate use(s): School 33. Current use(s): School 34. Site type(s): School building 35. Historical background: Boulder voters approved a bond issue in 1921 to construct the first intermediate school in the city. At the time, some members did not approve of the term "junior high," so the new school built on the north side of Boulder was called "Northside Intermediate School." Robert Fuller, noted Denver architect, submitted plans on 20 December 1922, and construction began in 1923. The building was completed at a cost of $182,889. The school opened for the fall term in 1924 with almost 400 students enrolled. Susan Lovelace was chosen as the first principal, amid some controversy as she did not meet current standards for training of principals. However, she was favored by citizens, and inspired both teachers and students to work on projects beautifying the schools and grounds. She also started an "open door" policy, where anyone was allowed to attend special classes even if they were not officially enrolled. Besides academic classes, Northside offered comprehensive courses in manual training and home economics. In 1944, it was renamed "Casey Junior High" in honor of William V. Casey, who for over forty years had been Boulder's Superintendent of Schools. An addition was built on the north in 1956 at a cost of $358,777. It was designed by internationally renowned engineer Milo Ketchum; his son considers this as one of his father's five most significant designs, noted for its folded plate roof. In 1970, the addition to the front of the building was completed at a cost of $324,061; it was designed by the Denver architectural firm of Atchison, Kloverstrom & Atchison. Other work at the school includes a study in 1945 by S.R. DeBoer regarding the grounds; bonds in 1948 for the purchase and development of a playfield site; bonds in 1951 for the modernization of lighting in the classrooms; and construction of a rear addition in 1983 or 1990. It is the oldest "middle" school building i~ Boulder, and dates back to the inception of the intermediate school system in the city. 36. Sources of information: "Casey Junior High School" clipping files; Carnegie Branch Library for Local History, Boulder Public Library System; telephone interview with Mark Ketchum, Structural Engineer, 29 December 2005, by Deon Wolfenbarger; telephone interview with Don Orr, BVSD, 8 June 2006, by Deon Wolfenbarger. VL SIGNIFICANCE 37. Local landmark designation: Yes _ No X Date of designation: Designating authority: 3- d Resource Number: 5BL5911 Address: 2410 13'" Street 38. Applicable National Register Criteria: X A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; _ B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; X C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or _ D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. _ Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G(see Manual) Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria Bouider Standards for Designation: 1. Historical Siqnificance X Date of Construction X Distinction in the development of the community of Boulder X Recognition by Authorities X Association with historical persons or events Architectural Siqnificance X Artistic merit X Recognized period or style Indigenous qualities X Architect or builder of prominence X Example of the uncommon _Other, if applicable Environmental siqnificance Site characteristics Compatibility with site X Geographic importance Environmental appropriateness Area integrity _Other, if applicable 39. Area(s) of significance: Education; architecture; engineering 40. Period of significance: 1924-1956 41. Level of significance: National _ State X Local 42. Statement of significance: Significant under National Register criterion A in the area of Education, as the first and oldest extent intermediate school building in Boulder. Under criterion C, it is significant as a good example of the work of a master - Denver architect Robert Fuller, and in the area of Architecture as an early 20"' century revival style school building; the terre cotta panels featuring the Colorado state flower are noteworthy. The 1956 addition is also significant as the work of a master - internationally renowned Denver engineer Milo Ketchum, and in the area of Engineering as an excellent example of a folded plate roof building. For local designation, in addition to the applicable National Register areas of significance, the school is historically and environmentally significant for its role in the development of the north side of Boulder, and architecturally significant for its artistic merit and as an example of the uncommon. 4- ~ Resource Number: 5BL5911 Address: 2410 13'h Street 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: The 1970 addition to the front negatively impacts the building's historic integrity, and therefore the ability of the building to confer its physical appearance from its period of significance (1924-1956). However, this addition is only attached to the front elevation by two walkways on the second story, and appears to have minimally impacted the historic physical materials of the school. Removal of the 1970 addition would warrant a re-evaluation of the building's integrity and eligibility, both for National Register and local designation. VII. NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible Not Eligible X Need Data 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes No X Discuss: Surrounding area was not included in this survey. Visual inspection indicates a mixture of non- historic residences, health care, and school buildings. If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing _ Noncontributing WA 46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: Contributing _ Noncontributing WA VIII. RECORDING INFORMATION 47. Photograph numbers: Negatives filed at: City of Boulder Planning and Development Services PO Box 791 1739 Broadway Boulder, CO 80306 48. Report title: Casey Middle School Resurvey 49. Date(s): June 12, 2006 50. Recorder(s): Deon Wolfenbarger (completed for) 51. Organization: City of Boulder Planning and Development Services 52. Address: PO Box 791 1739 Broadway Boulder, CO 80306 53. Phone number(s): (303) 441-1880 -5- CO Resource Number: 5BL5911 Address: 2410 13`h Street Photos -6- ~r Front & side elevation: 1924 original portion and 1970 addition; looking NE Front elevation; 1956 addition, 1924 original portion, & 1970 addition; looking E/SE Resource Number: 5BL5911 Address: 2410 13th Street Front elevation; looking SE 7- ~7, Rear elevations; looking W/NW ~ 0 ~ o~ m ~ ~ < A~ O~ 7 a m w ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ' ~ co m D ~ Q ~ Q ~ ~ o ~ C (n C~ .. ~ N Z A C O Q J (~ W ~ / ^7 V/ ~T r~- M~ ~ r ~ :°. ~ ~ Resource Number: 5BL5911 Address: 2410 13`~ Street Courtesy Carnegie Branch Library for Local History, Boulder Public Library System 9- r~ Original 1924 school building, ca. 1945. Courtesy Carnegie Branch Library for Local History, Boulder Public Library System 1956 addition, ca. 1960. Resource Number: 5BL5911 Address: 2410 13th Street USGS Map - 10- ~S Boulder Valley Schoo/ District Educationa/ Facilities Masier Plan • Boulder Valley Public Schoois Educational Facilities Master Plan Presented by Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Capita/ Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 1 ~~ Bou/der Valley School District Educationa! Facilities Master Plan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Special acknowledgement is given to the Capital Improvement Planning Committee, Board of Education members, staff, and MGT of America who participated in the preparation of this report. The following individuals earned commendation for the many long hours spent studying, researching, and envisioning the strategies and actions recommended in the Master Plan. Their time and commitment has made a dramatic contribution to the community's responsibility to maintain and improve the educational environment for students and staff in the Boulder Valley School District. Board of Education Helayne Jones Lesley Smith Angelika Schroeder Ken Roberge Patti J. Smith Jean Paxton Teresa Steele Dr. George Garcia President, Director District A Director District 6 Vice-President, Director District C Director District D Director District E Director District F Treasurer, Director District G Superintendent of Schools Capital Improvement Planning Committee Kent Crawford, Co-Chair Susan Churchill, Co-Chair Ken Robinson John Koval Elisabeth Patterson Virginia Belval Jan Baulsir Katherine Allen Linda Kaboth Karen Tyler Rodney Smith Mike Medina Terry Gillach Ginger Ramsey Gail Casella Don Orr, Ex Officio Real Estate Development Director District D Director District A Director District B Director District C Director District F Director District G At Large Director District E At Large At Large Elementary Principal Middle Level Principal High School Principal Community School Program Director of Planning, Engineering and Construction A special thanks to the District's technical staff: Joe Sleeper John Bollinger Louis Novak Dave Compton Becky Young Jane Blanchard Dave Williamson Executive Director of Operations Engineer, Project Manager Architect, Project Manager Architect, Facility Coordinator CAD Operator Administrative Secretary Chief Information Officer Capita!lmprovement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 2 Boulder Valley School District Educational Facilities Master Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................... 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 2.0 DATA VALIDATION, GUIDING PRINICIPLES AND OVERVIEW .......... 3.0 TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW .................................................................... 4.0 PUBLIC INPUT OVERVIEW .................................................................... 5.0 DATA DETAIL ......................................................................................... 6.0 TECHNOLOGY DETAIL ............................................................... 7.0 PUBLIC INFORMATION DETAIL ................................................. 8.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................... Appendix I: SURVEY INSTRUMENT ............................................... Appendix II: BVSD ONLINE SURVEY ............................................. Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 ......... 5 ......................... 7 ......................... 9 ........ 21 ........ 25 ............................ 29 ............................ 87 ............ 99 .......... 105 .......... 109 ............................ 111 Page 3 cS Boulder Valley Schoo/ District Educational Facilities Master Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The aging of school facilities, changes in enrollment patterns, and recent changes in educational programs have increased the need for Bouider Valley School District to develop a comprehensive long-range facility improvement plan. Compounding the problems are severe restrictions on available funds, which have accumulated to the point that we are faced with critical safety issues, skyrocketing repair and maintenance costs, constantly escalating utiliry costs, and the inability of our buildings to accommodate current and future programs. It is with this in mind that the Board of Education charged the Capital Improvement Planning Committee to develop a highly efficient, comprehensive, and long-range facilities plan. A compiete building and site assessment was performed on 57 school and support sites with over 4.1 miilion square feet of buildings. The average age of District schools is 43 years. The assessments revealed the following findings: • Facility and Site Findings: o Electrical distribution systems are aged and inadequate o HVAC systems are problematic o Hardscape areas are deteriorating o Buildings lack ADA accessibility o The exterior envelope of the buildings is deteriorating o Glazing/windows are inefficient and outdated • Programmatic Findings: o Inequity between adopted educational specifications and the majority of our buildings o Lack of adequate small group break-out space o Lack of dedicated program space o Lack of professional office space for school resource staff o Administrative o~ces are inadequate in size to meet the needs of the building . Multi-use Outdoor Facilities: o Generai disparity between schools o Playground equipment outdated and worn o Shared athletic facilities lack individual elements • Information Technology Findings: o Infrastructure constraints limit educational programming o Local Area Networks lack reliable access to data, research and information o Communication systems need improvement The Boulder Valley School District has significant needs in the area of maintaining and replacing old, worn-out, and obsolete major capital systems. Boulder, not unlike other school districts in the state, typically falls behind in this area given the nature of school finance and the lack of adequate, on-going funding to address building component replacement and life cycle needs. As has been obvious from the beginning of the process, financial resources are a major consideration in addressing facility needs. Throughout this process the CIPC has tried to identify important critical needs, equitable distribution of projects, and community values. The recommended $296.8 million model addresses the above, as well as adopted guiding principles aRd input received from the community. All schools withi~ the District benefit from this recommendation. The CIPC has recommended the comprehensive list of needs flowing from the plan and identified $296.8 million in necessary improvements. Capital Improvement P/anning Committee May 2006 Page 5 l 1 Boulder Valley School Dlstrict Educational facilities Master Plan 1.0 INTRODUCTION In 2004, the Boulder Valley School District Board of Education established the Capital Improvement Planning Committee (CIPC) and adopted membership guidelines for its purpose. The purpose of the CIPC is to advise the Board of the long term facility needs of the District. (The Board requested that the CIPC evaluate and update the District's Facility Master Plan and make recommendations about the make-up of future bond programs that may be presented to the voters.) Such recommendations may include but are not limited to: • Proposals in facility upgrades and equity issues for both existing and pianned facilities • Promote cost-effective planning, design, and construction of pubiic schools in order to achieve reduced maintenance and operational costs • Collect and analyze data on the educational adequacy of District schools • Identify and evaluate opportunities for better utilization of existing and future assets • Estabiish priorities amongst the various facility improvements called for by the Facility Master Plan process • Facilitate integration of other improvement efforts such as educational technology into the Facility Master Pla~ process • Develop with the DistricPs Communication office a plan to engage all stakeholders in the process and to keep them informed of progress, recommendations and decisions • Report recommendations to the Superintendent and the Board of Education The Board solicited membership to the CIPC and appointed 15 members on April 27, 2004. The membership of the CIPC represented the general characteristics of the Boulder Valley School District and its patrons. The committee began meeting in June 2004 and has met a total of 22 times. The following report is the culmination of 24 months of work by the committee. In November 2005, the Boulder Valley School District authorized the appointment of MGT of America, Inc. to assist the District with the final stages of the development of a Facilities Master Plan. The majority of the process had been previously completed by the District facilities staff with the assistance of the Capital Improvement Planning Committee. These activities included: • Detailed Facility Evaluations • Demographic Projections • Facility Capacity and Utilization • Prioritization Categories The purpose of this final phase was to bring all of the data together, verify the information, solicit input from staff and the public, and develop, with the Capital Improvement Planning Committee, a Facilities Master Plan to be presented to the Board of Education. To accomplish this effort, a work plan was developed that included the following tasks: • Project initiation and data gathering • A review of current and projected programs and services • Review and verification of existing data • Development of standards for ranking facility needs • A survey of facility needs • A series of public presentations • The development of a Facilities Master Plan report and recommendations Capital Improvement P/anning Committee May 2006 Page 7 Boulder Valley School District Educational Facilities Master Plan Tfiis report represents the results of this effort and contains the following sections: • Data Validation, Guiding Principles and Overview • Technology Overview • Public Input Overview • Data Detail • 7echnology Detail • Public Input Detail • Findings and Recommendations Capitai lmprovement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 8 ~~ Boulder Valley School District Educational Facilities Master Plan 2.0 DATA VALIDATION, GUIDING PRINICIPLES AND OVERVIEW As discussed above, the first stages of the development of this master plan included the validation of the data previously completed by District staff and the development of guiding principles in order to make decisions based on the identified priorities. This chapter provides an overview of that process. In order to ensure that the data was complete and the development of the report would reflect the educational program needs of the District, the project methodology included the following: The on-site validation of the DistricYs facility data and cost estimates. MGT personnel surveyed a sample of facilities in the District, gathered data utilizing MGT's BASYS program (a computer-based building condition assessment tool) and compared the sample data with the DistricYs data. It was found that the majority of the DistricYs data was complete and correct. Where differences existed, the information gathered was utilized in correcting projected costs. A review and discussion of the District`s programs and services. This review included an examination of the DistricYs policies and curriculums, meetings with staff groups to discuss current and planned programs, interviews with Board members to gain an understanding of the DistricYs philosophy, and public meetings (as described below) to gain an understanding of the public's desire as it pertains to school facilities. This information was then utilized in the development of recommendations that would provide facilities which support and enhance the District's educational programs. The development of a set of "guiding principles" to guide the development of the recommendations. These guiding principles were developed by the Capital Improvement Planning Committee after reviewing the data as discussed above. GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR BVSD FACILITY PLANNING The Boulder Valley School DistricYs Capital Improvement Planning Committee has developed the following list of guiding principles in order to provide a framework for developing a long-term facility plan. Therefore, during the development of the facility plan, the following principles were intended to provide guidance throughout the process: • Continue to provide healthy and safe environments for students, staff, and community members • Improve facility conditions in order to reflect and support the educational excellence of the District • Continue to encourage community use of facilities • Provide equity among District facilities to the degree possible • Reflect the input from stakeholders throughout the school district • Support the exceptional educational achievement programs of the BVSD by addressing the needs in each of the following areas: o Facility Condition o Program Compatibility o Multi-Use Outdoor Facilities Capital Improvement P/anning Committee May 2006 Page 9 Z2 Boulder Valley School District Educationa/ Facilities Master Plan o Information Technology School buildings and sites are an asset to the community and need to be valued as such. Therefore, the Facility Master Plan needs to: o Efficiently utilize existing space o Be designed to attract and retain students, families, and staff o Address deferred maintenance needs o Protect current assets into the future o Provide a return on our investment Building improvements should take into account the following: o Cost effectiveness o Demographics/geographic distribution o Educational programs o Historic value • Minimize the use of portables as ciassrooms EVALUATION CRITERIA All of the buildings that make up the District's educational facilities have been assessed and ranked as to their physicai condition (facility condition index), ability to support the delivery of the DistricYs stated education programs (program compatibility index), and outdoor plan and athletic facilities (multi-use outdoor facilities). Information technology issues have been assessed District-wide by IT staff and reviewed by MGT. Additionally, other non-assessable factors may be present in some schools that require inclusion in the assessment process. FACILITY CONDITION INDEX The Facility Condition Assessment identifies physical deficiencies which are in need of repair or are at the end of their service life and are in need of replacement. The Facility Condition Index (FCI) is the measure of a building's condition. It is the ratio of the total cost of correcting the deficiencies to the total replacement cost of the building. For example, a particular building with a total cost of deficiency correction of $3,000,000 and a replacement cost of $10,000,000 has an FCI of .30 (3,000,000/10,000,000). For the sake of relating the FCI to other factors, and to keep the scoring methodology consistent, the FCf score is expressed as a whole number indicating how much of the building is not in need of deficiency correction. An FCI of .30 becomes 70%. (1.00-.30)=.70. Industry standards generally rate buildings with a FCI greater than .20 to be in poor physical condition. FCA scores for each District facility can be found in Section 5.0. PROGRAM COMPATIBILITY INDEX The Program Compatibility Assessment identifies facility deficiencies that affect the building's ability to support the educational programs and teaching activities. Each school is numerically compared to the Board-adopted Educational Specifications with a corresponding Program Compatibility index (PCI) that expresses the percentage that a school building is in compliance with the Educational Specifications. For example, a building with a PCI of 65 is 65% compiiant with the Educational Specifications; a score of 85 would be 85% compliant. The higher the PCI, the more the schooi meets the Educational Specifications. The PCI average for elementary schools in the District is 64, with a high score of 87 at Superior, and a low score of 52 at Mesa. For middle schools, the average PCI is 65, with a high score of 88 at Angevine, and low score of 50 at Casey. For K-8 schools the average PCI is 91. Their high scores are due to the fact that Capital lmprovement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 10 z3 Boulder Valley School District Educational Facillties Master Plan the K-8 schools are relatively new and meet the educational specifications. For high schools, the average PCI is 79 with Monarch at 92, and Centaurus at 76. PCI scores can be found in Section 5.0. MULTI-USE OUTDOOR FACILITIES Elementary school playgrounds along with secondary schooi pla~elds and outdoor athletic facilities were assessed using onsite visits along with interviews with school staff including athletic directors and coaches. These findings were compiled into separate reports, one for elementary schools and one for middle/K-S/high schools. A priority system was established based on safety, usability, equity, and conditions that were then applied to all of the schools. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY The DistricYs Information Technology Department prepared a draft master plan document that centered around providing an enhanced infrastructure that includes upgrading the Wide Area Network (WAN), upgrading LANs, installation of a single voice communication system, and a video distribution system for educational purposes. The draft master plan has been vaiidated by MGT. OTHER FACTORS In addition to the numerical ratings for facility condition and program compatibility, several other non-assessable factors may be present at given schools that can affect a school's ability to support the educational programs. These non-assessable factors need to be considered in the final overall facility assessment, including: • Current enrollment exceeding building capacity • Future enrollment trends • Open enrollment pressure • District intent regarding destratification goals • Special programs at select schools (Special Education, ESL, Dual Immersion) • Dual programs occupying the same buiiding (Aurora 7 with High Peaks/BCSIS and Arapahoe Ridge/TEC) Capttal lmprovement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 11 ~~ Boulder Valley School District Educational Facilitles Master Plan Facitity Condition Assessment (FCA} The Facility Condition Assessment identified physical deficiencies within the building systems for each school. These deficiencies may represent items that need repair or are at the end of their service life, such as worn carpet or old, inefficient boilers. In addition, deficiencies could inciude items that need to be added to a building, such as air conditioning or security systems. Items that may represent immediate safety or code related issues are dealt with by the District in an on-going program. Facility Condition Assessment (FCA) Category Examples Currently Critica~ - needs Fire alarm improvements, exhaust issues, Category 1 immediate action to stop smoke hatches for stages, intercom deterioration or correct a hazard improvements, electrical issues, emergency li hts, exit si ns Potentially Critical - needs action Electrical service, electrical distribution, within 1 to 2 years to prevent ventilation issues, aged boilers, acoustics Category 2 further deterioration issues, irrigation improvements, clock system improvements, roofing, surge protection, intercom s stem, avin Necessary - Not yet critical - needs HVAC improvements, site drainage, exterior action within 3 to 5 years to doors, exterior lighting, A/C for officeslcomputer Category 3 Preclude deterioration or down rooms, painting, carpet, VCT, gym flooring, time casework, windows, interior doors, replace operable walls, replace select exterior wall com onents, ceilin s, roofin Recommended - Items that make Fire sprinklers, AlC, plumbing component Category 4 a sensible improvement to the enhancements and fixtures, electrical facili enhancements Category 5 Does not meet current ADA toilet room improvements, drinking codes/standards fountai~s, and circulation im rovements Beyond rated life but still Replace aged portables, replace interior doors Category 6 serviceable and hardware Category 7 Hazardous material contained and Asbestos abatement mana ed in lace Capital lmprovement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 12 ZS Boulder Valley Schoo! Disfrict Educational Facilities Master Plan Examples of Facility Condition Deficiencies: ~' ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ , `*,+,- '~-. ,~ '~ ,:~~- ', Missing or damaged cerling tiles. Older boilers exist throughout the Disirict. Structural cracking in support structures Capital lmprovement P/anning Committee May 2006 Page 13 ~~ Ineflicient srngle pane windows with aluminum frames. ~ .: . Boulder Val/ey School Districi Educationa/ Facilities Master Plan Program Compatibility Assessment (PCA) The Program Compatibility Assessment identified facility deficiencies which affected the building's ability to support the educational programs and teaching activities. The deficiencies could include the lack of instructionat spaces, such as an art room or a computer lab, spaces which are too small for the program or the class size, and aesthetic issues which could have a direct bearing on student performance, such as natural lighting. Prvgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA) Categories Examples Inadequate facilities that prohibit Critical classroom additions, small group Category 1 the ability to deliver the spaces, Special Education spaces, music educational ro ram additions, a lied tech labs, and science labs Inadequate facilities with Faculty workrooms, other classroom additions, negative impact on functionality office additions, cafeteria additions, IMC Category 2 and operation of the school additions, art additions, smalt group spaces, consumer studies remodel, corridors, counseling, photo lab, kindergarten additions, and sta e additions Inadequate facilities with minor Physical education storage space Category 3 impact on the functionality and o eration of the school Improvements that are aesthetic ESL spaces, preschool spaces, and art support in nature, cannot be addressed spaces Category 4 `^'ithin the structural limitations of the building, or are not addressed in the Educational S ecifications Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 14 ./ Boulder Valley Schoo! District Educational Facilities Master Plan Examples of Program Compatibility Deficiencies: _...~ ; ; ~ ~ ~" ~ -.,-~`: ~ ~ Art room does not provide for program deJivery Capital Improvement Planning Committee Ma y 2006 Outdated scrence rooms C/assrooms lack adequate storage for program curriculum Page 15 ~~ ~ ' - ...:x~~ Band room set up on cafeteria stage Boulder Valley School District Educational Facilities Master Plan Multi-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF) The Multi-Use Outdoor Facilities assessment identified deficiencies in outdoor facilities. such as playgrounds and athletic fields, which represented a Facility Condition issue and/or a Program Compatibility issue. The assessment included a range of priorities from necessary and/or safety items to enhancements. The assessment included items such as repaving pfay courts, adding drinking fountains, and improving drainage on athletic fields. Multi-Use / Outdoor Facilities (MUOF) Categories (Fields/Playgrounds) Examples Facility is lacking, sub- Safery related playground improvements, field Category 1 standard, inaccessible, or improvements, bleacher improvements, softball unsafe bleachers, and resurface track Facility does not meet Other playground improvements, and additional Category 2 competition standards or tennis courts playground equipment guidelines Nonexistent or inadequate Playground amenities, baseball bleachers, Category 3 ancillary facilities press box improvements, and storage Enhancements Additional basketball backboards, expand track, Category 4 and add field house Capita! lmprovement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 16 ~i \ Boulder Va!!ey Schoal District Educational Facilities Master Plan Examples of Multi-Use Outdoor Facility Deficiencies: Swings do not meet Distrrct playground guidelines. Detenorated tennis surface. Capital lmprovement P/anning Committee May 2006 Climber does not meet District playground guidelines. Deteriorated track surface. Page 17 ~~ Boulder Valley School District Educafional Facilitres Master Plan Information Technology (IT) The Informa;,~n Technology assessment looked at five areas of specific need throughout the District: Wic~ Area Network (WAN), Local Area Networks (LAN), Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP), Video distribution and facilities for housing IT equipment. Further detailed descriptions at each school of the specific needs are provided in Section 6.0. The facility section of the IT priorities was relocated to the FCA section of the recommendations to more appropriately align future uses and needs of these spaces. An analysis of the four remaining priorities is detailed in section 3.0 of this report. IT Priorities Category 1 , Build a fiber optic wide-area network to interconnect the schools Category 2 Upgrade LAN infrastructure Category 3 Install a single, unified voice communication system for the entire District Cate o 4 Video distribution ~ Catego 5 IT facilit Examples of Information Technology Deficiencies: Capita! Improvement P/anning Committee May 2006 Page 18 Inadequate computer lab. Inadequate LAN distribution. Boulder Valley Sehool District Educational Facilities Master Plan Methodology and Approach District staff, comprised of architects and engineers, carried out assessments at all of the District's facilities and incorporated the findings in a proprietary (Vanderweil Facility Advisors, Inc.) facility assessment data base VFA.facility. MGT validated these assessments using a research based process that has been used in over 10,000 schools to design and implement facility master plans. The committee reviewed a series of assessments to determine the condition, suitability, site condition, and technology readiness of each school within the District. These assessments were weighted and a combined score was calculated to determine a deferred maintenance estimate for each building. Each assessment area has specific costs for the identified deficiencies. In addition to the information obtained through the assessment process, a parallel process for gathering public input also took place. Public and community forums were scheduled for public input. These forums began with an overview of the project process and objectives. Next, using the latest in audience participation software, a series of perception and theme based questions were asked to determine the collective consensus of the participants. The responses were immediately coliected and viewable by all those in attendance. The audience was then broken into small groups (15-20 participants) for further input discussion focused on the responses of the large group survey. Finally, a series of ineetings were scheduled with key community stakeholders. Typically, these stakeholder groups were made up of service organizations, regional or local municipalities, governmental entities, religious groups, and senior citizen organizations. A set of standardized questions was used for each group which provided comparison information for deeper analysis. This approach was used for gathering and validating the information for Facility Condition (FCA), Program Compatibility (PCA), Multi-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF), and Information Technology (IT) cost estimates for the Boulder Valley Schooi District. The approach was modified to ensure the data and information gathered were specific to the local issues relevant to the cost estimates. The data and information were analyzed and the results were used to substantiate all estimates regarding FCA, PCA, MUOF, and IT. The committee, in conjunction with District staff, identified specific areas within each of the four categories for the purpose of aligning the proposed funding models to the areas of school-based need. Each schooi was assessed in each of the four areas and deficiencies were catalogued and organized. Capltal Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 19 3Z Boulder Valley School District Educatlona/ Facilities Master Plan 4.0 PUBLIC INPUT OVERVIEW A third phase in the development of the finai master plan involved the engagement of the community, staff, parents, and business leaders in a discussion of the current status of school facility needs and the alternatives for addressing those needs. In November 2005, Bouider Valley School District engaged MGT of America, Inc. to assist them in developing a comprehensive long-range facility improvement plan. The plan was to respond to the many conflicting issues that BVSD must balance in its quest to provide a quality education to all of its students. School districts across the nation struggle with severe restrictions on available funds and numerous needs that must be addressed; BVSD is no exception. Compounding the problem further, the Boulder Vailey community has exceedingly high expectations for its school district. This section will focus on conducting pubiic presentations and gathering pubiic input. Objectives were established for this task which included the following: • To engage staff, community, parental, and business in the facilities planning process • To actively involve and engage the public in a discussion of major issues facing the District To create a"template" of public involvement that can be used in future informational meetings and facility planning The following sections of this chapter will explain the process used to gather the public input and the conclusions reached. PROCESS Boulder Valley School District designed a plan that would produce a comprehensive facility plan to meet the future needs of the community. The plan consisted of the following elements: • Projections of future enrollments • Projections of future educational programs • Establishment of facility planning guidelines • Determination of each type of space needed at each school • Determination of current inventory of each type of space located at each schooi • Comparison of current inventory needs for each type of space • Evaluations of condition of current facilities • Development of a highly e~cient, comprehensive, and long-range facilities plan • Development of a funding plan that will be supported by the community One of the most critical eiements necessary in the plan invoived the public presentations and the gathering of information from the community. To that end, seven charrettes were conducted in the public high schools and one Spanish-speaking charrette was conducted at Pioneer Elementary School. A total of 313 highly engaged citizens participated in these events. Several Board members attended one of the charrettes; one Board member attended all but one. CIPC members were in attendance at all of the charrettes. The principals of each building welcomed the participants and introduced the speakers. Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 25 33 Boulder Valley Schoo/ DisVict EducaNonal Facllities Master Plan Each charrette began with a public presentation by an MGT consultant on the work done by the Capital Improvement Planning Committee on behalf of the Board of Education. A power point presentation presented a project overview, work plan and timeline, the existing data collected, issues that had been identified by the CIPC, and an explanation of the process that would be used for gathering public input. Following this brief presentation, participating members were given an electronic device that enabled them to record their answers to survey questions. Each participant was asked a series of questions, beginning with some basic demographic questions to establish characteristics of the audience for that evening. Following this, 15 questions were asked to determine the public's opinion on critical issues for the school district (See Appendix 1). The results from each question were posted i~stantaneously for the audience to view. Following each question, a bar graph was projected which allowed the participants to view how the large group had responded to each question. The audience reacted positively to this format, given the comments that were made during the presentations. Immediately upon completion of the data-gathering session in the large group format, smaller groups were created for purposes of conducting more intimate discussions. A facilitator was assigned to each group with the express purpose of listening to the comments and recording the views of the small group. The opinions of the facilitators were not expressed in order to solicit maximum input from the audience. The results generated from the charrette process were used as the catalyst for this discussion, focusing these discussions on the key issues. All faciiitators reported a lively discussion at every session. In addition to the public charrettes, an online survey was conducted asking respondents the same 15 questions. Over 700 responses were obtained. Findings from the oniine survey were ranked, along with the charrette process, to help the CIPC understand community values. Soliciting data on the development of a long-range facility improvement plan also involved input from internal sources. The public charrette process was preceded by interviews with administrative personnel, including principals, teachers, and support staff. Confidentiality was assured in order to ascertain accurate opinions. Upon completion of the interviews, summary points were captured. These wiil be shared in the Public Information Detail Section 7.0 of this report. MAJOR THEMES AND CONCLUSIONS: • Boulder Vailey School District enjoys strong support for its educational program • Every school building in Boulder Valley School District has physical needs that must be addressed • A strong education program is needed to communicate a clear understanding of the building needs for the District and how a bond would address those needs • A comprehensive long range facility plan is essential for the District to garner public support for a bond issue • Participants in the charrette process did not believe that the public at large would support the need to address facility deficiencies for BVSD • Participants in the process would support another bond issue provided that certain conditions were met: Capkal Improvement Planning Committee May Y006 Page 26 3~f Boulder Valley School Dishict Educational Facilities Master Plan o Base the plan on a fair set of standards o Communicate often and well with the public o Create the plan and then follow it o Form an oversight committee to ensure compliance In conciusion, the charrette process produced information that is critical to a successful bondissue. More importa~tly, the Board and the CIPC made a promise to iisten to the public before presenting a final long-term master facility plan. The community was engaged whole- heartedly in this process. The outcomes reflect this commitment. The Board and the Capital Improvement Planning Committee, as well as the entire Boulder Valley School District community, are to be congratulated for their approach in creating a plan ihat wiVl address building needs for the District. The Facility Master Plan is reflective of a sound process that solicited community input into the decision-making process in a meaningfui way. Capital Improvement P/anning Committee May T006 Page 27 .~> Boulder Valley School Disblct Educational Facilities Master Plan 5.0 DATA DETAIL Upon compietion of the phases of the project described in the previous chapters, the information gathered was compiled into a series of tables in order to fully examine the information and make decisions based on the data. This chapter provides an overview of the facilities data detail. Chapters 6 and 7 provide similar data detail for the technology infrastructure and public input, respectively. The following information was used to create facility condition and program compatibility categorical funding models to assist in the development of the Master Planning project packages: SehoolName Level Square Feet Aurora 7 Bear Creek Birch Coal Creek Colum6ine Community Mont. Creekside Crest View Douglass Eisenhower Emereld Fireside Flalirons Foothill Gold Hill Heamerwood Jamestown Kohl Latayette Louisville Mesa NedeAand Pioneer Ryan Sanchez Superior University Hill Intar. Univereity Hill Pri. Whittier Elemenlary Elementary Elemenlary Elementary ElemeMary Elementary Elemenlary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elemen~ary Elementary Elementary E~ementary Elementary Elemenlary Eleme~lary Elementary Elementary Elementary ElemeMary Elementary 47556 39549 44714 5t036 48941 42547 50993 54994 51269 53647 56300 58889 33468 57819 3316 52016 5030 54113 567fi0 58458 45786 61470 69518 49176 49887 63500 52962 15734 35123 Elemantary Sehool Mean Capltal Improvemenf Planning Committee Year of Program Condition Combined Program May 2006 Original Score Score Score Capaciry Enrollment mslruetion 1963 56.00% 41.00% 48.50% 470 572 1970 53.00% 5100% 52.00% 370 357 1972 54.00% 60.00% 57.00% 463 410 1984 69.00% 76.00% 72.50% 455 494 1956 52.00% 47 00°h 49 50% 413 392 1960 48.00 % 44.00°/ 46 00 % 180 186 1955 58.00 % 59.00% 58 50 % 316 276 1958 63.00 % 48.00% 55.50 % 510 498 1952 55 00% 46.00 % 50.50 % 435 473 1971 64.00% 7100% 67.50% 500 444 1958 64 00°/n 52.00% 58.00% 377 386 1989 73.00% 87 00°h 80.00°/a 460 457 1956 56.00 % 58.00% 57.00 % 315 296 1949 60 00% 48.00°/ 54 00% 485 490 1915 70.00 % 65.00% 67.50 % 41 26 1971 59.00% 65.00% 62.00% 319 325 1954 97.00% 63.00% 80 00% 18 13 1959 67 00 % 59 00°k 63.00 h 460 470 19fi4 69.00 % 48.00% 58 50 % 298 359 1964 70.00%a 5500°/a 62.50% 460 413 1966 52.00 % 48.00% 50.00 % 315 327 1989 82.00% 94 00% 88.00 % 345 326 1926 76.00% 67.00% 7150% 341 397 1983 75.00 % 68.00 % 71.50% 350 393 1986 71.00% 72.00% 71.50% 316 276 1996 86.00% 93.00°h 89.50% 500 644 1905 58.00% 63.00 % 60.50°k 314 310 1949 40.00°/a 58.00% 49.00% --- See above - 1882 67.00% 58.00% 62.50% 300 320 64.28% 60.83% 62.55Yo May 2006 Page 29 3~ Boulder Valley Schoo/ District Educationa/ Facllitles Master Plan School Name Level Square Year of Program Condition Combined Progrem May 2006 Feet Original Score Score Score Capacity Enroilment ConslruNion Aspen Creek K-8 114478 2000 91.00 % 99.00% 95 00% 969 872 Eldorado K-8 114476 2000 93 00 h 99.00 % 96.00% 876 947 Honzons K-8 29350 1959 ` 56.00 h 56.00 % 315 318 Monarch K-6 108802 1997 89 00 % 99.00 % 94.00% 753 705 K-8 School Mean 91.00% 88.25 % 85.25°/. Angevine Middle 121676 1989 88.00% 86 00% 87.00% 863 585 Broomfield Heights Middle 107385 1983 75.00% 78 00 % 76.50% 914 546 CaSey Mtddle 84007 1924 50.0~°(0 63.U0°!o 56.50°10 612 356 Centennial Middle 101008 1960 6500% 7800°/ 71.50% 750 592 Halcyon Middle 8736 1955 ' 45.00% 4500% ' 13 Louisvdle Middle 89087 1939 61 00% 66 00 % 63.50 % 651 548 Manhattan Middle 80692 1965 63.00°/ 52.00% 5750% 605 444 Platt Middle 117057 1958 65.00% 50 00% 57.50% 707 540 SouthernHills Middle 72260 1963 5600°/ 57.00% 5650% 503 502 Summit Middle 28455 1964 ' 37.00 % 37.00°/ 337 303 Middle School Mean 65.38% 67.20 % 60.85 % Arepahoe Ridge(fEC High 121631 1965 59.00% 73.00 % 66 00 % 820 305 Boulder High 229281 1937 84 00 % 82 00% 83 00% 1994 1871 Broomfield High 218163 1959 80.00% 74.00°/ 77 00% 1599 1369 Centaurus High 188010 1973 76 00% 86.00 % 87.00 % 1607 972 Fairview High 256392 1971 86 00% 78.00% 82.00% 1861 1847 Monarch High 228827 1998 92.00% 99.00°/ 95 50 % 7728 7601 New Vista High 76805 1952 75 00% 59.00°/a 67 00% 659 327 High School Meen 78.86°~ 78.71°~ 78.79% Peak to Peak ChaAer K-12 ' ' 71 00% ' 71.00% 1200 1200 Nederland Mid/Sen 97080 1971 ~4.00% 68.00% 7100% 650 390 Special School Mean M.50°h 68.00°h 71.00°h ' These schools were not evaluated for their program compatibility due to their unique program delivery. It was determined that application of adopted District educational specifications was not applicable to their situation. The facility condition assessment was not performed for Peak to Peak because the District does not own the campus. Capital lmprovement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 30 .7~ Boulder Valley School District EducaNonal Facllities Master Plan The following individual building data sheets reflect proposed improvements broken down by facility condition, program compatibility, multi-use outdoor facilities, and Information Technology. These will be used in the development of cost impleme~tation models and project packaging. Cost information for each school is being finalized at this time and will be included in the finai report to be submitted on June 13, 2006. Capital Improvement P/anning Committee May 2006 Page 31 3~ Boulder Valley School District Educational Facilities Master Plan Boulder High School Original Construction Date: 1937 Total Gross Square Footage: 229,281 Program Capacity: 1994 Student Enrollment May 2006: 1871 Facility Condition Score: 82% Program Compatibility Score: 84% School Budget: $11,812,819 The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Boulder High School: Facility Condition Assessment (FCA): • HVAC upgrades • Electrical distribution improvements • Clock and intercom systems improvements • Interior finishes upgraded (i.e. ceiling tiles, carpet, wall finishes, etc.) • Roof replacement and repairs • Restroom renovations including ADA accessibility where required • Site irrigation system improvements • Interior signage program • Site paving replacement and repair • Exterior wall repair and restoration Program Compatibility Assessment (PCA): • Improvements to speciai education facilities • Enlarge and renovate administrative offices and counseling • Provide auditorium stagecraft and storage • Renovate consumer studies • Enlarge and renovate physical education facilities Multi-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF): • Upgrade visitor's bleachers • Install a fire system water main to Recht Field • Provide a visitor's team room and bridge over Boulder Creek Information Technology (IT): • Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidth demands • Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and respo~sive access to data, research, and information • Implement VofP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce cost CapTtal Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 38 3~ Boulder Valley School District Educational Facilities MasterPlan Casey Middle School Original Construction Date: 1924 Total Gross Square Footage: 84,007 Program Capacity: 612 Student Enrollment May 2006: 356 Facility Condition Score: 63% Program Compatibility Score: 50°/a School Budget: $31,122,650 The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Casey Middle School: Facility Condition Assessment (FCA): • No work is anticipated due to the planned demolition of the existing building Program Compatibility Assessment (PCA): • A new middle school, meeting the Educational Specifications, will be constructed on the site Multi-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF): • New synthetic turf pla~eid and multi-use hard paved areas will be provided on the site Information Technology (IT): • A WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidth demands • A LAN to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, and information • Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costs • Classroom spaces to use multimedia, projectors, and sound enhancement Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 42 ~C6 Boulder Valley School District Educational Facillties Master Plan Foothill Elementary Original Construction Date: 1949 Total Gross Square Footage: 57,819 Program Capacity: 485 Student Enroliment May 2006: 490 Facility Condition Score: 48% Program Compatibility Score: 60% School Budget: $9,501,405 The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Foothill Elementary: Facility Condition Assessment (FCA): . HVAC upgrades • Boiler replacement • Electrical service and distribution improvements • Fire alarm, intercom and ciock systems improvements • Interior finishes upgraded (i.e. ceiling tiles, carpet, wall finishes, etc.) • Roof replacement and repairs • Restroom renovations including ADA accessibility where required • Site irrigation system improvements • Interior signage program • Site paving replacement and repair Program Compatibility Assessment (PCA): • Improvements to the IMC and Special Education, and art room • New kindergarten suites . Provide small group instruction spaces • New administrative offices, cafeteria, and kitchen • Add additional classrooms for enrollment growth Multi-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF): • Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing • Provide adequate curbing and drainage • Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment • Make playgrounds ADA accessible Information Technology (IT): • Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidth demands • Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, and information • Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costs. Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 58 U1 Boulder Valley School District Educational Facilities Master Plan Flatirons Elementary Original Construction Date: 1956 Total Gross Square Footage: 33,468 Program Capacity: 315 Student Enrollment May 2006: 296 Facility Condition Score: 5$% Program Compatibility Score: 56% School Budget: $4,203,473 The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the foliowing work at Fiatirons Elementary: Facility Condition Assessment (FCA): • Intercom improvements . Electrical service and distribution upgrades • Interior finish upgrades (i.e. paint, carpet, ceiling tile, flooring, etc.) • HVAC upgrades • Interior cabinet upgrades • Interior Signage Program Program Compatibility Assessment (PCA): • Classroom additions • Art and music room additions/remodel . Expand gym/stage • Special Education classrooms • Expand administration/student health space • Cafeteria improvements Multi-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF): • Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing • Provide adequate curbing and drainage • Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment • Make playgrounds ADA accessible Information Technology (IT): • Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidth demands • Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, and information • Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costs Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 57 1 ` Boulde~ Valley Schoo/ District Educational Facillties Master Plan University Hill Elementary Original Construction Date: 1905 Total Gross Square Footage: 52,962 Program Capacity: 314 Student Enrollment May 2006: 310 Facility Condition Score: 63% Program Compatibility Score: 58% School Budget: $3,957,110 The Educational Facilities Master Plan inciudes the foilowing work at University Hill Elementary: Facility Condition Assessment (FCA): • HVAC upgrades • Boiler control upgrades • Electrical service and distribution improvements • Fire alarm, intercom, security and clock systems improvements • Interior finishes upgraded (i.e. ceiling tiles, carpet, wall finishes, etc.) • Roof replacement and repairs • Site irrigation system improvements • Interior signage program • Replace aged, unsafe wood windows Program Compatibility Assessment (PCA): • Relocate administrative offices • Provide adequate art and music facilities • Provide small group instructional spaces • Provide offices and meeting space for resource staff Multi-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF): • Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing • Provide adequate curbing and drainage • Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment • Make playgrounds ADA accessible Information Technology (IT): • Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidth demands • Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, and information . Impiement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costs Capitallmprovement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 84 ~7 Boulder Valley School District Educational Facilities Master Plan Whittier International Original Construction Date: 1882 Total Gross Square Footage: 35,123 Program Capacity: 300 Student Enrollment May 2006: 320 Facility Condition Score: 58°/a Program Compatibility Score: 67% School Budget: $3,472,286 The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Whittier International: Facility Condition Assessment (FCA): • Intercom and clock system upgrades • Electrical service and distribution upgrade • Selected window replacement • Interior finish upgrades • Interior cabinet upgrades • HVAC improvements • Interior Signage Program Program Compatibility Assessment (PCA): • Art and music classroom addition • Kindergarten classroom additions • Expand gym and stage • Computer lab • Expand administration office • Kitchen/storage improvements Multi-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF): • Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing • Provide adequate curbing and drainage • Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment • Make playgrounds ADA accessible Information Technology (IT): • Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support appiications with high bandwidth demands • Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, and information • Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costs Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2008 Page 85 y~ Bou~der Valley School District Educational Facilities Master Plan 7.0 PUBLIC INFORMATION DETAIL PUBLIC CHARRETTE PROCESS The public charrette sessions were conducted during the week of March 6 in the BVSD high schools and Pioneer Elementary School (Spanish). The foliowing chart depicts the number of participants who signed the register. There were numerous other people who chose not to sign in, but were active participants in the process. When survey results are shared, the number of actual participants will not, therefore, always match the registered participants. EXHIBIT 7.1 NUMBER OF REGISTERED PARTICIPANTS PUBLIC CHARRETTES SITE TOTAL PARTICIPANTS Boulder 62 Broomfield 76 Centaurus 29 Fairview 65 Monarch 44 Nederland 27 Pioneer 10 TOTALS 313 Source: MGT ofAmerica, March 2006 There were some key questions asked during the charrette process that focused on the issues at hand. Participants were asked to share their views on key matters. The following analysis reflects the opinions that were expressed during the charrette large and small group process. These views may not be totally accurate as the audience may not have been aware of all the facts pertaining to an issue. They do represent the perceptions of the audience who participated in this process. The percentages reported in this report reflect a combination of all the charrettes conducted. Capltal Improvement Planning CommiKee May Y006 Page 99 `~5 Boulder Valley School District Edueational Facilities Master Plan The question was asked, "What is your perception of the quality of education students receive in BVSD?" Participants in the charrettes rated schools as Positive/Somewhat Positive at 92%, an impressive percentage. Boulder Valley School District enjoys strong support for the educational programs within their schools. EXHIBIT 7.2 PUBLIC PERCEPTION - QUALITY OF EDUCATION PUBLIC CHARRETTES - ~.~.-~:_ ~zw .,_~ ' _ " } "4.F~ ,1+. .. < .'€ ' '- §ol-~i:'•-~Y'.,;r: I ~ ;'z, ^ - _ ',r :...` ~ _ _ , 27% 65°k O Positi~,e ^ Somewhat Positiee ~ ^ Neutral ^ Somewha[ Negati~.e' ^ Negati~e Source: MGT of America, March 2006 During small group conversations, when asked why the high marks, participants responded with positive comments about the efforts that were being made on behalf of students by faculty and staff; the strong support from parents; the community has great students; and results being achieved are impressive. Students who attend college and other post-secondary opportunities do well. Academic excellence is a priority for the schools and standards for performance are high. Students feel safe when in school and parents feel confident that their children are safe. Overall, the DistricYs educational program is perceived to be a strong one, producing successful students who are prepared for life. Even with scores as high as this, there were still "Opportunities for Improvement" with the educational delivery system. A sampling of some of the issues raised on several occasions included: class sizes in some elementary schools were perceived to be too high; the issue of growth in the District in some areas was identified as a cause for over-crowding in some schools; open enrollment impacts class sizes; the achievement gap between whites and minorities was identified as an area of concern. Capital lmprovement Planning Commlttee May 2006 Page 100 ~f b Boulder Valley School District Educational Facilities Master Plan The perception on the physical condition of BVSD schools generated a different view. Approximately 70% of the participants rated the buildings as poor/fair, with 15% expressing no opinion. EXHIBIT 7.3 PUBLIC PERCEPTION - PHYSICAL CONDITION PUBLIC CHARRETTES ._ .- -=-=ea- p Excellent ~ Good o Fair p Poor ~ No Opinion Source: MGT olAmerica, March 2006 During small group discussions, numerous building concerns were identified. Many schools were dealing with circulation and parking issues outside the building; limited cafeteria spaces necessitated the campus being designated as "open," always a safety concern for parents; outdoor facilities enjoyed numerous comments on both condition and availability; HVAC issues were prevalent in many buildings with 89% of participants indicating this was a most importanUimportant issue; windows were often single-paned and not energy efficient; indoor physical education/athletic facilities were deemed to be inadequate; a lack of adequate and age- appropriate playground equipment was a concern in the elementary schools; a lack of suffcie~t storage was an issue; and the overall age of BVSD buildings was noted. As a generalization, the smali group discussions indicated a serious concern for the overall condition of BVSD buildings. Regardless of the age of the building, there were ~eeds. Participanis whose children attended school in some of the newer facifities also expressed concern about building conditions, albeit they recognized that not all needs were of equal importance. Capita/ Improvement P/anning Committee May 2006 Page f01 y7 Boulder Valley School District Educational Facilities Master Plan Boulder Valley School District has building issues that need to be addressed and the public who participated in the charrette process agreed. The question is whether the problem is serious enough that action is required by the entire community. The question was posed on whether the community would support the need to address facility deficiencies. Only 50% of the participants felt that the community would support a bond issue. 30% of the participants felt that the community would not support a bond issue. A large percentage (21.72%) chose to remain neutrai. These results led to interesting conversations during the small group process, giving participants an opportunity to explain their views. EXHIBIT 7.4 PUBLIC PERCEPTION - BVSD COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR BOND ISSUE PUBLIC CHARRETTES 9% " ° 22% '~''4 ~ ~ 20% ~~0 O Strongly Agree ^ Agree ^ Neutral ^ Disagree ^ Strongly Disagree Source: MGT olAmerica, March 2006 Small group conversations were lively on this topic. It is important to note that this question was designed to ascertain the participants' views on whether the community at large would support a bond issue, not whether they would do so. That question would come later. The participants were much more guarded on whether the community would support an issue. Their reasons were clarified during the small group meetings. Participants were united in their belief that the community had supported bond issues in the past but that support would be difficult to gamer for a future bond issue. However, the strong perception is that the community would do so if certain conditions were met. The reaso~s for the current state of distrust included: promises were made to spend bond money one way but those promises were not kept; increases in taxes would be an issue; there is not a strong connection in people's minds that a viable school district is good for property values; poor decisions have been made in the past for how bond money was spent; the community at large does not understand the building needs for BVSD; mistrust by the community has increased because of how past bond issues were done; the District does not have a vision. Capltal Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 102 ~-~f ~ Boulder Vailey School District Educational Facilities Master Plan The next question was designed to ascertain whether there could ever be stro~g support for a bond issue, if certain conditions were met. There is good cause to be more optimistic on the public's willingness to support a bond issue based on these conversations. Participants were extremely candid about why there is mistrust today; they were equally outspoken on their belief that something must be done to address all the building needs of BVSD and the conditions upon which they would do so. EXHIBIT 7.6 PUBLIC PERCEPTION - INDIVIDUAL SUPPORT FOR BVSD BOND ISSUE PUBLIC CHARRETTES A surprising 70% of the participants indicated that they would support another bond issue for Boulder Valley School District. There are a significant number of participants who remain undecided (21%). The participants in the charrette process clearly indicated that their support coufd be gained for another issue provided that it was done in very specific ways. The small group discussions brought these issues into focus. There is no doubt that the participants were unaware of the details surrounding past decisions made by the District. For example, there was a great deal of misunderstanding about the technology decisions that had recently been made. The purpose of the charrette was to listen to the public's perceptions, not explain past decisions. With that as a backdrop, MGT facilitators probed into what those conditions had to be to generate support for a bond issue. The conditions were reasonable, achievable, and consistent with how ihe Board would like io conduct its business. The public made the following suggestions: • Develop a vision for the District that articulates clear goals • Listen to the public in order to help identify needs a~d the priorities • Develop a set of fair standards that assigns priorities for addressing building needs • Communicate those standards to the public as well as the priority list culminating from the application of the standards • Follow the plan • Show the community that the plan is being followed Capital lmprovement P/anning Committee May 2006 Page 103 `''I~1 Source: MGT of America, March 2006 Boulder Valley School District Educational Facilities Master Plan • Consider assigning the oversight and execution of the plan to a third party that reports to the Board and Superintendent ADMINISTRATIVE INTERVIEWS MGT consultants conducted interviews with the BVSD administrators from December 12-15, 2005. The compilation is organized into the following categories: Facility Condition, Program/Site Suitability, Community Perception/Input, and Outcomes. The entire summary report is contained in Appendix 2. General conclusions are presented for each category as foliows: • Facility Condition: Administrators expressed concern about the overall condition of school buildings. . Program/Site Suitability: There is a desire to update the IT infrastructure. Concerns were aiso expressed regarding the athletic facilities, both within the building as well as outside. There is a need for spaces to be reconciled with the new requirements for educational programs. Concerns were also expressed regarding ADA compliance. • Community Perceptions: The community distrusts the District because of di~cult decisions that were made. Administrators made suggestions on how best to regain the public's trust which included an effective communications plan. • Outcomes: Administrators want equity as an outcome from a bond issue. They want safe buiidings that respond to the changing educational needs of students being educated today. Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 104 5 ~ Boulder Valley School Distritt Educational Facilities Master Plan 8.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The findings and recommendations contained in this chapter are based on the data contained in the previous chapters and will be divided into the following two sections: The Educational Facilities Master Plan recommendations for school facility improvements, additions, and new construction. o This section will include recommendations for providing adequate instructional facilities over the next six year period which are planned to provide facilities that support the instructional programs of the District. Additional recommendations which wili be specific to the technology portion of these recommendations. o These recommendations will include WAN, LANs, VoIP, and video distribution. BACKGROUND A variety of options were examined based on meeting the stated Guiding Principles as established by the CIPC as well as the findings that were generated by the pubic charrettes, online surveys, and input from school faculty and staff. This activity generated a list of grouped corrective actions arranged as priorities, within each of the assessment categories; that is FCA, PCA, MUOF, and IT. The committee members were then asked to take a survey that identified the most important of these priorities corrective groups within each of the four assessment categories. The results of this survey were the~ reviewed by District staff and MGT and adjusted to reflect actual budget requirements and anomalies that could be present in such a ranking exercise. These adjustments were reviewed and accepted by the committee. The results of this survey created the calcuiations for producing a weighted prioritization model for each category. These calcu4ations were further refined at subsequent meetings, and a fina4 modei for developing categorical prioritization was established. Capltal lmprovement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 105 5~ Boulder Valley School District Educational Facilities Master Plan Exhibit 8-1 below shows the fully funded model based on the deficiencies identified through the assessment process. Exhibit S-1 Fully Funded Deficiency Model BVSD Schools Catagory Ratin s FCA PCA MUOF R Totals 7 $6,614,179 $115,648,415 $15,690,739 $11,000,000 $148,953,333 2 $40,105,693 $48758,781 $5,295,897 $6,000,000 $100.160,371 3 $59.907,970 $4,486,958 $3,870,475 $2,500,000 $70,765,403 4 $39,343,354 $19.926,980 $7,969,592 $12,500,000 $79,739,926 5 $6 814,265 $0 $6,814,265 6 $63,292 $63,292 7 $3.472.781 $3.472.781 SubtoWls f156,321,534 E788,827,734 f32,826703 532000,000 5409969371 Rebuild Casey $30,975,560 530,915,560 Rebuild Columbine $18,094,700 f18,094,700 Subtotal f49,010,260 Total 5458,979,631 Once the prioritization models for each category were in place, the CIPC developed four proposed funding models. The models included specific amounts for FCA, PCA, MUOF, and IT ranging in amounts from $212,000,000 to $459,000,000 (fully funded model). Using the prioritization models adopted by the committee, the level of funding in each category was determined for each of the models. It became apparent that funding below the $260,000,000 level would not provide equity across the district, level of facility improvements that was required to meet the committee's guiding principles and the public survey results. Likewise, the committee feit it was not financially responsible to consider the fully funded model of $459,000,000. A$267,000,000 model was studied in detail and it too was found to be wanting when the indirect costs associated with a project were deducted. It became obvious that in order to make a positive impact on the DistricYs facilities in all four of the assessment categories (FCA, PCA, MUOF, and IT) a funding model in excess of $300,000,000 would need to be considered. A funding model of $317,000,000 was therefore established and was presented to the Board in a work session on April 27, 2006. The Board, while in general agreement on the need, requested the committee to make a final review to ensure all potential cost savings were examined. District staff and MGT proceeded to study and value-engineer the $317,000,000 model. Savings in excess of $20,000,000 were identified that did not measurably reduce the overall impact on the DistricYs facilities. These savings included changing Columbine's improvements from a new facility to a remodel/addition, re-evaluation of Arapahoe RidgelfEC program needs, and a more equitable distributio~ of funding for charter schools. A$296,800,000 funding model resulted was unanimously accepted by the committee at its May 17, 2006 meeting. Caplta/ Improvement Planning Commlttee May 2006 Page 106 57 Boulder Valley School District Educational Facilities Master Plan Exhibit 8-2 reflects the final committee recommended amounts for each category with the inclusion of the identified cost saving items. Exhibit 8-2 Adjusted Funding Model Adjusted Category List Funding FCA PCA MUOFA R FCA1 E 5.570,917 Rebuild E 30.915,560 MUOFAI 9,581,400 IT1 10,6<5.125 FCA2 E 38.141.071 PCA1 S 708.352,373 MUOFA2 1T2 C,758,103 FCA3selectetl E 13,804,307 PCA2 S 42,258,631 MUOFA3 S 1T3 4,858,875 FCH4selected E 2.263,685 PCA3 S - MUOFA4 E 1T4par6al E 1,<89,760 FCAS f PCA4selected 5 18,840,900 RS S FCAfi S FCA7 S Totals S 59,779,980 S 300,367,t64 f 9.SBt,d00 S 71.751,867 Subtolal f 197,~80,707 ProjactReaerve S S,~t8,10J Total S 79fi,808,810 FCA3 selected includes Ot6ce 8 Camputer Room P/C FCA4 selaclad mcludes Rebmld mcl udes P/C at Broomfield High School CaseyMS fire spr~nklers at Eisenhowerand Heatherwood Elemen~arySchools Fully Fundetl PCA4 selecte0 incluEes. = PartiallyFunded Foottitll ES ana Crest Vew ES Addns, Broomfield HS replace olderJumorHigh wing = Nol Funded Uni Hill NVMusic expansion Project Reserm will be use0 kr contigencyNnding krunforseen pro~ectcondihons On May 17, 2006 the CIPC voted unanimously to recommend to the Board of Education that the funding model reflected in exhibit 8-2 be presented. The $296.8 million funding model wiil provide the following level of capital improvements: • Facility Condition improvements budgeted at $59,779,980 will address major HVAC, electrical, clock/intercom, irrigation, paving, restroom renovation, and interior finishes improvements. All administrative o~ces and computer labs, as well as Broomfield High School, will be air conditioned. • Program Compatibility improvements budgeted at $200,367,464 are focused on improving and expanding core instructional spaces at all schools in the District. This includes classrooms, small group instructional spaces, art and music classrooms, literacy, and Special Education dedicated space, gyms, libraries, administrative o~ces, teacher workrooms, and cafeteria/kitchen expansions are also inciuded at many schools. Included is a rebuild of Casey Middle School. Schools scheduled for major additions and remodeling include: Columbine Elementary School, Foothill Elementary School, Aurora 7 Elementary School (BCSIS and High Peaks), Southern Hills Middle School, Louisville Middle School, and Broomfield High Schooi. • Playground and athletic field improvements budgeted at $9,581,400 will provide for safety upgrades and enhancements at all elementary school playgrounds and for general specific improvements at all middle and high schools. This includes field houses at sports stadiums hosting dual schools and water/sanitary facilities at selected high school sports fields. Nederland Middle/High School will receive a new synthetic turf field along with a paved all-weather running track and general improvements to its outdoor sports compiex. Capital Improvement P/anning Committee May 2006 Page f07 5,? Boulder Valley School District Edueational Facilities Master Plan • Information Technology improvements budgeted at $21,751,863 will provide for new current technology Wide Area Network, LAN upgrades at all District facilities, a single unified voice communication system for the entire District and a pilot video distribution system that will serve as a model for further implementation. For a detailed description of the improvements to be addressed at each school or facility, please refer to the individuai data sheets in Section 5.0 Data Detail. Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 108 S ~P ~ ~ City of Boulder Planning and D~velopment Services LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE APPLICATION Dafe of application: Property address: Applicant name: Phone: ApplicanYs mailing address: Property owners name: so-eet Case number: HIS ____ Historic DisFrid/Landmark name: ____ _ Re~ationsh~ projett (e g., architect, contractor): __ ~ _ Pax: ---- City State Zip ___ DayFime phone: ____ _ Property owner's address: SUeet Ciry S~ate Zip PR~JE~ ~E$CR~~~ON: Please list all exferior alterations proposed for the property in ihe space provided below. Please see the following pages for submittal requirements. All 4 pages must be included in ihe applicafion. INITIAL CODE REVIEW The following applications require initial review and sign oH by the zoning administrotor or a project specialist rip or to acceptance of a landmark alteration certificate application. ~ New detached construdion (accessory structure, garage, new residence, shed, etc) ^ Dormers ^ Porches ^ Fences ^ All naw additions FOR STAFF USE ONLY Property Zoning: Lot Size: Prior Reviews (Use Reviaw, PUD, etc) Required setbacks: Other Applications which may be required based on proposed application: Preliminary CommeMs: Reviewed by: Date: Floodplain: This section is a customer service review, ond does not constitufe a lormal review ol oll applicable codes and regulotions. All sedions of fhe Please submif this completed application, along with the required informafion ouflined on the following pages. Applications for the design review committee must be received on the Friday prior to your first design review meeting. If you have any questions or need to schedule an appointment for review, please contact Jomes Hewai at (303) 441-3207. We look forward to working with you on your projed! Mobile phone: LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE APPLICATION (Page 2) Shown below and on the facing page is a list of the most common types of alterations. Please check off the iype of work you are proposing and follow the application requirements listed to the right. TYPE OF ALTERATION: (Please check all that apply) ^ Landsrnping ^ Paint ^ Roofing ^ Fence (rear / side yard only if maxim~m 5' tall with minimum 1"spacing between pickets) DOWMOWN ONLY: ^ Commercial awning ^ Commercial patios ^ Commercial signs STAFF REVIEW City staff may review common types of opplications, which involve minor alferations. This ype of review can have a gvick aporoval turn-around providing fhe applicant submits a complefe application form wilh documentation and the proposed alterotions meet fhe opplicoble design guidelines. A comglete applicatio~ submitta~ includes: ^ This application: Completely fiiled out ^ Plans and elevalions: All drawings should be to scale, with dimensions, and as detailed and clear as possible, whether or not an architect or coniractor is involved. It is helpful if both ezisting structure and proposed changes are shown. Fences: bring to-scale drawings showing dimensions and spocing between rails. ^ Photographs: Comprehensive color photos of the structure and of details that relate directly to fhe requesfed alferafion are required. ^ Samples: Color chips of paint are required. Printed samples of roofing types are helaful. TYPE OF ALTERATION: (Please check all fhat aPP~Y) ^ Deck / porch ^ Doors / windows ^ Dormers / skylights ^ Additions ~ Fance (fronf yard or rear / side yard if over 5' fall or less than 1" spacing between pickefs) ^ New garage / occessory building (340 sq. h. and onder) ^ Other DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) City staH and iwo designated members of ihe landmarks board review applicotions for alterations fo b~ildings or special feotures and defermine within 14 doys aker a complete applicafion is filed whether or not the proposed work would hove a significant impacf upon or be potentially detrimental to a landmark site or hisforic disiricf. Large projecis usually require more than one meeting and moy be referred by ihe Commiftee to the full Landmarks Board for review. The following documentation is required to initiate review by the Daign Review CommiBee: ^ Photographs: Photos of existing building and surrounding context ^ Drawings: Sketches or scaled drowings of existing building and proposed work The following documentation is required for final reviaw and approval: ^ Scaled sHe plans: including existing and proposed site plans ^ Elevafions: usually'/." = 1' scale ^ Materials: bricWstone samples ^ Colors: point/stain color chips ^ Photographs: photos of existing building from all sides and existing context ^ ManufacFurers/catalogue'tear'sheets ^ Fences: bring to-scale drawings showing dimensions and spocing between rails. M is also helpful if you provide: ^ Building secfions ^Floor plans QStudy model (addifions) T~P: For large or complex projects you are enco~raged to contact a Historic Preservation Planner early in your project before detailed drawings are completed. All completed applications for DRC review must be tumed in by noon on the Friday prior to the requested meeting. The Committee meets o19:00 a.m. every Wednesday (except holidays) ai ihe Building $ervices Center on ihe 3'd floor of fhe Park Centrai b~ilding. Please call and ask for a Historic Preservation Plonner if you have questions with any of ihe above alterations or submittal requiremenis. (303) 441-1880. S:~PLAMdata\Iongrang~FllSTadmin\templatesWlteration Certs\LAC Application DRAFI' 6.28.Ob.doc LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE APPLICATION (Page 3) LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD (LPAB) NPE OF New detached construction greafer than 340 square feet, or the demolifion or moving of structures ALTERATION: requires review by the entire Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board. A public hearing is required in (Please check all order to issue on alterafion certificate under ihese circumstances. The f~il board meets once a that aPP~Y~ monih, usually on fhe first Wednesday. Public hearings musf be held within 60 days aker a completed application is received. All public ^ N~'+ 9~ro9g ~ hearings for landmark alteration certificates are conducted as quasi-judicial proceedings. Afier a accessory building public hearing, a Nofice of Disposition is served to City Gouncil regarding fhe recommendation of (over 340 sq. ft.) the Lundmarks Board. The CiTy Council has 14 days to call up a decision to approve a landmark alteration certificate application mode by the Landmarks Preservation Board. If the Landmarks Preservation Board votes to deny a landmark alteration certificate application, The City Council has ^ Demolition 30 days in which fo call up ihe decision. (includes primary and/or accessory A complete appiication submittal incl~des the same as that required for the Design Review buildings) Committee as listed on the proceeding page ~lus ihe following items: lication called ~~P ~ Mailing lobels: wifh the names and addresses of The property owner and the names and d Th project. e addresses of properfy owners who live within 300 feet from the propose up irom DRC addresses are available for a fee af the County Assessors OHice in the Boulder County CouAhouse; please give them 3-5 working days. They are located at 1325 Pearl Streef, second floor: 303-441-3530. O 70 folded copies of projed drawings ~preferably 24"x36") plons, including: • Scaled site plan • Scaled elevations for all sides of ihe building • Skeiches, as needed ^ 10 copies of any color renderings or photographs, color samples, etc. (preferobly no greaterthan 11"xl7") ^ 1 reduced (B Yz"x 11 ") copy of the plans T~P: Projects which are required to be reviewed by the full board should be presented to staff early in your project before detailed drawings are in ifiated. Please contact us prior to submitting an application as these projects and reviews are usually complex. We encourage you to complete the iniiial code review secfion on page 1 of this applicotion prior fo confacting us. Ca~l (303) 441-1880 and ask to speak with a Historic Preservafion Planner. S9PLAN~data\longrang\HISTadmin\templatesWiterabon CertsV.AC Application DRAFf 6.28.06.dx LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE APPLICATION (Page 4) FOR STAFF USE ONLY Date completed application received by Planning and Development Services Date of initial DRC meeting Date(s) of follow-up DRC meetings Date of Full Board Hearing Date App-ication Approved/Denied Date of Building Permit Review Date Case Closed Date case sent to imoging $;~PLpMdata\longrang\HIS7ladminUempWtaV.lteration CertsV.AC Application DRAFf 6.28.06.dce