[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Idea regarding the rebuilding of the historic shed

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Jones, Suzanne

Dear all--


Upon further reflection and few conversations with some of you, I am withdrawing my proposal.


While the concept of engaging neighborhoods and exploring creative ways to implement our historic preservation goals has merit, such concepts are better explored at the policy level by relevant boards and staff rather than on the fly applied to a specific
 situation. So we can save that conversation for another day.


Cheers--
Suzanne


On Oct 23, 2014, at 11:43 AM, "Jones, Suzanne" <JonesS at bouldercolorado.gov> wrote:







Dear Council colleagues--


I don't know if this is even legally allowed, let alone whether it would be politically supported, but I wanted to throw out a proposal that came to me on my run this morning regarding the rebuilding of the historic shed in the Mapleton
 neighborhood.


I think we were clearly obligated to uphold our historic preservation rules, especially when they are knowingly violated, and that was reflected in our unanimous vote on Tuesday to deny after-the-fact permission to destroy a historic shed
 in the historic Mapleton district and to require the owner to have it rebuilt, along with addressing other permit violations. I think our decision upholds historic preservation as an important value in Boulder, helps
 to maintain the nature and character of the Mapleton Hill Historic District including its old historic alleyways, and sends a clear message that the City will be consistent in upholding its laws. The City Attorneys Office
 also indicated that they will be reviewing the case to see whether legal fines are appropriate in this situation. So, I think the end result of our action is that we have ensured there is no incentive to a homeowner to violate historic preservation laws.


That said, I also think that we want our historic  preservation requirements to be appreciated as well as respected, and we want to demonstrate that there is room for creativity and innovation within those requirements. Many neighbors came
 forth to testify how the Horning's backyard with the new sport court (where the old shed had been) has become a much loved play area for neighborhood kids and helped contribute to their sense of community. To that end,
I am wondering whether we can make it an option for a nearby neighbor with a backyard bordering along the alley to volunteer to have the Horning's historic shed rebuilt in their backyard instead of the Horning's (with the expense covered by the Horning family).
 In that way, we could achieve the goal of preserving/rebuilding the historic nature and quality of the alley, and hopefully have the shed embraced as an asset by the new owner as well as the neighborhood, while not requiring the destruction of the sport court.
 Perhaps the rebuilt historic shed could even be used by the new owner as a chicken coop, which could bring one of the shed's historic uses to life, and which is often another kid-friendly way to build community in a neighborhood. 


While I know that historic assets are best preserved in place, given that the shed has already been destroyed and its historic context already greatly altered by all of the recent hardscaping and construction in the Horning's backyard, I
 think rebuilding the shed in another nearby historic property could achieve the same goals. 


I have no idea if any neighbors would be willing or interested, or whether this degree of flexibility is allowed by our rules. But I was interested in exploring if there was some value that could come
 from this unfortunate incident that could help build support for historic preservation rather than the opposite. 


Thanks for considering this idea.


Suzanne Jones
Boulder City Council