Item 5D - 511 Marine St
Agenda Item 5D, Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M
May 3, 2017
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Debra Kalish, Senior Assistant City Attorney
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
William Barnum, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration
Certificate to relocate a contributing garage on-site, remove a non-
contributing shed, and construct a new 964 sq. ft. two-car garage at
511 Marine St. in the Highland Lawn Historic District per Section 9-
11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code (HIS2017-00072).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 511 Marine St.
2. Zoning: RL-1 (Residential Low-1)
3. Owner: Judy Patrick and Candice Dickinson
4. Applicant: Kristin Lewis
5. Site Area: 10,179 sq. ft.
6. Existing Garage: 306 sq. ft.
7. Proposed Garage: 964 sq. ft.
7. Proposed Height: 19’4”
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
I move that the Landmarks Board approve a landmark alteration certificate to remove the
non-historic carport and shed, to relocate the contributing garage, and to construct a
new, two-car garage at the local historic landmark property located at 511 Marine St. in
the Highland Lawn Historic District in that the proposed construction meets the
requirements set forth in Chapter 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, subject to the conditions below,
and adopt this memorandum as findings of the board.
Agenda Item 5D, Page 2
This recommendation is based upon staff’s opinion that if the applicant complies
with the conditions listed below, the proposed demolition and new construction
will be generally consistent with the conditions specified in Section 9-11-18,
B.R.C. 1981, the General Design Guidelines and the Highland Lawn Historic District
Design Guidelines.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The applicant shall be responsible for constructing the house in
compliance with the approved plans dated 04/03/2017, except as modified
by these conditions of approval.
2. Prior to submitting a building permit application and final issuance of the
Landmark Alteration Certificate, the applicant shall submit to the
Landmarks design review committee (Ldrc), for its final review and
approval:
a. Details on the methodology for moving and rehabilitating the
historic garage; consistent with the General Design Guidelines the
Highland Lawn Historic District Design Guidelines; and
b. Revised plans showing a significant reduction in the mass, scale
and height of the proposed new garage to provide for a typical
two-car garage; and
c. Final architectural plans that include details for the new building
including wall and roof materials, door and window details, and
hardscaping on the property to ensure that the final design of the
building is consistent with the General Design Guidelines the
Highland Lawn Historic District Design Guideline and the intent of
this approval.
SUMMARY:
This application calls for the on-site relocation of an existing accessory
building and new, freestanding construction over 340 sq. ft. As such, the
application requires a public hearing pursuant to 9-11-14(3)(b) of the
Boulder Revised Code.
The property was designated as an individual landmark (the Lotus
House) in 1994, and the Highland Lawn Historic District was
Agenda Item 5D, Page 3
locally designated in 2005.
The existing garage was constructed is thought to have been
constructed about 1900 and is considered to be a contributing
feature to the landmarked property and Highland Lawn Historic
District.
Both the small shed and carport of recent construction are not
considered to be contributing elements to the landmark or historic
district.
Staff recommends that, provided the stated conditions of approval are
met, the Landmarks Board finds that the removal of the carport and shed,
the relocation of the contributing garage, and the construction of a two-car
garage generally meet meets the standards in Chapter 9-11-18 (a) and (b)
(1)-(4), B.R.C. 1981, and is consistent with the Highland Lawn Historic
District Guidelines and the General Design Guidelines in that the proposed
work will not damage the historic character of the property.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY
Figure 1. 511 Marine St., Location Map.
Agenda Item 5D, Page 4
Figure 2. 511 Marine St., 2017
At 10,179 sq. ft. the individually landmarked, 1895 Lotus House property is
located at the north side of Marine Street between 5th and 6th streets in the
Highland Lawn Historic District. The ornately designed one and a half story
brick Edwardian Vernacular house has a flared, hipped roof and a large central
dormer with a recessed balcony and ogee arch. Ornate ornamental detailing
includes intricately carved garlands, classical columns, and leaded glass
windows. The property was designated as an indiv idual landmark in 1994 and,
at that time, also found to be eligible for individual listing in the National
Register of Historic Places for remarkable artistic merit and its high degree of
architectural integrity.
The property is associated with Henry and Adina Sahm who moved to Boulder
from St. Louis sometime after 1892.1 Sahm, a real estate agent, was born in
Missouri in 1859. His wife Adina died in 1898, and Sahm lived as a widower at
511 Marine Street with his children Ray, Adina, Earl, Henry, Arthur, and Edwin.
In 1901, the owner of the house was listed as Homer P. Kellogg. Kellogg and his
wife, Mary, moved to Boulder from Toronto, Kansas in 1898. Kellogg served
1 511 Marine St. Designation Memo. City of Boulder. November 3, 1993.
Agenda Item 5D, Page 5
during the American Civil War in Company F. First Cavalry of Nebraska from
1861 until 1866, was a miner, and belonged to Boulder's local chapter of the
Grand Army of the Republic. Kellogg died in 1910. Mary Kellogg was the
president of McKinley Circle for a number of years and died in 1907.
In 1913, Jesse L. Ruley and his wife, Helen, lived in the house with their children
Myrtle and Russell. Ruley was superintendent of construction for the Northern
Colorado Power Company. From 1938 to 1970, the Plush family owned and
resided in the house.
Figure 3. Existing Accessory Building proposed for onsite relocation
and carport proposed for removal, North Elevation, 2017.
A one-story gable-roof accessory building is located at the rear of the lot.
Constructed around 1900, the 306 sq. ft. wood-frame building is located 19’ from
the rear property line. The building has two panel doors on the north (alley)
elevation, and two windows on the west elevation. The south elevation features a
pedestrian door and a window opening with a tapered wood surround. The
double-hung windows appear to have been replaced. The east elevation features
a single double-hung window. The building is clad in Dutch-lap siding with
wood corner boards and exposed rafter tails. The Highland Lawn Historic District
Design Guidelines, written at the time of the district’s designation in 2005,
identifies the building as a contributing resource.
Agenda Item 5D, Page 6
DISTRICT HISTORY2
The Highland Lawn Historic District contains a concentration of well-preserved
buildings reflecting prevailing architectural tastes at the turn of the twentieth-
century, including Queen Anne, Classic Cottage, and Edwardian Vernacular
Styles. Hannah Barker platted the middle-class neighborhood in 1884 as the
Town of Highland Lawn. The area is significant for its association with historic
persons and events and comprises an excellent collection of buildings reflecting
architectural styles of the period. The defined period of significance for the
district is from 1884 (the year of the platting of the sub-division) to 1925 (the last
year of construction for a primary building located on the block).
The Town of Highland Lawn included 19 large lots (100’ x 400’) bounded by
Boulder Creek to the north, University Street at the south, and 6th and 4th Streets
on the east and west respectively. Originally located south of Boulder’s city
limits, the town remained an independent community until 1891. Barker’s plan
for the neighborhood showed foresight: each lot included water rights in the
adjacent Anderson ditch and buyers were encouraged to plant trees
(cottonwoods were specifically excluded), and build fences around their
properties.
None of the original owners built in the neighborhood, choosing instead to
subdivide the nearly one-acre parcels into smaller lots. Most of the lots were
bisected by alleys running east to west through the district. Marine Street was
originally Vine Street and was renamed Marine Street sometime in the 1890s
after prominent early settler Marinus Smith.
Lots in the district are generally long and narrow with principal buildings
situated close together at the front of the lots and accessory buildings oriented to
the alleys. Because the alleys contain a relatively low number of buildings from
the period of significance with historic integrity, and because the district
boundaries bisect the rear alleys, the alleys (located at the north and south edges
of the district) are not considered a significant historic element of the district.
Today, the Highland Lawn neighborhood survives as a well-preserved
assemblage of late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century middle-class houses
with its tree lined streetscape. The district derives its significance as an early
example of planned residential design, with excellent examples of early Boulder
architecture, and for its association with individuals of local significance to the
2 Highland Lawn Historic District Design Guidelines.
Agenda Item 5D, Page 7
history of the city including Jonas Anderson, Hannah Barker, Marinus Smith,
and J.J. Harris.
REQUEST
The proposal calls for the relocation of the existing accessory building, the
construction of a new, one and one-half story 964 sq. ft. garage at the rear of the
property, and the removal of the non-contributing carport and shed.
Figure 4. Existing (L) and Proposed (R) Site Plans.
Agenda Item 5D, Page 8
Figure 5. Existing Accessory Building, north face, 2017.
The existing accessory building, currently located approximately in the middle of
the lot, 19’ from the north (rear) property line. The building is proposed to be
relocated to the west, 3’ from the west property line and 4’ from the north
property line. The building is proposed to be used for storage. The proposed
location would not meet the required backing distance for a garage where it
currently meets this standard.
PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION
The proposed site plan (Figure 4) shows the new garage to be located 67’ north of
the main house, 3’ from the east property line and 8 ft. from the north (alley)
property line. 7’5” is shown to separate the new garage and relocated existing
garage, while a concrete apron is shown in front of the relocated garage. Two
trees at the northwest corner of the lot are shown to be removed as part of the
proposal. The application states a large existing Blue Spruce tree will be
protected through the construction process.
Agenda Item 5D, Page 9
Figure 6. Proposed Garage (L) and Existing Accessory Building (R).
Figure 7. North Elevation, Proposed Garage (L) and Existing Acc. Building (R).
Plans show the proposed new two-car garage and studio to face onto the alley
and to have a front gable form with a 7:12 roof pitch. The proposed building is
shown to be 20’ x 30’ in dimension, 19’4” in height (5’ taller than the contributing
garage) and to be clad in horizontal wood siding with shingles in the gable end.
A 16’ wide overhead garage door is shown to have a cross pattern. The wood
siding is shown to be painted to match the house and the roof material is shown
to be asphalt shingles.
Agenda Item 5D, Page 10
Figure 8. South Elevation
The south elevation, facing the interior of the lot, has a double-hung window at
the gable end. The architectural details of the wide fascia, shingled gable end and
horizontal wood siding are continued to this elevation.
Figure 9. East Elevation
The east elevation is does not have window openings. Five skylights (2’x4’) are
shown on the east slope of the roof. A centrally-located wall dormer is shown on
the west elevation, with four double-hung windows. A pedestrian door with a
light fixture above and a casement window is shown to be located on the west
elevation.
Agenda Item 5D, Page 11
Figure 10. West Elevation
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION
Subsection 9-11-18(b) and (c), B.R.C. 1981, sets forth the standards the Landmarks
Board must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration
Certificate.
(b) Neither the Landmarks Board nor the City Council shall approve a Landmark
Alteration Certificate unless it meets the following conditions:
(1) The proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does not
damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the
landmark or the subject property within an historic district;
(2) The proposed work does not adversely affect the special character
or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the
landmark and its site or the district;
(3) The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of
color, and materials used on existing and proposed constructions
are compatible with the character of the existing landmark and its
site or the historic district;
(4) With respect to a proposal to demolish a building in an historic
district, the proposed new construction to replace the building
meets the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) above.
(c) In determining whether to approve a landmark alteration certificate, the
Landmarks Board shall consider the economic feasibility of alternatives,
Agenda Item 5D, Page 12
incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the
disabled.
ANALYSIS:
1. Does the proposed application preserve, enhance, or restore, and not damage or
destroy significant exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject
property within an historic district?
Staff finds that, provided the stated conditions are met, the proposed demolition
of the non-contributing carport and shed, relocation of the contributing garage,
and new construction is generally consistent with the Highland Lawn Historic
District and General Design Guidelines (see Design Guidelines Analysis section)
will not damage or destroy significant architectural features of the landmark
property in the Highland Lawn Historic District.
2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historic,
architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark?
Staff considers that, provided the stated conditions are met, the proposal will not
adversely affect the special character of the landmark or the historic district as it
is generally compatible with the Highland Lawn Historic District and General
Design Guidelines.
3. Is the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and
materials used on existing and proposed structures compatible with the character of the
historic district?
The staff considers the proposed new construction will be generally compatible
with the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color,
and materials on the contributing house.
4. The Landmarks Board is required to consider the economic feasibility of alternatives,
incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled in
determining whether to approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate.
No information has been provided to suggest that energy-efficient design or
accessibility has been considered beyond that required by the city’s building
code.
5. With respect to a proposal to demolish a building in an historic district, the
proposed new construction to replace the building meets the requirements of
paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) above.
Agenda Item 5D, Page 13
See (b)(2) and (3) above.
Design Guidelines
Design guidelines are intended to be used only as an aid to appropriate design
and are not intended as a checklist of items for compliance.
The Highland Lawn Historic District Design Guidelines are intended as a
supplement to the General Guidelines for the Highland Lawn Historic District.
These Highland Lawn guidelines control when they conflict with the General
Guidelines.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
The Historic Preservation Ordinance sets forth the standards the Landmarks
Board must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration
Certificate and the board has adopted the General Design Guidelines to help
interpret the ordinance. The following is an analysis of the submitted proposal
with respect to relevant guidelines. It is important to emphasize that design
guidelines are intended to be used as an aid to appropriate design, and not as a
checklist of items for compliance.
The Highland Lawn Historic District Design Guidelines are intended as a
supplement to the General Guidelines for the Highland Lawn Historic District. In
the case of a conflict between the General Guidelines and the Highland Law Historic
District Guidelines, the Landmarks Board should consider the more specific
guideline.
The following is an analysis of the proposal’s compliance with the applicable
design guidelines:
GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES: GARAGES & OTHER ACCESSORY
BUILDINGS
2.3 Site Design: Alleys
The alleys in historic districts were traditionally used for secondary access to the houses,
for deliveries, and as storage places for horses and buggies, and later, for cars. A view of
the backyards from the alleys was maintained. While today’s alleys have evolved into use
as pedestrian paths for jogging, bicycling and dog walking, they still contribute to the
historic character of the neighborhood. They are typically minimally paved.
Along the alleys are historic accessory buildings of various shapes and sizes including
Agenda Item 5D, Page 14
barns, chicken coops, sheds and small garages. This variety contributes to the general
feeling of human scale in the alleys.
Guidelines Analysis Conforms?
.1
Maintain alley access for parking and
retain the character of alleys as
clearly secondary access to properties.
Rear parking is maintained by
the proposal. Yes
.2
Retain and preserve the variety and
character found in the existing
historic accessory buildings along the
alleys.
Existing 1900 accessory building
is considered contributing to the
historic district. Moving historic
buildings is generally not
recommended, but the
relocation is on-site. Consider
moving building only the
minimum amount necessary,
and in a location that meets 24’
back out to allow for use to park
car. Resolve at Ldrc.
Maybe
.3
The use of historically proportioned
materials for building new accessory
buildings contributes to the human
scale of the alleys. For example,
narrower lap siding and smaller brick
are appropriate.
Proposed garage shown to be
clad in horizontal wood siding
and wood shingles similar to
finish and materials of the
original house.
Yes
.4
Buildings that were constructed after
the period of significance but are still
more than 50 years old and
contribute to the variety and
character of the alleyway should be
retained.
Existing accessory building was
built within the period of
significance and is proposed to
be relocated, but preserved (see
2.3.2 above).
Yes
.5
Maintain adequate spacing between
accessory building so that the view of
the main house is not obscured, and
the alley does not evolve into a
tunnel-like passage.
The proposed garage spans
approximately 20’ of the 50’
wide lot. The existing and
proposed garages are shown to
be separated by 7’5”. Consider
reducing width and mass of
building. Resolve at Ldrc.
Maybe
Agenda Item 5D, Page 15
7.0 Garages & Other Accessory Structures
Accessory structures include barns, sheds, garages and outbuildings. Originally accessory structures
were used for storage of equipment, animals, or carriages. Generally, these structures have been
adapted for the storage of cars. In most cases, accessory buildings were located to the rear of the lot
and accessed by alleys. They were subordinate in size and detailing to the primary house. Over time
they have emerged as important elements of many lots and alleys in the district. Efforts should be
made to protect the eclectic character of alleys.
Both additions to existing accessory buildings and new accessory building will be evaluated in terms
of how they affect the historic character of the individual site and the district as a whole. In the past,
larger accessory structures have been allowed than may be appropriate today.
7.1 Existing Historic Accessory Buildings
A primary concern of the Landmarks Board in reviewing proposed changes in historic districts is
the protection of existing historic accessory structures and the character of the site and district.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS
.1
Retain and preserve garages and
accessory buildings that contribute to
the overall character of the site or
district.
Existing 1900 accessory building
is considered contributing to the
historic district. Moving historic
buildings is generally not
recommended, but the relocation
is on-site. See 2.3.2 above.
Resolve at Ldrc.
Maybe
.2
Retain and preserve the character-
defining materials, features, and
architectural details of historic
garages and accessory buildings,
including roods, exterior materials,
windows and doors.
Character-defining features of
the contributing accessory
building are proposed to be
preserved.
Yes
7.2 New Accessory Buildings
New accessory buildings should follow the character and pattern of historic accessory buildings.
While they should take design cues from the primary buildings, they must be subordinate in size,
massing, and detailing. Alley buildings should maintain a scale that is pleasant to walk along and
comfortable for pedestrians.
Location and Orientation
.1 It is inappropriate to introduce a new
garage or accessory building if doing
Construction will not require the
removal of a significant historic No
Agenda Item 5D, Page 16
so will detract from the overall
historic character of the principal
building, and the site, or if it will
require removal of a significant
historic building element or site
feature, such as a mature tree.
site feature. The alleys in the
Highland Lawn Historic District
are not character defining
features of the district. However,
the property was designated local
landmark in 1994 and staff
considers at 958 sq. ft. the mass,
scale and height of the proposed
garage will be incompatible with
the character of the contributing
property. Staff considers that the
new construction should be
substantially reduced in size and
mass, scale and height. Resolve at
Ldrc.
.2
New garages and accessory buildings
should generally be located at the rear
of the lot, respecting the traditional
relationship of such buildings to the
primary structure and the site.
The new garage is to be located at
rear of the lot. Yes
.3
Maintain adequate spacing between
accessory buildings so alleys do not
evolve into tunnel-like passageways.
The proposed garage spans
approximately 20’ of the 50’ wide
lot. The existing and proposed
garages are shown to be
separated by 7’5. Consider
reducing width of building and
mass of building. Resolve at Ldrc.
Maybe
.4
Preserve a backyard area between the
house and the accessory buildings,
maintaining the general proportion of
built mass to open space found within
the area.
Staff considers back yard space
will be maintained with the
proposal.
Yes
Mass and Scale
.5
New accessory buildings should take
design cues from the primary
building on the property, but be
subordinate to it in terms of size and
massing.
The property was designated
local landmark in 1994 and staff
considers at 958 sq. ft. the mass,
scale and height of the proposed
garage will be incompatible with
No
Agenda Item 5D, Page 17
the character of the contributing
property. Staff considers that the
new construction should be
substantially reduced in mass,
scale and height. Resolve at Ldrc.
.6
New garages for single-family
residences should generally be one
story tall and shelter no more than
two cars. In some cases, a two-car
garage may be inappropriate.
See 7.2.5 above No
.7
Roof form and pitch should be
complementary to the primary
structure.
Roof form is simpler than and
complementary to that of main
house and contributing garage.
Yes
Materials and Detailing
.8
Accessory structures should be
simpler in design and detail than the
primary building.
Proposed garage is smaller and
simpler in design then main out
but to that of the historic garage.
Maybe
.9
Materials for new garages and
accessory structures should be
compatible with those found on the
primary structure and in the district.
Vinyl siding and prefabricated
structures are inappropriate.
Roof pitch has been design to be
compatible with historic garage. Yes
.10
Windows, like all elements of
accessory structures, should be
simpler in detailing and smaller in
scale than similar elements on
primary structures.
Windows are shown to be simple
in design. Yes
.12
Garage doors should be consistent
with the historic scale and materials
of traditional accessory structures.
Wood is the most appropriate
material and two smaller doors may
be more appropriate than one large
door.
Simplify garage doors and
consider two separate doors.
Resolve at Ldrc.
Maybe
Agenda Item 5D, Page 18
HIGHLAND LAWN HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES
10.3 Alleys & Accessory Buildings
While alleys play an important role in most of Boulder’s historic districts, the alleys that
form the north and south boundaries of the Highland Lawn Historic District are not
character-defining features because of their loss of historic integrity. There are a small
number of historic accessory buildings dating from the period of significance that are
considered contributing features to the district, as shown on the map above. As such, their
preservation is strongly encouraged.
.1 It is highly recommended, though
not required, that contributing
accessory buildings be treated
consistent with the guidelines of
Section 7.1 of the General Design
Guidelines.
Existing garage is considered to
be contributing to the
landmarked site and historic
district. Relocation of historic
buildings is generally
discouraged.
See Below
.3 The construction of new accessory
buildings should occur only at the
rear of the lot, taking access from the
alley when possible.
Proposed new building is
located at the rear of the lot and
takes access from the alley.
Yes
.4 In general, new accessory buildings
constructed in the district should be
modest in scale and detailing and
clearly secondary to the primary
building on the lot.
Staff considers that the proposed
958 sq. ft., garage is too large in
mass, scale and height and it
should be significantly reduced.
Resolve at Ldrc.
No
.5 Two-car garages are appropriate,
when scaled and located consistently,
from the rear of the alley, with other
garages in the district.
Two-car garage may be
appropriate, but mass, scale and
height of current proposal
should be significantly reduced
Resolve at Ldrc.
No
The Lotus House property was individually designated a local historic landmark
in 1994 and became part of the Highland Lawn Historic District when that area
was designated in 2005. Consideration of changes to this property should be
considered not only in the context of the Highland Lawn Historic District (which
allows for more of change on alleys than most other districts) but how those
changes may impact the individual landmark.
Agenda Item 5D, Page 19
Staff considers that removal of the non-historic carport and accessory consistent
with the design guidelines. Staff also considers that while not generally
recommended, moving the historic garage slightly on the lot to allow for an
additional accessory building.
However, staff finds that at 958 sq. ft., the mass and scale of the proposed
accessory building is too large and should be significantly reduced in mass, scale
and height to ensure compatibility with the historic character of the Lotus House
property. To this end, the applicant should consider scaling new accessory
building down to a standard two car garage (in the range of 400-440 sq. ft.) and
make use of the historic building as a studio. The reduced mass and scale would
allow for a building more scale with the historic building, and one that does not
detract from the Lotus House and character of the historic property. Staff
considers that these changes to the design may be reviewed and approved by the
Landmarks design review committee through the stated conditions of approval
in the staff recommendation.
FINDINGS:
As outlined in the staff recommendation, provided the stated conditions of
approval are met, the proposed relocation and proposed new construction at 511
Marine St. will be generally consistent with the purposes and standards of the
Historic Preservation Ordinance in that:
1. The proposed work will not damage or destroy the exterior architectural
features of the landmark.
2. The mass, scale, height, architectural style, arrangement, texture, color,
arrangement of color, and materials used for the proposed new
construction will be compatible with the character of the landmark.
3. The request is generally consistent with the historic preservation
ordinance and the Highland Lawn Historic District Design Guidelines
& the General Design Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Historic Building Inventory Form for the Lotus House, 511
Marine Street
Attachment B: Landmark Designation Memo for 511 Marine St.
Attachment C: Application and Plans
Agenda Item 5D, Page 20
Attachment A: Historic Building Inventory Form for 511 Marine Street
Agenda Item 5D, Page 21
Agenda Item 5D, Page 22
Agenda Item 5D, Page 23
Attachment B: Landmark Designation Memo for 511 Marine St.
Agenda Item 5D, Page 24
Agenda Item 5D, Page 25
Agenda Item 5D, Page 26
Agenda Item 5D, Page 27
Agenda Item 5D, Page 28
Agenda Item 5D, Page 29
Agenda Item 5D, Page 30
Agenda Item 5D, Page 31
Agenda Item 5D, Page 32
Agenda Item 5D, Page 33
Agenda Item 5D, Page 34
Agenda Item 5D, Page 35
Agenda Item 5D, Page 36
Agenda Item 5D, Page 37
Agenda Item 5D, Page 38
Attachment C: Application and Plans
Agenda Item 5D, Page 39
Agenda Item 5D, Page 40
Agenda Item 5D, Page 41
Agenda Item 5D, Page 42
Agenda Item 5D, Page 43
Agenda Item 5D, Page 44
Agenda Item 5D, Page 45
Agenda Item 5D, Page 46
Agenda Item 5D, Page 47
Agenda Item 5D, Page 48
Agenda Item 5D, Page 49
Agenda Item 5D, Page 50
Agenda Item 5D, Page 51
Agenda Item 5D, Page 52
Agenda Item 5D, Page 53
Agenda Item 5D, Page 54
Agenda Item 5D, Page 55
Agenda Item 5D, Page 56
Agenda Item 5D, Page 57
Agenda Item 5D, Page 58
Agenda Item 5D, Page 59
Agenda Item 5D, Page 60
Agenda Item 5D, Page 61
Agenda Item 5D, Page 62
Agenda Item 5D, Page 63
Agenda Item 5D, Page 64
Agenda Item 5D, Page 65