Loading...
5A - Continued public hearing and consideration on Site Review LUR2006-00072 - First Presbyterian ChCITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: July 19, 2007 (Agenda Item Preparation Date: July 13, 2007) AGENDA TITLE: Continued public heazing and consideration of Site Review #LUR2006-00072, First Presbyterian C6urch, for the property located at 1603 Walnut Street. The proposal includes demolition of existing "Annex" building and development of a new 36,187 square foot (30,846 square foot with FAR bonus deductions) "Annex" building as part of the overall First Presbyterian Church campus in the Downtown -5 (DT-5) zoning district. The application includes a request for a maximum building height of 51 feet, along with modifications to setback and land use intensity standards. Applicant: Tom Zimmerman Owner: The First Presbyterian Church of Boulder, a Colorado Non-profit Corporation REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: PlanninQ & Development Services Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager Elaine McLaughlin, Case Manager OBJECTIVE: Define the steps for Planning Board consideration of this request: 1. Hear applicant and staff presentations 2. Hold public hearing 3. Planning Board discussion: - Is the request consistent with the Planning Board requested revisions? - Is the request consistent with required Site Review criteria? 4. Planning Board take action to approve, approve with conditions or deny BACKGROUND: This is a continued item from the June 14, 2007 Planning Board hearing, with direction from the Planning Board to the applicant to revise the proposed project to address the following: Agenda Item # SA Pase # 1 i. Establish a streetscape canopy - better definition of first floor pedestrian experience; 2. Articulation of building massing, especially at the tower, 3. Provide visual relief of the second story on the Walnut Street faqade tlat building face and massing; 4. From the 16'h Street elevation, stair case should not be visib(e through window; and 5. As a matter of advisement, the applicant should provide for open space at ground level. Downtown Design Advisory Board. DDAB has reviewed this application three times. The first twc times were reviewed at regular meetings of DDAB, in October 1996 and April 2007. Because of time constraints of the continuance and an intervening holiday, it was not feasible to convene a formal meeting in association with prepazation of this Planning Boazd memo. Rather, DDAB was provided minutes of the Planning Board hearing along with PDF images via email and asked to provide input. All four of the responding DDAB members provided favorable responses regazding the revisions, and they all appear to find that the revisions addressed Planning Board's concems. All of the DDAB meeting minutes and comments are provided as reference within Attachment A. Project Description as Revised. To achieve the requested revisions, the applicant modified the proposed project plans, maintaining the same amount of floor azea, in the following manner: • Reconfigured the first floor (front) elevations by recessing "storefronY' window walls away from front face of building, and curving the first floor window walls in a broad arch; • Cantilevered the second story front elevations at 16`h and Walnut Street over first floor, supported by columns; • Provided greater articulation of the building massing for the corner tower by differentiating the corner tower from the building, the tower projects away from building and has an arched entry. • Reconfigured the west side internal stair case to "return" with a mid-point landing to address concern of staircase as viewed through ground Yloor windows; • Reduced parapet wall atop the second story in the front from four-feet to 18-inches. Resulting height at front elevation is 35-feet. Roof top deck proposed to be phased-in over time. • Resulting floor area remains the same. While approximately 675 square Yeet were removed from the first floar "Drop In" area and added to open space, the basement storage space was converted to 675 square feet of useable, habitable space to provide additional classrooms; Proposed Programmatic Elements. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 7,296 square foot Annex building and construct a new 35,846 square foot (30,781 square foot with FAR bonus deductions), maintaining the existing youth ministry and re(ated church programs. The building is proposed to include the following: • A 7,200 square foot gymnasium area known as the "multinasium; ' Two performance spaces with a stage back-drop referred to as a"Club Room" for the two separate school age groups: middle and high school; A first floor "Drop-In" area with game tables, informal gatherings, and a small "kitchenette; ' A~enda Item # SA PaQe # 2 • Classroom space and storage on each floor; • Alley-accessed parking structure within the reaz portion of the first tloor with 18 parking spaces and bike racks for up to 10 bicycles; and • Roof-Top Deck to be phased-in. Building Configuration. As presented on the Walnut Street elevation of the building and half of the 16'" Street elevation, the building is two stories with a total height of 35 feet. At roughly the mid-point of the lot along 16`h Street, the building height transitions to a taller structure. While the rear portion of the building is also two stories, with the first floor being the parking structure, the rear second story housing the "multinasium" (gymnasium) is proposed with 26-foot high ceiling heights to accommodate a standard, regulation-play basketball court. The total height of the rear portion of the structure is proposed to be 51 feet. Structural requirements to support of the gymnasium, along with heating and ventilating systems, creates a five foot floor joist system between the first and second floors, adding to the overall height. Roof top mechanical equipment is located centrally above the front portion of the building and would not project above the 51 foot height of the rear portion of the building. A basement azea is proposed to be developed below the front half of the building. Per section 9-8-2(d) B.R.C. 1981, fifty percent of the basement azea is calculated as Floor Area and there is a 0.5 to 1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) bonus for provision of structured pazking. The proposed building equates to a 2.2 to 1 FAR as illustrated in Table 1 below. Regazding requested modifications to height as allowed through site review for the Downtown-5 (DT-5 or RB1-X) zone; there is a request for reduced setbacks on all three sides; and there is a provision Yor half of the required 20 percent of the total land area as useable at-grade open space (for buildings that exceed 45-feet in height) Section 9-9-11(c); however, a 100 percent reduction in provision of open space is permitted, subject to site review approval under Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(I) for a land use intensity modification. ANALYSIS: The following analysis is specific to each of the Planning Board's comments: 1. Establish a streetscape canopy. The discussion at Planning Board in this regard was focused on the need to create a pedestrian experience with better definition of the First floor streetscape. It was noted that awnings provided in elevations reviewed by Planning Board partially established this, but that first floor didn't accomplish enough building articulation to create a pedestrian space. To that end, the applicant redesigned the first floor window wall to be recessed and curved. The effect of this approach is to create at-grade, covered pedestrian spaces near the front entry and secondary entry to the building, with the second story cantilevered over the first story and supported by columns. The columns were formerly material changes that projected from the front wall face by only a brick's dimension. The resulting supportive columns add greater pedestrian interest with more depth, dimension and space in the three curved arcade spaces. The streetscape experience is further augmented with the use of steel lattice awnings to create shadow patterns and span between the columns. The applicant notes the awning detail will be refined over time. Staff would oversee the refinement of this detail through the Technical Document Aeenda Item # SA PaQe # 3 Phase. Staff finds the curvature of the front first floor window wall a playful contrast to the original rigidity of the building's design. Staff also notes that the applicant is proposing plantings within the public RO W and a small maturing tree canopy that will be consistent with the alignment of the plantings of the adjacent ROW for the recently approved 1655 Walnut development. [ncluded in the planted streetscape are three street trees set in a planting bed, and a series of street trees along 16`h street. Consistency with Downtown Design Guidelines. The Downtown Design Guidelines, found on-line at http://www.bouldercolorado.¢ov/files/PDS/historicpres/pdfs/dd~uidelines.pdf. would appear to support the revised design. As shown in Figure 1 below, the proposed inset of the first floor is consistent with Design Guideline 2.3 that states, "Bui[dings or other design features that are built up to the sidewalk maintain a line of visual continuiry and provide visual interest for pedestrians. If a portion of the building fa~ade is set back from the sidewalk, the sidewalk edge should be visually maintained throuQh the use ofa line ofcolumns supportinQ upper 1loors or other features. " I O ' O ~ ~ D ~ O ~ ~ A.f Plan view ojn new bui/ding nligned wi(h cris[ing buildings. I ~ 8.) A porlion oJn new building set bnek •~. .` ` t ,~ ~ ti~\ ' wi~h the building lrne ojthe block ~ w, ~ ,. ` ~ ~ mainmined wiU~ n row ojcolumns to nn ~.`~:, ~.ti`i . upperJloor. v... . ~ C.J A new buil~line, on ehe snme lo~ oj ~ ~ i ~ att his(oric buil~(ing, set baek to reven( ~ the hrstoric burldrng. Figure 1: Design Guideline 2.3 Staff also finds the inset, curved window wall consistent with Design Guideline 2.6 that recommends developing first floor street walls with architectural elements that create visual interest. Similarly, staff finds consistency with Design Guideline 2.8 that recommends creating pedestrian interest through use of awnings or "arcade" space created by recessed first floors. The recommendation of Design Guideline 2.9 is to maintain the rhythm of traditional 25-foot fapade widths with established breaks by using design elements such as columns or pilasters. Staff finds the revised plans are consistent with this recommendation. Staff finds the newly proposed curved arcade spaces; the planned awnings; and the streetscape plantings will create a pedestrian scale streetscape canopy in answer Planning Board's concern. This finding appears to be consistent with DDAB. 2. Greater articulation of the building massing, especially at tower. With the proposal to recess the first floor, there is a greater articulation of the building mass for the overall structure compared with the originally reviewed plans. Regarding the tower element that formerly was "inseP' in the building, the proposed tower is now shown to project from the buiiding face to differentiate the tower. The tower element also as revised has a more substantial base with greater use of rusticated sandstone that "grounds" the element. With the recessed first floor and colonnade spaces, the wall face along the front of the building is no (onger one, broad wall plane as was also noted by Planning Board concerning the building's mass. Also in the redesigned plans, the applicant added Aeenda Item # SA Pa~e # 4 arched doorways at the base of the tower and added an inset circular, cruciform detail toward the top of the tower to provide detailing and interest. Staff tinds that the use of these details contribute to articulation of the building and provide a reference to the ecclesiastical connection of the Annex to the main campus of the church. As part of the discussion of articulation of the building mass, a concern was raised by Planning Board about the second story gymnasium at the rear portion of the structure. [n an earlier suggestion by DDAB, it was recommended that the applicant consider alternative detailing of the gym structure with the addition of cornice detailing at the height of the front, second tloor parapet that could continue across the gymnasium faCade. The applicant added the detailing consistent with this suggestion. Staff and DDAB find that the request for greater articulation of the building mass was met through the following: • separation of the tirst tloor from the second floor window walls, • recontiguration of the layout of the tower element to project from the building elevatio-i, • addition of detailin~ on the tower and secondary entries, and • addition of detailing above the gymnasium windows tllat ali~ns the cornice band of the front of the building. 3. Provide visual relief of the second story on the Walnut Street fa~ade, flat building face and massing. In the redesigned plans, the applicant reduced the overall height of the proposed building alon~ the Front (Walnut facing fa~ade) to 35-feet in closer appro~:imation to the ?(~-foot heights of the two story homes across Walnut Street. The reduction in height was the result of removal ot~ a taller parapet wall that was ta be used to enclose the roof-top deck. The applicant has noted that the roottop deck may be phased-in over time. If in the future, if the applicant chooses to phase-in the roottop deck, staff recommends that a safety railing be inset trom the parapet wall to secure the space while not impacting building height. Staff notes that the inset of the tirst tloor helps to visually reduce the intensity of a singular wall face along Walnut Street. It is important to note that Stat~t~ and the applicant discussed, as had been discussed in the past, stepping back the second story from the tirst floor to soften the appearance of the seconci story. ~i'he applicant noted that the programmatic requirements ofthe second tloor "Club Room" requires a minimum 48-feet width to be adequate performance space that will also allow space for audio visual equipment and staging. There was concern by the applicant that stepping back Walnut Street second story but not 16'~' Street second story would appear awkward and inconsistent. The applicant similarly noted that there are nucnet•ous examples of traditional downtown bttildings that do not step back. rather use detailing to provide visual interest on the second story. Staff Iinds that the building articulation created by the inset of the tirst floor, and the reduction in the height of the buildin~ provide visual relief in this context and still allow the applicants to maintain their programmatic space. 4. From the 16t~' Street elevation, stair case should not be visible through window. The applicant revised the project plans such that the staircase is now located behind a street wall and not visible through the window. 5. On advisement, provide for open space at ground level. This issue was noted as an advisement because not all Board members concurred that ground level open space in the downtown was necessary in this context. The applicant notes that the Annex, as part oFthe A~enda Itcm # ~A Pa~c # 5 church campus, would utilize the courtyard of the main campus, as shown in Eigures 2. Similarly, close proximity to the Pearl Street Mall and nearby pocket parks as shown in Figure 3 is consistent with Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(I), It was also noted by DDAB and Staff that the building is proposed to be for indoor recreation areas. While the space resulting trom the inset of the tirst floor would qualify as an open space, it is the proximity to the church campus courtyard, and the mall, that staff tinds consistent with code provisions. Fi.;r~re 2: Proxi-ttitv o(.41t~tex to C{turch Caiytpus Cncrrn'[IYCI II 'I I~ ~ Church's Outdoor I I, Gathering Space . i~ i - ~~ ~', - - - ._.._--`-i -- -_ ( ~ ~' ~~-- A~enda Item # ~A Pa~e # (~ Fi~lure 3: PYOX(i)t(tV vl,~l~/IE'.Y tO O!(l(IOOY Open Sprrce STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff finds that this application is consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines and the Site Review Criteria. Staff recommends that Planning Boazd approve LUR2006-00072 incorporating this staff inemorandum and the attached Site Review Criteria Checklist review as findings of fact, together with the staff memorandum and project plans dated July 13, 2007, subject to the following conditions of approval. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated July 13, 2007 and on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. The Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions contained in SI-96-5 and the Development Agreement recorded at Reception No. 1712789 on June 3, 1997, except as may be modified by this approval. 3. Prior to a buiiding permit application, the Applicant shall submit a Technical Document Review application for the following items, subject to the approval of the City of Boulder Planning and Development Services Division: a. Final architectural plans, including materials and colors, to insure compliance with the intent of this approval and compatibility with the surrounding area. The architectural intent shown on the approved plans dated July 13, 2007 is acceptable. Planning staff will review plans to ensure that the architectural intent is performed including: i. All mechanical equipment placed on the roof shall not exceed a height of six- feet and shall be screened in accordance with city standards. ii. Noise analysis and attenuation or mitigation for any impacts associated with the eastern wall of the multinasium. iii. Two "loading only" parking spaces must be provided adjacent to the main entrance to the Annex. iv. Future phasing for a roof top deck shall utilize safety railing that is inset from the edge of the building, with no modification to parapet wall height for that purpose. b. Final storm water plans and report in accordance with City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards for all storm water improvements. c. Final utility plans and report in accordance with City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards for all sewer, water, and street lighting improvements. AQenda Item # SA Paae # 7 Approved By: ~ Ruth McHeyser, Acting Pla mg Director Planning Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Downtown Design Advisory Boazd Comments Attachment B: Location Map Attachment C: Applicant' s Revised Plans S:\PLAN\PB-ITEMS\MEMOS\1603 Walnut SR continued.em.doc Aeenda Item # SA Pa¢e # 8 ATTACHMENT A Downtown Design Advisory Board Comments: July 2007 10 JULY 2007 COMMENTS FROM DDAB RE: FIRST PRESBYTER~AN CHURCH ANNEX »> "David Biek" 7/10/2007 10:07 AM »> Hi Elaine, Thank you for sending this information. I think this revised design does a good job of addressing the comments from PB and is fine with me. I have a few minor suggestions that I will make to Tom directly, as these are personal taste matters. There is nothing that I would object to as a DDAB member. This redesign certainly makes the building appear less massive, which seemed to me to be an objection that some members had based on my impressions and from sitting in on the PB meeting last year when 1655 Walnut was discussed. I don't think a litera~ canopy or series of canopies is necessary if the first floor is set back on the south side as Tom has done. David »> paul anthony saporito 7/10/2007 11:07 AM »> Elaine, Thanks for keeping us updated on the 1603 Walnut project. I have reviewed the drawings and overall the proposal seems to have accommodated PB comments. I have received no packet so I assume there is no formal meeting?? (Which is fine with me, given the aspect of the overall project)? Regards, Paul Saporito »> Lisa Egger 7/10/2007 5:17 PM »> Hi Elaine, Thanks for keeping DDAB in the loop. I agree with David's comments and also think Tom has done a fine job of addressing PB's concerns. In my opinion, the curved relief at the first floor mitigates many concerns (massing, articulation, canopy, open space) and is an innovative solution to a traditional looking building. -Lisa Aeenda Item # SA Paee # 9 "Jack Rudd- Architect" 7/13/2007 9:11 AM »> Sorry about the delay; things have been a bit busy. My input re: First Pres Annex: • The refined design has taken on more of an "urban" character. I appreciate the refinement in the SW corner tower design. The tower now relates to at least four buildings in the area with a similar architectural language. • In addirion of the tower, the massing, and fenestraHon relate to several other buildings in the area. I believe this provides architectural conHnuity and is beginning to define a historic "Hme frame" for the neighborhood development. • Mr. Zimmerman has done a very good job of addressing the many issues that have been thrown at him from many direcHons. He has improved the building at each step in the review process. • I sfill believe the building street-level experience needs a bit more three-dimensional definiHon/expression. Perhaps the addirion of awnings would assist in this effort. The recessed street level glazing does address the street via a shadow expressed by the soffit, but more can be done. (That being said, not many other commercial buildings along East Walnut attempt to address the street-level experience) • The lower level window configuraHon at the south elevaHon sHll feels very "store front' to me. This is due to the horizontal disposiHon of the glazing bays. I would suggest aiming for a bit more verHcality in the negative spaces between the columns. Even square negaHve spaces will mifigate the "suburban- ness' of the horizontal expression. Overall, this is a very good Uuilding and should become a strong anchor as East Walnut continues to evolve. Jack Rudd Ja ck Rudd-Architect l0l! waMvl sune 104 bovlder co 80301 re/ 303 4a9 ]l!i fnx 303 JJd /887 Aeenda Item # SA PaQe # 10 11 APRIL 2007 COMMENTS FROM DDAB RE: FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH ANNEX Overa~l, the board felt that the applicant has responded well to earlier comments and that much of what follows is relatively minor. The staff concern about the height of the ground floor window elements was put in the context of traditional high or clerestory storefront s in the downtown district, and was seen by the board as not to be a concern. However, rather than place spandrel glass at the edge of what would be the second Floor assembly projected to the exterior wall, the board suggested holding the ceiling a distance back to allow transparent full height storefront glass to illuminate the interior. A general question about required open space prompted a discussion about what qualifies. The streetscape and the sidewalk is a functioning urban public space. The City's policies also recognize nearby public squares and parks in the downtown district as satisfying the open space requirement. Also, while not technically pubfic space, the roof terrace of this project provides space for those members of the public who use the faciliry. The scale of the entry was considered, the comment was made that it should be a gracious space with appropriate and su~cient height. Another suggestion was to fit the outdoor entryway with benches/ or foundation ledges for seating and a display window that engages someone waiting for entry or rides home. The 16th street elevation might be considered in terms of guidelines that moderate mass and scale. While the tower element on the corner may be appropriate, the applicant might consider alternative detailing of the gym structure and roof, and that within structural reason, some cornice reading at the 2nd floor parapet height might continue across the facade. The gable ends of the gym roof could also be de-emphasized or even eliminated. However, one board member pointed out that maintaining a consistent parapet line across that elevation would make the building too monotonous saying the rhythm of elements that the applicant currently has is working better than the absence of them would. There was some discussion about the continuity of horizontat caps at the top of the first floor window surrounds On the one hand continuity at the identical height across the south facade and around the corner would be the Yraditional way of dealing with belt courses. However, to the extent that there would be a desire to break up the volume, differing heights might be employed. The difference should be enough so that it appears intentional. The window surrounds on the south facade better respond to the articulation of the proposed building to the east which in turn was meant to reflect, in an abstract way, the vo~umes of the houses across the street. This was considered an improvement over the literal figures on the facade of the previous submission. A note here regarding the question of horizontal alignment in note 5 above: the houses across the street have identical porch roof heights and repetitive identical columns. The board noted that traditionally, alley facades in the downtown are a more utilitarian aesthetic than the street facades. The applicant has the discretion to change the detail and materials of the rear facade in response. The question was raised regarding the detail of the awnings. The mercantile appearance for what is really a non- commercial building might be addressed by making the desired shelter and sun shade a more substantial and permanent construction, utilizing ornamental metal fabrications or the like. Keep in mind that these would be allowed through a revocable permit. The negative cornice that created shadow without protruding over the ROW was considered clever AEenda Item # SA Paee # ll DDAB Meeting Minutes 10-11-06 1603 Walnut St. Church Annex Some concern was expressed about the detailing of certain elements, such as the paRs that look like tall windows that were filled in and the quirky treatment of the entry. It is not that the Board objects to the use of the Romanesque style or the quirky manipulation of parts to achieve a more playful and modern interpretation of that style, but that there is a lack of consistency in how the parts are detailed. For example, the south fa~ade is treated like a retail building at the lower ievel that is quite different from the rest, which is clearly an ecclesiastical building. The attitude of the design could be made clearer and more consistent. One board member suggested that it be expressed more as a youth center and less as a church and that its design was more appropriate next to the current building at 1655 Walnut, but will feel heavier next to the remodeled building being proposed. Another member expressed that the mix of seemingly incompatibte styles often found in urban environments is part of the beauty and fabric of mature cities. Regardless of the applicant's personal expression, DDAB felt that the project was sort of "in between" styles and would benefit from a fresh perspective, given its long history and development. 2. The upper level on the south side is perhaps overly solid, as is the west fa~ade, and that opportunities for more natural light would help to make the building feel less imposing and more youth-oriented as well as improving the street impression. 3. City staff expressed some concern that not enough open space was being provided to qualify the project for a height exception and made the suggestion that the roof be considered to serve that purpose. DDAB applauded this suggestion, as open space at street level in this location and for this building, which is essentially inward- focused, was not appropriate. 4. There was some discussion of under-grounding the ad~acent power lines, and if they are not, that the EMF fields be considered. A~enda Item # SA PaEe # 12 ATTACHMENT B _2 City of Boulder Vicin , , , _,- :, _ __ DT-4 _ -~~ ~ ~ ~ - ` ~ ` ~SubjectArea u--~~ , ~`, , ~ ~, '_ I 1603 Walnut Street Ma ~ `` ~~ , ~ ~ s ~ , =_~ . s N ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~+ / O ~ e a !~~ o ~ ~ j i I __ ~ Grove St I i I i t i Ll~ ~ ' ~ Location: 1603 Walnut St ~,~, Project Name: Firsf Presbyterian Church - ~,~ry o~ -~'~~,~~~~ Annex 8uilding ~ Hnulcler ~# Review Type: Site ReviewAmendment , ~~RT}~, 1 ihe information depicted on this map :s providetl and Height Modification as graphiql representahon only The City of Boulder prwides no warranty, expressed or implied, as to Review Number: LUR2006~~~~72 1 inch equals 250 feet ~~~~yinedhe ~orcompletenessoFtheintormation Applicant: Tfromas F Zimmerman A~enda Item # SA Ya~e # 13 07/19/07 Annex - Building Areas Actual Area ~~, (New) Area for F.A.R. calculations Comments Basement 9,842 s.f. ~ 4,921 s.f. Portion of basement included at 50% of actual area per 9-3.2-18 (b)(2) B.R.C. 1981 First Floor 12,775 s.f. 6,654 s.f. Above grade parking included within (Garage) building envelope. This qualifies i for an additional 0.5 F.A.R. credit. ~ ~ per 9-3.2-18 (b)(4) B.R.C. 1981 "~ 6,121 s.f. I n (Interior space) ~ - Second Floor -- - -_ -- 13,570 s.f. - -- - - - - 13,570 s.f. ---- - ~ z -420 s.f. Area deduction for stairs at top floor. "~ n Total Area 36,187 s.f. ~, 30,846 s.f. i~ ~ ~ 1~ ` I ~-~ .. _ ~ F.A.R. = 30,846 / 14,021= 2.2; (With the additional 0.5 allowed for parking, the maximum allowed = 2.2) UNEXGA~(ATED B KU1T RO MS / STO GE \ O BREAKOVf ROOMS O ~ ~ 110MB~ MB1 ~i ~ ~ ~ ~J / ________ ~______ °` GLUB ROOM #2 UP B DEA~ONS' GL05ET EI.EVATGR LO6BY JPJVITOR ~trea=3,548 s.f. ~ ELEVAiOR 9NP U009! TO 501119 EO1H IHP/E STOR. STOR. \ \ STAGE ~ y I I7 BASEMENT PLAN ~lG FIRST FLOOR PLA~N ~~ F•5 I~MM~ERMAN - ARG ~Il'F~ 2 1/16" = 1'-O" \~ I/16" = 1'-O" P~ieo` s~ aa Fnx:c~laaa-°v~a92 ", ',q_,'-,_~ , ~ ~ , . ' --~9Y01~7~Gt%-_--- ..i.''__,_ , ; I ~ , ~___''''_~ ~ . ~ v ~ STORK~E ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ / ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 i ~~ ~ ~ \ MULTI- A51UM ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ; W M o~ . . ca ~~~ . ~ GHEGK OUT ~~ DV ~ CN ~ _~ GLUB ROOM #1 nree=2,852 s.f. E[EVAiOR STORAGE T R ~ S O AGE ~ ~ ~ ~ FIAT / STAGE ~~ RqOF SEGOND FLOOR PLA~1~ G~ i/16" = I'-0" ~~ ROOF ~'L~N i/16" = 1'-O" C\~\ THOMP5 F. ZIMMERMAN - ARGHITEGT ~ \\1 ~soz ww~ur s~ suirE 3os ~ PHONE: (903~~6949 FAX: f303~f44-Fi949~ AxNEX - YOUTH AND OUIREAGH GENT~R 59~.40 ~'hn?DOF -~ALb'•'&1DN6~06HP~-- ~CC"OCST=_ 5~~rt;.E RCC° -" - fee~~~ ~~o~=_~~~ecoeN-~v=_couks~tic ~ =--- sse9.es ~ar~ ~.N ~ au~s wos~+r ,_ . IRF^, "C^1LCE ~R!'< ~..^.OLOR :! ~-- ~ . 59Wb5 YLO~FL~R --- Y.3G 65 ,~ I REC "G~ -s4 3"<!^<'~C_Ci =7! - - i RE~ "IC~~~.~R BR'~CK iCC~CR =~~~ . , A~NN~X 50UTH EL~1/ATION ; ~ i ° . zO..o~, ~ ~ i ~ ~ i i i i ~i~,e~ ~+r- ~--------------------------------------------------- 1655 WALNUT - NEW RE51D~TlTIAL DEYELOPMENT ~,, --, ~ TNOMAS F. ZIMMERMAN - ARGHITEGT 1505 IWU.NU? STREET StIiTE'A2 BOIH.DEQ, CALORADO 80302 PHaNE: (3C31444•6q~1 fA~c: f903)444-6949 ANN~X NORTH ~I.EVATIDN i ° = so~-o° _ ANNEX VV~ST ELEVATION r~=so,o~~ ~ .6 or . ~ _~_ __ ~ U'~ I '~ I I ~~ ~ LGCKERS F ~ o ~~~ ~ Py' ?I-NASi tt ~~ a A ar,u: FARK'NG r'~ r"~ T"1 ,~r-r-~ ~~ ~ H ~ L ~_~,T_ ~ RCO*'3 ~~~ 9RE:,{CI;? '~ ;,.oiccF :•F~~" . RCO^1~ ~ +5~' S3~9qC' HIGH ROOF ~2i 3ji~, S;LL,62 PaR4FET ~ -'35' 63eS.6S" LCW RGOF C! N5 RCG~ G: i5' i +Ib' 5346.15 ScCO'~~ ~ICCR IUALNJ JT, G~"E RCOw t SN»CK BAR ~~ '~I ~ F~ ~'~ R_~~H r~i~ „_,~ R00~~ Q; S3i165 3a5E?_~- 5~GTIDN LOOKING EAST ~~~ _ ~~-0~~ -