Loading...
6 - Handout~ .~1,G Ez.~~ LP:~~ s_ ~.~~ c~, ; ~~~~~• 1(!~Y!(r •••'•~. ~ J~ ~G~ ~ ~.. ~ ~ ~ r n "L O C~ . \ ~ ~~ ~~• / \ ~ ~ i~ a ~ ~ DEPOT LOCATION MAP _AUG 27, 2007_ u~Q.~ 30TH & PEARL SCALE: 1" =100' / , ' \ ~ EXIT RAMP , ~ i , ~ ' ~ i ~ FENCEDENCLOSURE ~ / ~ ~ i JFY'~ / CITY ~ ~ / I PROPERTY ~~9~ I ~ Fri i FUTURE STREET , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ j ~ ~ ' ~ 100' ' , ' 9 O' RTD PROPERTY 6 0' ~5, , / ' j i ~ -DEPT AND SURROUNDING FENCE TO BE LOCATED ON CITY ?WNED PROPERTY i i -ENTRY/EXIT RAMP T? BE BACKFILLED AFTER RELOCATION i i i i i i i APPROACH RAMP , ' ~ DEPOT LOCATION MAP AUG 27, 2007 Noe.N 30TH & PEARL SCALE: 1" = 20' ' ~J] U ~ ~L 1~2c csIZ1 ~`1~-~ ~/`t/OS - yT~N~ ~j January 3, 2008 Ma or McGrath Y Members of the Boulder City Council 1777 Broadway ` Boulder, Colorado 80302 Re: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board: Historic Preservation Issues and Priorities 2008 Deaz Mayor McGrath and Members of the Boulder City Council, The Landmazks Preservation Advisory Boazd (LPAB)would like to thank you for the opportunity to share our priorities and concerns with the council. With so many new council members recently elected, now is an ideal time to bring you up to date on historic preservation issues in the city. The Ci[y of Boulder has a strong and vibrant historic preservation program, and a proud heritage of recognizing the value of our historic buildings and historic neighborhoods. The city currently has eleven historic districts and over 140 individual landmazks. However, as the city reaches build-out, and development interest turns to our core downtown area and older neighborhoods, there are increasing pressures on our historic resources. This renewed interest in downtown and the sun•ounding older neighborhoods presents challenges to the preservation program, but also opportunities. In addition, the maturing of our post-World Waz II buildings, many of which are now reaching the 50 year age threshold for consideration as historic buildings, poses a significant challenge. On November 14, 2007,, LPAB held a "Big Picture" meeting and discussed preservation program issues, challenges and opportunities. The boazd identified the following areas of discussion as high priority: How Are Additional Historic Resources Brought into the Preservation Program? The city's historic preservation program can be divided into two broad azeas. The first is the management of existing landmarks. In other words, what changes and alterations are appropriate under the design guidelines that LPAB uses to evaluate proposals? The second, and often-times more controversial area, is the addition of historic resources to the preservation program. Resources are added to the program in a variety of ways. Some are added through owner-initiated individual landmazk requests. Some result from the formation of historic districts. Some arise from the requirements of the site review process at Planning Board. Some are added through the demolition review process. And, others, though historically very few, have resulted from LPAB initiating designation over an owner's objection. Often, LPAB functions in a reactive way. In part, that is the nature of the preservation program; we aze required to respond to proposals that are brought before us. However, there may be ways to be more proactive. Outreach and education to owners of historic buildings, better coordination with local preservation groups, such as Historic Boulder are just a few examples. Trying to find avenues for ` proactive approaches would be a valuable goal in terms of efficiency and the public image of the preservation program. Creating historic districts, and garnering owner support, is a much more efficient and effective way of preserving our historic resources than landmazking houses on an individual basis or as the result of a threat of demolition. To guide these proactive efforts, a Preservation Plan, could be an important tool. Currently, the preservation program has no such plan, and the drafting of a plan could serve as a template to give direction and consistency to preservation efforts. Is the Demolition Review Ordinance Working? Whenever a building over fifty years old is slated for demolition, the demolition permit request is routed through the preservation program to determine whether the building is a potential local landmazk. LPAB has two main concerns regarding the demolition ordinance. The first is that the triggers for demolition review, as spelled out in the ordinance, are too weak. In other words, applicants skirt the language of the ordinance (i.e., they demolish 49%, rather than 50% of a structure which would trigger review). The result is often that the building doesn't come to the preservation program for review, but that the historic integrity of the building is diminished or destroyed by the changes made. There aze many examples of such buildings around the city. The second concern relates to the appropriate scope of the application of the demolition ordinance. Should the imposition of a stay of demolition, and potential landmazking over an owner's objection, be reserved for only those properties with the highest level of significance? Or, is it appropriate [o use the ordinance to protect and preserve buildings with something less than the highest level of significance, even those that aze perhaps simply vernaculaz in style, but [hat still contribute to the chazacter of the neighborhood and the community? Conservation Districts, Design Review and Residential Neighborhoods With the current regulatory framework, LPAB undertakes design review only for those buildings that are individual landmarks, in a historic district, or are in the process of becoming landmazks. It may be worth exploring whether a sepazate category of residential design review is appropriate. This might take the form of a residential design review board constituted under the aegis of a neighborhood conservation district or some other mechanism. Obviously, this issue is larger than just LPAB and is part of the more general discussion on pops scrapes and community character. Historic Preservation and Sustainability As the city seeks to meet the goals set out in the Climate Action Plan, our historic resources can play an important part in attaining those goals. The recent revisions to the Green Points program recognize the value of improving the energy efficiency of historic buildings and of preserving, rather than demolishing, existing building stock. While older buildings often benefit from measures to make them more energy efficient, it is important to recognize the value of the embodied energy contained in our existing housing stock, including our historic buildings. LPAB encourages the council to look at the issue of sustainability, not only in terms of yeaz/year building operating costs, but also in [erns of [he enonnous amount of energy that goes into the construction of a new building, the life cycle expectations of the materials that aze used in new construction, and the huge volumes of waste that are put into landfills as the result of demolition. Informing and educating owners of historic properties and builders, contractors and azchitects who work on our historic buildings, of the "green" qualities of these structures is an important objective for LPAB. Of course, in addition to the inherent "greenness" of an already constructed building, our historic resources are a critical link to the history of our city, past architectural styles and perpetuating a sense of place that is essential to maintaining our community character. Revolving Fund to Protect At-Risk Historic Properties It would be interesting to explore the possibility of having a fund, perhaps jointly funded by the city and historic preservation groups, such as Historic Boulder, to purchase, landmark, and resell at-risk historic properties within the city. The existence of such a fund would give the city an alternative avenue for protection of historic resources. Enforcement Enforcement has been a continuing concern of LPAB. Currently, there is no specific review for compliance with the requirements set out in a Landmark Alteration Certificate (LAC) after a project has been completed. Building inspections may catch some violations of LAC requirements, but inspectors aze more focused on life/safety issues. And, not all projects that require an LAC require a building permit. This lack of inspection sets up an expectation in the building community that adherence to LAC requirements will not be enforced. We need to look at ways of improving our inspection enforcement policies. Penalties for Illegal Demolition Currently, the preservation ordinance allows for a maximum of 90 days in jail and maximum of $5000 for the unlawful demolition of a historic building. Given property values in Boulder today, the dollar amount of the fine seems woefully inadequate. Some developers might view this fine simply as a cost of doing business. In addition to raising the dollar amount of the fine, the Council may want to consider adding a provision to the ordinance, similar to what Aspen has enacted, which provides for a moratorium of up to ten years for building on the parcel where the unlawfully demolished building stood and a penalty of up to $250,000. LPAB would very much like to have a study session with council to discuss the items outlined above and to address issues from council members. Preservation cuts across many of the community, planning and sustainability issues that Boulder is grappling with today (the Washington school site redevelopment being a prime example) and we would welcome the opportunity to have a dialogue with council on these important issues. TWP p~b~~ R~~.~ ~PA{~ 6 January 9, 2008 Mayor McGrath Members of the Boulder City Council 1777 Broadway Boulder, CO 80302 Re:LPAB Request for Supporting Information on Casey Middle School Reconstruction Options Dear Mayor McGrath and Members of the Boulder City Council: On December 3, 2007, the Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) gave the Casey Design Advisory Team (DAT) three options for the rebuilding of Casey Middle School. Option 1, "Reuse 1924 Building," estimated an amount of $2,713,358.00 over budget. Option 2, "Save West and South Walls of 1924 Building," estimated an amount of $325,000.00 over budget. Option 3. "Clean Slate," (the complete demolition of the existing school), was estimated as coming in on budget at $21,500,000.00. The DAT chose Option 2. In part, that decision was predicated upon the cost overruns that BVSD estimated in the options presented. LPAB is concerned by the lack of supporting data for the costs presented for the three options. No line item nor spreadsheet information was provided by BVSD to allow DAT members to review the assumptions used in arriving at the final dollar figures nor to review individual costs that made up the total. This supporting information is important for both the DAT and the City of Boulder to be able to evaluate and understand the options presented. On December 7, 2007, the City Council's Schools Issues Committee also expressed an interest in obtaining more detailed information on the Casey options. City staff requested the information soon thereafter. To date, no information has been received by the city. City staff renewed its request for information after the new year and was told that some information might be forthcoming soon. We hope that is the case. LPAB respectfully requests that the council pursue the release of this information from the BVSD. TWP for LPAB