Loading...
5A - Site Review & Use Review application (LUR2008-00083) for Washington Village II project - 1215 Cedar Ave CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: January 8, 2009 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of Site Review and Use Review application #Li1R2008- 00083 for the Washington Village II project located at 1215 Cedar Avenue. T11c proposal includes redevelopment of the existing Washington Elementary School site as a mixed-use co-housing community consisting of 33 dwelling units, approximately 2,950 square feet of conunercial/office space, and accessory co-housing facilities on the three-acre site zoned both Residential High Density- 2 (RH-2) and Residential Low Density-1 (RL- 1). The applicant also requests vested rights pursuant to Section 9-2-19, B.R.C. 1981. Applicant/Owner: Wonderland Hill Development Co. REQtiESTING DEPARTMF,NT: Ruth McHeyser, Executive Director of Community Planning Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager Karl Guiler, Planner II OBJECTIVE: 1. Hear applicant and staff presentations 2. Hold public hearing 3. Plam~ing Board discussion 4. Planning Board take action to approve, approve with conditions, or deny. SiJ1VIMARY: Proposal : 1) SITE REVIEW: Request to construct a total of 33 residential units on a nearly 3 acre site. More specifically, 27 residential units and common facilities are proposed in a co-housing type community on the high density portion of the site along Broadway and 6single-family residences are proposed on t}~e }ow density portion along 13th Street. This application requires Planning Board approval to allow the following modifications: • A reduction in the minimum lot area per dwelling unit in the RH-2 zone pursuant to Section 9-8-3(b), B.R.C. 1981. • A height modification to permit the Broadway Building at a height of 46 feet (from the lowest point within 25 feet of the structure, not from grade), where 35 feet is the "by-right" standard for the zoning district. • Modification to the RH-2 front 25-foot setback to permit the first floor of the Broadway Building at 17 feet and the second floor at 21 feet. • A 55% parking reduction. Agenda Item # 5A Page # 1 2) USE REVIEW: Request to permit 2,950 square feet of office space on the ground floor of a new building along Broadway. Ti1is request requires Planning Board approval. 3) VESTED RIGHTS: Request for creation of vested rights pursuant to Section 9-2-19, B.R.C. 1981. Project Name: Washington Village II Location: 1215 Cedar Avenue Size of Tract: 3 acres (130,709 square feet) Zoning: The subject property is zoned High Density Residential, (RH-2) (roughly 1.7 acres along Broadway) and Low Density Residential (RL-1) (roughly 1.3 acres) along 13th Street. Comprehensive Plan: The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) land use designations are High Density Residential and Low Density Residential. F.XE(:U 1IVE SUMMARY: The Washington Village project has undergone extensive public review, which started with a Request for Proposal (RPP) process in 2006, proceeded to two Concept Plan reviews, and subsequently, evolved into a more detailed application including a BVCP land use designation amendment, rezoning, and Site and Use Review requests. These requests were ultimately approved by Planning Board and City Council in 2007. The project was essentially invalidated by a successful citizen-initiated referendum, which challenged the approved rezoning. This resulted in the City Council repealing the rezoning ordinance in early 2008 and its initiation of a public process to inform a revised submittal of the project -one which would be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. By spring 2008, a Recommendation Group (RG), which consisted of representatives of the applicant, neighbors, and investors in the property, formulated Guiding Principles, which were meant to influence how the applicant, Wonderland hill Development Company, would prepare a revised submittal to be reviewed under the standard city land use review process. A more detailed summary of the project's history and site context are found in the "Back ~r~, ound" section found on page 17 of this memorandum. That section also includes a staff assessment of what the applicant has done to respond to the RG Guiding Principles and an analysis of how the proposal relates to the community benefits intended for the site by the City Council. Such benefit would need to be incorporated into a revised Restrictive Covenant and Deed Restriction. Following approval of the previous application, a Restrictive Covenant and Deed Restriction was recorded in April of 2008 (see Attachment F). Given the commonality of the RG Guiding Principles to city code criteria, Planning Board may also wish to consider the RG Guiding Principles; however, its should be noted that the decision of Planning Board is Legally bound to the Site Review criteria of Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981 and the Use Review criteria of Section 9-2-15(e), B.R.C. 1981. A detailed staff analysis of how the project relates to code criteria is found in the "Analysis" section found on page 6 and within Attachments D and E). Agenda Item # SA Yage # 2 In summary, staff has found that the criteria can be met, if specif c conditions of approval are applied to the project. Recommended conditions of approval are found on page 28 and some key proposed conditions, to ensure criteria consistency, are summarized below: • Remove stoi-mwater quality facilities from the southeastern open space to increase its functionality. • Add a 5-foot landscape buffer along the north side of the proposed shared access drive along the north propezty line to increase compatibility between the properties. Relocate a proposed water line from along the north property line to the Cedar Avenue right-of--way to avoid the removal of mature trees in that location. • Broadway Building shall not exceed 41-feet in height. • Street and open space facing facades of the south carriage house and single-family homes must result in attractive streetscapes appropriate to the pedestrian scale. • Limit size of the single-family homes on the RL-1 side. • Add three additional parking spaces to meet parking requirements for other High Density Residential zones and better accommodate all needed parking on-site. • Submit financial guarantee to ensure those items included in the applicant's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, such as transit passes, are implemented to reduce vehicles trips from the site and encourage less automobile ownership on the site. Given the extent of written materials regarding the project and the goal of limiting the number of attachments, the Planning Board may wish also to review the city Washington Village website at the following link: (www.bouldercolorado.~ov ~ then under "Issues/Projects", click on Washington School}. This luck includes the following materials that maybe of interest: 1. Applicant's response to the Site and Use Review criteria. 2. Applicant's written materials related to the height modification and single-family homes. 3. Proposed changes to the restrictive covenant and deed restriction. (See also staff analysis in the background section of this memo.) 4. Accommodation to the Recommendation Group Guiding Principles. (See also staff s analysis of how the project addresses the RG principles in the background section of this memo.) 5. Wonderland. Hill Development Co. responses to public comments. 6. Parking study. 7. Tree survey. KEY ISSUES: 1. Does the new proposal meet the Site Review criteria of Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981? 2. Can the Site Review criteria be rnet to permit the 46 foot ta118roadway Building? 3. Does the 55% meet the parking reduction criteria of Section 9-Z-14(h}(2)(K}, B.R.C. 1981? 4. Does the new proposal meet the Use Review criteria of Section 9-2-15(e}, B.R.C. 1981? Agenda Item # SA Pale # 3 PROJECT llESCRIPTION: 'fhc table below summarizes the proposed 2008 submittal and compares it to the 2007 plan. A more detailed project description follows. Highlighted figures indicate modification requests: Densi IIntensi 2007 lan 2008 lan Chan e Number of iJnits 40 units 33 units (-7 units) (RH-2: 34 units; (IZH-2: 27 units; RL-1: 6 units) RL-1: G units) Floor Area (RH-2) 44,316.5 square 37,199 square feet (-7117.5 square feet feet) Floor Area (RL-1) 0.5 Floor Area 0.5 Floor Area No change Ratio, or no more Ratio. than limit approved through neighborhood compatibility study. as a roved) Non-residential square footage 6,854 square feet 2,950 square feet (-3,904 square feet) (offices & coffee (office only) sho ) Open space percentage (RH-2) 48% 59% +11% (20% re wired (20% re wired) Form and Bulk 2007 plan 2008 plan Change roadwa Buildin Proposed height ',41 feel' (flat roof) '4G feef (hip roof] +5 feet [35 eet 35 eet Pro oscd len i 206 feet 194 feet -12 feet Setback from Broadway- 16` floor 17 feed, [25 eet 17 fee( 25 eet No chap e Setback from Broadway- 2" floor 2.1 _fee f, (bulk) 21 fee (bulk) No change 25 eet 25 eet Setback from Broadwa - 3 floor 32 feet (bulk 34 feet (bulk) +2 feet Setback from north lot line - 15` floor 14 feet 25 feet +11 feet Setback from north lot line - 2 floor 21 feet 29 feet +8 feet Setback from north lot line - 3 floor 21 feet 40 feet +19 feet Form and Bulk orth Buildin Proposed height 32.75 feet 28.2 feet (-4.S feet) Setback from north lot line 14 feet 31 feet +17 feet Floor Area 11,716 s uare feet 5,579 s uare feet (-6,137 s uare feet) Parkin -2 ortion Re wired off-street arkin 142 s aces 105 s aces (-37 s aces Percenta a arkinb reduction 47% 55% +8% Off-ctrPet narkine total 75 47 -28 s aces) ( )denotes form and bulk modification request [1•equired setback or height limit in brackets]. In summary, the most significant changes from the 2007 plan are as follows: • Density has decreased by 17.5%. • ItII-2 floor area decreased by 16%. • Commercial use floor area decreased by 57%. • Broadway Building 15`, 2"a, and 3ra floor distances increased from north lot line. Agenda Item # SA Page # 4 • North building setback from north lot line increase by more than double the previous setback. • North building floor area decreased by 52% and height decreased by 4.5 feet. • Open space has been increased by 11 % on the RH-2 side. RL-1 side contains an open space area on the southeastern corner. Also to be considered are the following changes: • Broadway Building height increased by 5 feet for hip roof. • Required off-street parking has been reduced by 37 spaces due to the decrease in density. • These changes results in a parking reduction increase of 8%. Washin on Village II description 1. The current project (see proposed plans in Attachment J), has a similar configuration to the original application (see Attachment K) with density concentrated on the RH-2, High Density Residential zoning district side and arranged around a central courtyard, and single-family homes on the RI,-1, Low Density Residential zoning district side. 2. A reduction in the minimum lot area per dwelling unit in the RH-2 zone, pursuant to Section 9-8-3(b), B.R.C. 1981, is requested and requires Planning Board decision similar to the previous proposal. 3. The orientation of the single-family homes on the new plan is different in response to a new 13,160 square foot greenspace/detention area on the site's southeast comer. This space is labeled as open space and. is proposed to be donated to the city as a pocket park open to the public. 4. The Broadway Building is proposed along the lot's west side fronting Broadway, like the previous plan, and a North Building is proposed along the north lot line, albeit it significantly smaller in size and height (see comparison in table above) and with a greater setback from the north property line. This provides for more solar access to the existing Red Arrow Townhomes. 5. The previous plan had two eight-piex structures along the eastern portions of the RH-2 portion, whereas the current plan has a north and south duplex, and two carriage houses. Because the zone line is not altered in the new plan, the space in the high density portion is more confined, although more space exists between the buildings lriven their comparatively smaller footprints. 6. Access to the site exists southwest of the school building (as in the previous plan) and from Cedar Avenue in the central part of the site. Differences from the previous plan are that a circular route through the Broadway Building and North Building does not exist on the new plan. Rather, the parking garage under the Broadway Building does not continue under the North Building, but dead ends. The new access drive east of the corner access, instead of going under the North Building, continues along the north lot line and exits onto 13t'' Street. 7. The new plan includes the demolition of the library building as well as the intent to landmark the historic school, although the tower element previously proposed. is tentative and based on the availability of funding. 8. Commercial square footage has been reduced by more than half (see table above) and indoor community facilities open to the public have been eliminated. Because of the change in the non-residential configuration and its parking relationship to the residential Agenda Item # SA Paae # 5 uses, Use Review is required (requires Planning Board decision). The common facilities would be solely for the use of the co-housing residents. 9. A parking reduction, like the previous proposal, is also requested (see table above). ANALYSIS: Citycode criteria Planning Board must make a decision on the project based on the Site Review criteria of Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. ] 981 and the Use Review criteria of Section 9-2-15(e), B.R.C. 1981. The applicant has provided responses (see link provided on page 3) and staff has provided responses in Attachment D and E. Oniy the most applicable criteria are discussed below. 1. Does the new proposal meet the Site Review criteria of Section 9-2-14(h), S.R.C. 1981? Staff finds that the project generally meets the Site Review criteria. 1n areas where the project does not appear to meet a particular criterion in full, a condition of approval has been proposed to meet the criteria in their entirety. Conditions of approval are found on page 28. Density ~llSection 9-2-14(h)(1)(B)(i}, B.R.C. 1981) The proposed development shall not exceed the maximum density associated with the Boulder Volley Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation. Additionally, if the density of existing residential development within a three hundred foot area surraacnding the site is at or exceeds the density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, then the maximum density permitted on the site shall not exceed the lesser of the density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan; The density permitted in the BVCP for the western portion of the site is 14 units or greater. The subject project would be approximately 15.8 dwelling units per acre on that side, which is just above the expected. density. The applicant has requested additional density pursuant to Section 9-8-3(b), B.R.C. 1981. Based on the ability of the project to meet the other aspects of these criteria, the amount of density is appropriate on the Broadway multi-modal corridor. On the easteri portion where low density residential development is intended, the density would be approximately 4.6 dwelling units per acre, which is within the 2 to 6 units per acre range for Low Density Residential. Open Space [Section 9-2-14(h)(2}(F)(vi), B.R.C. 1981) To the extentpractical, the project provides public amenities and planned public facilities; Following the public process and review of this project, the applicant has provided a 13,160 square foot open space area intended to be a pocket park. It is proposed for donation to the city. ~CSectinn 9-2-14(h)(Z)(A)(i}, B.R.C. 1981) Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional; Agenda Item # 5A Pale # 6 The project provides nearly three times the amount of open space as required (i.e., 59% where 20% required) on the RH-2 portion. In addition, 23% of the RL-1 portion is allocated as an open space proposed to be donated to t11e city as a pocket park at the corner of Cedar Avenue and 13`'' Street. The space is set aside as a result of community requests for a publicly accessible open space similar to the fiinetion it now serves. Acceptance of the space for a park continues to be under consideration by the city. Nevertheless, all of the open spaces on the property would be accessible for the purposes of this criterion, which does not require that all private projects provide publicly accessible open space; public accessibility of the southeastern open space will depend upon whether it is accepted by the city and if not, if the applicant is able to secure adequate liability t~ open the space to the greater public. G1VZn t}1C CO111I1111i11ty's Locus on having more open space on the RL-1 portion of the site, t11e functionality of the space has been a principal concern given that a sizable portion of the space is for a water quality facility. The detention area, which covers approximately 2U% of t11e open space, is generally shallow; however, the slopes (15%-25%) around its perimeter, its 3 to 3.5 foot depth, and the moistness of the space during rainy times of year would negatively affect its functionality. The city would have significant concerns with accepting ownership of a private detention and stormwater facility including potential liability for associated pollutants. Therefore, to best set the space up as a feasible park, and generally, to create a functional open space serving either residents of the development and the greater community, its use for stormwater management is not found within the intent of this criterion. To meet the intent of this criterion, a condition of approval requiring the removal of the detention area entirely from the southeastern open space to either elsewhere on the site (e.g., a single family building site, south carriage house etc.) or its removal and replacement by means of retaining drainage that would not greatly impact site design has been proposed (see Condition No. 3(a)(iii) on page 29). For comparative purposes, staff discusses what the alternatives to the condition above would be in Attachment H. [Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(A)(iii), B.R.C. 1981J) T{te project provides for the preservation of or mitigation of adverse impacts to natural features, ittcludi?tg, wfthotct limitation, healthy long-lived trees, significant plant contmcrnities, ground and .surface water, wetlands, riparian areas, drai~tage areas, and species on the federal F,ndangerecl Species List, "Species of Special Concern in Boulder County designated by Bveelder County, or prairie dogs (Cynomys ludioviciar:us) which is a species of local concern, and t{:eir habitat; There are no significant plant communities, wetland or riparian areas that are of environmental concern on the property. There are, however, a good number of mature trees. The previously recorded covenant has required the presel-vation of matures within 50 feet of 13`x' Street right-of--way on the east side of the site. The applicant has submitted a tree preservation plan and an assessment from an arborist assessing the health of all trees. The plan has been reviewed by the city and has been found to be accurate and appropriate in its depiction of trees that are proposed for preservation. For instance, large Agenda Item # SA Page # 7 trees are proposed in the southeastern green space area, along the north property line (those that are healthy), a Maple tree in the courtyard space, and in the southwestern view shed area. To avoid the removal of trees along the north lot line of the development, a condition of approval requires the relocation of a proposed water main into the Cedar Avenue right-of-way (see Condition No. 3(g) on page 30). ~1(Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(I3)(ii), B.R.C. 1981) The open space provides active areas and passive areas that will meet the needs of the anticipated residents, occupants, tenants, and visitors of the property and are compatible with the surrounding area or an adopted plan for the area; The project provides more open space than is required and has a greater diversity of private and shared areas than typical projects. However, in line with the discussion in Section 9-2-14(h)(2}(A)(iii) above, this criterion requires active open spaces for anticipated residents, occupants, tenants, and visitors of the property. The elimination of the water quality facility from the open space would increase its functionality for more active recreational purposes like small scale football and/or Frisbee and would enable the project to have a more equitable balance of passive and active recreational spaces. This is also in line with the following criterion below: CSection 9-2-14(h)(2)(A)(v), B.R.C. 1981) C)pen space designed for active recreational purposes is of a size that it will be functionally useable and located in a safe and convenient proximity to the uses to which it is meant to serve; (Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(B)(iv), B.R.C. 1981) The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the prvject and. from surrounding development; Aside from the Broadway Building's closer location to Broadway where relief to density is provided in the articulated building (as discussed in Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(F)(i), B.R.C. 1981 below) more than in open space, the perimeter of the site on the majority of all other sides would have landscaped setbacks that would exceed code requirements providing a relief from the density to surrounding development. Further, the proposed southeastern open space would also provide such relief to the neighborhood. Within the development, landscape pathways, greenspace in front of the school, and the interior courtyard would provide appropriate relief to the density. One area along the perimeter that does not appear to be appropriately buffered to surrounding development is the location of the access drive along the existing fence line between the three single-family homes locations to the existing single family home to the north. Although the drive increases the level of separation between the buildings in that area than what could occur, the impacts of vehicular noise and activity along the lot line would not be appropriate relief. A condition of approval has been proposed that would require a minimum landscape buffer of no less than 5 feet from the existing fence line to be appropriately planted with bushes and trees to increase compatibility between the properties. further, a wood fence would be required to replace the existing chain link fence in that location providing additional screening above the new landscape strip and existing vegetation. This condition would not permit the building sites from reducing the size of the proposed southeastern open space (see Condition No. 3(a)(ii) on page 28). Agenda Item # SA Page # K Site Design (includes circulation and parking design) -~~Sectivn 9-2-14(h)(2)(D)(i), B.R.C. 1981) High speeds are discouraged or a physical separation between streets and the project is provided; The site is primarily accessed by a shared access drive and a vehicular entry to the Broadway Building. The access drive is narrow (roughly 24 feet wide), lined by garages and residences, crossed by pedestrian crosswalks, and takes a 90 degree turn, and furthermore, the vehicular entry to the Broadway Building is interrupted by a landscape island -all of these aspects discourage high speed travel. [Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(D)(vii), B.R.C. 1981) The amvunt of land devoted to the street system is minimized; The site is accessed by one shared access drive and one car entry point to the Broadway Building leaving most of the site allocated to buildings and open space. A majority of parking is subterranean. -(Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(E)(i), B.R.C. 1981) The project incorporates into the design of parking areas measures to provide safety, convenience, and separation of pedestrian movements from vehicular movements; The parking areas provided in the development are linear in nature, which minimize the amount pedestrians must interface with automobiles. Where there is interaction, crosswalks and convenient access to stairways are provided. [Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(E)(ii), B.R. L 1981) The design of parking areas makes efficient use of the land and uses the minimum amount of land necessary to meet the. parking needs of the project; Most of the parking areas are proposed in subterranean parking garages under the Broadway Building and in garages under the carriage houses and duplexes. With only five surface parking spaces (potentially 8 per condition), the visual impact and areas dedicated to parking would be miiumal. I;uildin~ Design (includes building scab, character, and streetscape; building height discussed in Key Issue #2 below) [Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(T)(i), B.R.C. 1981) The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration are compatible with the existing character of the area or the character established by an adopted plan for the area; This criterion is met as follows: • The height of the majority of the proposed buildings on the site would conform to the 35-foot height limitation for the RH-2 and RL-1 districts. In fact, most of the multi-family buildings would not exceed 30 feet. The Broadway Building, however, is proposed at 46 feet. This is discussed in subsection (F}(ii) below. Agenda Item # 5A Pale # 9 • The mass of the interior buildings would be appropriate, since they are all well articulated and would not appear imposing, since most are only two stories and those over two stories are of similar stature to large single family homes, which exist in the neighborhood. • Aside from the historic school, the Broadway Building would be the most massive on the site. lts size would be noticeable by virtue of its length along Broadway at 194 feet. This compares to a roughly 170 foot length of the Broadway Brownstones project to the south and the approximate195 foot frontage of the BHP building currently under construction to the north. The length is not considered inappropriate, since it is mostly two story massing along the streetscape with relief provided by upper floor setbacks. Where the first story is at 17 feet at its closest point to the Broadway lot line (this correlates to setbacks of buildings across the street), the second story would be set back 22 feet (which matches the setbacks of the Broadway Brownstones one block down) and the tlvrd floor would be set back 34 feet, which is 9 feet more than the required setback on that side. "I'he entire length of the building is well articulated and will not present any more mass than the Broadway Brownstones building along Broadway. Concentrating massing along Broadway is considered a more practical way of accommodating the density on the site, as the alternative could present greater impacts to the single-family neighborhood on the project's east side. • The orientation and configuration of buildings on the site are found compatible, in that all would orient to the three streetscapes (Conditions No. 5(a)(i) and 8(e) on pages 30 and 31 would require this) and the configuration of the buildings are appropriate to the different contexts on each side of the site. For example, buildings on the RH-2 side have larger footprints similar to other multi-family projects along the high density residential Broadway corridor, whereas moving eastward on the site, the form and footprints of buildings decrease to match the RL-1 single-family character on the east side. ~ (Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(F)(iv), B.R.C. 1981) If the character of the area is identifiable, the project is made compatible by the appropriate use of~colvr, materials, landscaping, .signs, and lighting; To match context, the project must be found compatible with the general character of the neighborhood, as well as the historic school. The historic school is an iconic building, whereas away from Broadway, most of the neighborhood is of asingle-family character that contains a variety of architectural styles from the early 1900s up to more current neo- traditional designs. The project is found compatible as follows: • Most buildings on the site incorporate similar brickwork as the school and similar window and roof designs to match that of the school. However, no incorporation of the school design aspects reaches the level of imitation, which is not preferred. • The proposed colors are subdued and generally, earth tone and would not compete with the school and/or look out of character with the neighborhood. Agenda Item # SA Page # 10 • The proposed designs for the single-family homes, as ascertained from the applicant's submitted design guidelines and pictures of example homes, is an appropriate design direction with the use of gable roofs, clapboard siding, brick and stone work, front porches, and generally craftsman type and turn of the century designs that would be compatible with the neighborhood. A Technical Documents application will be required, by condition, for planning staff to review the buildings for architectural compatibility with the neighborhood based on this design direction. Homes sizes would also be limited by condition to ensure scale compatibility (see Condition No. 8 on page 31). ~CSection 9-2-14(h)(2)(F)(v), B.R.C. 1981) Buildings present an attractive streetscape, incorporate architectzrral and site design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale, and provide for the safety and convenience of pedestrians; • The Broadway Building is designed with notable pedestrian interest with the building situated closer to the street as in similar urban situations, ample fenestration along the street and on upper floors, interesting articulation and wall details, and a large porch entryway to the Broadway Building in the center part of its frontage. The emphasis of two-story massing of the building along Broadway would also be appropriate to the pedestrian scale. This area is also proposed to be well landscaped. • Visual interest along Cedar Avenue would be provided by the southwest viewshed and open space in front of the school where landscaping and preserved trees would be within the space. Aside from the entryway into the Broadway Building, the entirety of the Cedar Avenue frontage would be landscaped open space. A condition of approval has been added to require revisions to the west elevation of the south carriage building, in order to improve the appearance of that side consistent with this criterion (see Condition No. 5(a)(i) on page 30). • Similarly, a condition of approval would require single family buildings to present attractive street faces along 13`h and onto the proposed bn-eenspace consistent with this criterion (see Condition No. 8 on page 31). The 13'" Street streetscape is, otherwise, found consistent with this criterion with the preserved lneenspace. Solar access/shadow impact This section focuses primarily on the impact of shadowing from the Washington Village II buildings upon the Red Arrow Townhomes to the immediate north, which was a principal issue in the previous review: ~~Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(F)(iii), B.R.C. 1981) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent properties; • Views- Although there are views of the Flatirons and mountains from the site, they are considered marginal and not sigmificant. Most views are block by existing foliage. If the marginal views were considered of significant value, it would necessitate a severe restriction on building locations on the site -especially Agenda Item # 5A Page # 1] portions designated for high density residential. Nevertheless, some views of the mountains to the west would be preserved, since the lowest portions of the Broadway Building roof would not block the views. Therefore, minimization of view blockage from the site is considered appropriate for the context of the project. • Shadows-The RH-2 portion of the project is subject to the Solar Access area I1 standards, which do not permit buildings to cast a shadow greater than what a 25- foot fence along the property lines would. The applicant has located the buildings greater than the required distance from the north property line in order to have the buildings not exceed a 12-foot solar fence, which is applied to single family neighborhoods, or Solar Access area I. Sunlight during the day of the lowest sun angle (llec. 21S`) would still be able to reach into dwelling units (i.e., Red Arrow Townhomes) at noon north of the property line. This is a significant minimization of shadowing beyond what the code allows. 2. Can the Site Review criteria be met to permit the 46 foot tall Broadway Building? From a design standpoint, staff appreciates and prefers a hip roof on the Broadway Building and acknowledges that it ties the building architecturally to the historic school building, would not be overtly visible from closer vantage points, is designed to be set back and centralized on the structure and would recede from view to mitigate the impact of height. However, from a teclu~ical standpoint, staff does not finds that it would meet the following criterion from Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(r)(ii), B.R.C. 1981. A discussion follows: ~~Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(F)(ii), B.R.C. 1981) The height of buildings is in general proportion to the height of existing buildings and the proposed or projected heights of approved buildings or approved plans for the immediate area. • The proposed building height would be comparable to the height of the school building, although proportionally it would not correlate to the height of other structures in the area that generally conform to the 35-foot height limit. An obvious exception is the Broadway Brownstone's building, which is at 41-feet per code, but is closer to 35-feet from grade. The BHP building to the north was also approved at 41 feet. • The school building's apparent height is lessened by the fact that the building is a larger distance from the street. On the contrary, the Broadway Building at a comparable height would present more impact -especially, when visualizing such a height from across Broadway or traveluig along Broadway. • These aspects could result in the building appearing out of character with the neighborhood and also, could compete with the desired stature of the school. • Proportionally, the building at a lesser height would appear more appropriately scaled to the school and surrounding neighborhood. A condition of approval has been added permitting a building of 41 feet maximum, given the height would be consistent with Agenda Item # 5A Page # 12 the height of Broadway Brownstones and the BHP building and total height from grade being closer to 3S-feet than proposed (see Condition No. S(a)(ii) on page 30). 3. Does the 55% meet the parking reduction criteria of Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(k), B.R.C. 1981? All criteria related the proposed parking reduction are provided below with staff responses. Please refer to the applicant's responses and parking study found online and the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan in found in Attachment G. Staff believes that all of the criteria can be met with the addition of Conditions 3(d) and 6 based on the plans, as described below. The recommended conditions of approval are that the applicant provide three additional parking spaces for the multi-family units and a financial guarantee in order to ensure follow through of the proposed TDM. ~~Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(K)(i), B.R.C. 1981)lhe city manager may grant a parking reduction not to exceed fifty percent of the required parking. The planning board or city council may grant a reduction exceeding ffty percent. A parking reduction of SS% is requested for the RH-2 portion of the property and requires Planning Board review and approval. The IZ.I.,-1 portion would exceed the parking requirements of 1 parking space per unit with each single-family unit having 2 parlung spaces. The following is a table summarizing parking on the subject site: Total parking 'T'otal parking required 'T'otal parking required (per other RH zones) provided RH-2) Residential 96 s aces 41 s aces 38 s aces Office 9 s aces 9 s aces 9 s aces TOTAL lOS s aces SO s aces 47 s aces ~1~Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(K)(ii)(a), B.R.C. 1981] For residential uses, the probable number of motor vehicles to be owned by occupants of and visitors to dwellingis in the project will be adequately accommodated; The multi-family portion of the project contains 27 dwelling units. According to the RH- 2 zoning district, over 3.5 parking spaces per unit is required. This stringent requirement has been applied to the RH-2 zonuig district to counteract the parking impacts to neighborhoods that ofl:en occur around the University of Colorado and Naropa University namely the Goss-Grove neighborhood. These areas are often more impacted, because of the higher than average occupancy occurring in student housing, where several students may occupy a single room relative to other residences, and thus more parking space would be required per unit. Therefore, the RH-2 parking requirements have been based on floor area (i.e., one space per first S00 square feet of a unit, and one additional space per every 300 square feet or portion of 300 square feet of floor area), rather than number of bedrooms, such that, for example, an 800 square foot unit requires two parking spaces and an 801 square foot unit requires three. Agenda Item # SA Page # l3 Therefore, the probable number of motor vehicles to be owned by occupants of and visitors to the dwellings in the project will be adequately accommodated for the following reasons: • At~nlication of other RH zone parking requirements: Although the subject neighborhood is impacted by spillover parking #xom Boulder Community Hospital and Community Plaza, it does not have the student population that would come with a higher parking need than the co-housing and non-student parking population. Therefore, although the project is within the RH-2 zoning district, parking requirements from other RH zones, which are based on number of bedrooms (i.e., one bedroom =one car; two bedrooms = 1.5 cars; three bedrooms = 2 cars; and four bedrooms or more ~ 3 cars) would be more appropriate to the parking need for the subject development. See the table above. Far instance, the residential component of the project would require 41 parking spaces (as opposed to 96 spaces) for the 27 units, which equates to 1.5 parking spaces per unit. This has been found to be an appropriate number of spaces to serve the residential portion of the development. Further, when the office uses are closed, the nine spaces allotted to non-residential would be available to residential uses in the evenings bringing the average to 1.85 parking spaces per unit. Overall, the RH-2 side would have to have 50 parking spaces to meet the other RH zone parking requirements, which would apply more appropriately to the project. The applicant's plan provides a total of 47 parking spaces in the RH-2 portion, which falls short of the 50 spaces needed to accommodate anon-student high density residential development. Therefore, a condition of approval has been applied to the project that would require an additional three spaces on the RI.,-1 designated for use of the multi-family portion (see Condition No. 3(d) on page 29). • `T'ransportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies: The applicant has indicated that assigned parking spaces would be a part of the proposal. This could be problematic given the possibility that the assigned number of spaces per unit may not accurately re#lect the number of spaces needed despite an overall average of 1.5 to 1.8 parking spaces per unit. To account for this possibility, the applicant is required to employ TDM strategies to encourage residents to own less or no cars. The TDM prepared by the applicant has been reviewed and found to be appropriate in its provision of on-site bicycle parking (which exceeds requirements), a bike pool and car share program. The TDM also indicates that incentives, such as the provision of transit passes, would be allotted to residents that do not have a car as an incentive to free up parking spaces on the site and to reduce vehicles trips from the site, which is the principal goal of TDM strategies. (see Attachment G) ~1~Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(K)(ii)(b),13.R.C. 1981) The parking needs of any no~z-residential uses will be adequately accommodated through on-street parking or off=street parking; Nine (9) off-street parking spaces would be allotted to the non-residential uses on the site. They would be restricted to non-residential uses for the bulk of the day (8am to 4pm). Nine spaces meet the required number of spaces for the proposed office use. Agenda Item # SA Page # 14 ~i[Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(K)(ii)(c), B.R.C. 198.1) A mix of residential with either office or retail uses is propvsed, and the parking needs of all uses will be accommodated through shared parking; The submitted parking study prepared by Transportation Consultants, Inc. and dated September 10, 2008 indicates the following peak parking needs for the residential and office use for the site shown in the shaded columns. Following each is the proposed number of spaces available at that time indicating that the shared parking arrangement would. meet the intent of this criterion: PARKING DEMAND Residential Residential Office need Office SUMMARY need available available 10 m---lam 39 s aces 50 s aces* S s aces 0*~ 8a2r? - 5pm 25 spaces 41 spaces 9 spaces 9 spaces 6 m- 9 m 32 s aces 50 s aces* 2 s aces 0** *A condition of approval requires that the 9 spaces allotted to office uses during daytime hours be open for residential use after 4pm. **A condition of approval restricts the office use to Sam and 6pm, thus eliminating any office need between l Opm and Sam (see Use Review Condition No. 3 on page 31). ~1[Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(K)(ii)(d), B.R.C. 1981) If joint use of common parking areas is proposed, varying time periods of use will accommodate proposed parking needs; Parking for office uses would be reserved during the hours of Sam and. 4pm. After 4pm, the parking spaces would be available for residential uses, which enable the project to better meet the peak demand during evening hours. ~1[Sectian 9-2-14(h)(2)(K)(ii)(e), B.R.C.. 1981) If the number of off~street parking spaces is reduced because of the nature of the occupancy, the applicant provides assurances that the nature of the occupancy will not change. The number of spaces is reduced because of how restrictive the RH-2 parking requirements would be on anon-student co-housing type development. If the development were to change from a co-housing type development, a Site Review amendment to reconsider the parking would be required, per a condition of approval. 4. Does the new proposal meet the Use Review criteria of Section 9-2-15(e), B.R.C. 1981? Although the non-residential space has been reduced. and the coffee shop eliminated, the proposed office uses must be considered through the Use Review process as the change would affect the overall relationship of uses on the site. Use Review can only be approved if the Planning Board finds that the use: • Is consistent with the purpose of the RH-2 zoning district; Agenda Item # 5A Page # 15 • Has a location, size, design, and operating characteristic that will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties; and, • Will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. Staff continues to finds that the non-residential use - especially as reduced - would be appropriate at the subject location for the following reasons, as based on the criteria summarized above and discussed in detail in Attachment E: • _Consistency with Zoning: The RH-2 zoning districts are high density residential areas primarily used for a variety of types of attached residential units, including, without limitation, apartment buildings, and where complementary uses maybe allowed. The proposed project includes 27 attached residential units concentrated along Broadway as intended by the zoning code and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan for development along multi-model corridors. Commercial uses (i.e., professional and technical offices) and community facilities have been found complementary, as there are examples of office along Broadway in similar or greater square footages and also since the site will accommodate parking needed for those uses. • Compatibility- The office use would be concentrated on a portion of the site expected to have a greater intensity of use and scale, but would be appropriately buffered from the single-family character on the east side of the site. The size of the office use is comparable to several office buildings that exist on this stretch of Broadway. Some examples are the North Broadway Building at the corner of Elder Avenue and Broadway that is entirely commercial with 6,745 square feet and 3093 Broadway, which is also entirely commercial with 3,799 square feet. Another mixed-use example is the Newland Court project at 3011 Broadway that contains condominiums and a 4;200 square foot office building in an old Victorian building. All of these projects have compliant parking for commercial uses. The subject proposal is for 2,950 square feet of commercial uses. The applicant has targeted professional and technical offices that would generate a lower incidence of customers coming to the site. By having compliant parking and being concentrated directly on Broadway, the use reasonably mitigates the potential negative impacts on neighboring properties. Therefore, the proposed office use is found to be compatible with the immediate neighborhood. • Character of area- The predominant character of this portion of Broadway is largely residential. However, there are a number of commercial establishments that arc comparable in size and location to the subject proposal. This project would introduce a new development that incorporates a majority of residential with a smaller non- residential component, which is in line with the emerging mixed-use, more urban corridor occurring along Broadway. To ensure an appropriate balance between the uses on the site, staff has proposed restrictions on the operating hours of the office uses from 8 am to 6 pm and has required that nine spaces be reserved for the office uses from Sam to 4pm (see Use Review Condition No. 3 on page 31). Agenda Item #_SA Page # 16 BACKGKOUND: This section provides background on the following sections: A. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) designation. B. Existing Site/Site Context. C. Summary of review process and project history. D. Analysis of the project in relation to the Recommendation Group (RG) Guiding Principles. E. Summary of how the project accommodates items listed in the Restrictive Covenant/ Community Benef t. A. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) designation In 2007 the BVCP land use designation on the site was changed from Public/Semi-Public to High and Low Density Residential to reflect the change in use of the property from a public school. The land use designation that was approved was consistent with the underlying zoning, although the ali~~lrnent reflected a proposal to move the zoning line approximately 48 feet eastward as shown as follows: `I I- ~-s - I ° _ ~ _ _ I ~ Public 0 - ~ _ ~ ~ a -J High Density Residential I Low Density Residential 1 _ ~ i - ' ~ ^r: - ~ T ~ _ , . y, f Medium Density Residential l_ - _ DI ~ ~ .l- ]"figure 1-BVCP land use designations Agenda Item # SA Page # 17 The current BVCP land use designations correspond to the proposed placement of the zoning line as part of the applicant's 2007 rezoning request, which was to move the RH-2/IZL-1 zoning line 48 feet eastward to permit multi-family structures within the proposed placements. As discussed in Subsection C on page 20, the approved rezoning was reversed by City Council following the citizen-initiated referendum and thus, the zoning line placement never changed as shown in Figure 2 below: B~C=2_ Elder-Av c N cn ~ L ~ RL--1 Delwoo~i;/w 1 o 1121 Cedar Ave ° o / - RL-1 RH=2 Cedar-Av ,-a 0 ~ ~ RM-2 ml Figure 2- 7,oning Staff will likely bring an amendment to the BVCP Land use designation to the Planning Board and City Council for consideration at the next BVCP major update to move the BVCP land use line to correspond with the existing zoning line. Staff will also likely propose a change to the existing `Public' designation on the properties to the north of 121 S Cedar to be consistent with the existing uses and underlying zoning (that is, BVCP High Density Residential land use designation on the west and Low Density Residential land use designation on the east.} Agenda Item # SA Pale # 18 B. Existing Site/Site Context: _ ~ _ r ~r T T'r'/ .IC icy- ~ --~"j .t . I. ~I "r r! ~ L~ _Y1• - - X17 !`N ~ -f~ r^_~~4~a..f r;.>~.,'~,e - t A7 M I ~ 't' j•-r- ~ _~~,1 er ,r's'r~r#~:1= Lr~'~p~ ~ I _ ,~~~p• i]*v~-p ~ ~ Iq"" 1!° ~~-.5~. 11~', 151 ~•'1~'~I 1:'15 CedarAve I "1'~~ `,:L{~.:.:r~~~ ~ ~-~'~1 ~1 ~ 111 I) ~ ~''t"~~~~ G_eda r: Av,- -fir ~ , U ~ ~-•`~-1 ' _.,E-~ a ar• ~il~:`!r 4~'•• L-~~~-'air ~ ''11,:d~- ~Ei~+ i ' S _ it :Y ~ ' { Fil;ure 3-Development context around 1215 Cedar (outlined) The property is bounded by Broadway to the west, Cedar Avenue to the south, 13"' Street to the east, and a mix ofmulti-family and single-family development to the north. It consists of 3 acres and is currently occupied by the vacant Washington Elementary School. In 2003, the school was closed. by the Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) due to school consolidation. In general, surrounding high density residential uses are concentrated along Broadway, and predominantly single-family residential development exists one block back to the east and west of Broadway. Further, office uses are intermixed with high density residential along this stretch of Broadway. Recent attached residential projects along the corridor have been the Broadway Bro~xmstones project with seven units (2824 Broadway; one black south of the school site) and the Boulder Housing Partners project (3120 Broadway; roughly 950 feet to the north) with 25 units. Aside from the North Boulder Recreation Center and the Boulder Housing Partners' project, most development to the immediate north is single-family residential and agricultural, with some office intermixed.. "to the south is Boulder Community Hospital and Commmunity Plaza, which is a community Agenda Item # SA Pale # 19 center that includes a variety of higher intensity retail, commercial, and residential development. The site is located along a portion of the Broadway corridor that allows high density residential development, but is a transitional area where the higher intensity uses (e.g., commercial, institutional) of the Community Plaza area transition to the lower intensity residential uses in north Boulder (before reaching the higher density areas past Violet Avenue). Rougl>ly 58% of the site is zoned RH-2, whereas roughly 44% of the site is zoned RI.-1, as Figure 2 above represents. The original school building was constructed in 1903 and is considered a building of historical value; the building and. a portion of the site are proposed as an individual landmark under the city's historic preservation code (Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board recommended approval on the landmark area. Final action by City Council is proposed to occur following action on the Site and Use Review applications). The original building consists of roughly 18,300 square feet, and it's more contemporary additions total roughly 11;600 square feet. An existing library building accounts for roughly 1,500 square feet. The remainder of the rectangular site is used for open space, ballfields and parking. C. Summary of review process and project history: Re~ucst for Proposals/Concept Plans The proposal is the result of a city initiated Request for Proposal (IZFP) process to redevelop the Washington F_,lementary School site. The intent of that process was to work with the Boulder Valley School District, a developer, and the community on creating a development that meets City Council's goals far the site. The RFP was reviewed by Planning Board through Concept Plan application LUR2006-00031 and Landmarks Board prior to City Council action on the item on September 19, 2006. At that meeting, City Council recommended Wonderland Hill Development Company as the preferred purchaser of the site. A subsequent Concept Plan application, I.tJR2006-00092, was reviewed by Planning Board in November 2006. Planning Board review of land use review applications On July 19, 2007 the Site and Use Review, BVCP land use amendment and rezoning applications were reviewed by the Planning Board. The Planning Board continued the hearing and requested that the applicant respond to seven identified issues. The applicant submitted revised plans to Planning Staff on Aug. 24, 2007. Planning Board reviewed the proposal at its Sept. 13, 2007 meeting and recommended approval of the BVCP land use map change and rezoning, and approved the Site and Use Reviews with conditions. City Council called-up the Planning Board's decision on Sept. 18; 2007. C~Council call-up City Council reviewed the project at aquasi-judicial public hearing on Oct. 23, 2007. City Council heard from a significant number of neighbors opposed to the project, as well as proponents of the proposed co-housing development and advocates of infill development. City Council voted to approve the application by a 7 to 1 vote (Councilmember Gray opposed). Agenda Item # 5A Page # 20 Referendun~/Ad Hoc Group/Recommendation Group (RG) Following acitizen-iiutiated petition against the approved rezoning ordinance, City Council held a public hearing on Jan. 22, 2008 and repealed rezonng ordinance 7559 and appointed an ad hoc group to design a public outreach process for moving forward on the Washington School site. After four meetings, the Ad Hoc Group identified the need to forma "Recommendation Group" (RG), composed of members of the neighborhood, the applicant, uzvestors in the proposed community, and staff as resources, that would provide leadership and guidance to carry the public process and make final recommendations to Wonderland Hill, policy makers, city staff and the public. The RG met for several meetings and held a public desi,g~i cliarrette and at the conclusion of the public process, released a final recommendation report on May 28, 2008. This report was intended to inform any Wonderland Hill resubmittal to the city. The following next steps were listed within the report: 1. Wonderland Hill will begin to work on an actual site design proposal for submission to the city for review. Wonderland will consult with members of the RG as needed for feedback and ideas. 2. The neighbors will coordinate one or more meetings to discuss and research ways of funding the open space on the east side of the property. The neighbors will consult and confer as needed with Wonderland Hill and the co-housers. 3. Wonderland, the co-housers, and the neighbors will reconvene in 60 to 90 days (depending on when steps 1 and 2, above, are complete) to discuss the site plan and the findings about funding opportunities and to determine the best approach for moving forward. The RG report can be found at the following weblink: http•//www bouldercolorado Gov/files/Public Works/Pro'e~ edl r~ reuori final may 28.pdf, or staff will provide copies, if requested. The RG process ended with publication of the final report. A snore detailed discussion of the RG review is found in Subsection D below. Neiehborhood Meetings/O~en Space Working Group (OSWG) Wonderland Hill held a neighborhood meeting on July 30, 2008 and a subsequent open house on Sept. 4, 2008. At these meetings, public input was received by Wonderland Hill and compiled. A response to these public comments from the applicant is found online at the city Washington Village website ~www.bouldercolorado.gov ~ then under "Issues/Projects", click on Washington School). To move forward on the open space issue, an Open Space Working Group (OSWG) was created and was composed of representatives of the developer, the co-housers, and the neighborhood. City staff also attended as a resource but had minimal input Tito this follow-up process. No definitive conclusion about funding for a park was achieved. The neighbors formulated a summary of the process, which is found in Attachment A. Wonderland Hill has a separate stunmary in Attachment B and a clarification by city staff is found in Attachment C. Agenda Item # SA Page # 21 D. Recommendation Group (RG) Guiding Principles: Although the city's decision must be based on the city code criteria discussed in the `Analysis' section that follows, it must also be recognized that this project has undergone extensive public review through the City Council-iiutiated Ad Hoc Committee review and subsequent Recommendation Group (RG). The RG fom~.ulated a number of "Guiding Principles" meant to inform the revised Washington Village design and result in a more compatible design for the neighborhood. Given the similar concepts between the Site Review criteria and the RG Guiding Principles (e.g., open space, preservation, solar access, and parking), the RG Guiding Principles are worth of consideration. The discussion below lists the Guiding Principles and listed beneath each is a staff assessment of what the applicant has done to respond to the particular principle shown in bold italics. Overall llcsi~n • Design the site to be visually and functionally interconnected and to maximize the sense of community. "Community" includes not only residents of the school site, but also the greater existing neighborhood. • Produce a plan that is visually open to the surrounding neighborhood. What did tjie applicant do? ? Footprints and building floor areas has been reduced, thus opening up areas of the site for more obvious pedestrian pathways into the site. A pedestrian path connecting the RH-2 and RL-1 portions has been adder Open Space Design Principles for Open Space • All stakeholders should benefit from maximizing a consolidated significant open area on the east side of the property. Maximizing publicly accessible open space is a critical concern and should be viewed as a priority. • Open space should be connected and integrated. • Open space should add value to the rest of the site. • Open space should accommodate active and passive recreational uses. • Proximity to parks increases real estate values. lyunding for Open Space/Public Park • The RG understands that preserving open space and paying for its ongoing maintenance is a challenge, and the group is prepared to assist in researching ways to address this challenge (see below). • In order to avoid insurance and liability issues and to maximize the comfort that people feel in using the area, it would be best to create a public park rather than publicly accessible private open space. • The RG does nat expect the developer and/or the co-housers to assume costs to pay for the preservation and maintenance of a public park that are disproportionate to the benefits a park would bring to residents of the Washington School site. • The actual site design will affect the amount of money needed to offset park preservation on the east side of the property. While the developer prepares the site Agenda Item # SA Page # 22 design, the neighbors on the RG (and others who are ~~'Ilhng) ~~']1] elect and do some ill-depth research on preservation funding. Preliminary ideas being considered for park preservation and/or maintenance fundi~lg include: o Conservation easements o Special tax district o Tax credits o Neighborhood-wide homeowners association o Non-profit organization o Other methods of creating open space in other areas of Boulder o Naming rights What did the applicant do? ? Open space has been increased on site from 48% tv 59%. ? The most significant addition is the 0.3 acre green space located on the southeastern corner of the site. This space is proposed to be donated to the city as a pocket park The space also contains a detention pond Tl:e applicant contributed to a post-RG process called the Open Space Working Group (OSII'G) wl:ere discussions between neighbors and the developer about l:ow to fulfill the principal above would be done. No resolution was achieved ? Pedestrian pathways l:ave been added to connect all open spaces on the site. Preservation • Preserve as many h•ecs as possible. • Preserve opportunities for public outdoor recreational use. • Preserve and/or reuse on-site the children's art inside the school. • Protect the school building as a historic landmark. What did t/ie applicant do? ? The applicant has submitted a Tree Presen~ation Plan (see Sheet LP-2) and intends tv preserve as many healthy trees as feasible. ? A green space, as discussed above, was added for outdoor use. ? Ti:e applicant motes in their materials that the children's art will be preserved on the site. ? The applicant intends to landmark the school through the appropriate city review process. Solar Access • Use a 12-foot solar fence limitation along the north property line. • Maintain and protect appropriate solar access for Red Arrow and all buildings on the site. What did the applicant do? ? Tl:e applicant has located buildings further soot/: of the north lot line and has designed the project to meet the 12 foot solar fence linritatiorrs. Agenda Item # SA Page # 23 Density - RH-2 Zone • The most density should be located along Broadway. • Density on the northern edge should be consistent with the above principles on solar access, and should strive to create an open and inviting atmosphere that welcomes, integrates, and possibly interconnects Red Arrow with the Washington School site. • Additional density (if needed} should be located along the east edge of the school, confined as much as possible to the footprint of the buildings currently on the site, and restricted to the existing itH-2 zone. • Use a balanced approach to building on the site to maintain economic value, solar access, and viewsheds (particularly between buildings on the east and north side of the school). What did the applicant do? ? The applicant has reduced the density by 7 units as compared to the previous plan. Density is restricted by the unaltered zone line. ? Increased setbacks have created more open space along the north lot line. Density - RL-1 Zone • Minimize development in the RL-1 zone in order to maximize open space. • Cluster any development in the RL-1 zone for publicly accessible open space that is inviting, creates a sense of community, and preserves recreational uses. What did the applicant do? ? The density on the RL-1 side has not changed since the previous subnaittul. It contains a total of 6 dwelling units ? Single family homes on RL-1.side have been reoriented and clustered in response to the added green space on the southeastern corner. Front of the School and Viewsheds • 1'he lzont of the school should be a welcoming gathering node, provided in addition to but not in lieu of open space. Creation of this gatheruig node could be enhanced by removing the existing library building if doing so does not diminish other design principles outlined in this report. • Cedar Avenue should be considered the front of the entire site, and maintaining the viewshed from Cedar should be a priority. • Although removing the library to improve the viewshed from Cedar Avenue may affect the current landmark viewshed from the southeast corner of the property, the RG is open to this tradeoff, as long as it does not diminish other design principles outlined in this report. If possible, views of the school from other directions should be maintained. • New buildings on the site should be architecturally compatible with the historic school building, both in teens of scale and design. Agenda Item # SA Page # 24 What did the applicant do? ? The library building is proposed for removal artd no buildings are proposed to encroach into setbacks on the Cedar Avenue side. ? Buildings hove been revised to include hip roof forms to tie to the historic school building. Uses of the School • The RG is flexible about how the existing school building is used, including possible sale of the school to another entity. • The RG understands that maximizing the economic value of uses of the school building can help fund other design elements listed in this report but may preclude use of the interior of the school for community benefit (such as meeting space, educational programming, etc.). What did the applicant do? ? Uses open to the greater community Itave been removed from the school. More residential units have been added to the school vis-a-vis the previous plan. Parkin • Minimize off-site parking impacts as much as possible. • Accommodate on-site parking needs for all occupants in a way that is visually unobtrusive. • Consider the following tools to assist in minimizing parking impacts: o Formal parking programs to reduce the number of cars on-site o Car share programs o Below-grade, terraced, covered parking o Tucked-under parking o Surface parking areas that are small and dispersed o Providing fewer parking spaces than the maximum allowed/required by the City for RI-1-2 zone Wltat did the applicant do? ? Most parking is confined to a subterranean garage, parking garages, and tuck under parking. Mvst is not visible from the streetscapes. ? The applicant has submitted a Transportation Management Plan (TD1V,~ to encourage residents to consider alternatives to the automobile. ? The applicant notes the HOA would provide financial incentives (i.e., reduction HOA fees) for those that give up parking spaces. E. Recorded Restrictive Covenant/Community Benefit: The redevelopment of the Washington Elementary School site was examined through a public process, with the consent of the Boulder Valley School District, in 2006. That process resulted in the selection of Wonderland as the purchaser and developer of the site. A covenant that expresses the city's expectations regarding the community benefits of the proposed project as Agenda Item # 5A Pale # 25 developed through the selection process was developed and was to be put into effect at the time of closing on the property (see Attachment F). The community benefits outlined in the covenant include: 1. Affordable housing (47% of total units), subject to changes in the number of middle income units for cause as specified; 2. Accessibility for seniors and disabled (60% of total units); 3. Preservation of mature trees adjacent to 13`h Street; 4. Interior community space open to general public (7,500 sq. ft.); 5. View shed/Park/No-build area (12,000 sq. ft.), and; 6. Landmark application submittal to preserve historic values of the site On Jan. 22, 2008, City Council repealed the rezoning ordinance and provided direction to staff on issues related to community benefit and how it would apply to a revised design. Council agreed to include flexibility on the following community benefits: 1. Meeting space- the amount of community meeting space can be reduced below the 7,500 square feet stipulated in the covenant. 2. View shed- The view shed on the south west corner could be altered. 3. Increased affordable housing- affordable housing component could be revised, but should be more than the minimum required in the inclusionary zoning 4. Other potential community benefits would be entertained- the Council also agreed not to consider the use of city funds for a park or other community benefit on the site. Assuming the city can support the community benefits provided with the revised plan, a new restrictive covenant detailing the new changes would be required for recording to supersede the original covenant. A discussion of the revised design follows: The revised design • Meeting space- The revised design has no internal meeting space open to the public. The previous proposal had roughly 7,500 square feet of interior space open to the community. The applicant has effectively traded this space for the benefit provided by the exterior southeastern green space. • Viewshed- The viewshed has not been altered. • Barrier free design- The recorded covenant, based on the previous proposal, required that 60% of the units be Type B accessible dwelling units. The new proposal includes 60% of the units with this level of accessibility, but with a fewer number based on the reduction in density. • Affordable housing- The previous proposal had 13 of the units as permanently affordable to low and middle incomes, or 32.5°/~ of the total units (40). As a result of the reduction of density in the project, the current design has 10 units, or 30.3% of the total unit (33) as permanently affordable housing units. The two most important community benefit issues have been. the meeting space and affordable housing, which are discussed below: Agenda Item # 5A Page # 26 Meetingace- Staff finds that the trading of the internal meeting space to an external open space open to the gxeater public holds a comparable, if not superior community benefit to the project. Of course, the overall benefit will be determined by whether or not the space becomes a city pocket park and/or whether it is redesigned to be wholly functional and generally open to the public. A ordable hou~s~tn~- The recorded covenant does allow for the conversion of some or all of the proposed middle income units to market rate units if there are market challenges. Market challenges were anticipated triven the complex nature of the project and likelihood that the prices for the middle income units necessary to support the project might not be affordable enough to provide sustainable, affordable middle income units. Originally, Wonderland hill's co-housing proposal included eight low and 11 middle income permanently affordable units along with 21 market rate units, for a total of 40 units. Wonderland Hill proposed to convert six of the middle income units to market rate and use 100% of the ensuing savings to decrease the price of the remaining middle income units. The terms of sale for the site required that a premium be paid on each additional market rate unit above 21. Wonderland Hii] requested that BVSD accept a lower premium for each additional market rate unit which would allow Wonderland to put the discounted amount of the premium into lowering the sale price of the remaining middle income housing units. BVSD agreed, conceptually, to accept 75% of the stated premium amount. Even though this meant fewer middle income units, staff supported this conversion as it resulted in better affordability for the remaining middle income units. The current proposal, with 33 total units, includes 6 permanently affordable low income units (or 18.2%) and 4 permanently affordable middle income units (or 12.1%) for a total of 30.3% permanently affordable uzuts. The city's inclusionary zoning ordinance requires that 20% of all newly constructed housing be permanently affordable to low income households and there is no middle income requirement. Developers are not required to provide the 20% permanently affordable low income units on-site. Some or all of the requirement maybe in the form of a cash-in-lieu amount, dedicating existing units elsewhere in the city as permanently affordable or Land dedication. While there are several elements of the Washington School redevelopment proposal that are not negotiable or in the city's control, the amount of middle income housing and whether the entire amount of low income housing is provided on site are areas where the city could be flexible in order to support the project. Conclusion- Staff finds that the proposal would meet the original intent of community benefit on the site. Therefore, if approved, staff would prepare a revised covenant incorporating the changes and would require the applicant to record the covenant will the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder's Office following final decision on the project. PUBLIC COMVIEN'T AND PROCESS: As discussed in the `Background' section of this memorandum, since the previous hearings on the 2007 desigzl, there have been several venues for public comment on the project. The most recent public review of the project was at a neighborhood meeting on July 30, 2008 and a subsequent open house on Sept. 4, 2008. Agenda Item # 5A Page # 27 Upon receipt of the formal application, public notice has been sent to neighbors within 600 feet of the property. Another notice was sent as a courtesy reminder of the Jan. 8th hearing. Both also had notices within the Daily Camera and on the city's wcbsite. Staff has received a number of public comments on the project, which are found in Attachment I. Most comments relate to the following issues: • Proposed modifications. • Height impacts. • Parking reduction. • Office space. • Affordable units. • Compatibility along north lot Line. • Benefit of southeastern open space. STAFF RECO;yIMENDATION: Staff recoirunends that the Planning Board conditionally approve Site Review and Use Review application #LUR2008-00083 for the Washington Village II project located at 121 S Cedar Avenue, incorporating this staff memorandum and the attached Site Review and Use Review, criteria checklists as findings of fact aald subject to the conditions of approval listed below: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -SITE REVIEW 1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans entitled Washington Village lI dated November 17, 2008 and January 8, 2009 and on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except as may be modified by this approval. 2. The portion of the site that is zoned RH-2 shall be operated as a co-housing community consistent with the Applicant's written statement dated September 1 Z, 2008 on file with. the City of Boulder Planning Department. 3. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit Technical Document Review applications for the following items, subject to the approval of the Ciry of Boulder Planning and Development Services Division: a) A final site development plan for the entire site that is consistent with the approved site development plan with the following revisions: i) Benches shall be added to the perimeter of the southeastern open space. ii) A landscaped buffer of no less than S feet between the existing chain link fence location and the access drive shall be added and planted with shrubs and small to medium sized trees to increase compatibility and buffering between the subject site and the single family residence to the immediate north. Also, to enchance compatibility, the existing chain link fence shall be replaced with a wood fence of 100% opacity, at least 6 feet in height, and otherwise Agenda Item # 5A Page # 28 consistent with Section 9-9-15, B.R.C. 1981 in the exact location as the chain link fence without detriment to existing vegetation. Further, the addition of the landscaped buffer shall not affect the size and location of the southeastern open space. iii) The detention area and stone water quality facility on the southeastern open space shall be eliminated. Any necessary drainage outfall piping maybe located in the southeastern open space, as necessary, and shall not negatively impact existing trees. The stormwater management system shall be: A) A detention area located on one of the following locations: I. The proposed south carriage house site; U. The proposed Single Family Building Area No. 6 shown on Sheet C1.0 of the approved plans, or III. Both of the sites described in subsections A.I and A.II above; or B) Another method of stormwater management consistent with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards that avoids any significant changes to the footprints of buildings or the general site design. b) A detailed landscape and tree protection plan, including size, quantity, and type of plants existing and proposed; type and quality ofnon-living landscaping materials; any site grading proposed; and the proposed irrigation system, to insure compliance with this approval and the City's landscaping requirements. The plans must conform to the preliminary Tree Preservation Plan and arborist assessment attached to the approved plans. Any construction that affects the existing trees, including but not limited to foundations, grading, impervious surfaces, and the erection of walls within the vicinity of trees to be preserved that result in unanticipated damage to existing trees, shall require mitigation pursuant to the detailed landscape and tree protection plan. c) A detailed lighting plan showing location, size, and intensity of illumination units, showing compliance with Section 9-9-16, B.R.C. 1981. d) A detailed parking plan showing the arrangement, locations, dimensions, and type of parking stalls (including any areas of the site for bicycle parking or reserved for deferred parking) to insure compliance with this approval and Section 9-9-b, B.R.C. 1981. This plan shall accommodate three additional parking spaces on the RL-1 portion of the lot to meet the parking needs for the multi-family portion of the lot. The three spaces shall be signed appropriately to designate for multi-family residents or guests, shall not require the removal of any trees, and shall be surfaced with permeable pavement and/or pavers consistent with the City of.Boulder Design and Construction Standards. e) A detailed shadow analysis to insure compliance with the City's solar access requirements of Section 9-9-17, B.R.C. 1981. Agenda Item # SA Page # 29 f) Final Storm Water Plans and Report meeting the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. g) Final Utility Plans and Report meeting the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. The revisions required to the preliminary utility report maybe completed as part of the Final Utility Report. The revisions to the report require elimination of the proposed water main along the north side of the site and an upgrade of the existing water main in Cedar Avenue from a 6" main to an 8" main. h) Final transportation engineering plans meeting the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards for at1 transportation improvements. 4. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall dedicate to the City, at no cost, the following as part of Technical Document Review applications, subject to the approval of the City of Boulder Planning and Development Services Division: a) A 20-foot public access easement along the westerly and northerly edges of the portion of the site zoned RL-1 in the location. of the shared access drive; b} A public access easement for 1 foot beyond the edge of the transit shelter pad on Broadway; and c) A public access easement for 1 foot beyond the sidewalk limits along Broadway and 13th Street. 5. Prior to a building permit application on the portion of the site that is zoned 12H-2, the Applicant shall submit a Technical Document Review application, subject to the approval of the Planning Director, for the following items: a) Final architectural plans, including .materials and colors, to insure compliance with the intent of this approval and compatibility with the historic school and surrounding area and including the following revisions: i) The final architectural plans and elevations shall include revisions that modify the facade of the west elevation of the south carriage house (if retained) to ensure that the building presents an attractive streetscape appropriate to the pedestrian scale. ii) The Broadway Building shall be modified to not exceed 41-feet in height pursuant to the City's definition of "height" in Chapter 9-16, B.R.C. 1981. 6. Prior to a building permit application on the portion of the site that is zoned RH-2, the Applicant shall submit a financial guarantee, in a form and amount acceptable to the Director of Public Works, to guarantee those items proposed in the Applicant's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, including transit passes. 7. Prior to a building permit application on the portion of the site that is zoned RH-2 and is part of the proposed individual landmark site, the Applicant shall apply to landmark the Agenda Item # SA Page # 30 historic school building and secure a landmark alteration certificate required by Chapter 9-11, "Historic Preservation," B.R.C. 1981. 8. Prior to application for a building permit on the portion of the site that is zoned RL-1, the Applicant shall submit a Technical Document Review application, subject to the approval of the Planning Director, for final architectural plans that demonstrate compliance with approved design guidelines prepared by the Applicant and include the following limitations: a} The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for the single-family homes shall be 0.5:1 averaged across the land area included withi~l the RL-1 portion and within the confines of the project, or the underlying RL-1 FAR limit at time of building permit, if less than 4.5:1. b) The principal dwelling on each lot shall not exceed a floor area of 2,500 square feet, the garage shall not exceed 500 square feet, and any studio space above the garage may not exceed 350 square feet. c) The second level of the principal structure shall not exceed 75% of the ground level floor area of said structure. d) To ensure appropriate massing and architectural compatibility, the majority of each single family roof fozzns shall be gable and/or hip roofs with the uppermost portion of the roofs having a roof pitch no less than 5:12. e) The single family dwellings shall present attractive street faces to the southeastern open space and all streetscapes to ensure that the buildings present an attractive sixeetseape appropriate to the pedestrian scale. Attractive street faces may inetude any combination of porches, detailing, and appropriate fenestration. CONDITION OF APPROVAL - USF, REVIEW 1. The Applicant shall. be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans entitled Washington Village II dated November 17, 2008 and January 8, 2009 and the written statement dated September 12, 2008, on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except as maybe modified by this approval. 2. The Applicant shall not expand or modify the approved use, except pursuant to Subsection 9-2-15, B.R.C. 1981. 3. The Applicant shall ensure that the approved office uses are operated in compliance with the written statement dated September 12, 2008, pursuant to the following restrictions: a) Professional and 'T'echnical Offices arc approved in the non-residential space along Broadway not to exceed 2,950 square feet. b) The office uses shall be closed from 6:00 p.m. to 8 a.m., Monday through Friday. Agenda Item # SA Page # 31 c) Nine (9) parking spaces shall be designated within the Broadway Building for the office uses during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and shall otherwise be available for residential uses outside these hours. Approved By: Ruth McHeyser, Exec ive Director of Community Planning Planning Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Letter to City Council from Washington School Recommendation Group, Open Space Working Group (OSWG), Neighborhood Delegation. Attachment B: Washington Village OSWG summary of findings prepared by Wonderland Hill Development Company (WHDC). Attachment C: Staff clarification to City Council on OSWG correspondence. Attachment D: Staff response to Site Review criteria. Attachment E: Staff response to Use Review criteria. Attachment F: Recorded Restrictive Covenant and Deed Restriction. Attachment G: Updated Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan. Attachment H: Stormwater management alternatives. Attachment I: Public comments. Attachment J: Proposed plans dated November, 17, 2008 and January 8, 2009. Attachment K: Applicant's 2007 plans previously reviewed by Planning Board and City Council. Agenda Item # 5A Page # 32 ATTACHMENT A To the Boulder City Council An impending tragedy still looms within the Washington School neighborhood. Despite good faith efforts and seemingly unending meetings and consultations over the fate of the school property, our interests as a neighborhood continue to be overwhelmed by competing interests of private capital. As you all know, this saga begar~ over six years ago when the Boulder Valley School District began to seriously contemplate school closings. Since then, we have endured through no fewer than six distinct "processes" in which we attempted to preserve a fraction of the public benefits provided by Washington School, and to limit adverse impacts from proposed redevelopment on the site. These processes included: • BVSD school closing/consolidation panel hearings and subsequent hearings on disposition of the Washington property • Citizen Review Panel process to solicit and recommend redevelopment proposals • An extended (one year plus) development review process -first round • The "Ad-hoc Group" process to create a recommendation process • The Recommendation Group process to inform a revised development plan • The Open Space Working Group (OSWG) process to explore methods to preserve and fund beneficial open space on the site. Having examined the recently revised site plan submitted by the Wonderland Hill Development Company, we are forced to acknowledge our failure to achieve any positive results through our participation in these processes. Our only successes have been to mitigate density and scale impacts, and those victories can be solely credited to the referendum petition we ourselves initiated and carried through. During the recently concluded OSWG process we sought, once and for all, to follow through on the highest priority issue emerging from the Recommendation Group process: to maximize recreational open space preservation as the primary community benefit, present and future, on the site. We researched and identified promising resources, opportunities and options available to the developer and city that could help avoid losing a community resource that should never have been disposed of in such a callous manner. Unfortunately, these options were either met with extreme skepticism or outright rejected and ignored by Wonderland. The accompanying report of the Open Space Working Group details our findings and asks for your support as our elected representatives to actin the interests of citizens seeking to preserve a critical neighborhood resource. The only way to salvage the processes that have gone before and to achieve meaningful community benefit is for the city and Wonderland to become willing partners in this effort. Respectfully submitted, Washington School Recommendation Group, Open Space Working Group, Neighborhood Delegation i r. ~ 3 The following presents the conclusions of the Open Space Working Group (OSWG), comprised of neighbors to the Washington School redevelopment acting under the Recommendation Group Process. These findings relate only to open space issues and not to the various other neighborhood concerns such as density, parking, traffic, etc. which did not fall under the purview of OSWG, but that wilt nonetheless be considered by City Council and Planning Board as the review process moves forward. Our meetings have been co-chaired by Geof Cahoon, a member of the Washington School Neighborhood Association and John Engle of Wonderland Hill Development Corp. both of whom have made good faith efforts to communicate with their constituency and with the Washington School neighborhood. Findings: 1: With the submission of a revised site plan to the City of Boulder, Wonderland Hill Development Company (WHDC) has formalized its willingness to donate aone-third acre parcel to the City, comprising the southeastern corner of the site. While this potential donation is welcome and hard won, the amount of Land does not meet the Washington School neighborhood's clearly expressed interest to preserve a viable portion of the recreational open space that has existed here for more than 100 years. 2: In discussions with WHDC, the neighborhood participants have been cooperative, flexible and have stressed the importance of a genuine recreational open space that preserves a substantially larger parcel of open space within the Washington School site. 3: WHDC has declined to submit a revised plan that expands upon the one-third acre open space, and it intends to devote a substantial portion of the area to a drainage swale, reducing its attractiveness and usability as recreational space. 4: WHDC has indicated its price for additional open space on the 13th Street side of the property would be $550,000 per home site, or $3.3 million for all six proposed home lots (1.3 acres). In April, WHDC purchased the entire three acre site and buildings for $4.1 million. if the existing playground was acquired for public recreational purposes at WHDC's asking price, the net cost to the developer for the remaining 1.7 acres including the historic school building would be only $800,000. In other words, WHDC calculates that 43% of the land is worth 80% of the purchase price. This is a financial assumption long held by WHDC and long objected to by the neighborhood because it represents the intent to subsidize multi-family development in and around the school building at the expense of a valued, and heretofore public, open space amenity. 5: The neighborhood and WHDC have identified a potential conservation easement tax credit value to WHDC of $375,000 in exchange for relinquishing a portion of WHDC's development rights. However, WHDC has demonstrated little interest in seriously pursuing these tax credits or any other public open space funding sources. Submitted by OSWG Washington School Neighbors, October 17, 2008 6: At the encouragement of neighborhood participants, WHDC did contact Great Outdoors Colorado (LOCO), and subsequently reported that this is a small parcel by GOCO standards, and that would make it more difficult to secure grant funding. In response, neighbors conducted independent research and discovered that GOCO frequently extends small grants ($200,000 and less) for the acquisition and development of comparable and smaller open space/recreational parcels. 7: The neighborhood has worked in good faith with WHDC throughout a long and sometimes contentious process. Neighborhood representatives have identified significant financial resources that could mitigate the cost to preserve a significant (i.e. one acre plus) parcel of open space devoted to recreational purposes. 8: The Washington School neighborhood has been adversely affected and been required to spend considerable time and effort to secure any neighborhood benefit from a flawed disposition of property by both the Boulder Valley School District and the City of Boulder. Both entities bear responsibility for failing to adequately address the legitimate interests of Boulder citizens with a stake in the acquisition and use of public property for public benefit. The OSWG also examined a number of other resources available to fund open space, including the use of various types of special tax districts. While we rejected"special improvement districts" funded by an increase in taxes for all residents of an affected area, we do recommend closer examination of a "Tax Allocation District". This is a generic term for various instruments in which a portion of the additional revenue resulting from the increased property value of new construction is dedicated to specific public improvements within the taxing district - in this case acquiring open space from WHDC for the purpose of preserving recreational open space at the Washington School site. Since there will be a substantial increase in property tax revenue once the Washington School site is developed, it seems reasonable that a portion of these increased revenues should pay to preserve a neighborhood asset without increasing current tax burdens on neighborhood residents. Additionally, if the current "de-Brucing" ballot initiative passes, we understand that some of the additional funds from that could be allocated to city parks preservation. The neighborhood has performed considerable analysis of park service levels and equity and has developed a strong case that the Washington School neighborhood deserves a high priority for any additional funding allocated to parks. Conclusions: The preservation of viable park and open space resources is a value shared by all of Boulder, and one which has garnered tens of millions in public funding support for nearly half a century. The prevailing sentiment within the Washington School neighborhood is that it's appropriate and Submitted by OSWG Washington School Neighbors, October 17, 2008 tr, 35 even essential for Council to reconsider whether city funding for open space at Washington School should remain off the table. In light of what we now know, allowing that position to stand virtually guarantees the permanent loss of a functioning park which would create a severe recreation and open space deficiency here when compared to nearly every other residential area in the City. However, it must be noted that involved neighbors are highly concerned that a reversal on the city funding question could be construed as undeserved public financial assistance for WHDC, particularly in light of the high retail price the developer has set for purchasing additional land for park expansion. Some neighbors have drawn a bright line declaring that any city funding constitutes a "bailout" and a further stain on the flawed process that led to choosing WHDC as developer for the site. Had such assistance been extended earlier in the process, the equation regarding financial viability and neighborhood palatability of all competing proposals would have changed dramatically, and it's unlikely we would have ended up where we are today. Still, we are where we are, and most of us believe that a compromise solution is within reach. It requires pooling together conservation easement tax credits, federal tax deductions, GOCO grants, and funds from a potential Tax Allocation District with a city contribution that is reasonably small and justified by the need to reprioritize available park and open space funds so that these resources are equitably distributed throughout the city. Of course, a comprehensive solution like this requires willing participants on all sides, and we are still hopeful that can be arranged. Recommendation: The neighborhood is concluding the Open Space Working Group process with the observations and recommendations set forth above in the spirit of seeking city support to heap protect our neighborhood from adverse impacts created by the development proposal to all but eliminate our neighborhood's only park. We believe that innovative opportunities exist for our political leaders to uphold citizens' interests in preserving the Washington School playground as an historic citywide resource. Respectfully submitted: Geof Cahoon, Co-chair, Open Space Working Group, Member, Washington School Neighborhood Association Submitted by OSWG Washington School Neighbors, October 17, 2008 Goals The Open Space Working Group met on three separate occasions, with an overall intention to accomplish the following three goals. 1) ldentify options that could establish the financial viability for a publically accessible open space at Washington Village. 2) Identify the questions that need to be answered in order to evaluate the viability of the options listed in step #1. 3) Find answers to the questions identified in step #2, to the degree possible. Findings 1. Consistent with the revised site plan that was submitted on September 12, 2008, Wonderland will offer to donate a contiguous area of nearly 1/3 of an acre of open space, at the southeast corner of the site, to the City of Boulder, to own and manage as a park. If the city does not accept this donation, the 1/3 acre will become privately owned and managed open space with no guarantee of public accessibility. 2. Wonderland acknowledges that members of the neighborhood that have participated in the OSWG process have requested that the Washington Village site include more than 1/3 acre of open space. At the outset of the OSWG process, neighborhood representatives stated that they were not willing to accept anything less than the entire east side of the site as pub{ically accessible open space. Subsequent positions included expanding the planned 1/3 acre of open space by removing one or two of the planned single family homes and/or seeking approval from the city to move the zoning line east to the edge of the existing grass of the former school yard. 3. Due to the financial model used for the project, which includes higher rates of return on the single family homes on the east side of the site relative to the mufti-family units on the west side of the site, the cost of east side of site to WHDC is $554,000+/home @ total cost of $3.3 million. The cost will increase over time due to additional development costs. 4. Wonderland acknowledges that a number of scenarios including conservation easement tax credits, federal tax credits for land donation, use of GOCO funds, and participation by the City of Boulder have been discussed in recent OSWG meetings. Wonder?and has independently examined these scenarios and has not identified a feasible solution that fully accommodates the neighbor requests as voiced in the OSWG meetings and as stated above in outcome #2. Submitted by John P. Engel of Wonderland Hill Development Company, 10/17/2008 - 37 - ~ 5. Wonderland's research on these scenarios includes multiple phone consultations with Ariel Steele, of Tax Credit Connection, who advised that WHDC first secure entitlement for the project, and then attempt to pursue any feasible scenarios that include conservation easement tax credits and federal tax land donation benefits, so as to ensure that actual or perceived quid pro quo arrangements for securing project approval in exchange for open space finance arrangements do not exist. 6. Wonderland also consulted Kathleen Stales, of LOCO, wha reported that the east side of the site is a relatively small parcel of land compared to the typical parcels addressed by GOCO programs and that both the size and urban nature of the land make this a relatively low priority in a rather competitive funding pool. 7. Additionally, Janis Whisman, of Boulder County, indicated in a phone message that this issue is a better fit with city open space program than with county open space. 8. Last, Ann Goodhart, of the City of Boulder, indicated, during a phone conversation, that this issue does not seem like a good fit for the city open space conservation easement program. Closing Wonderland remains open to the possibility of more than 1/3 acre of publically accessible open space on the Washington Village site. For this possibility to become a reality, sources other than Wonderland, or the future residents of Washington Village, will need to off-set the cost associated with such an expansion of open space (as noted above in Finding #3). Submitted by John P. Engel of Wonderland Hill Development Company, 10/17/2008 ~ - ATTACHMENT B Washington Village ®pen Space Working Group Summary of Findings as of September 4, 2008 Submitted by John P. Engel of Wonderland Hill Development Company Givens identified at OSWG meeting on 8/21/08 • WHDC is prepared to donate a I/3 acre section of land, at the SE corner of the site, to the city to be used as park space. If the city does not accept this donation, the 1/3 acre will become privately owned and managed open space with no guarantee of public accessibility. • Neighbors want entire east side of site a park space that is publically accessible. • Cost of east side of site to WHDC is $550,000+/home @ total cost of $3.3 million. The cost will increase over time due to additional costs. Information collected since 8/21./08 meeting • A conservation easement might be possible for purposes of a recreational park on the east side of the Washington Village site. • Janis Whisman of Boulder County indicated in a phone message that this issue is a better fit with city open space than with county open space. • Ann Goodh~u-t of the City of Boulder indicated during a phone conversation that this issue does not seem like a good fit for the city open space conservation easement program. • WHDC is not interested in a scenario in which the Washington Village HOA owns and managers the east side of the site as a conservation easement, which means that a third party, such as the city, would need to own the portion of land that is designated as a conservation easement. • While WIIDC could build eight homes on the east side of the site, the new site plan calls for only six homes in order to accommodate the Recommendation Group Guiding Principles that request minimizing development in the RL-1 zone. • The maximum conservation easement tax credits available to WHDC would be $375,000 and would be less than this amount if the tax credits were sold to investors at 80 cents on the dollar. • WI-IDC does not anticipate realizing the level of profit that would allow us to make this level of donation. In addition, it is questionable whether or not WHDC would experience any or any significant federal tax benefit from donating land on the east side of the site to the city. First, according to multiple sources, if WHDC were to donate land to the city with a real or perceived quid pro quo that donation of the land will result in political approval of the site plan, the Federal government would likely deem the transaction as not meeting the criteria of a charitable donation. Second, according to Ariel Steele of Tax Credit Connection, the "Dealer Rule" would likely apply in this case whereby the donation value of the land for a real estate developer (i.e., WHDC) would likely be a fraction of the full value. While this value is not currently known it would certainly not sufficiently close the financing gap to reach the $3.3 million dollar cost of the land. (over} Sources consulted: Ariel Steele, Tax Credit Connection; Kathleen Staks, GOCO; and Ann Goodhart, Director of Real Estate Services, OSMP, City of Boulder; Janis Whisman, Conservation Easement Manager, Boulder County Washington Village open Space Working Group Summary of Findings as of September 4, 2,008 Submitted by John P. Engel of Wonderland Hill Development Company • As such, Ariel Steele of Tax Credit Connection advises that WHDC first secure entitlement for the project, and then attempt to pursue any feasible scenarios that include conservation easement tax credits and donation values. e Kathleen Staks, of GOCO, reported that, in general, the east side of the site is a relatively small parcel of land compared to the typical parcels addressed by GOCO programs. ® One GOCO program is targeted to local governments and could include a recreational park area, in which case the city would need to be the applicant for the funds, which are capped at $200,000. ® However, funding is very competitive for GOCO funds, in general, and the parcel of land on the Washington site may not be viewed as a strong competitor since it is such a small parcel of land. Sources consulted: Ariel Steele, Tax Credit Connection; Kathleen Staks, LOCO; and Ann Goodhart, Director of Real Estate Services, OSMP, City of Boulder; Janis Whisman, Conservation Easement Manager, Boulder County n l ATTACHMENT C Recently, city council received a report from the Washington School Open Space Working Group (OSWG) that I believe requires some clarification. Earlier this year, council appointed a Recommendation Group (RG) and assigned. it the task of working with the community and Wonderland Hill Development Company to engage in a process that would "be used to inform any re-submittal to the city of a proposal for the Washington School site toward the goal of developing a plan for the site that has broader community support than the previous proposal." The RG group process ended on May 28, 2008 with the completion of their final report. The report indicated that neighbors would work to find opportunities for funding additional open space and then meet with Wonderland Hill to share them. After completion of the RG process, several Washington School Neighborhood Association members worked separately with Wonderland Hill to form the OSWG as a follow-up to, but a separate process from, the work of the RG. To help the OSWG along, the city provided the services of a facilitator but otherwise remained fairly removed from the actual process. The OSWG was co-chaired by a member of the neighborhood association and a representative of Wonderland Hill. The letter you received might be best described as a letter or report from the neighbors on the OS WG, rather than a report of the group. Having purchased the property, Wonderland I-Iill recently submitted a revised site plan that is currently under consideration by the city and available for review on the Washington School web page. A number of significant changes were made to the previous proposal including a significant decrease in density, reduced building scale to improve solar access, opening of view corridors and. access through the site, and the inclusion of cone-third acre open area intended for public use. These and other changes are in line with the RG guiding principles for a revised site design as presented in their final report. Agenda Item # 5A Pa~c # ~0 ATTACHMENT D SITE REVIEW No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that: ~1) Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan: (A) The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The Washington Village project has been found to be compatible with the policies of the comprehensive plan, including but not limited to, policies related to compact Land use pattern, inf 11 development, mixed-use, affordable housing, mixture of housing types, historic preservation, and sensitive infill and development. (B} The proposed development shall not exceed the maximum density associated with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation. Additionally, if the density of existing residential development within a three hundred-foot area surrounding the site is at or exceeds the density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, then the maximum density permitted on the site shall not exceed the lesser of: (i) The density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or, The density permitted in the BVCP for the western portion of the site is 14 units or greater. The subject project would be approximately 15.8 dwelling units per acre on that side, which is just above the expected density. The applicant has requested additional density pursuant to Section 9-8-3(d), B.R.C. 1981. Based on the ability of the project to meet the other aspects of these criteria, the amount of density is appropriate on the Broadway multi-modal corridor. On the eastern portion where low density residential development is intended, the density would be approximately 4.6 dwelling units per acre, which is within the 2 to 6 units per acre range for Low Density Residential. _(ii) The maximum number of units that could be placed on the site without waiving or varying any of the requirements of Chapter 9-8, ")intensity Standards," B.R.C. 1981. ~ (C) The proposed development's success in meeting the broad range of BVCP policies considers the economic feasibility of implementation technques require to meet other site review criteria. The development would not be rendered. infeasible in meeting the BVCP policies or the Site Review criteria. (2) Site Design: Projects should preserve and enhance the community's unique sense of place through creative design that respects historic character, relationship to the natural environment, and its physical setting. Projects should utilize site design techniques which enhance the quality of the project. In determining whether this Subsection is met, the approving agency will consider the following factors: Agenda Item # 5A Paae # ~a2- ~ (A) Open Space: Open space, including, without limitation, parks, recreation areas, and playgrounds: X (i) Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional; The project provides nearly three times the amount of open space as required (i.e., 59% where 20% required) on the ItH-2 portion. In addition, 23% of the I2T -1 portion is allocated as an open space proposed to be donated to the city as a pocket park at the corner of Cedar Avenue and 13`'' Street. The space is set aside as a result of community requests for a publicly accessible open space similar to the function it now serves. Acceptance of the space for a park continues to be under consideration by the city. Nevertheless, all of the open spaces on the property would be accessible for the purposes of this criterion, which does not require that all private projects provide publicly accessible open space; public accessibility of the southeastern open space will depend upon whether it is accepted by the city and if not, if the applicant is able to secure adequate liability to open the space to the greater public. Given the community's focus on having more open space on the RL-1 portion of the site, the functionality of the space has been a principal concern given that a sizable portion of the space is for a water quality facility. The detention area, which covers approximately 20% of the open space, is generally shallow; however, the slopes (1 S%-25%) around its perimeter., its 3 to 3.5 foot depth, and the moistness of the space during rainy times of year would negatively affect its functionality. The city would have sigiuhcant concerns with accepting ownership of a private detention and stonnwater facility including potential liability for associated pollutants. Therefore, to best set the space up as a feasible park, and generally, to create a functional open space serving either residents of the development and the greater communty, its use for stonnwater management is not found within the intent of this criterion. To meet the intent of this criterion, a condition of approval requiring the removal of the detention area entirely from the southeastern open space to either elsewhere on the site (e.g., a single family building site, south carriage house etc.) or its removal and replacement by means of retaining drainage that would not l,~reatly impact site design has been proposed. (ii} Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit; With the exception of several units proposed within the historic school building, most units, attached and detached, would have private open space, which exceeds the intent of the criterion and the requirements of the RH-2 zone. This requirement does not require private open space for attached units, nevertheless, most attached units would have the benefit of private open space and those that do not, would benefit from the ample common open space provided on the site. (iii) The project provides for the preservation of or mitigation of adverse impacts to natural features, including, without limitation, healthy long-lived trees, significant plant communities, ground and surface water, wetlands, riparian areas, drainage areas, and species on the federal Endangered Species List, "Species of Agenda Item # SA Page # y3 Special Concern in Boulder County" designated by Boulder County, or prairie dogs (Cynomys ludiovicianus) which is a species of local concern, and their habitat; There are no significant plant communities, wetland or riparian areas that are of envirorunental concern on the property. There are, however, a good number of mature trees. A previously recorded covenant has required the preservation of matures within 50 feet of 13th Street right-of--way on the east side of the site. The applicant has submitted a tree preservation plan and a report from an arborist assessing the health of all trees. The plan has been reviewed by the city and has been found to be accurate and appropriate in its depiction of trees that are proposed for preservation. For instance, large trees are proposed in the southeastern green space area, along the north property line (those that are healthy), a Maple tree in the courtyard space, and in the southwestern view shed area. To avoid the removal of trees along the north lot line of the development, a condition of approval requires the relocation of a proposed water main into the Cedar Avenue right-of- way. (iv) The open space. provides a relief to the density, both within the project and from surrounding development; Aside from the Broadway Building's closer location to Broadway where relief to density is provided in the articulated building (as discussed in Section 9-2-14(h)(Z)(F)(i), T3. R.C. 1981 below) more than in open space, the perimeter of the site on the majority of all other sides would have Landscaped setbacks that would exceed code requirements providing a relief from the density to surrounding development. Further, the proposed southeastern open space would also provide such relief to the neighborhood. Within the development, landscape pathways, greenspace in front of the school, and the interior courtyard would provide appropriate relief to the density. One area along the perimeter that does not appear to be appropriately buffered to surrounding development is the location of the access drive along the existing fence line between the three single-family homes locations to the existing single family home to the _ north. Although the drive increases the level of separation between the buildings in that area than what could occur, the impacts of vehicular noise and activity along the lot line would not be appropriate relief. A condition of approval has been proposed that would require a minimum landscape buffer of no less than 5 feet from the existing fence line to be appropriately planted with bushes and trees to increase compatibility between the properties. Further, a wood fence would be required to replace the existing chain link fence in that location providing additional screening above the new landscape strip and existing vegetation. Tlus condition would not permit the building sites from reducing the size of the proposed southeastern open space. (v) Open space designed for active recreational purposes is of a size that it will be functionally useable and located in a safe and convenient proxinuty to the uses to which it is meant to serve; Most of the spaces far open space are located in close proximity to residential uses and thus, are of a more passive character. However, the 0.3 acre green space located in the site's southwest comer would be of adequate size to accommodate more active / t Agenda Item # SA Page # y7 recreational uses. Removal of the stormwater facilities on the green space have been required to make the space functionally useable consistent with this criterion. ~ (vi) The open space provides a buffer to protect sensitive environmental features and natural areas; and The site is an infill site where there are no sensitive natural areas are to be buffered.. (vii} If possible, open space is linked to an area- or city-wide system. The site is located in a developed location where connections to the sidewalk system are provided along the perimeter of the development. Community Park, three blocks to the west, is easily accessed by walking or biking. (B) Open Space in Mixed Use Developments (Developments that contain a ntix of residential and non-residential uses) ~ (i} The open space provides far a balance of private and shared areas for the residential uses and common open space that is available for use by both the residential and non-residential uses that will meet the needs of the anticipated residents, occupants, tenants, and visitors of the property; and Most residential units have private open space for their use. A majority of the development, as a mixed-use co-housing development, contains ample open space for use of the residents and the greater neighborhood. This results in an appropriate balance for residents and visitors to the property. (ii)1`he open space provides active areas and passive areas that will meet the needs of the anticipated residents, occupants, tenants, and visitors of the property and are compatible with the surrounding area or an adopted plan for the area. As noted above, the project is an infill project that is mostly residential. The project provides more open space than is required and has a greater diversity of private and shared areas than typical projects. However, in line with the discussion in (A)(iii) above, this criterion requires active open spaces open to anticipated residents, occupants, tenants, and visitors of the property. The elimination of the drainage detention area would increase the functionality of the space for more active recreational purposes like small scale football and/or Frisbee and would enable the project to have an appropriate balance of passive and active recreational spaces. (C) Landscaping ~ (i) The project provides for aesthetic enhancement and a variety of plant and hard surface materials, and the selection of materials provides for a variety of colors and contrasts and the preservation or use of local native vegetation where appropriate; Agenda Item # SA Page # ys The project includes a large assortment of plantings filling landscape areas, as well as green spaces and haxd surface areas that will be attractive and inviting to residents and visitors. ~ (ii) Landscape design attempts to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to important native species, plant communities of special concern, threatened and endangered species and habitat by integrating the existing natural environment into the project; The project has historically been used as a school and thus, its development is infill and would not impact any native flora or faw~a. ~ (iii) The project provides significant amounts of plant material sized in excess of the landscaping requirements of Section 9-9-10, "Landscaping and Screening Standards" and Section 9-9-11, "Streetscape Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981; and With the ample amount of open space and variety of plants, the project would exceed the standards of the landscaping regulations. (iv) The setbacks, yards, and useable open space along public rights-of--way are landscaped to provide attractive streetscapes, to enhance architectural features, and to contribute to the development of an attractive site plan. All three streetscapes of the property would include landscaping and tree plantings that would improve the attractiveness of the site plan. The applicant has agreed to move utilities along Broadway to allow for the installation of street trees per City requirements. New street trees are proposed and several street trees are proposed to remain along both Broadway and Cedar, which will contribute to an attractive streetscape. (D) Circulation: Circulation, including, without limitation, the transportation system that serves the property, whether public or private and whether constructed by the developer or not: (i) High speeds are discouraged or a physical separation between streets and the project is provided; The site is primarily accessed by a shared access drive and a vehicular entry to the Broadway Building. The access drive is narrow (roughly 24 feet wide), lined by garages and residences, crossed by pedestrian crosswalks, and takes a 40 degree turn, and furthermore, the vehicular entry to the Broadway Building is interrupted by a landscape island -all of these aspects discourage high speed travel. ~ (ii) Potential conflicts with vehicles are minimized; The site would be served by three access points which channel vehicles into the site and off of the street system. All single-family residences would be rear loaded and thus, the need for driveways for each unit is eliminated, which reduce potential conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. Based nn the designed pathway system within the project, it is Agenda Item # SA Page # possible to cross through the entire site with only one interface between sidewalks and the proposed shared access drive. The basic site design adequately reduces potential conflict with vehicles. (iii) Safe and convenient connections accessible to the public within the project and between the project and existing and proposed transportation systems are provided, including, without limitation, streets, bike~cvays, pedestrianways and trails; The project has various pedestrian access points that connect to the existing sidewalk system. The project is also conveniently located adjacent to an established bike route on 13`h Street. (iv) Alternatives to the automobile are promoted by incorporating site design techniques, land use patterns, and supporting infrastructure that supports and encourages walking, biking, and other alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle; The co-housing nature of the project is expected to generate less traffic. Beyond that aspect, the projcct has bicycle parking to encourage use of the bike (considering the nearby bike route). Further, a new bus stop will be provided along Broadway encouraging convenient transit usage. ~ (v) Where practical and beneficial, a significant shift away from single-occupant vehicle use to alternate modes is promoted through the use of travel demand management techniques; The applicant has agreed to implement TDM strategies to minimize the necessity of automobile use within the development. Such strategies are provided bicycle parking in excess of requirements and participation a vehicle sharing program among other incentives to encourage residents to not own vehicles. ~ (vi) On-site facilities for external linkage are provided with other modes of transportation, where applicable; As noted above, the applicant has provided adequate bike storage and a new bus stop to encourage alternative modes of travel. ~ (vii) The amount of land devoted to the street system is minimized; and The site is accessed by one shared access drive and one car entry point to the Broadway Building leaving most of the site allocated. to buildings and open space. A majority of parking is subterranean. ~ (viii) Tlae project is designed for the types of traffic expected, including, without limitation, automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians, and provides safety, separation from living areas, and control of noise and exhaust. Agenda Item # SA Pa~c # y~ Automobile areas are confined to the access to the Broadway Building and the shared access drive. Otherwise, the majority of the site contains pedestrian paths and living areas, which are appropriately separated from the externalities of automobiles. ~ (E) Parking (i} The project incorporates into the design of parking areas measures to provide safety, convenience, and separation of pedestrian movements from vehicular movements; The parking areas provided in the development are linear in nature, which minimize the amount pedestrians must interface with automobiles. Where there is interaction, raised crosswalks and convenient access to stairways are provided.. ~ (ii) The design of parking areas makes efficient use of the land and uses the minimum amount of land necessary to meet the parking needs of the project; Most of the parking areas are proposed in subterranean parking garages under the Broadway Building and in garages under the carriage houses and duplexes. With only five surface parking spaces (potentially 8 per condition}, the visual impact and areas dedicated to parking would be minimal. (iii) Parking areas. and lighting are designed to reduce the visual impact on the project, adjacent properties, and adjacent streets; and As noted above; most of the parking areas are subtexranean and would not significantly affect the aesthetics of the site. Lighting would be internal, also minimizing any externalities of parking areas. (iv) Parking areas utilize landscaping materials to provide shade in excess of the requirements in Subsection 9-9-6(d), "Parking Area Design Standards," and Section 9-9-12, "Parking Lot Landscaping Standards," B.R.C. 1.981. Most parking is within buildings; however, the vehicle turnaround and drop off area in the southwest comer of the site would be the most visible area of vehicular activity. The applicant has proposed ample landscaping, including a xaised planter, in that area to minimize any adverse aesthetic effects. Building Design, Livability, and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed Surrounding Area (i) The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration are compatible with the existing character of the area or the character established by an adopted plan for the area; Agenda Item # 5A Page # 70 This criterion is met as follows: • The height of the majority of the proposed buildings on the site would conform to the 35-foot height limitation for the RH-2 and RL-1 districts. In fact, most of the multi-family buildings would not exceed 30 feet. The Broadway Building, however, is proposed at 46 feet. This is discussed in subsection (ii) below. • The mass of the interior buildings would be appropriate, since they are all well articulated and would not appear imposing, since most are only two stories and those over two stories are of similar stature to large single family homes, which exist in the neighborhood. • Aside from the historic school, the Broadway Building would be the most massive on the site. Its size would be noticeable by virtue of its length along Broadway at l 94 feet. This compares to a roughly 170 foot length of the Broadway Brownstones project to the south. The length is not considered inappropriate, since it is mostly two story massing along the streetseape with relief provided by upper floor setbacks. Where the first story is at 17 feet at its closest point to the Broadway lot line (this correlates to setbacks of buildings across the street), the second story would be set back 22 feet (which matches the setbacks of the Broadway Brownstones one block down) and the third floor would be set back 34 feet, which is 9 feet more than the required setback on that side. The entire length of the building is well articulated and will not present any more mass than the Broadway Brownstones building along Broadway. Concentrating massing along Broadway is considered a more practical way of accommodating the density on the site, as the alternative could present heater impacts to the single-family neighborhood on the project's east side. • The orientation and configuration of buildings on the site are found compatible, in that aI1 would orient to the three streetscapes (a condition is proposed that would require this) and the configuration of the buildings are appropriate to the different contexts on each side of the site. For example, buildings on the RH-2 side have largex footprints similar to other multi-family projects along the high density residential Broadway corridor, whereas moving eastward on the sites, the form and footprints of buildings decrease to match the RL-1 single-family character on the east side. (ii) The height of buildings is in general proportion to the height of existing buildings and the proposed or projected heights of approved buildings or approved plans for the immediate area; The heights of the interior buildings, as noted above, have been found appropriate for the site. The focus of this analysis is on the Broadway Building where a 46-foot height is proposed where 35-feet is the code standard. The criterion is only met by way of , condition, as discussed below: • The proposed building height would be comparable to the height of the school building, although proportionally it would not correlate to the bulk of other structures in the area that generally conform to the 35-foot height limit. An obvious exception is the Broadway Brownstone's building, which is at 41-feet per code, but is closer to 35- feet from grade. The BHP building to the north was also approved at 4l feet. Agenda Item # SA Paae # 7 • The school building's apparent height is lessened ~y the fact that the building is a larger distance from the street. On the contrary, the Broadway Building at a comparable height would present more impact -especially, when visualizing such a height from across Broadway or traveling along Broadway. • These aspects could result in the building appearing out of character with the neighborhood and also, could compete with the desired stature of the school. • Proportionally, the building at a lesser height would appear more appropriately scaled to the school and surrounding neighborhood. A condition of approval has been added permitting a building of 41 feet maximum, given the height would be consistent with the height of Broadway Brownstones and the BHP building and total height from grade being closer to 35-feet than proposed. ~ (iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent properties; • Although there are views of the Flatirons and mountains from the site, they are considered marginal and not significant. Most views are block by existing foliage. If the marginal views were considered of significant value, it would necessitate a severe restriction on building locations on the site -especially portions designated for high density residential. Nevertheless, some views of the mountains to the west would be preserved, since the lowest portions of the Broadway Building roof would not block the views. Therefore, minimization of view blockage from the site is considered appropriate for the context of the project. • The RH-2 portion of the project is subject to the Solar Access area lT standards which do not permit buildings to cast a shadow greater than what a 25-foot fence along the property tines would. The applicant has located the buildings more than double (in some cases over triple) the required distance from the north property line in order to leave the buildings not exceed a 12-foot solar fence, which is applied to single family neighborhoods. Sunlight during the day of the lowest sun angle (Dec. 21s`} would still be able to reach into dwelling units (i.e., Red Arrow Townhomes) at noon north of the property line. This is a significant minimization of shadowing beyond what the code allows. (iv) If the character of the area is identifiable, the project is made compatible by the appropriate use of color, materials, landscaping, signs, and lighting; Ta match context, the project must be found compatible with the general character of the neighborhood, as well as the historic school. The historic school is an iconic building, whereas away from Broadway, most of the neighborhood is of asingle-family character that contains a variety of architectural styles from the early 1900s up to more current neo- traditional designs. The project is found compatible as follows: • Most buildings on the site incorporate similar brickwork as the school and similar window and roof designs to match that of the school. However, no incorporation of the school design aspects reaches the level of imitation, which is not preferred. • The proposed colors are subdued and generally, earth tone and would not compete with the school and/or look out of character with the neighborhood.. Agenda Item # _5A Pale # J~D • The proposed designs for the single-family homes, as ascertained from the . applicant's submitted design guidelines and pictures of example homes, is an appropriate design direction with the use of gable roofs, clapboard siding, brick and stone work, front porches, and generally craftsman type and turn of the century designs that would be compatible with the neighborhood. A 'T'echnical Documents application will be required, by condition, for planning staff to review the buildings for architectural compatibility with the neighborhood based on this desigm direction. Homes sizes would also be limited by condition to ensure scale compatibility. (v) Buildings present an attractive streetscape, incorporate architectural and site design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale, and provide for the safety and convenience of pedestrians; • The Broadway Building is designed with notable pedestrian interest with the building situated closer to the street as in similar urban situations, ample fenestration along the street and on upper floors, interesting articulation and wall details, and a large porch entryway to the Broadway Building in the center part of its frontage. The emphasis of two-story massing of the building along Broadway would also be appropriate to the pedestrian scale. This area is also proposed to be well landscaped. • Visual interest along Cedar Avenue would be provided by the southwest viewshed and open space in front of the school where Landscaping and preserved trees would be within the space. Aside from the entryway into the Broadway Building, the entirety o1'the Cedar Avenue frontage would be landscaped open space. A condition of approval has been added to require revisions to the west elevation of the carriage building, in order to improve the appearance of that side consistent with this criterion. • Similarly a condition of approval would require single family buildings to present attractive street faces along 13`h and onto the proposed greenspace consistent with this criterion. The 13`" Street streetscape is, otherwise, found consistent with this criterion with the preserved greenspace. (vi) To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned public facilities; Following the public process and review of this project, the applicant has provided a 13, l 60 square foot open space area intended to be a pocket park. It is proposed for donation to the city. ~ (vii) For residential projects, the project assists the community in producing a variety of housing types, such as multi-family, townhouses, and detached single- family units as well as mixed lot sizes, number of bedrooms, and sizes of units; The project provides a range of smaller one-bedroom affordable units up to larger market- rate units of two or three bedrooms, as well as single-family residences. (viii} For residential projects, noise is minimized between units, between Agenda Iten~? # SA Page # ~l buildings, and from either on-site or off-site external sources through spacing, landscaping, and building materials; The Broadway Building serves as the largest buffer of noise, by blocking vehicular traffic noise from Broadway and created a more sedate internal open space framed by the interior buildings. The duplexes and carriage houses would serve as buffers fxom interior automotive noise. The construction of the on-site buildings would otherwise follow standard building code practices for_minimizing noise between units. (ix) A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation, safety, and aesthetics; Lighting is required to be evaluated in detail at the Technical Documents stage. (x) The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids, minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems; See below. (xi) Cut and fill are minimized on the site, the design of buildings conforms to the natural contours of the land, and the site design minimizes erosion, slope instability, landslide, mudflow or subsidence, and minimizes the potential threat to property caused by geological hazards. The project is on a largely level site, but does require some grading to level out intended open spaces and to create the subterranean parking underneath the Broadway Building. Some contouring is necessary to facilitate appropriate drainage, but is not excessive, nor would it create any impact to natural systems or create any potential geological threat. (G) Solar Siting and Construction: For the purpose of ensuring the maximum potential for utilization of solar energy in the city, all applicants for residential site reviews shall place streets, lots, open spaces, and buildings so as to maximize the potential for the use of solar energy in accordance with the following solar siting criteria: ~ (i) Placement of Open Space and Streets: Open space areas are located wherever practical to protect buildings from shading by other buildings within the development or from buildings on adjacent properties. Topography and other natural features and constraints may justify deviations from this criterion. The applicant has been working on an optimal layout of buildings considering the location of the existing school, where higher densities are intended, anii the required viewshed of no development in the site's southwest corner. Under these conditions, the applicant has positioned the buildings such that shadowing of the on-site open space and onto properties to the north would occur. Nevertheless, the project would conform to the solar regulations and considering the applicant's attempts at minimizing impact on solar access to the north and the above mentioned constraining factors, the placement of open space is corLSidered the most practical. Agenda Item # SA Pale # 5~' (ii) Lot Layout and Building Siting: Lots are oriented and buildings are sited in a way which maximizes the solar potential of each principal building. Lots are designed to facilitate siting a structure which is unshaded by other nearby structures. Wherever practical, buildings are sited close to the north lot line to increase yard space to the south for better owner control of shading. As stated above, builduigs are sited in a practical way to deal with a number of constraints on the site, as well as considering these criteria. Buildings are located to the north as much as possible to increase yard space to the south while also ensuring a minimal shadowing impact to Red Arrow Townhomes. Nevertheless, it is expected that some shading from. the historic school upon the north building and courtyard would occur during winter months, but not to an extent found unacceptable. Other buildings on the site, otherwise, are sited such that shading from historic school would not preclude the use of solar systems. (iii) Building Form: The shapes of buildings are designed to maxinuze utilization of solar energy. Buildings shall meet the solar access protection and solar siting reyuirements of Section 9-9-1'1, "Solar Access," I;.R.C.1981. Buildings on the site range from gable roofed structures to flat roof structures. Those with flat roofs would be conducive to solar systems being installed. ~ (iv) Landscaping: The shading effects of proposed landscaping'on adjacent buildings are minimized. Most of the mature trees on the site on concentrated along the south lot line and furthest from the majority of new buildings on the site. N/A (I-I) Additional Criteria for Poles above the Permitted Height: No site review application for a pole above the permitted height will be approved unless the approving agency finds all of the following: Not applicable to this project. N/A (i) The light pole is required for nighttime recreation activities, which are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, or the light or traffic signal pole is required for safety, or the electrical utility pole is required to serve the needs of the city; and N/A (ii) The pole is at the minimum height appropriate to accomplish the purposes for which the pole was erected and is designed and constructed so as to minimize light and electromagnetic pollution. N/A (I) Land Use Intensity Modifications Not applicable and not requested. N/A (i) Potential Land Use Intensity Modifications: Agenda Item # 5A Page # ~3 (a) The density of a project may be increased in the BR-1 district through a reduction of the lot area requirement or in the Downtown (DT), BR-2, or MU-3 districts through a reduction in the open space requirements. (b) The open space requirements in al! Downtown (DT) districts may be reduced by up to one hundred percent. (c) The open space per lot requirements for the total amount of open space required on the lot in the BR-2 district may be reduced by up to fifty percent. (d) Land use intensity may be increased up to 25 percent in the BR-1 district through a reduction of the lot area requirement. N/A (ii}Additional Criteria for Land Use Intensity Modifications: A land use intensity increase will be permitted up to the maximum amount set forth below if the approving agency finds that the criteria in Subsection (h) "Criteria for Review" of this Section and following criteria have been met: (a) Open Space Needs Met: The needs of the project's occupants and visitors for high quality and functional useable open space can be met adequately; {b) Character of Project and Area: The open space reduction does not adversely affect the character of the development nor the character of the surrounding area; and (c) Open .Space and Lot Area Reductions: 'I he specific percentage reduction in open space or lot area requested by the applicant is justi#ied by any one or combination of the following site design features not to exceed the maximum reduction set forth above: (i) Close proximity to a public mall or park for which the development is specially assessed or to which the project contributes funding of capital improvements beyond that required by the parks and recreation component of the development excise tax set forth in Chapter 3-8, "Development Excise Tax," B.I2.C. 1.981: maximum one hundred percent reduction in all Downtown (D'I') districts and ten percent in the BR-1 district; (ii) Architectural treatment that results in reducing the apparent bulk and mass of the structure or structures and site planning which increases the openness of the site: maximum five percent reduction; (iii) A common park, recreation, or playground area functionally useable and accessible by the development's occupants far active recreational purposes and sized for the number of inhabitants of the development, maximum five percent reduction; or developed facilities within the project designed to meet the active recreational needs of th~,e/ Agenda Item # SA Page # occupants: maximum five percent reduction; (iv) Permanent dedication of the development to use by a unique residential population whose needs for conventional open space are reduced: maximum five percent reduction; (v) The reduction in open space is part of a development with a mix of residential and non-residential uses within an BR-2 zoning district that, due to the ratio of residential to non-residential uses and because of the size, type, and mix of dwelling units, the need for open space is reduced: maximum reduction fifteen percent; and (vi) The reduction in open space is part of a development with a mix of residential and non-residential uses within an BR 2 zoning district that provides high quality urban design elements that will meet the needs of anticipated residents, occupants, tenants, and visitors of the property or will accommodate public gatherings, important activities, or events in the life of the community and its people, that may include, without limitation, recreational or cultural amenities, intimate spaces that foster social interaction, street furniture, landscaping, and hard surface treatments for the open space: maximum reduction ZS percent. N/A (J) Additional Criteria for Floor Area Ratio Increase fot• Buildings in the BR-I District Not applicable and not requested. N/A (i) Process: For buildings in the BR-1 district, the floor area ratio ("FAR") permitted under Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be increased by the city manager under the criteria set forth in this Subsection. N/A (ii) Maximum FAR Increase: The maximum FAR increase allowed for buildings thirty-five feet and over in height in the BR-1 district shall be from 2:1 to 4:1. N/A (iii) Criteria for the BR-1 District: The FAR may be increased in the BR-2 district to the extent allowed in paragraph (ii) of this Subsection if the approving agency finds that the following criteria are met: (a) Site and building design provide open space exceeding the required useable open space by at Ieast ten percent: an increase in FAR not to exceed 0.25:1. (b) Site and building design provide private outdoor space for each office unit equal to at least ten percent of the lot area for buildings 25 feet and under and at least 20 percent of the lot area for buildings above 2S feet: an increase in FAR not to exceed 0.25:1. Agenda Item # SA Pale # (c) Site and building design provide a street front facade and an alley facade at a pedestrian scale, including, without limitation, features such as awnings and windows, well-defined building entrances, and other building details: an increase in FAR not to exceed 0.25:1. (d) For a building containing residential and non-residential uses in which neither use comprises less than 25 percent of the total square footage: an increase in FAR not to exceed 1:1. (e) The unused portion of the allowed FAR of historic buildings designated as landmarks under Chapter 9-11, "Historic Preservation," B.R.C. 1981, may be transferred to other sites in the same zoning district. However, the increase in FAR of a proposed building to which FAR is transferred under this paragraph may not exceed an increase of 0.5:1. (f) For a building which provides one full level of parking below grade, an increase in FAR not to exceed 0.5:1 may be granted. ~ (K) additional Criteria for Pat•kirzg Reductions: The off-street parking requirements of Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be modified as follows: ~ (i) Pz•ocess: The city manager may grant a parking reduction not to exceed fifty percent of the required parking. The planning board or city council may grant a reduction exceeding fifty percent. A parking reduction of 55% is requested for the RH-2 portion of the property and requires Planning Board review and approval. The RL-1 portion would exceed the parking requirements of l parking space per unit with each single-family unit having 2 parking spaces. The following is a table summarizing parking on the subject site: Total parking Total parking required Total. parking required (per other RH zones) provided (RH-2) Residential 96 s aces 41 s aces 38 s aces Office 9 s aces 9 s aces 9 s aces TOTAL 105 s aces SU s aces 47 s aces ~ (ii) Criteria: Upon submission of documentation by the applicant of how the project meets the following criteria, the approving agency may approve proposed modifications to the parking requirements of Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards,'' B.R.C. 1981, if it finds that: (a) For residential uses, the probable number of motor vehicles to be owned by occupants of and visitors to dwellings in the project will be adequately accommodated; Agenda Item # 5A Page # 'l'he it~ulti-f~unily portion of the project contains ?_7 dwelling units. According to the RI I-2 zoning district, over 3.5 parking spaces per unit is required. This stringent requirement has been applied to the RH-2 zoning district to counteract the parking impacts to neighborhoods that often occur around the IJnivcrsity of Colorado vid 'Jaropa University -namely the Goss-Grove neighborhood. 'I"hcsc areas arc otler~ more impacted, because of the higher than average occupancy occurring in student housing, where several students may occupy a single room relative to other residences, and thus more parking space would be required per unit. 'Therefore, the RH-2 parking requirements have been based on door area (i.e., one space per first 500 square feet of a wait, and one additional space per every 30U square feet or portion of 300 square feet of floor area), rather than number of bedrooms, such that, for example, an 800 square foot unit requires two parking spaces and an 801 square foot unit requires three. Therefore, the probable number of motor vehicles to be owned by occupants of and visitors to the dwellings in the project will be adequately accommodated for the ti>]lowing reasons: • ~~t~licaticm of otl~cr RH Lone parkin; requirements: Although the subject neighborhood is impacted by spillover parking from Boulder Community Hospital and Community Plaza, it does not have the student population that would come with a higher parking need than the co-housing and non-student parking population. Therefore, although the project is within the RH-2 zoning district, parking requirements from other RI I zones, which arc based on number of bedrooms (i.e., one bedroom =one car; two bedrooms = l .5 cars; three bedrooms = 2 cars; and tour bedrooms or more = 3 cars) would be more appropriate to the parking need for the subject development. See the table above. For instance, the residential component of the project would require 41 parking spaces (as opposed to 96 spaces) for the 27 units, which equates to 1.5 parking spaces per unit. This has been found to be an appropriate number of spaces to serve the residential portion of the development. Further, when the office uses are closed, the nine spaces allotted to non-residential would be available to residential uses in the evenings bringing the average to 1.85 parking spaces per unit. Overall, the RH-2 side would have to have 50 parking spaces to meet the other RI-I zone parking requirements, which would apply more appropriately to the project. 'hhe applicant's plan provides a total of 47 parking spaces in the RI-I-2 portion, which falls short of the SO spaces needed to accommodate anon-student high density residential development. Therefore, a condition of approval has been applied to the project that would require an additional three spaces on the RL- 1 designated for use of the multi-family portion. A~=enda Item # SA Paae # Transportation Demand Man~ement (TDM) strategies: The applicant has indicated that assigned parking spaces would be a part of the proposal. 'T'his could be problematic given the possibility that the assigned number of spaces per unit may not accurately reflect the number of spaces needed despite an overall average of 1.5 to 1.8 parking spaces per unit. To account for this possibility, the applicant is required to employ TDM strategies to encourage residents to own less or no cars. The TDM prepared by the applicant has been reviewed and found to be appropriate in its provision of on-site bicycle parking (which exceeds requixements), a bike pool and car share program. The TDM also indicates that incentives, such as the provision of transit passes, would be allotted to residents that do not have a car as an incentive to free up parking spaces on the site and to reduce vehicles trips from the site, which is the principal goal of TDM strategies. (b) The parking needs of any non-residential uses will be adequately accommodated through on-street parking or off-street parking; Nine (9) off-street parking spaces would be allotted to the non-residential uses on the site. They would be restricted to non-residential uses for the bulk of the day (8am to 4pm). Nine spaces meet the required number of spaces for the proposed office use. (c) A mix of residential with either office or retail uses is proposed, and the parking needs of all uses will be accommodated through shared parking; The submitted parking study prepared by Transportation Consultants, Inc. and dated September 10, 2008 indicates the following peak parking needs for the residential and office use for the site shown in the shaded columns. Following each is the proposed number of spaces available at that time indicating that the shared parking arrangement would meet the intent of this criterion: PARKING Residential Residential Office need Office DEMAND need available available SUMMARY lOpm -lam 39 spaces 50 spaces* 5 spaces 0** (with (with condition) condition) 8am -Spm 25 spaces 41 spaces 9 spaces 9 spaces (with condition) 6pm -Spm 32 spaces 50 spaces* 2 spaces 0* * (with (with condition) condition) *A condition of approval requires that the 9 spaces allotted to office uses during daytime hours be open for residential use after 4pm. **A condition of approval restricts the office use to 8am and 6pm, thus eliminating any office need between l Opm and 8am. Agenda Item # SA Pa~c # J~0 (d) If joint use of common parking areas is proposed,.varyingtlme periods of use will accommodate proposed parking needs; and Parking for office uses would be reserved during the hours of Sam and 4pm. After 4pm, the parking spaces would be available for residential uses, which enable the project to better meet the peak demand during evening hours. (e) If the. number of off-street parking spaces is reduced because of the nature of the occupancy, the applicant provides assurances that the nature of the occupancy will not change. The number of spaces is reduced because of how restrictive the RH-?_ parking requirements would be on anon-student co-housing type development. Should the occupancy of the development change such that its occupancy would require more parking than a standard residential development, a reconsideration of the Site Review and parking reduction would be required. N/A (1~) Additional Criteria for Of jrSite Parlor:g: The parking required under Section 9- 9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be located on a separate lot if the following conditions are met: Not applicable and not requested. N/A (i) The lots are held in common ownership; N/A (ii) The separate lot is in the same zoning district and located within three hundred feet of the lot that it serves; and NIA (iii) The property used for off-site parking under this Subsection continues under common ownership or control. Agenda Item # 5A Pale # s! ATTACHMENT E . USE REVIEW (1) Consistency withLonin~ and Non-Conformity: The use is consistent with the purpose of the zoning district as set forth in Section 9-5-2, "Zoning Districts Established," Ii. R.C. 1981, except in the case of anon-conforming use; The RH-2 zoning districts are high density residential areas primarily used for a variety of types of attached residential units, including, without ]imitation, apartment buildings, and where complementary uses maybe allowed. The proposed project includes 27 attached residential units concentrated along Broadway as intended by the zoning code and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan for development along multi-model corridors. Commercial uses (i.e., professional and technical offices) and community facilities have been found complementary, as there are examples of office along Broadway in similar or greater square footages and also since the site will accommodate parking needed for those uses. (2) Rationale: The use either: (A) Provides direct service or convenience to or reduces adverse impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; (B) Provides a compatible transition between higher intensity and lower . intensity uses; The proposed uses would be concentrated on the high density portion of the site nearest to Broadway where higher intensities arc expected to occur and where policies encourage mixed-use. By locating the commercial uses at ground level on that side, they serve as a buffer to the residential uses on the interior of the site from the noise and traffic associated with Broadway. The project itself, izz how it is arranged, is done to reflect a transition of the higher intensities of the RH (High Density Residential) district down to the lower intensities of the RL (Low Density) portion of the site where the density and scale decrease. The commercial uses would encourage more pedestrian activity on this northern stretch of Broadway, but would be appropriately buffered from the single-family character to the east. (C) Is necessary to foster a specific city policy, as expressed in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, including, without limitation, historic preservation, moderate income housing, residential and non-residential mixed uses in appropriate locations, and group living arrangements for special populations; or (U) Is an existing legal non-conforming use or a change thereto that is permitted under subsection (f) of this section; 3) Compatibility: The location, sire, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development or change to an existing development are such that the use will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties or for residential uses in industrial zoning districts, the proposed development reasonably mitigates the potential negative impacts from nearby properties; As noted above, the office use would be concentrated on a portion of the site expected to have a A~encia Item # SA 1'a;;e # ~Q0 greater intensity of use and scale, but would be appropriately bulTercd ti~om tlu; single-family character on the east side of the site. The size of the office use is comparable to several office buildings that exist on this stretch of Broadway. Some examples arc the North Broadway Building at the comer of Elder Avenue and Broadway that is entirely commercial with 6,745 square feet and 3093 Broadway, which is also entirely commercial with 3,799 square feet. Another mixed-use example is the Newland Court project at 3011 Broadway that contains condominiums and a 4,200 square fool office building in an old Victorian building. All of these projects have compliant parking for commercial uses. The subject proposal is for 2,954 square feet of commercial uses. The applicant has targeted professional and technical offices that would generate a lower incidence of customers coming to the site. By having compliant parking and being concentrated directly on Broadway, the use reasonably mitigates the potential negative impacts on neighboring properties. Therefore, the proposed office use is found to be compatible with the immediate neighborhood. (4) Infrastructure: As compared to development permitted under Section 9-6-1, "Schedule of Permitted Uses of Land," S.R.C. 1981, in the "none, or as compared to the existing level of impact of anon-conforming use, the proposed development will not significantly adversely affect the infrastructure of the surrounding area, including, without limitation, water, wastewater, and storm drainage utilities and streets; "There is no evidence that the introduction of commercial uses anti community facilities on the site would create an adverse impact to City infrastructure above what would be permitted by- right on the property or as compared to other commercial uses that already exist along Broadway. (5) Character of Area: The use will not change the predonnant character of the surrounding area; and The predominant character of this portion of Broadway is largely residential. However, there are a number of commercial establishments that are comparable in sire and location to the subject proposal. This project would introduce a new development that incorporates a majority of residential with a smaller non-residential component, which is in line with the emerging mixed- use, more urban corridor occun-ing along Broadway. (6) Conversion of Dwelling Units to Non-Kesidential Uses: There shall be a presumption against approving the conversion of dwelling units in the residential zoning districts to non-residential uses that are allowed pursuant to a use review, or through the change of one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use. The presumption against such a conversion may be overcome by a finding that the use to be approved serves another compelling social, human services, governmental, or recreational need in the community including, without limitation, a use for a day care center, park, religious assembly, social service use, benevolent organization use, art or craft studio space, museum, or an educational use. The project would create 33 new dwelling units. No conversions from residential to non- residential would occur. Agenda Item # SA Pa~c # (pl ` ATTACHMENT F CEO G°~ RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND DEED RI~,STI2ICI'ION This Restrictive Covenant and Deed Restriction ("Covenant") is made and entered into as of the 9th day of April, 2008 by the Boulder Valley School District RE-2, formerly School District Number 3, a public school district and political subdivision of the State of Colorado (the "School District"), 6500 East Arapahoe, P.O. Box 9011, Boulder, Colorado 80301, and is for the benefit of and enforceable by the City of Boulder ("City"). . RI?CITALS A. The School District is the owner of the real property described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, which is commonly known as Washington Elementary School, located at 1215 Cedar, Boulder, Colorado. For purposes of this Covenant, the real pzopci-ty described on Exhibit A and all appurtenances, improvements and fixtures associated therewith shall hereinafter collectively be refezxed to as the "Property." B. The Property is to be sold by the School District pursuant to the ternzs of the Memorandum of Understanding dated March 8, 2005, as amended, entered into by the School District and the City of Boulder (the "MOU") to a purchaser (the "Purchaser"). C. The City and the School District amended the MOU on March 20, 2006 by way of . the Amendment No. 1 to Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU Amendment"). D. The MOU Amendment authorizes the City to place a covenant on the Property for a period of up to 20 years after the Purchaser's proposal is completed to ensure that the Property will be used as was contemplated in the proposals submitted by Purchaser and that any changes to the use of the land that is not consistent with such proposal shall be subject to the prior approval by the City Council. r. The MOU Amendment anticipated that the Covenant would be created, in consultation with the selected Purchaser and delivered to the School District prior to the closing. This MOU Amendment was included in the City's request for proposal ("RFP") in order to provide the respondents with notice of the terms of the Covenant which will encumber the Property. F. The City desires to subject the Property to this Covenant in order to ensure that the Purchaser completes those items that lead it to being selected in the RFP process described in the MOU Amendment. G. This Covenant is to be binding upon any subsequent buyer, devisee, transferee, grantee, owner or holder of title of the Property, or any portion thereof, and for purposes of this Covenant, the word "Owner" shall mean and include any entity or person wlio acquires'an ownership interest in the Property, or any portion thereof, after the recording of this Covenant in the real estate records of the County of Boulder, State of Colorado H. This Covenant is intended to be for the benefit of and to be enforced by the City. ~ 1~.`;hiti __~~~~1 iii VC~_. COVENANT NOW THEREFORE, the School District as the owner of the Property, for itself, its successors, assigns and all subsequent grantees and transferees, declares, creates and in~.poses the following land z.~se covenants, restrictions and limitations on the Property, or any portion thereof, and declares that the Property shall, from and after the date of the recording of this Covenant with the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Boulder, hereinafter be subject to the tez7ns and conditions of this Covenant. This Covenant shall run with the land and the Property, shall be binding upon the Property and shall be binding upon any subsequent owner of the Property, or any portion thereof, and their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall be for the benefit of the City. Acceptance of a deed or other instrument of conveyance of the Property, or any portion thereof, shall constitute acceptance and approval of this Covenant and agreement to be bound by this Covenant without the necessity of expressly providing for such effect with respect to any particular provision herein. 1. Restrictions. a. Affordable Ilousin The owner of the Property agrees to create the greater of 20% of the total units or eight units that are permanently affordable to Iow income households and the greater of 27% of the total units or 11 units that are permanently affordable to middle income households. Covenants. or deed restrictions to secure the permanent affordability of dwelling units shall be signed and recorded with the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder prior to application for any residential building permits on the Property. The following conditions shall apply to the Subject Property: i. Low_ Income Permanently Affordable. Twenty percent or eight of the dwelling units on the Residential Parcel shall have deed restrictions or ` covenants, in a form acceptable to the City Manager, as to the maximum price. The dwelling units shall be permanently affordable to low and moderate incvzne households consistent with the provisions of Chapter 9- 13, B.R.C. 1981, "Inclusionary Zoning." ii. Middle Income Permanently Affordable. Twenty-seven percent or 11 of the deed restricted dwelling units shall be permanently affordable to middle income households which are defined as those households earning less than 120% of the Area Median Income as defined by HUD for the City of Boulder and shall have sale prices and resale tenxzs acceptable to and approved by the. City Manager. If acceptable prices and terms cannot be agreed that will enable the sale of the Middle Income Units, some or all of the Middle Income Units znay be converted to units permanently affordable tv lower incomes or market rate units. Any additional market rate units created as a result of this paragraph will be subject to the entitlement premium described in the MOU Amendment. ~ , Vii- (03 iii. Covenants Required. Prior to the issuance of any residential building permits for the parcel, the Applicant shall execute, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and the City Manager, covenants and deed restrictions that guarantee the perpetual affordability of each of the permanently affordable units which shall include without limitation the initial maximum allowable sale price, the rate by which subsequent sale prices may increase, the income and asset limitations of the purchasers of each permanently affordable unit, and fair marketing and selection procedures. b. Barrier Free_DeS1~I1. The owner of the Property agrees to construct or otherwise provide a minimum of twenty four (24) Type B accessible dwelling units designed and constructed for accessibility in accordance with ICC/ANSI A117.1- 1998 "Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities." Sucli units shall be accessible on the floor level that izicludes common areas such as the living room, dining room and kitchen and shall have at least one bedroom and bathroom on • that floor level. c. Tree Preservation. The owner of the Property agrees to protect and maintain all of the trees existing as of the effective date of this Covenant that have a diameter, measured four feet above the natural grade, that exceeds 15 inches and. that are located in the area between the east property line abutting the 13`'' Street right-of- way and the eastern 50 feet of the Property. Removal of trees must receive prior approval of the City. The City will grant such permission if it can be demonstrated that the tree is unhealthy or threatens public safety. The City agrees to consider the advice of a qualified arborist or other landscaping professional. d. Community Use Space. The Owner of the Property agrees to provide at least 7,500 sq.ft. of floor area in the historic Washington School Building and/or the Library Annex which will be available for community uses for the general public. The Library Annex maybe subtracted from the community use space if it is . removed from the Property as part of a City discretionary land use review approval and the removal is also approved by the City Manager. Such community uses may include, but are not limited to the following: artistic events and programs wluch may include art, music, dance and theatre; temporary art gallery space; studio space; classes or workshops related to the amts, health, fitness and other hobby activities; and cultural events such as talks or presentations. Such uses are limited to those uses specifically permitted through the local zoning. The Owner of the Property agrees to apply for and diligently pursue all appropriate zoning approvals for die community use spaces to allow such land uses. e. View Shed, Park, No-Build Area. The Owner of the Property agrees that an area approximately 12,000 sq.ft. in size located at the southwest corner of the Property as shown on Exhibit B shall be limited as follows: i. No structure taller than an elevation defined as 13 inches above the top of the basement window header ul the Washington School Building shall be ~onstructcd in this area. ii. '1'ilc area nl~iy only be used for access and parks purposes. iii. No obstructions, other than railings, that may be required by the local building code, improvements related to accessibility and barrier free design, landscaping and associated benches, tables, planters and improvements associated with landscaping, shall be placed in this area that would obstruct views of the Washington School Building and the Library Annex except as maybe approved by the City pursuant to au alteration certificate required for individual landmarks. 2. A~-eenlent. Prior to submitting any building permit applications to the City to add any floor area, to demolish any building on the Property, or prior to or concurrent with an application for site review, the Owner shall submit an application for the grant of local individual landmark status (the "Individual Landmark Application") for at least that portion of the Property that is shown on Exhibit C. The boundary shown in Exhibit C for the individual landmark boundary is illustrative. Prior to submitting the Individual Landmark Application, the Owner will submit the final boundary for the individual landmark application for the final review and approval by the City Manager. The boundary shall include all of the following: An area at least three feet around the entire historic portion Washington School Building, the area of any portion of a building that is intended to connect to the historic portion of the Washington School, and the View Shed, Park, No-Btti.ld Area described in Paragraph l .e. above. The Owner is not required, nor is prohibited, from including any other portion of the Property in the application including a building that maybe constructed on the western portion of the Property or the Library Annex. 3. Tenn. This Covenant and the restrictions contained therein shall be in full force and effect for a period of twenty (20) years from the date of the recordation with the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 4. Binding Effect. This Covenant shall run with the land and shall be binding upon any transferee, grantee, or any Owner of the Property or any portion thereof. Any transfer of title to the Property, or any portion thereof, by deed or other instrument of conveyance, shall be subject to this Covenant and by acceptance of a deed or instrument of conveyance, the transferee, grantee or any Owner of the Property, or any portion thereof, shall be deemed to have consented to this Covenant and the restrictions contained therein. 5. Restrictions ate for the Benefit of the City. This Covenant and the restrictions contained therein shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the City and its respective successors and assigns, and any parties claiming under the City or its successors and assigns. ' ~ lpS 6. Enforcement. This Covenant maybe enforced by the City, its successors or assigns, and enforcement rrzay be made by any lawful means, including a suit for injunctive relief and damages to reimburse the City or its successors and assigns for enforcement costs, including reasonable attorney's fees. Venue for any suit to enforce compliance with this Covenant shall be proper in the District Court for the County of Boulder, State of Colorado. As part of any enforcement active on the part of the City, its successors or assigns, tine Owner shall be responsible for the payment of all couz-t costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the City, its successors or assigns, in connection with any action to enforce this Covenant. 7. f~pprOValS Required. This Covenant shall be effective upon the Owner obtaining the final approval of all requisite City approval authorities for site and use review under the City's land use code for the current or amended proposal that is consistent with the provisions of Sections 1 and 2 above. 'I he Owner shall be required to apply for said approvals and pursue them in good faith until the applications have received a final decision by the final City approval authority. If the project has been denied by the City, at the option of the Owner, exercised by written notice delivered to the City, this Covenant shall be terminated and deemed of no further force and effect 90 days after said notice is received by the City. In the event that the provisions Sections 1 or 2 above are modified in the approval process, the City anal. Owner agree to take reasonable measures to amend this covenant to reflect such modifications. 8. Default. This Covenant shall expire and be of no further force and effect in the event that the Owner is required by default or otherwise through a contractual relationship with a lender that provides purchase financing or construction financing, to convey the Property to the lender. If the lender does not want to accept the obligations of this Covenant and the City approvals necessary to construct such project, the lender shall provide written notice delivered to the City. 9. Miscellaneous Provisions. a. Severabili~. Whenever possible, each provision of this Covenant and any other related document shall be interpreted in such a manner as to be valid under applicable law; but if any provision of any of the foregoing shall be invalid or prohibited under said applicable law, such provisions shall be ineffective to the extent of such invalidity or prohibition without invalidating the remaining provisions of such document. b. Governing Law. This Covenant and each and every related document are to be govei-zned and construed in accordaznce with the laws of the State of Colorado. Nothing contained in this Covenant shall be construed~as a waiver of the City's police powers. c. Successors. Except as otherwise provided herein, the provisions and covenants contained herein shall inure to and be binding uponn the heirs, successors and assigns of the School District and its grantees, transferees, successors and assigns. ~ . d. Section Headings. Paragraph or section headings within this Covenant are inserted solely for convenience of reference, and are not intended to, anal shall not govern, limit or aid in the construction of any teens or provisions contained herein. e. Waiver. No claim of waiver or consent of acquiescence with respect to any provision of this Covenant shall be valid except on the basis of a written instrument executed by the City recorded in the real estate records for Boulder County. £ Modifications. Any modifications of this Covenant shall be effective only when made by writings signed by the City and recorded with the Clerk and Recorder of Boulder County, Colorado. g. Owner and Successors. As described in the Recitals above, the term Owner shall .mean the person or persons who shall acquire an ownership interest in the Property, or any portion thereof, subject to this Covenant; it is understood that such person or persons shall be deemed an Owner hereunder only during the period of his, her or their ownership interest in the Property, or any portion thereof, and shall be obligated hereunder for the full and complete performance and observance of all covenants, conditions and restrictions contained herein during such period. B0t1LDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-2 Helayne Janes President, Board of Education . STATE OF COLOR.A,DO ) )ss: COUNTY OF BOiJLDER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day ofA.pail, 2008, by Helayne Jones, President of the Board of Education for Boulder Valley School District 1ZE-2, formerly School District Number 3, a public school district and political subdivision of the State of Colorado. Witness my hand and official seal. My comunission expires: 5 ,~t~ 1 ~ Notary Public ,~a}o-o~.s-.a-aea-c~cr.~ ~ p~.,p.~ S,~fVDRfi, ~Vl. ElCHER ~lOT,~R`( PUBUC S7ATF OF COLORADO Oa 0?l:UOS 9 4?:11 h~ BG File ho.: U0018d?J, Amrud. No. ? I;xlltblt A portion of I_ot 1 in Joseph Wolff's Subdivision of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 3U, Township t North, Range 70 West of the 6t11 P.NL, County of Boulder, State of Colorado; beginning at the Southwest confer of said Lot 1, thence Northerly along the West line of said Lot 1 a distance of 9~ feet; thence 1asterly and parallel to the Not-th line of said Lot 1 to the East line of said Lot 1; thence Southerly along the East line of said Lot 1 a distance of 95 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot 1; thence Westerly along the South line of said Lot 1 to the place of bcgiruiing, Lots 2 and 3, Jos. Wolff s Subdivision, County of Bouldel•, State of Colorado, and All that pol-tion of Lot 4 of Joseph Wolff's Subdivision of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 30, `T'ownship 1 North, Range 70 West of the 6th P.>vi., County of Boulder; State of Colorado, described as follows, to-wit: beginning at the Southwest comer of said Lot 4, thence Nortllel9y along the West lice of said Lot 4 a distance of 95 feet; thence Easterly and parallel to the North line of said Lot 4 to the East line of said Lot 4; thence Sotlthcrly along the East line of said Lot 4 a distance of 95 feet to the Southeast confer of said Lot 4; thence Westerly along the South line of said Lot 4 to the place of begiluiing. EXIiIBIT B BOUNDARY FOR THE VIEW SHED, PARK, NO-BUILD AREA WASHINGTON SCHOOL - 1215 CEDAR AVE <.18 FEET I" ~ r h: * v" 1 ~ X ~ r '1~ 4 S f D_ 2 T ` ' _ ~ _ ~ L r F~ - - r r er. ~ W Y , ere ~ ~ ~ _ ua r , J ~ r- M - J :t f ~ i i 1 u r;~ sr-* ~.r i 1I Vie' i r ; r r ` -CEDAR AVE _ _ { :P. ` r cY ~~'R~t*6 ~ . ' ~ C Tye-. r,~"f' , r'-' r:7 . ~Y,L_:~'i~I ~ rL-t~'~~ Ti`y~r„~•~`Mef.~--`' _~..CF ~s'Sti~4n' i,3- ~Iri ' Concnplual V"rownhed Corr!drN PARCEL Itl:1463k1208002 1 inch equal :45 feel i. °'ym~r•v LOT AREA: 130b35 sq R x EXHIBIT C ILLUSTRATIVE MINIMUM BOUNDARY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK APPLICATION ' 4fsFEEr WASHI~IGTOPJ SCHOOL- 9215 CEDARAVE I f r ~ g, ~E r ; ` ` f , ~b Q ~ _M: urn ~ ~ ,~--'~,7 W .a ` ~ ~p 5~'' ~ ~ , ~ ~ s~ ~ ti`s ~ ~ - ( 55l _ _ 1 r , n r~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ?~c., ti - ~ r /fit[,- - rrt~` ri n[fl'nt~[[ixa1tu11+'n+ ~ - b - , _~'r :CEDAR AVE ~ ~ ` ,t '.r ~7. f 1 '~31 +"i.;h . i 4l7 `c.fS `i tz.~t Concaptual LendmatkBousrdeiry-Not$cebbt. PARCEL f0:116330208C02 ~ 1 arch cquela 45 fccl ~ ,tom LOT dReA: 17D6d53q ft ,.uw.o-rrx L ~ ~d ATTACHMENT G Proposed Transportation Demand Management Plan ('I'DM) for Washington Village II 1215 Cedar Avenue Revised 12-23-08 Revised sections in italics wASUIN GTON vnuac 1+'rom: Laurel Fanning Wonderland Hill Development Company, Applicant :..~~1 7~ Washington Village II Proposed Transportation Demand Management Pian (TDM) 12-23-08 Washington Village II Proposed Transportation Demand Management T'lan City comments that we received 10-24-08 regarding the 9-12-08 TDM plan we submitted were as follows: 3. The submitted Travel Demand Management plan, (TDM), proposes several Program and Education strategies to mitigate traffic impacts created by the development, but does not clearly commit to their implementation. In general, staff supports these individual strategies as components Integra! to a comprehensive plan. Minimal provided parking and incentives for voluntary vehicle reductions should partner with on-site Rideshare/Carshare programs. A site design that utilizes enhanced connectivity to bike routes should couple with an established bikepool program and abundant bicycle parking facilities. Transit passes should be provided to take advantage of the site proximity to a major transit network. The strategy pairings are necessary to be considered effective measures for promoting alternate modes of travel. The TDM plan should be revised to more clearly indicate a commitment to implement or provide those measures proposed as TDM strategies. Response: We agree with the suggestions listed by the City in the 3 individual strategies shown above and this document below has been revised to indicate so. Washington Village cohousing is anticipated to be a group of active adults, predominantly in the 55-8U year age range. Wonderland Hill Development Company (Wl-IDC) has asked for a parking reduction for the residential portion of this project partly because the nature of typical cohousing residents is to be very environmentally-minded and participate (more so than the "average" person) in sustainable living practices. Therefore, we feel that we will be able to implement the following TDM strategies: Strategy Pairing I: Minimal Parking and Incentives for Voluntary Vehicle Reductions/On-site Rideshare/Carshare programs: l.. Minimal 1'aiking: We are proposing 47 parking spaces for the RH-2 zone and 12 for the RL- 1 zone, which equates to a requested 55.2% parking reduction overall. Our request for parking reduction is in line with other similar projects that have had approval for similar parking needs, and parking reductions of up to 70% are typically granted in the city for projects with elderly residents. Staff already has agreed that this parking reduction makes sense, due to the fact that the RH-2 requirements are meant for student housing, wherein there could be numerous unrelated people living in one residence. This parking strategy works well combined with; less car use by cohousing residents, an overall reduction in density on the site from the previous proposal (7 units less overall). Smaller buildings have also greatly increased the area given to open space rather than to cars, enabling us to create approximately 13,000 SF of open space not previously provided in the southeast corner. ~~'ashin~~ton Villa~~c 11 Pr~~pu~cd 'Transportation ]~cmand Ivlana~c~mcnt Pl;u~ ('I'1)'VI) 12-23-08 3. Incentives for V~~luntary Vehicle Reductions We will be providing 23 of the multifamily units with 1 assigned parking space each. The remaining 4 of the multifamily units have 2 car garages built in to the unit as part of the design. We will charge an extra fee equal to the value of a local ValuPass for any of the 23 multifamily unit residents that wants more than one assigned space. For anyone who is willing to give up their assigned space to become flex parking, they will receive a transit Local ValuPass at a cost to the I-IOA of either; $770/annually for a regular adult pass, $385/annually for a senior pass or $385/annually for a student pass. The HOA will provide oversight for any units where assigned parking is given up, checking license plate/description information of those vehicles and working with the residents to ensure that the cars do not cnd up being parked on the street. We will set the HOA up to provide this entire arrangement for the first year following occupancy of the project, with the intent that the program be a long-term one. The program will be evaluated at the end of the year by the HOA and City transportation department/GO Boulder to determine togcther how the program should continue. 4. On-site Rideshare/Carshare programs: Washington Village HOA will provide a rideshare/carshare program/info center, which will be self-managed out of a central location in the common house. The HOA will be given an opportunity to become part of Boulder Car Share, or the HOA can choose to start their own program at occupancy. One parking space on site will be reserved at all times for a car share vehicle. We will set up the HUA to provide financial support for this program for the first year following occupancy of the project, with the intent that the program be a long- term one. The program will be evaluated at the end of the year by the 1-IOA and City transportation departmenVGO Boulder to together determine how the program should continue. Strategy Pairing II: A site design that utilizes enhanced connectivity to bike routes should couple with an established bikepool program and abundant bicycle parking facilities 1. Enhanced Connectivity: This site is ideally located for efficient use of Boulder's multi- modal system, including; immediate access to the transit system on Broadway, and it connects to many bike pathways all around the site. The site will include replacing the existing bus shelter on Broadway (to be integrated into the Broadway building itself). In addition, pedestrian walkways are provided throughout the site for easy access to the Broadway transit corridor. Onsite Amenities: We are targeting our office spacc advertising to those who will provide services, some of which could be of use to the immediate neighborhood, such as: Elderly services offices Financial Planner/Asset Managers CPAs (Not primary tax preparers) Ad agencies Computer/Web Designers Architects Non-Profit administrative offices Think Tanks Property management firms Washington Villa~~e II Yruhosed "Transportation Demand Management Plan (TllM) 12-23-08 Engineers Research organization/companies - (market, economic development, demographics, etc.) Venture Capital Executive Placement Consulting firms Financial Services including insurance (in some cases limited to back office operations/processing ) 'this will allow neighbors to access these businesses on bike or foot rather than by driving. In addition, while not on site, a complete medical and shopping center is located just over a block to the south of Washington Village, thus allowing for easily "walkable and bikeable" trips. 2. Abundant Bicycle Parking Facilities: We will provide 56 total bike storage spaces throughout the RH-2 portion of our site and 12 in the RL-1 portion. This greatly exceeds the amount of bike parking required on the site by code (10% of car parking spaces), even before a parking reduction is applied. Distributing the 56 spaces throughout the lZH-2 portion of the site; in the underground garage (18), in the surface garages (2 ea. for a total of 20), near the bus stop (5), just to the south of the southernmost carriage house unit (8), and between the North building and the northernmost duplex (5), will afford residents, office visitors and public visitors the opportunity to easily bring their bikes to the site and find ample parking for them. We are also assuming an additional 2 bikes per single family garage for a total of 12 additional bike spaces, or a total of 6$ bike spaces on the entire site. 'Phis is 11 more than in our initial Sept. 12`h submittal. Also, as discussed in our response document to city comments, this amount could be further increased to 80, by leaving a portion of the existing bike rack (2U spaces) on Cedar in lieu of providing the 8 new spaces shown on the plan just south of the carriage houses. We will let city staff decide which is more desirable. 3. Bikepool Program: Washington Village HOA will provide a bikepool program/info center, which will be self-managed out of a central location in the common house. This program would allow residents of Washington Village to check out bikes, helmets and locks for bike trips around the city. It is likely that when residents move into Washington Village, they may have surplus bikes and equipment that can be put into a pool for shared use. WHDC will set up the HOA to provide financial support for the first year following occupancy for whichever way the community decides to provide maintenance; either their own program or using the Community Cycles program. The intent is to make it a long-term program. After the j~rst year, the HOA, with assistance from the City's transportation department/GO Boulder, can decide which management program best suits the community's future needs. Washington Village II Proposed Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) 12-23-08 ,Strategy Pairings III 1. Transit Passes Because the Neighborhood EcoPass program will rao lo~zger exist at occupancy of this project, we propose the exchange of assigned parking,for an annual ValuPass, as described in Incentives for Voluntary Vehicle Reductions, above. In addition, WHDC will comr~tit to buying up to $1,500 worth of 10 ticket books in the first year of occupancy that can be made available at the common house to be used by anyone ira the cohousing community. After t12at, the HOA and GO Boulder will evaluate how this should continue. 2. Transit/Bike Route Info Center: We will make available to Go Boulder an information center, either near the bus stop or at the common house, where they can display transit and bike route information. In addition, the developer and/or the HOA will work with GO Boulder to create Welcome Packets for all new residents of Washiragtorz Village. The HOA and GO Boulder should evaluate this yearly. 3. Survey: WHDC will ensure that the Washington Village HOA distributes a survey provided by GO Boulder, to all residents of the Washington Village community after their first year of occupancy. The intent i.s to do the survey over the long term. After the first survey is completed, Go Boulder and the HOA will meet to discuss how to move forward with surveys for the future. The purpose would be to study the effectiveness of the TDM plan. Results will be used by GO Boulder to study how to improve alternative transportation programs I ' Yroposcd Transportation Demand Management Ylan ('I'DM) - for Washington Village II 1215 Cedar Avenue Revised 12-23-08 Revised sections in italics WA SHIN ETON , VILLAGE From: Laurel Fanning Wonderland Hill Development Company, Applicant - I Washington Village II Proposed Transportation Demand Management Plan {TDM) 12-23-08 Washington Village II Proposed Transportation Demand Management Plan City comments that we received 10-24-08 regarding the 9-12-08 TDM plan we submitted were as follows: 3. The submitted Travel Demand Management plan, (TDM), proposes several Program and Education strategies to mitigate traffic impacts created by the development, but does not clearly commit to their implementation. In general, staff supports these individual strategies as components integral to a comprehensive plan. Minimal provided parking and incentives for voluntary vehicle reductions should partner with on-site Rideshare/Carshare programs. A site design that utilizes enhanced connectivity to bike routes should couple with an established bikepool program and abundant bicycle parking facilities. Transit passes should be provided to take advantage of the site proximity to a major transit network. The strategy pairings are necessary to be considered effective measures for promoting alternate modes of travel. The TDM plan should be revised to more clearly indicate a commitment to implement or provide those measures proposed as TDM strategies. Response: We agree with the suggestions listed by the City in the 3 individual strategies shown above and this document below has been revised to indicate so. Washington Village Cohousing is anticipated to be a group of active adults, predominantly in the 55-80 year age range. VVonderlaiid I-Iill Development Company (WHDC) has asked for a parking reduction for the residential portion of this project partly because the nature of typical Cohousing residents is to be very environmentally-minded and participate (more so than the "average" person) in sustainable living practices. Therefore, we feel that we will be able to implement the following TDNI strategies: Strategy Pairing I: Minimal Parking and Incentives for Voluntary Vehicle Reductions/On-site Rideshare/Carshare programs: 1. Minimal Parking: We are proposing 47 parking spaces for the RH-2 zone and 12 for the RL- 1 zone, which equates to a requested 55.2% parking reduction overall. Our request for parking reduction is in line with other similar projects that have had approval for similar parking needs, and parking reductions of up to 70°lo are typically granted in the city for projects with elderly residents. Staff already has agreed that this parIang reduction makes sense, due to the fact that the RH-2 requirements are meant for student housing, wherein there could be numerous unrelated people living in one residence. This parking strategy works well combined with; less car use by Cohousing residents, an overall reduction in density on the site from the previous proposal (7 units less overall). Smaller buildings have also greatly increased the area given to open space rather than to cars, enabling us to create approximately 13,000 SF of open space not previously provided in the southeast corner. Washington Village II Proposed Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) 12-23-08 3. Incentives for Voluntary Vehicle Reductions We will be providing 23 of the multifamily units with 1 assigned parking space each. The remaining 4 of the multifamily units have 2 car garages built in to the unit as part of the design. We will charge an extra fee equal to the value of a local ValuPass for any of the 23 multifamily unit residents that wants more than one assigned space. For anyone who is willing to give up their assigned space to become flex parking, they will receive a transit Local ValuPass at a cost to the HOA of either; $770/annually for a regular adult pass, $385/annually for a senior pass or $385/annually for a student pass. The HOA will provide oversight for any units where assigned parking is given up, checking license plate/description information of those vehicles and working with the residents to ensure that the cars do not end up being parked on the street. We will set the HOA up to provide this entire arrangement for the first year following occupancy of the project, with the intent that the program be a long-term one. The program will be evaluated at the end of the year by the HOA and City transportation department/GO Boulder to determine together how the program should continue. 4.On-site Rideshare/Carshare programs: Washington Village HOA will provide a rzdeshare/carshare program/info center, which will be self-managed out of a central location in the common house. The IIOA will be given an opportunity to become part of Boulder Car Share, or the HOA can choose to start their own program at occupancy. One parking space on site will be reserved at all times for a car share vehicle. We will set up the HOA to provide financial support for this program for the first year following occupancy of the project, with the intent that the program be a long- teen one. The program will be evaluated at the end of the year by the HOA and City transportation department/GO Boulder to together determine how the program should continue. Strategy Pairing II: A site design that utilizes enhanced connectivity to bike routes should couple with an established bikepool program and abundant bicycle parking facilities 1. Enhanced Connectivity: This site is ideally located for efficient use of Boulder's multi- modal system, including; immediate access to the transit system on Broadway, and it connects to many bike pathways all around the site. The site will include replacing the existing bus shelter on Broadway (to be integrated into the Broadway building itself). In addition, pedestrian walkways are provided throughout the site for easy access to the Broadway transit corridor. Onsite Amenities: We are targeting our office space advertising to those who will provide services, some of which could be of use to the immediate neighborhood, such as: Elderly services offices Financial Planner/Asset Managers CPAs (Not pzimary tax preparers) Ad agencies Computer/Web Designers Architects Non-Profit administrative offices Think Tanks Property management firms Washington Village Ll Proposed Transportation Demand vlanagement Plan (`I~DIvl) 12-23-08 1?ngineers llesearch organization/companies - (market, economic development, demographics, etc.) Venture Capital Executive Placement Consulting fines 1~inancial Services including insurance (in some cases limited to back office operations/processing ) This will allow neighbors to access these businesses on bike or foot rather than by driving. In addition, while not on site, a complete medical and shopping center is located just over a block to the south of Washington Village, thus allowing for easily "walkable and bikeable" trips. 2. Abundant Bicycle Parking Facilities: We will provide 56 total bike storage spaces throughout the RH-2 portion of our site and 12 in the RL-1 portion. This greatly exceeds the amount of bike parking required on the site by code (10% of car parking spaces), even before a parking reduction is applied. Distributing the 56 spaces throughout the RH-2 portion of the site; in the underground garage (18), in the surface garages (2 ea. for a total of 20), near the bus stop (5), just to the south of the southernmost carnage house unit (8), and between the North building and the northernmost duplex (5), will afford residents, office visitors and public visitors the opportunity to easily bring their bikes to the site and find ample parking for them. We are also assuming an additional 2 bikes per single family garage for a total of 12 additional bike spaces, or a total of 68 bike spaces on the entire site. This is 11 more than in our initial Sept. 12`h submittal. Also, as discussed in our response document to city comments, this amount could be further increased to 80, by leaving a portion of the existing bike rack (ZO spaces) on Cedar in lieu of providing the 8 new spaces shown on the plan just south of the carriage houses. We will let city staff decrde which is more desirable. 3. Bikepool Program: Washington Village HOA will provide a bikepool program info center, which will be self-managed out of a central location in the common house. This program would allow residents of Washington Village to check out bikes, helmets and locks for bike trips around the city. It is likely that when residents move into Washington Village, they may have surplus bikes and equipment that can be put into a pool for shared use. WHDC will set up the HOA to provide financial support for the first year following occupancy for whichever way the community decides to provide maintenance; either their own program or rising the Community Cycles program. The intent is to make it a long-term program. After the ferst year, the HOA, with assistance from the City's transportation department/CO Boulder, can decide which management program best suits the community's future needs. Washington Village II Proposed Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) I2-23-08 Strategy Pairings 111 I. Transit Passes Because the Neighborhood EcoPass program will no longer exist at occupancy of this project, we prvpose the exchange of assigned parking for an annual ValuPass, as described in Incentives for Voluntary Vehicle Reductions, above. In addition, WHDC will commit to buying up to $1,500 worth of 10 ticket books in the first year of occupancy that can be made available at the common house to be used by anyone in the cohousing community. After that, the HOA and GO Boulder will evaluate how this should continue. 2. TransitlBike Route Info Center: We will make available to Go Boulder an information center, either near the bus stop or at the common house, where they can display transit and bike route informatio~z. In addition, the developer and/or the HOA will work with GO Boulder to create Welcome Packets for all new residents of Washi~agton Village. The HOA a~zd GO Boulder should evaluate this yearly. 3. Survey: WHDC will ensure that the Washington Village HOA distributes a survey provided by GO Boulder, to all residents of the Washington Village community after their~rst year of occupancy. The intent is to do the survey over the long term. After the first survey is completed, Go Boulder and the HOA will meet to discuss how to move forward with surveys for the future. The purpose would be to study the effectiveness of the TDM plan. Results will be used by GO Boulder to study how to improve alternative transportation programs ATTACI-IMENT H stormwater mana<~ement alternatives 1. Accept water quality facility in the location proposed on Sheet C1.0- • 'T'his option has been reviewed by engineering staff and has been found to be consistent with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (DCS) for the purposes of stonnwater management. • Staff's recommendation, however, has been to remove the facility from the southeastern open space, in order to increase the open space's functionality as a possible pocket park or useable green space. • Staff is concerned that the space would not be largely useable for active or passive recreational uses with the slopes around the detention area and also the fact that the space would be used for pollutant filtration. • It is unlikely the city would accept the private stonnwater detention portions of the space as a public park for liability reasons. • Tf Planning Board opted to choose this option, proposed condition 3(a)(iii) would have to be removed. 2. Require water quality facility to be extended over the entire southeastern open space- s This option would likely result in a more shallow detention pond. • The space would likely require an underdrain system or a concrete/rock lined trickle channel to adequately drain the space across the relatively flat slopes. • As the enti-e space would be used for private stormwater management, it is unlikely the city would accept the entire space as a public park for liability reasons. • This option would require additional review of engineering for compliance with the DCS and plaiuning staff for review of its general fwnctionality against tine Site Review criteria. Staff would retw~n with a revised reco~mnendation if it was adequately demonstrated such a space were found useable and functional per the criteria. 3. Require the relocation of the water quality facility from the southeastern open space as required by proposed condition 3(a)(iii)- • Phis option would result in an open space that is more functional and useable consistent with the Site Keview criteria of 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981, and also increases tine likelihood the space could be accepted by the city as a pocket park. • The proposed condition would require the relocation of tine facility to alternate locations on the site. Two possible sites are where the single family home is proposed on building site 6 (sec Sheet C1.0) and/or the south carriage house. • 'T'hese areas would be large enough to accommodate the expected drainage and could be connected to a subterranean outfall pipe ii the location already proposed. • The applicant could discharge the major storm event directly to Goose Creek. The applicant would be required to construct underground storm pipe and provide engineering analysis demonstrating that the major stone event could be conveyed directly to Goose Creek without adversely impacting downstream properties. The applicant would then only be required to provide water quality capture volume on the site. This would reduce the overall pond volumes on the site by approximately 1/3. • All of the methods in this option could be used interchangeably to acconunodate stormwater as necessary. Agenda Item # SA Page # ATTACHMENT I Karl, Now that I've reviewed the entire WHDC response to DRC preliminary comment that I found here: http•//www bouldercolorado gov/files/PDS/Washins~ton%20SchooUsite~lail 10 08/ wvii - resubmittal 11 17 08 response to city comments of lU-.pdf I have these additional questions/comments: 1) Affordable Units. The only reference I've found on drawings is the parking analysis on the Basement/Garage plans. This drawing does not appear to have changed between the September and revised submission, both of them showing 8 Iow income units (designated "Affordable") and 2 middle income units (designated "Moderate"). Yet the WHDC response says there will be 6 low income and 4 middle, and that these are more clearly designated on some drawing somewhere. Please direct me to the appropriate drawing. As a comment, I would say that this appears to indicate more "backsliding" on Wonderland's part, as I recall. no previous indication that low income would be reduced below I actually thought by retaining aII 8 and only eliminating 3 middle income units that they were going a tiny bit further than they had to and found that encouraging. Now it appears they are trying to do the opposite and that I find discouraging -and even more so that city staff is apparently willing to let it happen. I also take very little comfort in Wonderland's agreement to price the middle income units under $300k. It is difficult for me to imagine that especially the two that are only 600 sq.ft. would have a market price approaching $300k, and I'm wondering whether the regulations for pricing these types of units even takes into account the differential between the likely market price and the regulated price. If you could direct me to the relevant regulations/standards maybe I can understand. In general, I have found the city all too willing to let this most tangible of community benefits dwindle away bit by bit with hardly any resistance, and that will become a significant issue before Planning Board. 2) North Boundary. Stan can obviously speak for himself, but I agree with your comment (Site Design ##2) that WHDC needs to be more explicit about impact mitigation on the north. WHDC's response to that comment was wholly inadequate (mostly chastising Stan for not wanting to talk to their landscape architect). They need to explicitly address measures including screening (e.g. from headlight glare) and plant maintenance/preservation they intend to take in this vicinity. Specifically, they need to discuss the potential impacts on the large crabapple tree (located on the property line) caused by installation of the driveway inside this tree's dripline. This is analogous to the large American Linden tree near Cedar located adjacent to that end of the proposed driveway whose fate is currently uncertain. 3) Permeable Pavement. Please provide the rationale on which agreement was made that WHDC would not pursue this. 4) Phasing Plan to delay east side construction (Site Design #7). The WHDC claim that they "have looked at many options" to build fewer homes is disingenuous. As detailed in the OSWG report, WHDC may have (under pressure) "looked at" some options, but never with any serious intent to pursue any of them. 5) Parking Reduction. I appreciate your mentioning neighborhood concerns about spillover parking and the suggestion to add a few snore spaces. However, what concerns me the .most in WI IDC's analysis is the claim they are adhering (approximately) to the unofficial 1.5 cars/unit standard when in fact they have violated the spirit of the context in which that standard arose (during RG discussions) by designating so much of the parking to be reserved for specific units. Under the previous design more than two-thirds of spaces were underground and open to all users. Now, only half of the spaces are open to anyone (including employee commuters) and the rest are in enclosed garages reserved for owners of the units attached to them. This diminishes the ability of the 1.5 cars/unit standard to achieve its intended purpose of accoirunodating all cars owned by residents to park onsite because there are likely to be underutilized private garage spaces either all of the time or at least during peak hours. Also, the 1.5 cars/unit standard was not intended by the RG to supply additional spaces for visitors. In summary, 1.5 spaces/unit doesn't work when so many spaces are reserved and when visitors are not accommodated. I wish you would revise your next set of comments to reflect these concerns. 6) Zoning. Your numbers here appear to reflect the size of the RH-2 zone after the requested and denied rezoning. Also, even though the RL-1 side could technically accommodate 8 lots at 7,000 sq.ft. each, I believe the geometry of this parcel, street frontage requirements, minimum lot width standards, side setbacks, etc. would make it nearly impossible to lay out 8 lots, or even 7. If that's correct, I wish you would note it in your next round of comments because the way it appears now is that WHDC is giving up some development potential when in fact they really are not. Thanks again, John Guiler, Karl From: Denny Robertson I Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 8:30 AM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Re: Washington School Project questions Karl, Please include these comments in the project packet headed to Planning Board and City Council. At your earliest convenience, please also send me the full lists you are compiling of 1) the code standards proposed to be exceeded by the applicant, and 2) the code standards proposed to be modified for the approval of this project. If you also have a "department's logic-list" discussing the offsets of code-exceeded to code-modified, please send that, too. Thank you in advance for these internal documents that are so difficult for an outsider to track down. Comments: The size of the project and the monumental change in the historic land-use has enormous potential to overburden and destabilize the surrounding neighborhoods. Through many hours of (WSRG) volunteer consultation with neighbors and the developer, we have all aired our concerns. Consensus very clearly voiced that to reduce the impact on the surrounding neighborhoods: 1) there could be no corrunercial space on Broadway, and 2) there could be no parking reduction to the code requirements. _ Commercial, even as proposed for community use will draw traffic and parking, add to light pollution, and break up the current residential land-use on all sides of this project. There are NO other commercial properties adjacent to this site. The adjacent residential properties are in good repair and well priced for City of Boulder workers. As a neighbor one block away, I strongly object to the proposed modification to allow commercial use of any kind on the Broadway face of this project. Please leave our residential neighborhood residential. A parking reduction to code proposed in this neighborhood is blind to the existing parking congestion. Workers at Community Hospital, Ideal Plaza, and Boulder Medical Center are required to park "offsite." Overflow from the "parking reduced" apartment buildings on Broadway west of this project make street parking thick and dangerous to pedestrians. And, this is a close-in site for out of town commuters to park-and- (RTD)ride, some on a daily basis, some for extended travel. Any parking reduction, for any reason is a substantial overburdening of the surrounding neighborhoods. What would be of real benefit and exceed code requirements would be for the project to provide some additional public parking on the site, as the current school parking lot has in many evenings past. 'Thank you for including my comments to Planning Board and City Council as the project goes forward for review. llenny Robertson 1107 Cedar Ave Boulder, CO 80304 On Uct 13, 2008, at 8:2.5 AM, Karl Guiler wrote: llenny, Thanks foi- your email. The school itself is proposed with more residential units within it, but there are some community spaces in the hasement area. Guiler, Karl From: Mikki Rainey Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 200812:47 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Washington School Dear Karl, I just finished reading all of staffs recommendations to Wonderland Hill Development Corp. AND their replies. Since they virtually ignored almost everything you and staff said, do you now understand the frustrations and anger of the neighbors? Why is dim Leach and his company getting preferential treatment for ANYTHING??????? At this point there should be NO exceptions granted. Leach should deal with what he has or sell the property. Perhaps Planning Board can make THAT suggestion. And I frankly do not care how much money he has put into this. I own a business and NOBODY is offering me any financial help or bailout or exceptions to the rules. It is time for this City to put a STOP to all of this construction AND to listen to the people who live here instead of all the developers. Let's get ALL of our priorities in order for the FUTURE". Mikki Rainey 1302 Cedar Ave. Boulder, CO 80304 303,447,1960 R0~3ERT ~®ESCHL ARCHITECTURE December 8, 2008 Karl Guiler Planning Staff City of Boulder Bye-m~ ref.: Washington Village Review Dear Mr. Guiler: I hope this is an appropriate moment to register my comments about the recently revisions to the Washington Village site plan and architectural configuration which have been submitted by Wonderland Hill Development and posted on the City's website. I have included calculated data where it might be useful. Setbacks and Related Issues North P.L. The West (Broadway) Building is now 25'-2" from the Red Arrow property line, an increase of 11'-2" from the plans submitted Sept. 13, 2007. The North Building is shown as 30'-9" from the same line, up 12.5 feet from the earlier plans. In the case of the West Building, some of tl~e positive effects of this move are blunted somewhat by its greater height (see Solar Access + Permeability below). East P.L. As you noted in your review, there are no indications of building footprints for the residential lots. WHDC has indicated it will apply for an exemption from the setback requirements along 13'" Street. The architects have provided no dimension from the east property line to the edge of the building envelope, but scaling it from the nearby sidewalk indicates it could be 2.5 ft. Tfiis is a negligible buffer zone, and will create afortress-like effect facing the neighbors across tl~e street if all this construction extends all the way to this line. Solar Access for Red Arrow Comparing the revised solar shadow plans with our own shadow calculations based upon the Sept. '07 plans shows that moving Washington Village away from the Red Arrow property line has had the expected positive effect. As the WHDC plans clearly show, however, these effects are modulated by the relative heights of the Village buildings. The North Building is now 4 feet 7 inches lower than its previous iteration, and this has had an especially happy effect on its shadow, which barely overlaps East Red Arrow. In the case of the Broadway Building, though, the questionable wisdom of increasing its height by 6.5 feet has resulted in blunting the effects of the horizontal move. The shadow is not as overbearing as the Sept. '07 version, but it still shades West Red Arrow to a significant degree. I think the height increase is counterintuitive from a solar access standpoint, as well as from the criteria established for human scale and permeability... Height Effects: Mediating Scale and Permeability The WHDC architects apparently increased the height of the Broadway Building in order to match the hipped roof theme of Washington School, which is repeated elsewhere in the Washington Village buildings. As you point out in your analysis, trying to match the slope of the school roof has resulted a taller building, and reinforced what you called a "cloistered effect". I would point out that there is no special reason to match the school's roof slope, as the architects have already used different hipped roof slopes elsewhere in the project. Lowering the slopes as well as the roof ridges, and breaking the profile at the building's top with a "cascade" of roof shapes, including dormers, would increase a sense of human scale and restore a sense of the permeability (if not the real thing) we found in several of the charrette schemes. In addition, deploying a strategy of lower and smaller scale elements would create a mediating scale which would relate the new 2121 30TH STREET ~ SUITE 100 ~ BOULDER, COLORADO ~ 80301 TELEPHONE: 303 ~ 442 ~ 0733 FAX: 303 ~ 442 ~ 0805 ROBERT PQESCHL ARCHITECTURE buildings to the neighboring Red Arrow buildings. In my view, the return for the developer's request for an exemption from the 35 foot heigi~t regulation has not been any kind of benefit, not to the community or immediate neighbors, not to the thematic unity of the Washington Village project, and certainly not to the townscape viewed from Broadway. It wasn't necessary to raise this building another 6.5 feet beyond the original 41 to provide a public open space, and this brings me to my next comment... Open Space My analysis of the RG process, the charrette, and the design direction since these events frames it as an exchange in which land (which I calculate at 0.289 acres at the corner of Cedar and 13tH) is offered by the developers in return for community good will. I used fhe word "offered" with caution, because the developers are still telling us that whether this becomes public space depends upon a host of factors not within their scope of work. Mary Young's comment that "we bet everything on the open space" is especially perceptive, because I feel the open space was not only the real focus of the neighborhood efforts, but the focus of the developer's design revisions. How positively it is viewed by the neighborhood will depend upon how convincing it is as public space... Spatial Integration the Retention Pond Affordable Housing and Other Neglected Items I agree with your earlier expressed concern that the 13`h and Cedar open space would vrork better if it could wrap around (or nudge over) the Cedar duplex to link up with the (still rather grand, despite everything) space in front of Washington School. In doing so, it would form a link between two potentially inviting spaces, and also form a link to community memory. The retention pond might also work better with this alteration. My calculations show that the pond has gotten about 300 sq. fi. smaller, though its new shape is probably more practical than before. Providing more space here would make it less likely that the corner ends up as a swamp during the rainy seasons. The Planning Staff's comments echoed my uneasy sense that the notion of affordable housing has been left, like the retention pond, to residual space {in this case, the school basement). I was encouraged to see highly specific suggestions on affordable housing in your recommendations, and I wonder how affordable "under $300,000" (meaning very nearly $300k) . really is for 840 square feet or less when you can already buy 880 sq. ft. at Red Arrow for $275k. One updated Red Arrow unit (insulating glazing, remodeled kitchen) with 80 extra square feet (glazed dining room under bedroom cantilever) sold in the spring (before the real estate bust) for $32.9k... Another unresolved, and important, issue is the architectural theme (if any) and landscaping of the northern edge of the single family zone, adjacent to the Kyed property, which has not been treated ire any detail on these newest plans. As with the articulation of the open space, a feeling of relationship to the neighborhood could be achieved by establishing a theme and carrying it through to the details. 1 want to thank you for your careful attention to this project in all its phases. Best regards, Bob Poeschl 2121 30TH STREET ~ SUITE 100 ~ BOULDER, COLORADO ~ 80301 TELEPHONE: 303 ~ 442 ~ 0733 FAX: 303 ~ 442 ~ 0805 ; J~ , ~ ~ 7 Guiler, Karl From: Joan Brody Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 10:03 AM To: Guiler, Karl; phyllis savage Subject: IMPORTANT! To: Karl Guiler Planning Staff, City of Boulder I FOUND OUT ABOUT THE INCREASE IN THE HEIGHT OF THE WEST BRODWAY BUILDING DIRECTLY IMPACTS TO MY HOME Setbacks and Related Issues North P.L. The West (Broadway) Building is now 25'-2"from the Red Arrow property line, an increase of 11'-2"from the plans submitted Sept. 13, 2007. The North Building is shown as 30'-9"from the same line, up 12.5 feet from the earlier plans. In the case of the Wesi Building, some of the positive effects of this move are blunted somewhat by its greater height (see Solar Access + Permeability below). I AM RETIRED WITH VERY LIMITED RESOURCES AND HOW MUCH I AM DEPENDANT ON SOLAR ENERGY FOR LIGHT AND HEAT IN MY UNIT. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE SEVERELY NEGATIVE IMPACT THE WEST BROADWAY BUILDING WOULD HAVE ON MY QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE W INTER MONTHS. I AM DEAF: I UVE ON RED ARROW CONDOMINIUM AT UNIT 9. PLEASE EMAIL ME RIGHT AWAY. JOAN BRODY -RED ARROW -UNIT 9 Send a-mail faster without improving your typing skills. Get your HotmailC~ account. 1'll^ . ~~j Gt~iler, Karl From: Stan Kyed Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 7:23 PM To: Guiler, Karl; i_okocz, Elizabeth; Nolly Kyed; John Stanley Kyed Subject: Washington Use and Site Review Karl: Could you please forward this to Planning Board, or attach to staff comments? Thanks. Our family owns the property at 2945 13th St., which borders 225 feet of the Washington site north side. We have been involved in various aspects of the Washington process since the original Community Review Panel and would like to offer a few comments on the current proposal. Throughout the Washington process we have raised concern about the impact of this development on our property, which along with the Red Anow Apartments is the most heavily influenced by whatever will be built on the site. We appreciate careful consideration of our comments and plan on attending Planning Board meetings in order to further clarify. Before beginning, we would first like to acknowledge the efforts of Karl Guiller, City Project 1VIanager and Elizabeth Lokocz, City Landscape Architect for twice visiting with us and making a sincere attempt to understand our family's perspective on the development. During the lengthy process involving the Washington site, we have often been critical of the city. We sincerely appreciate the city's efforts to reach out to us prior to the current review. We remain against the development and critical of the city's role, but appreciate their effort. Next, we have been the brunt of some comments regarding the fence line on the north side of the site that reflect a lack of understanding. In a public hearing during the last review a potential member of the Wonderland community accused us of stealing the land from the school district. The October 28th Wonderland response to the city also makes accusations against us regarding some out of context comments to someone who was wandering the fenceline and allegedly working for Wonderland. We would like to set the record straight. The fence was originally erected by the school district after World War II when the south 95 feet of our lot was sold to the school district. In approximately 1995, a few years after we purchased the home, the school district came to us and said they had some excess bond funding and wanted to rebuild the fence a foot to the south. We complained about the ridiculous nature of this, but they said it was going to be done. We did not understand how far off the fence was from the actual property line (some 4 feet) until a meeting in 2007 with Wonderland. We did not steal this land, and we did. not erect the fence; the school district did. We inherited the land in question and have followed our predecessor's assumption that it was ours and taken care of the land to the best of our ability. You can only imagine our shock in learning that Wonderland had a claim to what we thought was ours (as previously stated we only thought it was a foot off). What follows are some brief positions we take based on our close proximity to the property and our long association with the site: 1. North fence line and alley: As we understand from the plans and Wonderland's Response to City Comments on October 28, Wonderland may be proposing to leave the content chain link fence in place and build a 20 foot wide alley withal. foot landscape buffer along the fence, thus providing our family "beneficial use" of the approximate four fgot wide area to the north of the fence. While this is certainly a recognition of the complexities of the north side of the property, it may not mitigate impact on our fanuly or the established vegetation to a satisfactory level. As we discussed with Karl and Elizabeth during their recent visit with us, a landscape buffer of 5 feet south of the chain link fence would do much more to preserve existing vegetation, mitigate impact, and provide a smoother transition to the existing neighborhood. We have spent some time with a tape measure on the area and really feel the proposed 'buffer, alley, and setback is much too close. 2. Landscaping and vegetation on the north side: The landscaping and vegetation along the north property line are extremely important to us; this landscaping will need to be bolstered in order to minimize noise and intrusion, as well as to minimize "headlight wash" across our house and provide a transition to the neighborhood. Vines on the chain link fence are a good first step, but they need to be substantial, and supported with a careful plan for shrubs so that year-round protection will be offered. Any major trees removed along the fence line should be replaced by major trees (particularly the black walnut). Underground utility lines should not be routed along the fence and excavation should not harm root systems. A large crabapple some 4S feet from 13th St is, according to our understanding, protected by the restricted covenant and anything impacting this tree, including pruning for the alleyway should be carefully reviewed. We are against covenant controlled- style, carefully groomed landscaping and hope the overall landscape design will transition to the look and feel of the established neighborhood. 3. Parking: There is not enough parking in the neighborhood for current daytime needs. We remain unconvinced that the site design adequately addresses parking issues. 4. View access: Our property has a historic view of the school and the mountains, as does the neighborhood. Any portion of the view that can be salvaged is important to the character of the neighborhood. We urge you to consider views from all perspectives. Feel free to visit the view from our kitchen and please look at models with this in mind. Historic preservation involves more than the preservation of a few bricks. 5. Commercial space: We are against commercial space on the site. We do not feel that Wonderland has any vested rights from the previous process. 6. Placement of the single family home on 13th St.: This home should face 13th St., or be designed in a manner that provides a street view. 7. Open Space: As currently proposed the open space at 13th and Cedar appears little more than a drainage basin. This is dangerous to children and does little to meet the long history of requests for some form of community benefit. Please remember that "community benefit" was why the project was originally advanced a few years ago. 8. Lack of clarity for the design of the 6 single family homes: The six single family homes on the east portion of the site scare us quite a bit. The design guidelines do not help mitigate this fear. As part of the approval, there needs to be much more clarity on these homes. We know these comments do not go into depth, perhaps that reflects our disenchantment. Yet many of you have heard these comments before and we don't know how much needs to be restated. Please consider our view, given the impact the development will have on us. Sincerely, Stan, Holly, and John Kyed 2945 13th St. Boulder Ph. 303 447 2499 1 ATTACHMENT J ~I a. ~ ~j~ ~ S''~ tih ,fit!; yr TT" 1 1 f r~! t ~Q ~r ~ • ~ yid ~1 ' f 7 'i~,~A yIM 1~`1''l~.1 ~i h ~ A ~ T ~'r.~ ~ •^°7' i, r~: ~ ~ a ' 's N1~ ~ Cry y^ J, i~^ , ' b(r~ i' c,'+a ~ , p~,L, ~ - - ~1` y' ~~1y' i~A ~ %,^,?"~M'1 ~?~Iq .r .~i d~~.; it ~ + ~ lC:~:Mt- ,L, ~ ~ .r" ~ ~1 ~'~'~~+~~,I ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~r~~" '''r, ~•';A"~ ' ~ r ~ ~r~~~~ ~~r,. r i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,l' r....! r r pJ s~l y~ ~ . f~ ~yr Vy,1 ~I .,4 _ ~ ~ N~ ,ft~c_ ~r'~r,~'IF,,. ~~•c ^~4, ay'~~ ~ r ~1. ~l~ ~ ~'!f i.f~ry - r p. ~J~' f.fL~~ + i~~ ,t i , ~ ~ r t, + ' rte.. ~1~ f'.. 7Dd~ .fir . _.ii'!, ~ '."'"`T ;I~ 6 f , 'e~ r 31,. r1 f 1! t l ~4~ y ''Q ~~~v`~yG . ! .y Ir Y ~y ~~I 1 I ~r sy ,d ~ ',~,a •1. P,~'~~~A~ T T r 'ti..~~ ~ ~~5~ +~Al~ ~ F,~t J~ ~ 2. ~ r..I ~1.~ ~~~n' ~ ~ ~I { ~r._ 1 ~ ~~~~!y?~~ y . , ~I~~ - ~ ~ ~'~M 1ul w~ ~ - f vw ~r.~eC+.'~sia.~l~ , i ,t_ , i . s4I r ~ J ~ r w . ~ _ ~ _r-- - q . ' ' WASHINGTON VILLAGE-II -SITE PLAN REVIEW YY vl Lfl ~IGf t0a / . Irtundrt i,, 1215 CEDAR AVE BOULDER COLORADO i ~ 1 ~ ' r 'yam a, ~ r 1 4?" 1tB~,~ ! '~~i 'v, ~ ,y, F~4R"' i. ill ~ !t rY~' ~ ~ hl' Q, ~1 ! ' ~j 1 ,eh,. « 1 f r. ~t~ N .,dF - , ~ j. II r ~r i 7^1 ~,.'1. ,u,, (r i .•~~e~I .O~ •A f L~ 1` ~4'~ _ 1~ k ,I+-~. _iM ~ ( - ~ ;gyp ~,~,1i'~ ~ ~ "ei pFl y'~ . `4 r,~ry~'~ x' ~ ~4 r . , y ~ GI ,rte . /r ~/r?!'~~i?` >0 / ' ~ f t arty ~ 1 Mn y,. ~1~.- r, ~ k :~t~ 1 °i` 1r r mod.' ' r j~ " S!' ` ~ f) , 1 , « ~ ~.i I i ~ 1. t ~ . \..'~+U!t'' r J ~ ~ i> r ~ ~ ~ i *t .i ~ 1 ( ~ t b - ~ _ • 11. i ' '~~JJj~ ~ _ _ ~y: i ~ : ' ~C Y x~l i~ 'IR'~~ .~il ~ ~ trl `,r r.. ji``: ~ r,~ ~ a 'rp ~ ~ w-. - ~ f , K 't~. ~ ~ 1 rte,, r ~ ~>b ~rM I. 7~~t; . J~ 7• . . 1 tii 1 ~ ' ~ ~ ~l ( fs r ~ ~I 17. ,r s•`g i'i I ..--s: ~6~~ f,' ~ •r _ . V ~ ~ w rk - - `K A, , 1 ~ 1 l . . . • "'may 1 `I'.... 1 ~s, f I , ~ ~ - . • ~ } _ +K .r. ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ 111'~I"' . _ , a d r ~ ~I ~ ~ x , 1~-. i.~. 1 y ~ ~ r - ~ ~ rw~ * 1'.? •.,(i .:'~u..n .Tn~~~~','~;:'f:f4".B`l~.f'•.y"11r~~'IBO~u'CY~4~sY~A'1~7'~n~. 1Rr*Y`if...SY• _...~v:~r 1~..- - y..r I I I 1 r____~ I I F____~ I I I l.____J ~I I I I I I I I WASHINGTON VILLAGE-II - SITE P~aN REViEw h ~ M35NIN G'On 1 itonderl, - W 1Y15 CEDAR AVE BOULDER COLORADO ~ i . Washington Village II -Comparison of Original Approved Plan of October, 2007 to Proposed New Plan of November 17, 2008 Basic Site and Building Fans.: original Ap roved plan ~ ~ti. _ , P G~ 7 ~ Proposed New Pfan ~ Sate Sta+tus° Same No sale of school to outside party library: library remained in its current location library has been removed ~fewsheds: Primary viewsheds were front of School and southwest corner. Other visual/pedestrian pathways were Viewsheds in front of School and on southwest comer enhanced by the removal of the library. Other provided but more constricted, viewsheds opened up from the south and east sides of the property. Other visual/pedestrian pathways have opened up site south to north and on the northwest edge. Single Famr'Iy Residential LR-1 Zone: 5rrrgte family lusmes were on separate lots Single family homes are clustered to create publicly actessible open space Zone Line: 46 feet further east Back to original location Platting: One lotfor RH-2, 6 individual lots in single (amity LR•1 zone plus an outlot One lot for whole site with one HOA Total Number of Units on sRe: 40 units 33 units (17.5% less) FioorArea shown rn RH•2 Zorre: 44,2 SF of rrudpfamity resrdentral 37,199 SF of muklfam(ty residential (16961eu) Market Rate Units: 21 units (21 MF and 6 SF) 23 units (17 MF and 6 SF) Affordable U~' ~ urats ~ 32.5%' 10 units (32.5% =10.7 rounded down) plus cash•in-lieu Office Space: 6,854 SF of office space 2,950 SF of office space (57% less) Panting: No.of parking spaces provided for RN-2 zone: 75 47 No. of pkg. spaces Provided for LR-1 zone per code: 12 12 Total parking spaces provided vn site; 81(53 multifamiy, l2 single family, 22 office) 59 (36 multifamily, !2 single family, 9 office) Parking reduction reQuestedfor RH-2 mrre: 0.472 0.552 Open Space: Total Amount of Open space RN•2 Tare: 48.0% 59.0% _ , n- , , , Amount of Common Open space in LR•1 Zone: 0%, due to single family lots, outlot 23.4% Area of open space given to "park` in lR-1 Zone: None 13,160 SF, about 1/3 acre Broadt~rall Btald'ing: Approved Plan ~ Proposed New Plan - t 4 _,w. ~ ..rs ~ , 10 units 10 units Above grauM, semi•endosed, covered link provided between Broadway Building and the School. Deleted enclosure and covering at 8nkto inaease penrreaMity between the Broadway BuRrRrrB acrd the Building length is 11 feet shorter at ground kwel Building length Is 18.1/2 feet shorter at 3rd fkwr Established 16 foot solar fence Meets 12 foot single family solar fence requiremerrt as it affects Red Arrow buildings Min buadirrg is 21 feet from north property line _ ~ ~R ~ Main building is 31 feet further from north property 8ne (an improvement of 30 feet' Office space was 6,654 SF Office space reduced to 2,950 SF (less than half size) No house in Broadvay BuBding. Common house ceMratized in Broadway 8ruldir~ on main floor. Porch, bus stop and bike parking added _ at front. i+latrdt $ttif (kiginai d Plan Proposed New Plan 10 units 4 units (6 fewer units in this building) Bridge to Broadway Building has been removed to increase permeability Underground parking has been removed Building hetgM has been reduced 41/2 feet Established 14 foot solar fence Meets it foot single family solar fence 14 fit from rrordr property line at closest point 30J5 feet from north property line at closest point (rr~rly 17 feet further away from property Rne). Bui ing is almost 52 feet shorter (greatly increas z . • - . , _ _ - - ,<-< _ _ , Pro osed New Plan es permeability on both :Ides of Worth Budding) 8 units 6 units 2 2 duplexes, 2 carciage houses Buildings are smaller scale to increase permeability Buildings are loser to school to keep density cent2Rzed 12.1/2 feet from south property line and 3 stories 25 feet from south property line and 2 stories SthOt11 ~ tkiginaf Ap~wed Plan Proposed New Plan 6 units 7 units i Common house moved out of building Common area was entire lower level. Units added on lower level by reducEng size of previous common area Undesignated space of approx. 2,000 SF to be used by cohousing cemmunity for storage, workshop Single l:amily Residential: Original Approved Plan Proposed New Plan 6 units 6 units Distance from building wall to north property line is 5 feet Distance from (wilding wall to north property line h 19 feet 6 single family residences on separate lots. 19,200 SF total allowable above ground, averaged over all 6 Clustered single family residences all on same lot. 21,000 SF total allowable above ground proposed, averaged over all building areas. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 RENDERINGS 2 SITE PLAN A~ ~ ,y' ~ ~ 3 BASEMENT! PARKING PLAN ~ _ • 4 FIRST LEVEL PLAN ' s G ~ _ ~ .y ~ l - 6 THRDNLDEVELPLAN N +~~y , - y,, ~ : ~ _ . - . ~ .~y . . 7 ROOF PLAN ~ - ''~°~r.~°~ ~ ~ 8 WEST & SOUTH ELEVATIONS . _ 9 EAST & NORTH ELEVATIONS 10 HISTORIC SCHOOL ELEVATIONS ~ 11 BROADWAY ELEVATIONS ~ t t ~v~ F, t ~tr,,,r.-~.+~ .JS; W ~~p!~,:,~' c w ~ r 13 NORTH BUILD NGAEL~VATIONS ~ - i7 . . , ~ > a ~ ~ i co z;. ~ ~ 14 DUPLEX & CARRIAGE ELEVATIONS ' ~ • . ~ NORTH BUILDING ~ ` r~~ ~ Y ,r ~ ~ r ~ ~ y ~ f: J e~_ ,,J I mr ~ ~ ~ NORTH ~ LL ~ ' i w . ~e~ ~ ' ~ ~ w W, .Kr ~ w ~ ,~4 ~ DUPLEX I ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ . N C7 a 4 um ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . $uh J M ~ M W I Fr 111 TT-,,, yygg.~,,, ,t a, SC b J .(i• O ~ t SOUTH ~ z m DUPLEX ° ' ' Off, ~ ,4~ • ~ _ ~ ~ ~ _~.t ~ ~ SINGLE FAMILY 3 ~ ~ _ Jam. _ ~ i ' ; y ~~,7 ter. ~ _ "'r ~ ~`~i~ ; , ~ • M HISTORIC SCHOOL . ~ r , .r: ~ i t; , ~ . ~ ~ ~ CARRIAGE ~ , ~s ~ ~ ~ :~w~,~s ~r. SINGLE, Mf[~`~' , ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ T'~ cam.. - ~,t:. . ° _ ~ Y! T ' ~ ~'y lq! f r '~•q ~ CARRIAGE ~ ,r ~ ~ ' ~ SIN E FAMILY 1 ~~y'~, ,Tye ,~tur _ r {a~ ~ FF b. i~~ ~ '~ratil ,z.(~.1 I~~T~h~ p l~. Vf, ~~ar.' y# S ~ J ~~i.~. ~ , r .mow jc ~ ~ ~ J, e' ' . ~~3Y nw.: t cif ` Y~ 1 ail ~4 y ~ J \ CEDAR AVENUE ' wASN,N~, ~ WASHINGTON VILLAGE-II -SITE PLAN REVIEW o 1o zo ao _ titi.'~dE'~%'"'1 ~ Y~"AG` l 1215 CEDAR AYE BOULDER COLORADO SCAlE:1" =40' ~ ~ ' ..z . PARKING SUMMARY RH3 ZONE - ON 9RE BELOW BUlOWO STI9UCNflED PAflKINO BROADWAY BUILDING SIANDARO 13 COMPACT I1 HANDICAP 4 ON{AAOE PARNIND COMPACT INDRDI OF pUPLE%1 1 HANDICAP (NORTH OF NORTHERN CARRIAGE MW SEI I NCK~UNOER PARKING STANDARD (DUPLEXES) 8 STANDARD (CARRIAGE UNITS) 8 ' TOTAL ST0.NDAP0 GARB 27 RH-2RL-1 TOTALCOMPACiCAPS PEPCEMTAOEOFCOMMCT 9I% 15 ~F ZbNE TOTAL HANDICAP CAR9 5 4 ~ RL120NE-ON 9ffE r; clo p y U W -ypy~ ybb 110 ON-GRADE INTEWOR GAPAOE PARKING cla 8 'L~ L~ ;u SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES 12 0 ew 11 PewmeE as 2 we MaaM VngM Hmlry OBleclieO ~Mf 9 ,°p~ ~ ` TOTAL CARS PR041DE0 FOR RL-i 20NE 0RSITE iI , nrraa - I-• + T C1f < ARKW PA E PA I 5 ~......-.1 ~--......1 ~ ~ T - _ ......-.-t__-____-}--------------------------- 1 nw i . J ON STREET MRgNO -~~IeLL9M1-' c'.a I H CEDM1R AVENUE 13 Po ~ 2GARS PCR I SGAR9 PCR I 2LARB PCR IDm STREET II 'a`e.c'~'7P°"~ c i i BUILDING ARCA I BUILDING ARCA I BUILDING ARCH AAKIN PA AY I4 ' I I ; ~ ~ i i i PARKING ANALYSIS BASED ON RH-2 ZONE . 1 . , a,i ,tll ~ RE UIREMENT , avwmawnn w ' uun ; I I t LAR9NNIT TOTAL °R""r ,.1;,"a. nTaen I I R&220NE CONTRIBUTING AREAS _ uxn9rzE Id MAX) uxlTS CARS a::::;: " a.'i. c> - elf I ( PRIVATE flE510EN11Al AAEAB IFwnl towar8 tol~ragWrad awcr) ' ~~a~R.e aao». r-,__ t,a~ ~ I F I I xlsTOmcscxoGL _ _ 1d'M0N UASEMENTLEVEI ~u>Wa 2 ~ ~ a SINE 1Si0RV AFFORDABLE UNn (NOflR1EAST) B01 3 I 3 ~atc ~ JOB `--L.--.l ~ l___-I-- 2~p al> I I SISE I~STORY AFFORDABLE UNIT lSpRMEA5T7 BBI 3 I 3 I I FIRST FLOOR Iavih to imena cdNBOU _ _ ' NORTH BUILDING ia~e pe ca muar ell ~ I I 59E 1~STOPY MAflNLT RAZE UNIT 150 MEASTI 1115 / t 4 , uw , , SIN 1STOAY MARKET PALE UNIT NORTHf 2,09! 9 1 wl ~ I I ~ S89E55C~NONID FLG~gq7yyR eNeI~(IP MaiiorcomdoQ ' ~aF 'L I I I • 99$ I6TOfIV MARIIET R~ATTE UNi~NORx 1,094 / 1 4 it L1 ti- I I I BROADWAY BIUhDWO9 I (i - ~ wi I I I HRSBIS~STOPV YAFFORM&E UNIT (SOUMI 919 ] 1 3 L_______________1._.____..__.__.J___________________ J(t~ b 61N (STORY AFFORDABLE UNR (NORTH) 919 3 1 3 j ~ V~. ~ DIB ISTOIY MODERATE UNIT I9WTNI 608 2 1 2 m ll,~~ 777T"' ' a BIN (STORY MODERATE UNIT 1NORTH) SOS I 1 2 ' ' SECOND FLOOfl (m94 de PU1tl00tpor[hbaNlrlOwerO 1 Q , ~ BIS I~STCHY MARKET HATE VNn ISOU7H7 I,B01 1 1 4 C K' I BIS 2STOflV MARKET RATE UNIT SOUTHf 2,151 / 1 4 a caava 91A Q ~1 ~ I 89X{8 (STORY MARKET RATE UNDS IMIODLEI TIBI d I 9 :PC.'. ~ ,F_ wi I B9 2~8TORY MAAKEF RATE UNn (!N)ATH) 2,151 1 1 4 FO 4- ` T°M1° I B7 1~9TOPY IMRKET RATE UNn (NORTH) IA71 1 1 4 ...:,q ~ ntc = 'i. I NORTH BUILOWD .,Kr~~ ~ eP oaaw _ 2GARS PCR I nRST FLOOHImnam9teEe) ~ amen 0 ' I N1E 2~STORV MARKET RATE UNR (EAST) 1,785 d 1 1 0 BUILDING AREA I IR ISTORYAFFOADABLE UHITl.O'NERf 1,001 3 1 0 ~ . _ ~ amuse ....w. , ~ EC ffe ,.~..M~..u ~ ~ cE t"'p ~ I 6 FL Ma omaoor an, neN torraral M.,m.,.,..wv ' I N9D 1~STORR4PAFFOPDABLE NIT UPPER Ip2/ 3 I 0 4• p1~. v DUPLEXES -''~Ay ~ rmxw aii rMA1d i E1N{S SSTOPY MARKET TOWNHOMES (NORTIB 1810 d / IB _ ~ CARRIAGE INIUSEB ~ I I C1N{91-STORY AFFORDABLE FUT(ABOVE GARAGES) 901 3 2 fi ~x"~ ~ ~ L--- ~ I I I ` ~ ~ t ~ I per n se a I7 9e ~~~,:~2.~~ ~ ""1° I AN~I ZONE PARKING REDUCTION REQUESTED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE I (MM to PARKING SUMMARIT HISTORIC SCHOOL (C~, we I TOTALNUM9EP OF BPACE9 PROWOED FDfl RESIDENTIAL USE SB ~~:><< aaM.w" I PERCENTAGE PARKING REDUCTION FOR RE910ENTIAI USE BOX I DEFILE UBE OFFICES 9FICAR a~'Jal ' Dii 1 fWi R nmuw I N 2GARS PCR - I c'"" anaa ,m„m„ O maa®_: 7 BUILDING ARCh I RN~I ZONE TOTAL OFFlCE PARKING REQUIRED 9 I ss _ a.e FI aie i RN~I ZONE TOTAL PARKING PEOWREO 105 ~~I"' 2a ~ p(rNr~oPARgNA05UMMARnREDUCTIONREOUESTED L J L ~ arirli ~ . I 6 G aa+ I TOTALNUMBER DF SPACE4PPOYIOEOIN RIFI IONS d7 - Q ~ . m.aca TOTAL PERCENTAGE PARKING REDUCTION REOUESfEO 55.Y% - Iw C ..:uow I ' w ~ i PARKING ANALYSIS BASED ON OTHER RH ZONES I iBEORDOM=ICAR.I BEDROOM=I.E CAR5.3 BEDROOM=I LARS,NBEDRODM =/CARS RH~I IONE CONTRIBUTING AREAS BEDROOMS CAR9 NUMBER TOTAL W aia I PRIVATE RESIOENTIALAREAS ICaIM bward lMY nqulntl ep¢x) PER UNIT PER OF CARS N wevao I UNIT UNnS ~ I HISTORIC SCHOOL ~ O BASEMENT LEVEL I'S I $1 AFFORDABLE (NORTH EA97) 2 1.5 1 15 ~W eia 1CARB PER I S2 AFFORDABLE (SOUTH EASTf 2 IS 1 15 Nanxo BUILDING ARCA I Mux LEVEL yQ I I S3 MARKET FLAT9IXRHWEBi AND SOUTHEAST I 1 2 2 56 MARNETFUT NORTH 3 2 I I I C I Q ei+ 1, I UPPER LEVFl W o.nea I 55 MAHKEfflAT S01/TH 0 2 I 1 I S6 MARKET FUT NORTH 3 2 1 I I I BROADWAY BUKDINO MMN LEVEL I I BI AFFORDABLE ENO UNRS 2 I.5 2 S I I B2 AFFORDAME CENTWLL UNOS 1 1 2 2 I I UPPER LEVEL I I B3 M0.fIKET FUT SOUTH 2 1.9 1 1.5 1 I B4 MAflNEfFUT NORTH G 2 1 2 I I B5 MARKE150UTH 10WNHOVSE 2 1.5 1 1.6 1 Bfi MARKEF NORTH TOVMHW5E G 2 1 I _ A.I8~~N~ - dllllNA ~ ^ NORTX BWLDINO~FUT WRH MIGX LIVING 1 1 2 I °IIBAIIP MAIN LEYEL ~'Y' ~vT Ni MARNEr TOWN HOMES EABTAND WEST 0 2 2 / N2 AFFORDABLE MODERATE LONER 2 1b 1 1.5 N7 AFFORLABLE MODERATE UPPER I 1.5 i 1.5 m ~ u AGGC55 n to . a ~ N a a ~ ~ Access ~ I i ouP~ Et MARKET TOWN HOMES 2 1.5 < 9 CAPRUDE C1 AFFOAOABIE INCL. NORTH 2 1.5 1 1.5 C2 AFFORDABLE MODERATE SOUTH 2 i.5 1 1.6 TOTAL CARS IN RH•2 ZONE USING RHJ,4,5 REGUIREMENTS Ii OFRCE UB! OFFICES SFICAP TR P0.RN1N•R OLIR 01 ell I •.l'~"Aaf Hre wl 2ReA 100 9920 RH-I ZONE TOTAL OFpCE PARKING REOUWEO 4 TOTAL CARS REGUIRED IN RN-2 ZONE ~ TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED USING OTHER RH 2ONE4 60 T07ALNUMBER Of 9PACE3 PRONGED IN flIHI IDNE p TOTAL PERCENTAGE PARKWD REDUCTION B% . { Wa9MINGT WASHINGTON VILLAGE-II -SITE PLAN REVIEW o 1o zo ao ' VV Y]LLAGE Jv IU,oiderk'.' 1215 CEDAR AVE BOULDER COLORADO SCALE: 1" = 40' ~ ~ a I ~ TOTAL SITE AREA 130,710 SF - ~ - ~ $ RH•2 ZONE 74,398 SF ~ry RL•i ZONE 56,3125E sass YbAE ~ R ~ FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS ~ ~ Residential - ~ pp ~ RH-2 ZONE ~ BROSDW~RBUILDING 3050 ~x _ f _ SECONDFLDOR 7570 ' I I THIRD FLOOR 2014 i.w p- xw„ I I TOTA 1263 p ® n _ I I ~ NORTH BUILDING 0 M q.;,' ~ I I FIRSTFLOOR 3235 ~ a,„~, ® ~ ® off' >t I I i SE ONDFLOOR 244 'J i ' L F - ~ TOTA 557 G ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ - ~ EAST BUILDINGS ~ ~ x>~ ~ ' ~ ~ I I FIAST FLOOR 2210 - ~ ~ r ~ e _ x 240• LIV]NG ROOM 1440 x, - NORTH BUILDING - i ~ Z I I SECOND FLOOR 2910 TOTA 656 ~ - ,:r >9w •,.~~a^•• , ~ ~a ~x t CHOOL BUILDING .~,,.o - ~ L- ` _ I ~ I 15 BASEMENT 1669 t7 , ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ _ ~ FIRST FLOOR 4474 SECOND FLOOR 4481 I~;i'~;; I ~ TOT A 1062 r I I • ; ~ ~ ,31.`r'• L OG~ ° I CARRIAGE HOUSES ~I,{ n-a~xmam FIRST FLOOR 1802 m ~ F - w TOTAL UNITS SF 3719 ~:..p I I - r zaw' I ~ ~ 'ap~l I ~ ox $ I TOTALSF 3719 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 1 r ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ r~ ~ c-e I I TOTAL RESIDENTIAL SF 37199 ' max. I L_-_________ TOTAL ALLOWABLE ® ------'1 RESIDENTIAL SF IN RH•2 I I 74398 X .5 FAR = 37199 - I ° ~w " NIBTORIC SCHOOL I I I 'r r J I I FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS ~t I ~ ~ I ~ ~~t a ~~o^. ® ® F _ m 24 I (Non-Residential) Ott„ - o ~ ~ RBROADWAYBUILDING OG, i , ~ 0 GARAGE 10363 I~riini ,.fit Z ~ FIRST FLOOR COMMERCIAL 2946 ,~IRI~ I _______________T I FIRST FLOOR COMMONS 2647 15956 ~ I ~ I SCHOOL BUILDING ~'N y~1 ~ ' s"s I a I BASEMENT COMMONS 2217 uxvw.~x ~ ~ F ¢ BASEMENT OTHER MECHANICALlSTOAAGE 1536 ,~~,o,-r ~ _ • ~ ~ w n I 1, < I 1< a I ~ u 5,~ 3755 ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ 1 0l I TOTAL SF 19711 I/L' wes #I~iini ~ I z..z ~ ml za~. I - rn; _ ~ I ~ I :7 OHM' I --I p~pp _ ~ • RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA - . ~ I sir ~ 5 ~ ~EfiStixb SOxltA'G.OC•igx y P • ~ WASHINGTON VILLAGE-II -SITE PLAN REVIEW o 10 20 ao , w vi LS~ac[ro~ - ti~";~~':';'~r',',;' 1215 CEDAR AVE BOULDER COLORADO SCALE: 1" = 40' I I I~ TOTAL SITE AREA 130,710 SF RH-2 ZONE 74,398 SF 2~E I RnSFE RL•1 ZGNE 58,312 SF I FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS I Residential I NORTN BUILDING I RH-2 ZONE I BROADWAY BUILDING _ ~ FIRST FLOOR 3050 I SECONDFLODR 7570 THIRD fL00R 14 ~ ~ ~ i I i T TA 1263 p - e ~ NORTH BUILDING I i ® , I ( ~ ~ ~ ~ FIRST FLOOR 3235 - ® ® 9{ ~ SECOND FLOOR 2 4 t = ? T TA 557 s~ _ o ~a ~ ~ EAST BUILDINGS FIRST FLOOR 2210 A i ® ~ d d ~ pe z LIVING ROOM 1440 ~ °*N0 I ~ p ~ ~ r 3ECON0 FLODR 2910 II T TA 656 I SCHOOL BUILDING _ - b ~ i _ _ _ I FIRST FLOOR 4474 ~ - ~ r I SECOND FLOOR 4481 m ~ ' " = = E ~ TOTA 1062 i ' _ € - ~ CARRIAGE HOUSES i ~ _ _ _ ~ I J FIRST FLOOR 1802 m v . cc ~ i• V _ _ = Y~° ~ TOTAL UNRS SF 371 as ~ is E _ .mica. D I ~ TOTAL SF 3719 r ~ r~~ o ~ 14 I ® ~ ] TOTAL RESIDENTIAL SF 37199 c - TOTAL ALLOWABLE - . ~ RESIDENTIAL SF IN RH-2 cen ~ 74398 X .5 FAR = 37199 ~ HISTORIC__SC__H_OOL_ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS (Non-Residential) - ® _ ~ a ® ~ RBROADWAYBUILDING p6 0 GARAGE 10383 -c° ,'x = FIRSTFLOOACOMMERCIAL 2948 f FIRST FLOOfl COMMONS 2647 ~ 15956 ~ SCHOOL BUILDING BASEMENT COMMONS 2217 QI BASEMENT OTHER MECHANICAL! STORAGE 1538 I'I ~ ® ~I 3755 x Rqr o TOTAL SF 19711 I I I i - ~ _ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA - I I I ' S~,N~r WASHINGTON VILLAGE-II -SITE PLAN REVIEW o 1o zo ao ~~I llnnikrl~l~ w vnuce , 1215 CEDAR AVE BOULDER COLORADO SCALE:1"= 40' ~ j I' I ' TOTAL SITE AREA 130,710 5F RH-2 ZONE 74,398 SF ~ R~ RL•1 ZONE 56,312 5F ~ FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS ~ Residential NORTH BUILDING RH-2 ZONE = BROADWAY BUILDING i . ~ _ - ~ FIRST ROOfl 3050 ~ SECOND FLOOR 7570 w• ~ THIRD FLOOR 2 14 m ~ r 1 T TA 1263 ~ NORTH BUILDING ~ i FIRSTFLOOfl 3235 ® e f a = SECOND F OR T TA 2 4a 557 0 ® ~ ~ EAST BUILDINGS FIRST FLOOR 2210 rna~ ` o LIVING ROOM 1440 Z ~ ~ SECONDRODR 2910 ~ ~ T TA 656 I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ SCHOOL BUILDING O ~ BASEMENT 1669 Z _ FIRST FLOOR 4474 ~ ~ - ~ SECOND FLOOR 4481 ~i ~ 1 T TA 1062 ~ ~ i I _ ~ ~ CARRIAGE HOUSES ~ FIRSTFl00R 1802 D 0 m I ~ j TOTAL UNITS SF 371 i _ o ~ - I ~ ~ ' ~ ITOTAL SF _ 3719 o i I ~ ® I ~ ~ y ~ TOTAL RESIDENTIAL SF 37199 ' ~ ~ TOTAL ALLOWABLE ~ RESIDENTIAL SF IN RH•2 j HISTOflI 74398 X .5 FAR . 37199 I scHOOL ~ ~ FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS ~ ~i~ (Non-Residential ~ ~ u ~ i RH•2 ZONE { ~ BROADWAY BU ILDING i GARAGE 10363 m f FIRST FLOOR COMMERCIAL 2946 FIRST fLDOR COMMONS 2647 ~ 15956 ~ ~ ~ ' a ' SCHOOL BUILDING BASEMENT COMMONS 2217 ` BASEMENT OTHER MECHANICALISTORAGE 1538 ~ = 3755 - r ~ ~ 'oN TOTAL SF 19711 } II _ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA I I r ~ ~ ,,;r~~,~~ ,r . W VI s ~,GE WASHINGTON VILLAGE-II -SITE PLAN REVIEW o 1o zo 40 ~ ~ 4'rmckr h; 1215 CEDAR AVE BOULDER COLORADO SCALE: 1" = 40' ~ I I' NORTH BUILDING i I 2~= KK. -_I - ~ m J 6 ~ O I F .a ww O ~ 2 t7 2 0 J 7 { ry m . 'Fi i O Q 0 m W 1 J 6 - ]B~ o ~ 70~ _ ~ m li I I' HISTORI SCHOOL ~8~ W u I a !91 ~ ~ I a 3 U F Q Z a Q Q Q U I H J 0 m • ' WASHINGTON VILLAGE-II -SITE PLAN REVIEW o io 20 ao ~ ~ ~ was~~~~,~r rlborpderl~lt ~ w viue~e ~ ~ .,~,.,,,u„, 1215 CEDAR AVE BOULDER COLORADO SCALE: 1" = 40' arx~u. ~ M xa 4 Y k vti ~ is e L$`i i~ ~ n. P"Y r <+a ~k 3 o- 'r.t3.~"~.~`1~.a,t~,.~.:.,~f::t - ells 1 ~ ~:"S ~ vT . ~ ~ ~ y'~,{{~h ~ air be ,~e `x ! ''r y t _ h- ~ V r e d ~ 4 i ~'P' h"~ i '.,4~ a ~a'* :r d'. a a s - a . ' ~ a - _ t _ 'fN: ~ ~ ~ ~ d. Y"'" 1 B H 4 ~ I E r ~ ~t^.~ij` .a Y f ~4 [ ~g ,~.i ~ I~ t q w ~ . , _ ~ a tee. M , ~ ~ l t, t W~ ~ ~ ~~"~r..,~ o ~ ~i r " I~:.., m ~ . s r eM~, , ~ rF:` / '..1.; It~~ ~ 5t N 4 ,.e aY' ~ ~ V ' " t~ - b 1~ ~r ,.c a , , _ 1 ~ y... _ ~ ~ - yi„ ~ i ~g~':, ~ 1 3g, t ~ w ii ~ ~ _ r , _ t~ ~k ~ ~r:~a~. ~ k 1 ~ • ~ 6~ ~ ~ ,i W~x ~ ~ yr ~ a ss ~{yy';y~,! ~ t.~ ~ 1 1 i ~a p w w i Y t ti~ •'1n ,m, :»~._~,r,.. _ AM +nm. f~, 1' ~ ~ ~ ~u u• T _ ""1 . jr II n t ~ ' «k .J.~r gib.... .....n ~ ~ ~ ~ ^,v e 1 i . - ` r „„,.,.r ~ , r:., ' n M ~ ~ ~ ' •tl R ~ Si ~ i , ~s :.~a; WASHINGTON VILLAGE-II - SfTE PLAN REHIEW ^ I Vi~den4: 1215 CEDAR AVE B0UlDER COLORADO ~I ~ ~~f ~~~~y ~ R 4 ~ 4 ~n , ~ _i _ _ f ~ ~{t m, _ ~ . ~J;[ 7 nwu ~~.mr ~nw r . ~ - ~ X ~ _ tl11 , ....__T wrh Mr MOB M , / rW rme I / J I r I ~ ~ w ~ I - u r~qp . , a ~ ~ • ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ i i t ~ t' ~ ` I ~ ,y , t > ~ ~~vm~ . ~ y , 1 : ~ ~ ~ 1~~~ ~ _ - ~k I -a fJ ~ ~ F y~ r i. , . i' .v t ~ ~ ! ,SM,M~,~~~ WASHINGTnN VILLAGE-II -stTE Pu?N REV~Ew <<,~~ 1215 CEDAR AYE BOULDER COLORADO TOrvER iG 8: A TowER "O 9E RE A REGONSTRUG "E~ ~ ~ PEND-,NG beq,a~ ~ ~ Jv "RUGTLD ~ \ APP'_:.GA`100 ~ \ ND:k66RaN' / ~ ~ ~ n P ILATtON / ~ °_AGE rviT"~ ~ ~ =r:571NG A~Fr+,.T I l , r~ ".ANGLE R:C" I I Er~.v-. REPLrG_ I~ 4EMOVE E%]5i11:~ I I ~ :-,i N~ ¢ O xSi-NG DOOR. _ I OO RAND Ty I I ADD ASFIPHAL' 2 I ~HrNVL=_ROOF - Tn~tiDOw-~ I I +,Ew WNDOW s - I ADJAGEV- i I , E%GTIN6 I PRiGKEJ R F OF GE.- tOP 0: Ct~uf;~: I OPENING 'NAMING RaND50M WILL WI'FIELOYI LRO LS ; RANS(C'-' 1 ~'.aiGM I:EAD Ni TO MATGu ~xST' _ ~I r) REPLA " Ex STI i i , -1',; n iRENG NORT!, ~ _ _ E%57G G.f.'.' ~ ~ i 5 BR GKA7 PN _ _ : r1 : N RAILING 1 i ~ I it J E Tb BALC E%1571NG I ~ _ I , L_ , - SEGONO FtWR ~ ~ ~ ~ R'CP.,A EExI 's.. ~ i .rJO OFLOOR S,f3 oU&F100R I DOUCiLE DOOR;, _ ~ i i l I I` DEnK IGUARDR NEW MTL V KRAN_ WIMMOIUI I t_n MTL ~ RAM: ~ l ' ' i DECK f''aRDRAiL ~ 6LilIrhRI /ClCfl ~ . E.'.Ke - AI, I aE%15TIN 'RE~ >,ARDRAI:, r ~F4a, _ " i i ~r , M a ; r u n.iH fiTA'.R TO ~ f' ~ ~ _ ' ~ I ~ FIPST FLOOF ~_~~FIRSTF OOR i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ ~ i SI)H-F100R _ ~ _ ___1_ : - _ i Ll i .INK TO ,~EC~ vnuLr SOUTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION SCALE:IA6"= 1'~0" SCALE:1116"= 1'~0" i c sorvs~aati ~ ~ ~ a , ~ ` _ _`.4'y~ / / ~ ~ ~ ~ R P_hG n:`- oocR n' . ~ .sr:reGSroNE rRANS.,~^ 1 ,.n'E'_5 I . REMOVE Exl5T Vb I DGOR AVC ~;n v 'Sr;hG gR;GK RE°L AGE lli' ~ ~ - `3R pa ~'DP OF CEILING ~ i~CEU.ING ,'.^YIING _ A0.=5v` : :51PIti~__ _ _ vEnnwocrv5rv~r~ - ~ REMOVE E:t ~ ~ - - - - LOW_¢SLL 70 MaTGN DO"A a I.. p~.' x ~ 1- 1 ? ~ ~I ~ n RcP~TOM lL- ~ 1 SKl~f~r 0 vTb ONORTH ELEV ' ! ~ , i 'STING 5iONE i i , ~ '.L5 : N_W DOOR - TRAN50N _ _ _ I REo~>. i( ii i i j ~ ~ I ~ i , , Sc bNp P(.OOF SUO- it i v_/+_J:;=. , LL'0~ 'rhl i;fl E%5T6 D[. I ~ hl OR_ _ i ' ~ : i _~~.~._-1 K /1 MIL FR r i 1 ~ ' `f n ~ TEEL Fi4v i ~ : -mom Kf GUAR:'' _ i NEn STEEL FRaNE ~ ~ 1 ~ >q _xl3'IN6 , -----i RO~+b HJNG ~ ~ a'_- ' ~ j RCN Si ~ 7 RUGT R" PORGNES HLNb I ~ rl ?LACE MTL FRAME FROM rRUGtURE %5`IN6 E=. ~ ^I I i i I - I i OW5 AND DROP SILL ' ' NEW DOOR; ' - _ I _ RE LAG xynvy . ' ~ I I f F,ry F 00 r „N i 'RAN5D, ' I ~ P cl i~ R CR '~H i R_ I_'_ K,, _ _...r. i i I i A.' ~ I r III i~1 ~ x I~ a , 3-, w s"I V bi ~ . , f . r,.. a~:~ . NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION SCALE:1116"= 1'-0"/1 SCALE1116"= 1'-0"© WASHINGTON VILLAGE-II -SITE PLAN REVIEW o a s is ' ' ~ w wsLeL aet roN lYondul 1215 CEDAR AVE BOULDER COLORADO SCALE: t" =16 0 ~ ~ ' f.'Y,ril _ _ A,~,..~t~r. - ~ i r°PI _WINDOW5 i7YP) iHIRU rt00R ' ~ - 3~.DEnTiAL ,1QP i~tA"E _ . ST:!..r !1 - rl"nn_L ~ , r I i e I I i I. w - ~ o ~ ~ _ . ~ - ,z, ti ~,a ~ _ _ . ~ ~ _ .f i Ft ~ ~Y:, by \h ~ ~'Y1~~ ~ - _ - I i i ~ i I I ~ I _ - _ - - _ - . ~ . _ I i I NAIDRALGMDE PiD WOOD OR PTD WOOD OR PTD WOOD OR LOW PT. 539925 MA50NRY PLANTS ________________~rLL.^i'L4'ti_ _JdiLC-0LUEAN __NTLLf7-TJLE________ I PAINTED RAILING NANRPL GRADE LOW PT 539325 M WEST ELEVATION SCALE,1116"= 1'~0" :.OM OSI 51 ING ROOF HIGH SA;Ii i ! 'y° ASPHALT SRINGLE ' THIRD FLUOR P'C uiL PGSrI'.:-~ 40CF PTD MTL %RAM VG".~:: _ - - "'lrGG0 - Ir . - - ~ _ ~ - lU-_ J _ ~ iii rY° . 3-b'H' .i~ _ ~ 3'~6'HEIGHT WALL _ ELEVATOR s"UGGO, TrIIRU FLOOR - - OVERRIDE SUB~FLOOR - ~ i ~ ~ _ ~ ~ _ - _ - BRICK VENEER r~ i r i MTL ~R ~ ~ ® ~ ~ M'I. GUARDRAIL a ~ ~ PER, ~ ? / BEYOND I y__ _ il, SECSUB RCOP - = - ~ ~ ~ ~ 57EEL:.iN7EL _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ I __R \ - PTD M"L P05T (TYP) I. ~ 5TL LINTELS ® ® - ~ _ I._ I~~~~„ iTYPI-~~~~ I_, ql J,gll I j I ~,iL GUARDRAIL r f -~~~.J - ~ i ~ ,cco i FIRSt FLOOR` I T" SU6~FLOOR , _ _ _ ii NA7lIRFl ~RA,'I !.rnv~/ r, - INK MECH VAIILI EAST ELEVATION SCALE:1l18"= 1'~0"'~ ' - WASHINGTON VILLAGE-II -SITE PLAN REVIEW o a s is ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W YIdLSL IIGF rOn ` ~.„~011~':~~`,: 1215 CEDAR AVE BOULDER COLORADO SCALE: 1" =16' 'z ~ ~ ' ROOF HIGH Pl. 5179.1 iMRO F100H T01'PLAi;:~ ~ c ~I iHIRO FI-OOR B2',G<iEI+~E~ SU8-FIOOq e.<,-~_ c - ~ G~ARDCA. I _ PERvOLAE tl V FAgEIC 1 ~C:ri ANWNG ~ ' F . - - - ~-~--'NiL GUARORnIL 1 n.. PrDu-~_=. _ ~ I n ~ NATURALGRADE ! 3 ~ G ~ I~ ~ ~I- LOW PT 579725 I ENTRY TO SOUTH ELEVATION -~nnt wca P: I', stye. " TGP F': 1'- QI TH'ip FI GGR OWGK V;.+_.-- c II ' vTD H"~- _ _ _ _ a;3¢IO A%iNINS '"OND i I L~ i I i i i ~ MTL POST \ ~ i~ Y - ~ NATUML GfUAE LOW PT, 5943.$5 _ _ _ _ , NORTH ELEVATION SCALE,1116"= 1'-U" f7 1 ' ' W,SN,N~,o~ WASHINGTON VILLAGE-II -SITE PLAN REVIEW o a e is ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /Vbondeil~,I~; viuACc 1215 CEDAR AVE BOULDER COLORADO SCALE: 1" =16' ~ ~ ' Y.TL GAP F'_ASWHG ~L~ONO FLOOR ~ -1 '~VOFAWf SECONDFLOOR ' - , E_ ' cWP~1:_vG TOP OF ROOF i VINYL Y~MGDh~ Fi33,1dINC~ ;.NYL W7NDpn, ("F, PJ GGD fTYP; sruccofrP: ® ~ ® ® i - _ " n L F3ARpR+ MTL S~ARCRA:_~ n - SFLOG'~'. ® ® ~ - - ~ MTLFRAME PERCH", ':I n 11 - RAME PL~~='..~ :iL3fL00': I it ~i c j I 'i , i~aS'- L NATUMLGNADE f LOW PT 53945 ar' i " p WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION SCALE:f116"= 1'-0"~ SCALE:111fi'= 1'~D"~ d ROOF RIGHT PT. 7 5J227 _ _ _ flWFHiGHT PT. - A _,\`_.J ASPHALT SNINGLEROOF ~ .~1 'SECOND Fl00~ VhYLr,nvon~i iOP Of A00f - . •p `LAS+iNe ~r'` ~ OND FI. ;iF~ _caeuinl„ ~ MTL GAP _ _ . IA`ONGC c 1 r~niaJOnS STUCA~?•."~ 'roi n IIII~IIfII~~IIII~III! •a ~ r n. ~ r~ G~ARJRA L ~ ~ - ~ SECOND ® ® ® ® ~ ucco(TrPi ® ~ _ ~ I !i !i ~ ~ ® ® n ' n' FLOOA - ~ ~ -.FOAD n~, SUH~FLOOA a+rE pERGO,.:. ~ ,.,:d~fLOOtL i o - I L_ I - ~ EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE:1l16" = 1'-D"!~'3 6CALE:1116" = 1'-G" Y"~ w. ' ' We5H1NGf04 WASHINGTON VILLAGE-II -SITE PLAN REVIEW o a s ,s ~ ~ + IY'onderlar~i ~ P1LpLE ~.,.u.,.,:.,. 1215 CEDAR AVE BOULDER COLORADO SCALE,1"=,6' ~ ~ ' ILOUe'nlurl =T 'HGGr 10GH !'T L 't, `HiL GAP DUPLEX NOH fN DUPI F%NORTH~ ~ ti FLASHING ~1 v114fifi 54246fi I _ ~ .e-. MTL GAP OUPLF.X SOUTH- SE~FI~OOR~ _ _ . - 5423.08 OF ROOF FRAMNG eCOND~ U'R DUPLEX UTH' FLA5H:NG vINrL OP OF RO. :-~270A -STUGGO CTYP) NhNDOno 'tA1~WG 5T000C ® ' I~ (TYPJ_ I ~I SECOND MT_ ~ ~ i SL ~WJ 7. I F FLOOR FRAME T.~COR F O ___SUflFLOOR. A;PwALr PERGO'_A p m MYL - s>,INeLE I. FRAME- 4/JOF ASPHAL` h PERGOLA 11 ® ® ® ® ~ r. 5N N6L_ ~ 1V~ a Rocs it m m GUE1 F +aD GuARD- t- ~ RAL Q TRIM BAN`. ~ ~ MTl p cA575'OnE I HT. z o4,c<- -s-F ~ su.~~ooa NATURAL GRADE LOW PT. DUPIE% NATURelGR4DEl0NPL DURD( NORTH -5392.5 NgiTH-5392.5 DUPLEX SOUTH~5391.75 ' DUPLEXSOUTH- 5391.7s DUPLEX NORTH ELEVATION DUPLEX WEST ELEVATION ~ SCALE',1116"= 1'-D"~ SCALE:1l16"= 1'-D'[~ / V '~GN1 F .7H''~iP Dr' XSGniH. / \ r 542466 ~ A NUOEf90M1NG GUPLEX SOUTH ~ SECOND FL(1ciR , 5429.08 TOP OFRIX'i ~NYL VN r ~ ~ FAAMI - INDOrvS e vC4 - ® - :'YP7 ~ U '1 °I j ~ ~ ~ ~ -uccc ` I J (TYPI In m SH ~ MTL ~ SECOND RAMC FLOOR I- SUB Ft _J _ ~ ==ftGOLA ~ :SVD~FLGOR - p, ASPHALT A _ - MTL FRAME ~ I U! ~.IF HIGH PT - i II~~~1~ ~((I~~~~~ '~HNS.E °ERGOLA :r,. RRIAGE NORTH- n'~ H ~ II ~I ~ L~ ~ ~ ROOF ~ ® ® ® ® i11 "de q I ii"iill _ ~ _ ml a +e - ~ A.P..A_'o-Nom.:--:.;F .'~PIATE OGR d1~1 ~~~bRI9GE 50UTH- ~ LISUBF ppRy .J_-e. _ ~R~OAND Y _;A5T 57ONE _ 0 N I Z T Z !~1~~ VINY n^~.-.-n-, ~ i ~ ~ - -3R1GK ~F4AME h' of ® ZZ1~ ~ ' - ~ P50LA z ~ ~ ~I ~ I ~ - - n, I lii NATURAL GRADE LOW PL ' _ NORTH-5392.5 DUPLEX NORTH -5392.5 DUPLEXSOUTH-5391.74 DUPLEXSOUTH-599f.75 i `~=J "J' DUPLEX EAST ELEVATION DUPLEX SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE:1116"= 1'~0"~,~'~ SCALE',1116"= 1'-G"~'~ NATURAL GRADE LOW Pi NORTH 5397 CARRIAGE SOUTH -5399.25 CARRIAGE SOUTH ELEVATION ROOF HIGH Pi y,. A00F HIGH PT RGCfHIGHPi. AgRIAGENGRTH~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ CARRIRGENORTH ARRIAGE NORTH , 5417.48 X411.48 c1 CARAIAGESOUTH- ARRIAGE OUTHB ~~a.RIAGE SOUhH9 ~I _ . . - , I ;ul 541879 541579 rl - _ m~ .1 ~-r ~ 5EGOND RCOR;n - ,9, ~ ..,\:hL m TOP Cf ROOF SECOND FLOOD ~ FAAMWG fe tOP PU+n. I I ,.'._h.NpO/'15 NNYL IYN i~; c _ I.I f MTL FRAME ~ ~ T f ~ PERGOLA ® ~uJ ('YP) STV GOf p m ~ ONE GA T 5 Q A4D RIM H~~ i i. ~ MAIN LEVP .70000 MAIN L":I-. rl ,n r•I SllH~FIS)Gc, _ ' rPl n, fiU6'~',,. _ H M7_ i. o GUAR:: STUOOG ® ~ ~-7 II F R ~ ® ucco IL~71 - _ n u - I I ~I I NATUMLGRAOE LOWPT. CRPAL1f~ NATlAl4GRADE LUNNOHTH--5391 NATURACGR/~E LOW PT. CARR ' . NORT}1.5394 ~ CARRIAGE SOIRH ~ 53M2b NORt}I 5391 CARRIAGE SOVTH ~ 539925 CARRIAGE SOUTH -5399.25 CARRIAGE EAST ELEVATION CARRIAGE NORTH ELEVATION CARRIAGE WEST ELEVATION SCALE:1l16'= 1'-D"® SCALE:1l16"= 1'-D"~ SCALE:1f16"= 1'-D'~ WASHINGTON VILLAGE-II -SITE PLAN REVIEW 0 4 6 16 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w vnSLec[ ToN ib~mdeFltr, ' 1215 CEDAR AYE BOULDER COLORADO ~ ~ ' SCALE: 1" =16' WASHINGTQN VILLAGE II e SITE PLAN REVIEW RESUBMITTAL NOVEMBER 17, 2008 - - - I - - - RH•2 RL•1 RH~ RH~_~~ ~ PLANK-i N G a f - 1 INTERIOR DESIGN ~ ~--T---~--- i NORTH 81-N ( ~ B7-N sUf[61Rc = - N1-W N2-L N1-E E1 N = I ~ ~ SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY , ;ova roLSOM STREET 0~ B2 ~ 0 BUILDING AREAL BUIIDINGAREA BUILDING AREA ~ B8-N 0 BOUIOEe, (080304 Zip ~ 2 2~ VMONE 303-4q-6909 E1-S - FAA i0?144-61,0 au i L - - J - - ~ BS•N 'n~ E i~ i ~ ; rr• o Oa mm x~ Q m I E1°N T ~ m 95'S x ~ CJ° W 5 'I 3 - ~ - ~ ' SINE 0 O 0 SINGLE FAMILY ~ 0 , m O B2• 54 N E1-S ~ ~ BUILDINGAREA N B4S S&N a ~ OPEN SPACE « sl HISSCTHOORDIL m ~ SCH6bL I - - - - - --1 ~ Hl~l`Rb6C B3-S W eiS S2SE ]:W SINGLE FAMILY ~ - F S3-SW S3-SE I- BuILDINGaREa S5•S s~ Ct-N aoa Zu II Zu I ' W W W ~ W Kp / R 5Q ~ oQ c~-s a 0~ GO SINGLE FAMILY rn0 BUILDINGAREA J O I J wQ ;I a - CEDAR AVENUE - _ Z ~ ~ LOWER LEVEL UNIT LOCATION KEY PLAN FIRST LEVEL UNIT LOCATION KEY PLAN SECOND LEVEL UNIT LOCATION KEY PLAN Q ~ ~ 11 SCALE: 1° = 40' ~ . SCALE: 1" = 40' 1 SCALE: 1' . 40' p'-' I• In O LOCATIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS Z a m OF AFFORDABLE UNITS 2 Bulldlnq Unll ~ Unlt Type al BHoNablill FInIeA~d~l tAdroom~ B~tAe Prapoeed PLAN LEGEND: ABBREVIATIONS: SHEET INDEX: N Oealpnedon AEao UnNType SF Pdce 0 NEW WALL ~ FULL HEIGHT- Aev AaovE WA COYER SHEEr Broadway BS NOdh ~ FIM EM !'Low 919 ~ - ~ ~ ;.75 ~ S133A00 WOOD FRAMED Aop ADDmoNAI BT South Flret ErM Low ~ 1133,400 AfF ABOVE FINISHED FL0011 ~ 0.0 SRE PUN. SE78ACx INFOpMAiION - BlW BELOW ~ B2 Nonh _ FIM Mld ~ Law 808 1 1~ SE3,T00 ' NEW WALL. CONCRETE eLN BLOCK BLOCKING C1.0 PRELIMINARY GRADING a OIUINAOE PLAN B7 Soulh _ FlreS Mld _ _ ~ LOW 6D8 1 1 SB3,700 C20 PRELIMNUAY DTRITV PUN ^ BD OM 111 IIOw' BoTroM Of wau North ~ N2 Lower _ FIrH Mid Moderate 1D01 t_1.75 ~ St75,000 CAB CABINBi Vd E%ISIING TREE INVENIORY6 PRELWINARY TREE PRESERVATION PL4H N3 Upper Flnl Mld Moderate 7071 2 175 5295,000 NEW WALL• B' CMU pL CENTER"NE LPa uNOSCAPE PUN ' CLO cEKNG School SINE _Lower Canty Low 801 ~ 7 1 fIi7,800 W LANDSCAPE DETAILS ~ - - coxC CONCRETE ~ w UNDSCAPE DETAILS .57•SE Laww Comer Modente ~ BO7 7 1 5765,000 Cart CONTINUOUS Vd BICYCLE PARgNO PUNS DETAILS CerNegee Ct NOrtN Second Cartlage Lax 901 2 1.15 St13,400 O NEW WALL~PARTIALHEIGHT pR cENTERPOINr ' pat DoueLE e.t 50tH SHADOW ANUV5IS C2 SouM ~ Second ~ Carrlege _Moderate 901 I 7 1.75 ~ 5265,Om p1 OUAIIETEp 1.0 GARAGFr&ASEAIENFFARKING PLAN NEW WALL•IANDSCAPE p11 OeAEN510N 1.1 ARSi FL00R PUN IYIRN AREACALCUUTIONbI DN DOYM 11 SECOND 0.00R PLAN OWiHARFA CAICUUTIONSI Da oooR u >rIRDFLODRmoGFPUNnnTHAREACUCUUTIDNSI DENOTES AFFORDABLEUNR ~j DB DovmsPOUr t.e RcoF PLAN I! D EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN Dw DLSHwASHER FA EACH A21 HISTORIC SCHOOL ELEVATIONS EIN E%HAUST At7 BROADWAY BUILDING ELEVATIONS WEST AND SOUTH E% E%ISTING AiS BROADWAY BUILDING EIEYAiIONb EAST AND NORTH EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED Pa vncio°copcRETE Ax6 NoRTHeuaDINCELEVUroNS W FDY FACE OF MASONRY AZE DUPLE%AND CARPUGE HOUSE ELEVATIONS FOa FACE Of STUD W DVIC iN ORDE FINISHED GPADE SECTION MARKER F~i1ox cou oe~loN RR FLDDR I PROJECT TEAM: - - fr fIBEPUCE N row E v WALL ELEVATION MARKER fRIR mEEIER BOw (ELEYI DL U59 OR GRADE owe Gvfsurtwau90ARD OWNER /DEVELOPER: EL (GRADE ELEV) 'I NB NOSE BIBB 0 NEW GRADE ELEVATION MARKER ~ NOT ~IEIGNr wo"DERU"o"aLOevELGPMENrco. Inm yDiwnrEflNEATER 4s7s9poADwnv ' INFO WFORMATION BOllLDER CO e070/ O INSUL 1N9UUTION 909iA992S2 Ex ~r.EtAee €LEV! EXISTING GRADE ELEVATION MARKER TNT INTERIOR coNrncr LAUREL FANNING U I LT ucurpNCl LY LOW VOLTAGE AArneRe ----o-- PROPERTY LINE ARCHITECT: 'C.WERMGFNNe MOF MEpIMN OENSUY FIBEABOAAO SRE REVIEW t2 SEP NIN MINIMVM "~I~ SUBMITTAL ~P' g MTL METAL ARCHITECTURE INCORPORATED MiR MANUFACTURER 700BfOLSOM STREET pp ) ~ 917E REVIEW 11 NDY - - - - - - BUILDING BELOW Hlc noi~HCOrCir"BnncT eouLDER, coep7a 1 -4 - _ _ - RESUeumu z9ro NFO NOi FOA CONSTRUCTION 700J446902 f ~ ~ ' NO. NUMBER CONTACT ADRIAN bOPHER I _ y - - - - - BUILOINGlROOFABOYE a aec~niEfl Q ••e.NOrol+x•oa fL °"-E PRGPER"°NE CIVIL ENGINEER: -~EaE I FTD PA~Ni PAINED ~ - PwD PLYWOOD JVA, INCORPORATED '~k Q CENTERLINE R RISERISI. RADUS 17195PRUCE bTREET _ G r RAD RADIUS BOULDER. CO 80702 m - RE: REFER TO ~ REfR REfR10EAATOP 7p3J441951 = - ~ ' RlOS RFGUTAiIONIS) CONTACT. CHARLIE MAGER Upmv„yir upeniµ FENCE LINE RE09 RwwREp R IRt:AaRrs ecWacNED scREDULE - , AlP rr s'eIIHLESbsrEa LANDSCAPE DESIGNER: - ~~./1,,, AREAOF DRAWING REVISION en STEEL 7m ARCNrrECTUpE I - ' T TREAO;S~ 1912 BROWWAY, SUITE 314 ~ cw.wNi. rL•u Tao r09EC 1ERMINED BOULDER.CO 80702 Tao iWNGUEe GROOVE 707~t7.5y8 Qj REVISION NUMBER MARKER TMK iNICKNE55 CONTACT 97EPHANIE RIDGWAY h yb TpR TOPPING TDC TOP OF CONCRETE ~.r. ~ - I TOW TOP OF WALLS ~ ~ I iL..:';. Tn rvPlcu suRVevoR: VICINITY MAP DND UNLESS NOTED DTHERWISE FUTIRONS, INC.SURVEYIN06 ENGINEERING V VOLiAGEI 08251RISAVE t100 VCe VINYL COVE BASE BOULDER, CO e0701 WF VERIFY IN FIELD 000917001 NOT TO SCALE wD wood cONraCT GpED MEVEA 'd JOB: WASH VILI wow wlNOOw ,,,.w BUILDING PLACEMENT & SETBACKS , ~ THE LOWEST POINT ON THE STRUCNRE fTYPICALLY, THE SDLITH EASTERN CONNER OF THE BUILDING) RH-220NE III BROADWAY MI%ED USE STRUCTURE SETBACK FOR PORCHES d51NGLE STORY MASSES 1T.0' ARCHITECTURE I I I SETBACK FOR TWO STORY BUILDING MASSES 41.0' SETBACK FOR THIRD STORY BUILDINGMASSE$ 25.D' PLANNING & BUILDING HEIGHT (ror Broe?w9y BUiltling( 4T.6 INTERIOR DESIGN CEDAR AVENUE CARRIAGE HOUSE 46.0' \ ADJACENT SETBACK FOR PRINCIPAL BUIl01NG 45.0' /y STRUCTURE NORTH PROPERTY l1NE NORTH BUILDING80UPLE% 45.0' SETBACK FOR TWO S10RY BUILDING MASSES 45.0' SETBACK FOR THIRD STORY BUIlDIN6 MASSES (ror BroMway Bulldog) 360' 3002 fOl30M Si RE ET ~ ZONE $OUNDARY LINE ~ ~ sliueeoFFIV h(I~cceseoRne usTBmLaNGS 30~mIX aouLDE9, co 3030+ x- 9.0' HaNE 303 as caa9 ADJACENT ADJACENT ~ y9°A SETBACK FOR TW067HREE STORY BWLDNGMASSES 6.9' fAX30?~a44~6160 8'Qr.B Ai STRUCTURE STRUCTURE ~'D i SETBACK FORACCESSORY USES 0.0' TREE LAWN ~ m SIDEYIALK BUILDING HEIGHT (IDr DUDro~s] 331' g'S gL BUILDING HEIGHT (IDr CCm3ge House9) std' 63 EXISTING HISTORIC SCHOOL ~ 5395 EXIBTMb ZONE LNE LOLAiION 1921-$10" 9N u A9 OwBr sAT.O' ~ll~-~ 0 - - t- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ RL-1 ZONE ~1~~ a \ i 0 tV ~ ~ I - - - - CEDAR AVENUE SINGLE FAMIY RESIDENCES ~r 45.0' jG 0 F "5W 13TH STREET SINGLE fAMLY RESIDENCES ~ 3 I N { Y l ' O ~ ~U SHARED PRIVATE 0 45.0' I' Q n ~ ~ ~~W ACCESS DRIVE Qm PRIVATE ACCESS DPoVE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCESd ACCESSORY BLOCS l3 tt~ < _ /.p N: Z 91 ' Q .-.___IU6 / / T DISTANCETOAONE STORY PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ELEMEM AD' / _ ~..._..,~„0 0~: II ZS'-Qn e / 41-0 S-OI,~ DISTANCETOATWO STORYPRINCIPAL STRUCNRE ELEMENT 10.0' 7 w ~ _ fj5, ~ ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY BUILDING MASSES it L 539x.5' SDEIVALK ~ 10.0' T N1_W N2•L N1•E l rREe DISTANCE FROMATWOSTORY MASS TO NEIGHBORING BUILDING ELEMENTS 15.0' r_ l -ArvN DISTANCE BETWEEN PRINGIPALdACCESSORY STRUCTURE (urMer singleawnenhlp) 6.0' ~ B1•N U Z MA%IMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 35.0' - I I I W FROM THE SHARED ACCESS DRIVE r II 1 Et-N a SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY ~ SINGLE FAMILY ~ 0 I 3 ~ J~ BUILDING AREA BUILDING AREA BUILDING AREA I s B?-N I t 'OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS J_ w Q K r1 i IJ ' ~ E1•S RH-2 ZONE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 74398 ~ Q O U ~ I u9 sHELTE _`r w ',ti REQUIRED OPEN SPACE FOR BUILDING OVER 45'UNDER 55'-20% 14R90 J J J RH-2 20NE PROPOSED OPEN SPACE INOT INCLUDING PRIVATE DECKS] 40152 2 MINIMUM PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED OPEN SPAGEFOR RH-2 ZONE 54% Z Q Q \ \a m _ 01 'I~ _ \S'~0" RH~2 ZONE PROPOSED PRIVATE OPEN SPACE (OECKB, PORCHES) 7870 O W - ' w yam' 1--- 1 _ PRIVATE OPEN SPACEALLOWABLE IN CALCULITONS-25%OF TOTAL U ~ I p \ 5391.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ -Q " REQUIRED (14880 X,25) 3720 ` W 1 I a ~ ~ ¢ 43872 59% 1 r Q I o ~ 1 `U,~ ~ o 1 ~ N] i ~ unvMARK BouNDnrtr ~ ~ a ~ ~ . L__.___ -a I I m DN W, t~ 2" I~ ~ ~ ~ E1-N ww L ~ I ~ ~ I I Q 01G LE IARKI ~ L f I Na ~ \ ~ `ADS I I SINGLE FAMILY I ' I ~ w ~ S4-N Imp ~ BUILDING AREA B2-S ~ E1•S I I I J I OPEN SPACE N L I f/) ~ . $,f \ W 7 ~ U lO - - xf I , Q ~ ~ v s I I o ~ < ~ O 2 Qr s4 3~ Q ~~~391~1B 1 ~ I SINGLE FAMILY Q O LnnOMnRK BUILDING AREA EXTE91~;~~ k BDUrxOnRr S3•SW S3SE ~ C1.N ' I CD Z STAIR p3 ~ r 1_Q~ --~EST~Lcdl ~ IF1'I 0: W Z PORTICO N ~ ~ ~ N~ w ~~`-i~~ ADanCSESS ~ - i ~ ~ I a ~ ro ' EX19TNb ON- 7 H ~ - - - - - - - - - - - ~ STREET rnRKINe L } ~ p- v ~ I ~ \~so9 ~ - ~ J ~ I o= 5393.25' \i` 1i1 5995 I I `.~6U91' LANDMARK I ~ '~I I W O I;I ~ BOUNDARY yA9N I' . I 'll 539, I C2•S I ~ ~ Z ~ II ~ - - ~ DRAWING KEY I' I SINGLE FAMILY 3381 sITEPevIEw 12 sEP 5793 I 5393 BUILDING AREA E08MITfAI ~ • BRE AEVIEw 12 NOV I` I 3G9A \ ` RESUBMfRAL 4W8 GARAGEIPARKINGlS70HAGE SPACE a ~ II~ 5392 I~ ~ a~ ~ I ;W III 'll BDUNDARYN - \1 e I COMMERCIALI OFFICE SPACE Z uD-1 I 3381 ~ 5389.251 - - e ~ A CESSA~ - yg~ a E '~T - PEDEST[i IAN _ 5 ? GO-HOUSING COMMONS SDACE ~z ~ I - - ~ ~ T:_ _ II W CXISTINb ON- ' AUTOS AVENUE alirod ~ ? RESIOENTIAI SPACE ~ ~ ~ sTReerrARKINS _ - ~ Ir ~ o CEDAR a ~ rlNSZaNELINeLOCnTD" F srRTe r~R 5 ~ 7Q'-Q° M _ _ - - ~ BIKE 1 6A(i~ E KIN6 i~ rt ,~n9 ' - SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" =20' ~ JOB: WASH VILL p ~f I i -I ~ 9 ~ _ ~ i A ~ k ~ I i ~ ~j~ ~ al« :>E.. ~ i , ~ III ~ I ~ a I ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ r ~ PAOifC1 EMISi PRAIECi EK151 iR[ES (1M) I _ ~ ~ ~ E: I ; - 20NE 9(MINDAAY UNE PROI~ECi E~157 ~ CONE W~ - ~ ~ . ` P , ~ ' - .yF' _.-i- _ ._.L _ i ~ (RP aACH) _ ~ ~ ~ RCN L J ~ 5 ~ ~F ~T_ _ ! `~I"F ~ ?LANNINIG r t SS -K 9i S I I~... - - - s'-"'"' - - ,Nif.RIO Of 51 C+N ...93.84 ~1.- ' , q - < z _ iI Ir I f~ p0 ~r ` e ~ d - ~ ~ x --y I"NS5 A ~ ~ ,I I I ~ ~ ~ 7Qh8 FAI'OM sR. Fi J_ _ _ I v _ r ~ '~Ir~ ~ I~ i y - -1-~- _-J~;.~_ __~I _ I ! L_ - _ I ~I AOUIQfP CU FO,n I ~ 9 ou~l 1 ` ( 181 f _ _ - -3-~'~r~ _--1-' = _ ~zv ~ I ' RNn~,L i a ;v i ACCESS 1 I ~_I ~"I ~ vv ~ ~ $1 I~ ~ wx aua u- f )4i I,, ~~9uEp1 I NORTH 1 / ~ ~ ~ ` , 'I ' i ~ ~ I - ' EDN~ wA ,I ~:I it BUILDING . ~ ~ I ' ~ I _ I i~-y-,"'~ s: 1 FG -A I ~ 961D CIRIES ~ ipp ~ \ ~ I I '~/2,., i 11 ~.ll t~~~. ° s i NO CRAGNG NIM~N DRIP 9~~5~ I I, ~ I I i UraE CF E%ISi tafE ~ 1 1 1 ' ~ ,~i ,Y~) ~ G I ~I I ~ ~ ~ I 2 I I ~ I I a' rREE uvW ~ , I~ PAR,cINc OARACE ` 'I ! N RTH I ~ a DAMNS ID SAND/dl 9573 9S.Id 9512:- I ~~P~~X' ~ SINGC FAMILY I SNGE FAMILY ~ SNGE~AWIY ~ „~r,es, ,~.,w ~ ~ ~ $(PARAIOR AND 'i ~ 94 A5 - ~ ifEg5393cp~ I ~ DU4GNC AREA I 3L9LDING AREA I BNLpND AREA ~ b~ I DEMO E%ISTCURB i . ` ( _ ~ Ni, ADD CUR6 R ) I SI1MP PUMP 10 I ~ I' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G1Y SIDS ~ ~ _ s r.~, . ~ - SANITARY ~ s ~ ~ ' i PROPOSED (rm, RE- uECH) I ) j I i ~ ~ ~ L , s. ~ ~ aus p,AD 1, -r G ~ -'i. - V I ~ I ~ _ a ~ ~ I , iRANAi r~ J ~ ~j I 9d I I I rr" I ~ 1 s Pueul Accss a~ ~ I r' OEMO CxISY ~I1S P%dl SHELTER I l.' ~ I ~ ~ . I ~ ~~;j-. I ~ DItAINAG~E~SE I~ENi ADD ~ PER GiY SYD$ 1. f ~ gy - i I ~ ~ ~ t ~ i-?~ ~ ~ I ~i35~f ~ ~ 'COllRTYA D ~ ~ 1, I, ~ I ~ ~ ~ W ~ • I I STAIRS 1 ~ ~ ~ I - ' S>a6 Cvoa'RISERSI ~ I a ~ I ~ r ` 4 ERISi ON-S1AEE ~ °4 ~ t ~ LANCMARN` ~ 9J~Sp_.._- _ ~ - ~ - . - - 't, DARNING ~1 ~ ~ I ! ~ ~I' ul ~ ~ ~ 1~.. ~ BWNDARv s ( ~ q1_ ~ ~ I e I'~ T I ~ ~ III - HC RALIP (Sfi NA%) (AE , AADHJr ~ i i ~ ~ + ~ _ _ _ ~ _ 1 ~ 1 ~ I . I I _ ~ 91 I i ~ j~ ~ ~ I ~ L ~ ' .,+n. ~,.r_,~ 7 ~SINf1E FAMRY I ~ ~ I i ~ W Q DEMD E%15i I e,6sL BROADWAY ~ ,t~ ~ ~ anlaNe AREA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ iruA~~,,; ~ BUILDING ~ ~~~I _ I ~ ~ ~ LarouruNE I ~ I I 0 ~ ~y I ~ 9a'ss Fff=53as.6o - SbUhl ~ (rYP) ~ 1 _ I ~ / I, I ~ J ~ SiA;R$ FFC=5.16795 ~ 92 ~ ' ~ ~ DUPLEX I ~ ' Q 0 ( 1 ~ - j1NR(E 6' RISERS) - i ~ ~ ~ N I ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ 1 ~ REIMNING ffE=A9220 ~ - 70' ASPNPIi ~ I ' ~ U I'`II r I ~ ~ I s . roux I ~ w I I I WQL H15TORIC ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ • , ' 1, ~ ~ I ~ ~ <6~ ~ ' - - : (i~) I~ sulr>LEr,MaY ~ ~ a 1:. ~t ~ U NC RAMR a aR6 y. I ~ SCHOOL I ~ ' 7 F- F lL ewsrauc>Iga ' I ",~1 I i~ ~ I BUILpNG AREA ~ c+ u~ ~ I _I ~ RELMNwc wAU 9~ ~ ~ , -OPEN SPACE ~ ; ; , ~ p ~ , • BY 0{IIER$ tF~~ ~ - I i r - - ~ ( ~ N J (wcsE N6tE,, r~1 ~ .I r~ ~ T I 'r .n I i I ~rI„ ~ ~ - SHEEt OJ - s _ ° ~ I I I~ L _ ~ ~ ~I I i T- 111 L. f 1~ N~P~6LOCs~OUNp~i[A P9&5011 98.71 --~~y ~ ~ 4~~~m ;JI Q ctr~+ - u 1 !1 : ~ ~ 9aw?i-~ I -------1'I I k~~ z I ~ [0 I ` ~ ~ 1 •glsaAacE vaDM 6Lpc I- ' j a ~ I ~ ~ .`;z I i -g tl ~ Q D.S%III rREMCHDRAINz _ ~ 90Ap II . d(~. ~ l ~ e ~ iSttCCSS ~ I .~I~~'4 I ~ ~ I. <I~ n-) 9D76I suouir I ~..t~ IL,~ i~ ~ ~I i L ) I ~ I, i0 $iORU ~ 1 _ ~ EA6EMENI I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ - I i SUMP W,'Na I r I' Q ?c> k ~y; 1 I p l C I ; I I ~ i I - NORTH 5 ~ I I I ' ~ ~ - CARRIAGE ~ ~ I - I ~a ~ 'E ~ l ~ r ~ 90.40 ~ lE fAMILY I CI] ~ ~ , u ~ 1 RETMNING ~ BUILGNC AREA ~ I f i ~ fE-6391.15 J ~ I ~ DEMO E%I ~ _ ~ ~ ~ I WALL ~ HOUSE ~ ~ s~uD - ^ - - - ~ ~ Si ~ _ i~'.,. ~ + I r I _ c _ DEIENiN1N ~ i 4 I~ WdIN i I I 7, k WATER DUAUI~ J I ~ 1Z PVC ADOF D)<uNl I ! \ I I I, 2' CCNC PAN III CCNC WALK I O AND TRENCH QRMN ~ _ ~ 1 ' J ~ I PAOtECt Cc51 RASIN,B , ~ I ~ I ~ • 'SUMP PUUPI I - - ~ _ i901~ I. j 1REE (fY° NpIXl'Cr1 ~ ~ ~d 7 ~ ~ > I B' 1REE IAYM ~ I 91 pSEHARCE ~ ~I~ ~ ~ 9g- _ , I DE~Hf1011G ~ q ~ ~ ~ I wArtanuun~ r: ti 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ / I raa a e[1ty. I I ~ 'o u Lt' PLc i vow C / ~ I I I I, 6. I s t JELFV Sk250 U BASH ! ( c ~1 ~ ~ , I. ' I - . , ~ ~I SINGE ~AUItY r ~ ~ ~ C'3 ~ f+~aDG1;~, t i ~ I~~ 50WTH ~i_I~',._..~._ e~LOLVC~eEA I I • PROTECf~E7n9 UMt7ED 3ELEASE ~ ~CA1D7~'C XlniMl DRIP ~ CARRIAGE I I, ~j ) ~ F' Z ~ LwnEq a L-~ i 7 ~ wuR I. , fj loo-m/lam/ ~ ~ ~L7N[ CF"EMSI 1RE[: Z Icam~D-m/ v ~ I I ~ ~ HOUSE ~ 1201 ~I wAYEacuulnsiRUCnLaE ' (~J Q 1PA1ER p1ALln SiNUCiVRE ~ ~ ~ s~ I , - FFG at9D.eS I s~`zi AND SPIUWAY ~ ~ ' Mp SPgIMUY ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ENV DUi 559530 ~ ~ I ~ ~ _ LL aueuc MM~Y~v ~ I ~ g W . my bJr 5391J9 ~ ~ ~ EASEY[N6 ~ ~ 171E ,,C~ PVC ~ ~ p Lf p' PVC ~ 11 ~ ~ ~ i ~~ca+r+ccRDf~st I 1 ~ _ . ~ I~~-ate--- ~ , ~ ~ W Q uSIDBFROM NEW wIEI 0 ' < t ~ ~ ~ ~p J fR x i I e9 6 I ~ $TGiN INLEE ~ - }a LF 6- G%~ ~ ~ 1 11 LF CF 12 ~~C1 CXIS ~CLA9 coNfi ixnpil - ' / e esz ~ it I ( I `v ; RAMP anD uapgaD~ AREA DRMN ~ I ~ X. X9670 ~ P1C 0 I OX 'MIN GiY SiAN~ARp Q z Bl'OfHER) < . s~,~ ~ ~ 9U5~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -`D'~Fi" I _ ~ P'- fi ~7AB W CS ~ Z rNICsEENOrtssxEEra.o ~ _ ~-r- ~ ( ) ~ .3, c ~H x>EC Li ~d Z PNC CROIIxDwA7ERl. ~ . ~ ~ ~ Y..~ ~ F I~,1 "SUMP. PJNP DDifALlr _ 42 1 , 29 Ir 6' PVC I _ . . - - ~ ~ ~ .V I F A' ~ 4EM0 wA[L , ~ i ~ '~:a; ~ 1 e COBBLE ~ INiiLiRACOrJ ~ ~ ' ~ { ~ I:J ~ ~ V ~ ~ I . PIPC~ t~ ~ L.I. 7 9 ~~IB• _1 ~ +n`._t ' L~~y ` - W ~.r,1- _ III ~ T...._ i I 1 ~ r ( ~ ~ ~ 5~5 ~ - Y~12". SWtxASE L 1~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ I 'ti,~l~. ~ Z . ) L _ HC RAMPD CURB nS1.4DEWALR - ~ ER151 ON-S1ACEt , ~ 1 ~ I f ~ ~ D DEwSi ~ 4a 9N'+giASE .-j_ ~ i I ~ CEMO fM6i J ~ SN CHASE . I ~ d Q Z consiRUCnou I .~iov a BERM ~~nfuuN PAaaec ~ CEDAR AVENU€ I ~ ~ r of BERM . ~ ~n ~ ~ 'I ~ ~ I ?J BY OTHE9S . ElEV5794.W - - ~ ; C2 p) _ gtIVE RAMP. PROLEC7 EIIISI r I - I I 'DR ~ NIC SE-.NOTES ~ ` I I HF RAMP I ~ _ ~ SJa7,50 L rr-; OsT§'D a I ~ ~ CDNC SW R CI •.'i ~ SHE, ~ << -~I 1'~.. e'. IY SIDS 1 AI ~IIIYaS105 ElE _ ~ Ou'Yu'9 ~ I DATE: T7 NOV DB i t REVISIONS f - . 1 I f , ~ _ _ I`~"~'I L i + SIiE RENEW REVISIONS: ^-Te~L l f I. CONNECnON FRCN Ik[N^.N DRAM 10 SUMP PUMP LA6ELCD ~ 2 POND V'u<uMfS AEMSED PER GLY CpAMCNfS - CONiCJRS ~s% ~ ~ 1}~ _ - 3_ INSIDE RA(MUS D< INTERNAL ACCESS DRIK AEMS[D TJ Z5' ~ I'~ 4. CON7G1R5 RENSED i0 ACCOuppA>E TREE CANOPY E%IEHI$ ANp ~ ENSURE ixAi NO'CUY rAlt OCCUR N77NIN THE DRIP UNE OF fM1511tY TREES ~ ~ i C1.0 I 20 0 20 a0 SCALE OF FEET JOB'. 1at3c • ~ ~ ~ ~ t . w. r„ , I ~ ~ t ~ y 1 SANITARY MH 2 i I i II w i I RIN 5398-58 I, I { . ~ " 6' P~ SDN 9NR ~ INV IN 5387.87 I I I ~w ~ ~ ~ - ~ ( ) rm ~ racN a" G1 k W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 d I 119 lk TO Eli I I ~ _ (VFRI~) 539,117 , 51 ~ 2 x MIIV ~ y~ 8'rb' TEE TB ~ EONE BDU{RF:A ARCH) !S~F 6" A',P INV OUT353ai 8? _ _ _ _ ~ ~ r ~ -n;; I ~ _i FN®gRGADwpY - - -t-- --i--- i . << 4 ~ ~yI I~ ~ ~ ANO oEUwopo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . .7s Li~ a' s~ MAIN a t.o _ - m w ` ~ . _ r • ' II 1 r- I Oi i0 EdIST ~ I, , _ _ _ ° a ~ j 4 FH ASSEM&Y W~ i • - ' I 8 WATERLME W}.-. ~ N _ ~ I I ID LF 6'DIP. : 282 if OF 8" PVC C90p WAIERM~JN I +-Wr F ~ I ~ ~I ~'-I 6 a 'DuouEE ~ nR~: l~ ciaeF w~a YaN rE g / ~ _ , _ _ _ " t acu ~ _ _ f - ~ - F~-,- - - - - - - - 7 tf ts" CoaPER - - - ~ r- -r ~'I- - - - r ~ ~ ~ r: I ~ ~yi£RrOA nESFGu ~'.s`-- - 'uIDED TBSI E%IST~aSI e ~ ~ I ~ ~ I : ~ MAIN k CODR W/ CI~Y ~ i / r ~ y 1 I i v N I DOM WAFER SERVCE I ~ ~ ~ ~ I I x: ~ ABANDON E11St 8 0.Ag SA~' ~ ' I ~ _ ~ / ~ ~ r I i 1 at:aaeolroM ra r ' PNL BErwEEN ae~osEO ~I ~ L7 I I 7 LF a' pP ~ ~ ~ I I " ` ~ ~ ~ 'J 1 ' aouLnYn e~ aa,U~ ~ kM aNp FAIST MH ~ >~I g' PUBU„ i NGRTH FIRE SERVICE I ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ aM3~ t 1 c SE CORNER CF BROAPNAY ~ ~ Ii ~ I"! I I - ~I ~ I, AccESS ~ BUILDING ~ ~ r IRRIGan~ METER ~ ~ ~ ~A, ao ~ o ~m 6EDAA IN1ER$ECEICN A O% EABEMEN7 I ~ FOR R1GH7-OF•WAY 'Ti ' I I I Y10 LI~::PER CdB S1AN'~ D$ ~ II i, B' 9' TEE W/8 Gk f ~ ~ I I ~ i ~ ~ 8"x6' REDUCER, I I LANDSCAPING NI I`-' II NORTH I ~ 6' cv e Te I I fee. LSCARE) ~A I~; I'- ~ I ~ j ~ ~ .,~I ~ 7 DURL CPPER r it I ~ SINCLE~FAMILY 1 ~ I SINGLE FAMILY L I ~ ~ I I C9~ C~ i~;~ ~ 1 I ~ ~ ~ I SINGLE FAMILY BDilO!hG AREA BUILDING AREA i I ~ ~ y, II T ~ I 11 DOM WATER SEAmOE I I ~ BUILDWC MEd ~ I I _ i; I Q ~ 1 . ~ ~ J ? (R'P-a i0 WEST) I I I ~ I I I O b % PRCPOSCD ;RANSIi T" IRRIGATION I oo ~ ~ ~ ~I (,~~r _ 1. M I I I((I ~ I - I t - - ? T ~ NCLE FAMILY ZS' PUBLIC ACCESS & I I ! I SHELTER ~ ~ ~ Q METER VAUti Y METER Plf ~ ~ BUILDING AREA L ~ I I ~ c~ w I DRAINAGE ASEMENi i I' m ' ! ~ ~ ~ T ~ N~,I FDR Furu~ ~ ~ ' i i I ~ ..1 ~ l.~- ~ O~ I DEVELOPMENT LAYWi LNE I ~ i b,w n r ""e, „N L I; I ~ . ~ ~ ~ I II ~ 1~ 1l9 ~ ~ rva~s ro sF AREAS> I ~ iYP I , ~ ~ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I ~ ~.~i ~ ~ i ~ COCRD FMALAESMiALD:aTIGN,I ~ ~t ~~R I I Ai~~ ~ ~i, ~ 'r: ~ ~ _ ~ ~ CONC PATH ivPl _I~ _ _ _ _ ~ P~ ~-i I, ~ I ~ II I ~ EN TENT W/ FNAL DESIGN LANDMARK ~ I ~ 4 ~ -J- __LI ( I~ I I ~ I BOUNDARY,, ~ 1 ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ II I '1 t~ ~I I (PE ARCHI'~ I i r~ I ' ~ oEUO EKlst ~l ~ BROADWAY 'r- ,~".,r,,,~.,,: ~i j~ I ~ ~ _ I i I I ~ V I I olBASriNOaeos i ; Ii' BUILDING J/%\ i . i ~ I ~ No~wsTaiLaPa° ~ DEMO IAA VALVE i I, ~ I II I ~I I I 7 ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ WpQ'j MFRKER POST ~ I I I 9 I~ ~ ~ ~ - PAINTED GREEN ~ I (~a I: ~ I ~g ~ i I I sourN ~ I. t ~ I ~ ~ ~ ! J_ w " ~ I f 6~ , , I I I A, ~ ~ ~ ~ ,l HISTORIC I ~ DUPLEX I i ~ l~ (7YP~JI) 4 I ~ I( ~ r ,L I ~ ~ 0 I I~1 L : ~ I I Il$ pp' ABPHALT $INC{E FAMILY I i ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ r ~ I ~ ~;I ~ ~ SCHOOL I `'I Il oelvE BUILDING AREA ~~I I w ~ I Q 0 r ~ C { ~ I I ~ I }mil/ SERNCEECONNECIONS 111 11 I i I li l (n a : I I, , i o ii ~ U I 'IGAP 4', DEMO EAISI A" rG SOUn+smE OF,eloc i~,,, - ----'-~I ~ ,~E~~ z ! ~~'~w BERNCE ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8' PVC ~ SINGLE f4 Y ~ I ~ _ N ( /~AffRMAIN SAfL I \ , ~ SAN SERVCE ' I ~ `h ~.~~-J '..i ~ AUILDINC ,v 1 I ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ 11 (/EAIfY SIZE AND LOCA]KKJ _ ~1"' PUBLC AccESS I I y,, I ~ II r-> ~ Z r P ~ r. ! C G LAYCUr LmC~~ ; 31 if 6 Dfq { ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ a ' I ~ utAlrr nRt~stRNta ~,~„Aa\\~~~\~;A~~c.oA :r I'~ II' ~I ~ ~ I ~ ~ 0 CASEMENT m . ~ ~ - ^i - DEMO ERISi dI I ~ I ~ ` >y~ ~ (ASSUMED) walER ~ ~ I I~ _ I r~ I ~ ~ ~ - ' I I SEANCE 10 ACCESSORY ~ ` e B FE W1 ~ I ~ etx ~ II ~ CARRIAGE euaolNGAaREa (I ~I ~ ~ I E sDt®StLEVa -g ° ~ ~ - ° - - ~I ~ ; I ~ 1 1 I AND ~"s 6 cu ~ ~ " - ` I HOUSE I ns LF a' sax I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ p , I ~ I ~ Q '.2 BOMES'IC -'r I V. I MAIN M20k I ~ I ~ ~ ~I SERVCE iAP:~ ~ - I ~ ~ - ~ I ~ ~ I ~ f ~ ~ . ~ .Y ~ I ~ I ~ l ~1~: j I EMO ~ ~MISi 2 ~ 1 ~ ~ I ~ l!! . DOMISER'hCEUNE~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s 1. ~tx, ~ - ~ I S ~ ~ ~ ~ i- ~ I ~ I i ~ ~,H r~E ~A°~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ I o t.~l\, a r j;< ~i I OPEN SPACE i I~~ . i I I I}T Lp L2' CCPPER ~ ~ ~ ~ s LFa oh ~ 1~, ~ ~ l) III ~..I' I I s~'~, . I ocMESBG wA R SERVCE ~ ~ ~ 1' I I - sEANC. ~ I ~ ® S I ' I I r I s, ~ ~ ~ : rr~, r M~rER uauu , ~ ;1 ~ ; i ~ ~ as Lf I s GoPPEP ~ i CAR~GE ; I sING~6A~LY I' ~ I I , Z DEMO EXIST 2" I ~ : DOM WATER SfRNCE ~ I }{D SE ~ i I Bl?LDINC AREA I I ' J I bON ME7EA VAIAT 'i ~ ~ o ~ ~ I` ~ ~ REMOVE IRELOCAIE I ! I ! I ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ' I ~ ~ EMISi GAS UNE I i ~ I 1 I II ' ~ ~ I , PER VI]U'Y CO- DIRECTION I I + ~ ~I _ 1 ~ m ~ , AND CONSENT I ~ I I 4 PUBUE MAINTQNANCE II ~ ~.-I ~ I ` ~ I --1 - - ~ AOOF>B ESM Ip ~ \ _ I I ffI ASSY w/ I V~ I I f I \ ~7 PROP~~OSED FUTURE ~,8" W< i ~~Icd~ r ~ i~ - ~ WATER UE1F~R I ~ ~ dr ~ I I 8 ~6' 6" ~w~/ 1 ! ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ r IN BAD is ~ ~ ~ ,y I i OF BOULDER ~ _ _ . ~ ~ ~ VAULT CR I j J ~ ` 8~ NW 6" CV ~ ~ I : k afjWAY ~ ~ BLS ~Dbd ME1FA ~ ~ -l i k~~S l ~i - I ~ ~ ~ I I " J I _ _ 1~.. ~ ~ ~,I , ~ w- r.,, U' r: ~'w :ter - U I ~I ` ' T , : > ~ ~.H,. A,.- . f I ~ 101. . , C _ Opp I~ F , ; _ ~ ~ I I _ PRESERVE auo;PADTE ~ ~ ' i ~ . ` Z I ~ FH ASSY 10.8E CCQPLEfED BY 01NERS'., - - I i - - ~ , ~ , S ~ ~ T+~ (SEE U71U1Y NOTE ,NO.J) I IUi~%7Y CD AD RE ?b7 F.%iSi 24' A I ' r....~ ~.,;I 'N, ~ ~i L F a nRE SERVCE 1 ~ - REMQNE/AELOpATE 6'x6" tEE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I.. ~+Y ' ~ 1...~ ,c iAD..~.?_~V. - L. I.. AND CCNBENF -19x2-fi'Y WS_5\\REWCEA~ I I. _ ~O BE PAESERV6D (TIP, Rf~LSCAPE) i Cs-'^.,;;1 ~ ~ ~ I I CEDAR AVENUE ~AIFY ND GDNFL~„H Erlsi I (7rP7 I ~ ! w . . Imo---, I .-I I ~ DOM-$ERVIDE ~CONNEEflON I e - ~ ~ nr 4 ~ ~ ~I S"ODAi ~ DEMO POWER PQE i 8;x6° WYE c SANI'aRY Md I ~ I ~ r II ~.1 ! ~ 4a. ~ REROUTE GH UiIU ItE~ ~ --RIM53877D l _I. d y.n. ~ CCORD.W/,UUUTt OWNER ~ .INV;1N. 5141.19 Ac+, r M'9 I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PLUG NOA7H WV ® ~ ~ ~ ~ INV IN 561 pa (CYI$1) r,F 'v. ~ , t _ ~ - - DATE'. 17 N0408 n ' ~ i,. ~ MN PER CITY $Tpa INY CUJ 538099 (UIIST] ~ ~ rl ° I o+ (>rERITY) ~ ~I ° ~ Iii ~ K. ~ ~ , REYIS10N9 d I ~ CITY OF BOULDER CONSTRUCTION NDTE'z CITY Of 86ULDER CINJSTRUCTIDN NOTES CONT: I I. ALL 'WCAK SHALL E4 PCAfCRMED IN ACCORDANCE 'MTh' 1HE 'DESIGN ANU CpRSTRUCI10N STANDARDS' OF 7HE 6, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN A CGJPLEiE AND APPRCVED GET OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS. ~ ' SITE REVIEW REVISIONS: Cltt O< BOULCER, AND SHALL BF COMPLCIEO i0 THE SAi15FAC110N OF THE DIRECTOR OF fVBLIC YN1Po(S IN THE THESE DRAWINGS, AND ANY REWIRED PERMITS, SHALL BE A'aNLABLf Ai THE PROJECT SITE Al ALL TINES AND UTILITY NOTES: 1. 9' W1DC UiAItY EASEMJJi NOi SHOWN WHERE OVERLAPPING 25' EVfNI THAI A RESIGN ELEMENT DOES NOT REFLECT CITY $TANOAADS, ME MATTER MUST BE IuMEgAIELY BRWCNI SHALL AE MADE AVALABLE i0 OIY STAFF UPON REQUE61. IF C~JSTRUCIION PLANS ARE NDi READILY AVAILABLE uDUTY [ASEMENL 10 1HE ATTENTION Of tHE ENgNEER Ax0 tI+E DIAECiCR IN PUBUC WORKS. tHE ENGINE[R Slblll 8E RESPONSIBLE AT tHE PAOdCi SHE THE oIRECFp<7 OF PUBLIC wOkKS MAV 189JE A STOP WORN ORDER AND NAU AlL I. OWNER AND CONRRACTOA i0 vERffY rluaL TAP S2E5, BASED ON 2. MUtt EASEMCN7 RENBEO FROM 30' 70 25' AND COMBINED WiH FCR RE"OMMENDING A SOLV110N OR AL7ERNABVE SOLU110VS i0 1HE CITY fCR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CDNSiRUCODN AC?NBES PENDING COMPLIANCE BY 7HE CONTRACTOR, FINAL FIMTURE CCUNTS, AT THE 1ME DF Bl?LDINC PERMIT ACCESS EABEMENI 2. iNE aPPROVAL CF A CDNSIRCCDON PLAN DOES N01 ~nUEVE CHE CONTRACTOR OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF 7. iH[ CON TRACTOR AGREES 10 COMPLY'MTH iNE PRONSIONS D< THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN AND THE 'MANUAL APPUCA7ION AMD AO.NST TAP SIZES AND TAP FEES ACCORDINGLY I 3. 2' DOMESTIC METER, VAULT, M'0 SERVCE ALONG BROADWAY i0 CONSIRUCTINC WORKABLE PUBUC IMPROVEMENTS AlL RENSIONS AND/OA CORRECTIONS REWIRED IM4 BE SOLELY pN UNIFORM TRAFFIC CON7ROl DEVIC{S," PART N, FOR CCNS1HUGiIpN SICNACE AND 1RAFFIC CONTROL. 2. HNAL SANITARY, WAFER, AND OTHER UTILITY ALIGNMENTS TD BE BE ABatMJONED ai CORP Sip WI11I MArN. THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPGNSI&UTV, aND Ai THETA EKPENE{. 8. Alt SURPLUS MatERIALS, TOOLS, ANC TEMPORARY 61RlICTURES, FURN141E0 BY THE CONTRACTOR, SHALL BE DEIERMmEO w THE FICLO BASER ON ENCOUNTERED FlELD CONDITONa. I a. 6" FIRE SERVCE tp BROADwar BUO,ry,NC TEE flinNCS SENSED. 3, THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN CHECHED BY THE CITY DF BWLOCR ONLr FOR WNFORMANCC W7H THE "DESIC+1 AND RiMOVEO fROM THE PRO,ECi 91f BY iNf CONIAACiOR. ALL DEBRIS AND RUBBISH CAG6ED BY ThE CPERABONS Of NOtItt ENGNEEA Dc ANY NSCREPANL7ES ANp AOJUS INVERTS. CCNSIRUCTICN STANDARDS; COMPLIANCE Mh1H DEVELCPMENi AGREEMENt CONDITIONS, AND FCR GENERAL THE WN1RACi0R SHALL BE REMO+ED, AND ME AREA OCCUPIED DURING C?N$iRUC71CN ACDNiIE$ SHALL BE MANHOLE ELEVATIONS, ETC. BASED ON E%IaDNG U11UlY E:EVAiIONS 5. U?LITY NOTE 3 AENSEO. R:STOREO i0 115 ORICaNAL COND1110N, WTHIN 48 HWRS OF PRNECi CDMPLE?ON, IIMESS DiNCRW1SE DIRECTED BY 3, CEV£LOPER/OWNER SHALL COORDINATE YAM CITY OF BOULDER i0 6. FIRE H'rRAN1 NEARES! NORTH DUPLE% RELOCATED 10 NORTH EDGE CONCEPiVAI APPROVAL OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AS SNONN. THE CI1Y'S RENEW DOES NDi VERIFY OP ENSURE 1HE ~ DIRECTOR Of PUBLIC WORNS. EN`~RE THAI WORK TO BE CONE IN A,O.W BY CITY Of BOULDER Cf SHE, ACCURACY OF EMISiING OR PROPOSED OIMENSICNS, LMES, CODRDINA¢S DR CR,>DES SHOWN, INCLUDING ALL q THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PRDNDE TREE AND LANDSCAPE PR01EGilON AS SET FDR1N IN CHAPTER 6-6, (INCLUOMC NEW FIRC HYDRANT, RAMPS, ETC.) I$ COMPLETED BY 7, 6' WATERMAIN IS "LOOPED" THROUGH SITE F?OM 6" MAIN IN E%IBTING U11LIiIES SHOWN OR NOl SHOWN. CEDAR AVc TO FUTURE 8' MAIN IN BROADWAY S1AEE i. NGRiH UTILITY LCCAiIOVa SHOWN REFLECT AVAILABLE RECORD DATA. iHf CONiRAC10R SHALL TAKE PRECAUTIONARY 'PAOTCCHOn OF TREES AND %ANT$' POULDER RENSED CODE (BRC) 1981 AND THE G1Y DF ~'LDEA DESIGN ANO DESIRED DATE OF ISSUANCE pr CERiffICATE OF OCCUPANCY 1HE I BULDING DOMESNC AND FlRE SERNCED SH6iED iD NORTH SIDE AND MEASURES 70 PROTECT ALL UNLiiY LNES SHOWN AND OTHERVMSE LOCA7E0. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE CONSAtUCBON SIANDAP,pS (OCS,. ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE PRONDED ANO MAWTAINED IN CCNPLIANCE NPN THE DEVELOPER/OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR 510[WALN SANITARY MAIN SHIFTED NCRFM i0 aCCDMODATE. "U?LITY NONRCa00N CENTER OF COLORADO" Ai I-800-922-1987 FOR UAUtt LOCATES 21 HOURS PRIOR 10 APPROVED LANDSCAPING PLAN, BA.C. AHD 7GS. CONS'DtUC710N ALONG BROADWAY, AND 7HE CITY Df BOULDER wnL ~ &,GNNING CON9TRUGHON, ID. 1HE CONTRACTO7 16 REWNtF.p TO PROVIDE AND MAIMUM EROSION AND SEOWENi C~iRC4 MEASURES M WNSTRUC; 1HE OTHER ITElAS AS SHOWN CN ENE PROJECt PLANS GG i 5. BEFORE VX1RR BEGINS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBIARI A PERMIT t0 NURR IN THE RIOT-OFWAY fPg7 THE nCCORDANCE ~iH FHE URBAN DAANAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL fA51AiCT 'URBAN STORM ORMNAGE CRITERIA MANUAL Frig THE BROADWAY RECONSBUCHON. CO 0 20 40 CITY ANp MUST NOTIFY 7HE CITY PoGHi-0. -WAY iNSPECDON STAFF AT LEAST 24 HOVR6 IN ADVANCE Cf VOLUME J', THE M STANDARD PLANS OF THE COLOAA00 DEPAA1ti1ENT OF IRANSPORTA7ION. AND TAE APPROVED A, DEVELOPER i0 COORCINATE RCLCCA7IDN 0.ND/OR UPCJtADE OF ! COMMENC9G CONSIRUCBCN ACTINIIEB- EROSION CONTROL PLAN. ME aRECTOR Cf PUBLIC WORKS MAY REWIRE THE CONiRAC10R 10 PROVDE AODI110NA1 Alt NON-LITY UTAIIIES WITH RESPECII$ UTILITY OW4,ER (CAS, ELEC, SCALE OF FEEL ~ JOB: 1a13c T~.V IQI : V.. ,-qV N~-k-.:n7.a:ra, nYI i is Ix rd,'~.:T:41 fM. S.AI, EROSION CONTROL uEA$IIAES WE 70 UNFORESEEN EA090N PROBLEMS CR 6 ME PLANS 00 NOi FUNCBON AS IEEE. EiC.). ONSIiE OVERHEAD U19.I11ES A110 OVERHEAD UIILINES IN INTEND[0. Mf IMUE01atF Y ADJACENT RIGHT-Of-WAY aAEA 7O BE BURIED. X¢r^.x SiTFp"-~, AR.'li li fti~;:p v Vn.,nl Inrh9aJ, i I €x15TING TREE INVENTORY PREPARED BY AN IyA CERTIFIED ARBOR15T --Tm urvay e n - ' AR;- ll Je: ~ ~ Iam ti1~ ^tEQID F9a1f1Qa P L A N N I N G 8 wxvne«u.e« n n an. i«ew«e,vrr« ' 1 am«u rr ax r..w.¦.Ya/x nr~eMr.x.anwa„ INTER100. DESIGN I I uvu Yal~rn s w aea..,a« i ,«u.an a ax wa.,mwma, •ar I~' r r.«r s ax on••e•••wra rrm xvwn. Yr «vruw«xrar r +r«m. rlm ¦ ax xayn rvrxa x«rawumwnw x.Hawn. q39 q35 ~~,I r rv«x. 1r ax v.n nm,ra= ra r°m n.xe GREEN ASH G~EENASH~'~~' r mMu n ~ ~~r.~~ I~' - ~B-DBII 11 DBH i ~ •"an r 1011 °eee wi lODO IOI SOM $ta[FI q13: aRBORISrREMOVu pl6fil7 n a..n er a ax arl v.~e, uawwiww •«nr rY Poor Health ! Fair Health q42 ~uH `Bends badl q16 11 aµn xn• s a~it BOUtDFa, 000030/ o~ °.wm.,ax.. m..,ennw« w«e. 9~ACNWALNUT 11"DBH r~ENASH MUITISTEMS~N B 020:ARgOR~VAL it a..~~n n w o,wp.n.,.ar°nmmin,aa«, IhON30loAe4'EtaO Fair Health Poor Health, a om«er a ax vwemNax.v.a rom.«ea« 12'DBN TDBH ~ v a..~en n ax u.u erN,m°..edxr.. em.x r.rwer.«.a. Good Health r-- - IPaar Health, - / 1. MULTI STEM SHRUB r - ! ~ Most stems are dead ml n ' 1 Trunk hen[ 1 ~ Z u a«Na n wr v.n ~w+ev«. r«,.«ea« r I Poor Health I ~ ~ 1 r- ' - 1a uewrem awr w r'^pd°Vnv.mna rarrwan wwm. vrnua renew, ' « N men M°x ummra met rmw. ~.l } ~ 1 ~ f ~ _ _ _r J.. ]t P.w°N. II Yx wn tae u~,we« Nua, W nu,. 7 _ ~r k~0'' " q71: ARBORIS v,~ 'I a A.wun e. Ae ax aW e«ew«ru aru,wr•n xm wi.. rte amt. a BIdCN WALNUT q39 q31 q33 q31 ~-J A tq11 ~~1 :e x«wrm wen w ww rme.. e.w rmm, '~'~I 9" dF~ERN.AN ELM L9fEEN ASH LREEN ASH i~ Y Y.a warm u m ww wrrrrexu«e nraex.ar.wenemeaxra {71Dk~1'r'~IUNI Fatr Health a h, F~Hei lh MULTI STEM MULTI, DBH FaV Health, BEr~~NDA u15: ARBORIST aLACN WALNUT q21 ~ ~gpPPLE ~ n rv«Nn a ax rx «nw«Nx v«wnr wy B-OBH 11'DBH SEEM B'DBH GREENAH REMOVAL 11"OgH AMERICAN ELM 16'DBH I s °r.«rn r w rm«e. rmrww«n«°e.aw~• I May h ve e 9 B 7" DBH 9 @ 11' "DAN REC~NDATION: Goad Health 1 STEMS: S fi 6" 08H Ve Gaod Health ' n w.m.w le ax v.n reea enar« _ canke fair HeaUh Poor Health, leans badly Center lead h dead poor Health ~EN~TA H Goad Health, lots of salt ry a '1 "'1 v'ryr°'e.'a'« q . - ~~J^ ~ 4' DBN _ _ n r.« M ~ ° n r.n~.«a«~ ew.«w r,.. n. Y.n `l~ ~ sv-~--yam @ Fay Healm, I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a Y.«u, r .w rr..,ar« oq...we,ae «re~i.a "_1I benO5 bad1Y ~ ~I, a a... xn an re t..me.ar wn«n r. r..v.rti„np t ~ ( r,. I I _ I Y xwwnn en Ar ux rr vaar«mwme.w«rx 145: R ~ _ ~ E - - - - n r.« M n ur ur.war . w am,an rx rbxW .«N«.F•wMlaW awu ,BLUE SPA ~ I I i i~ I n a.«ar a rs rrnr«e w,s,« a w«.rn n ax rr m.,aw« rea.w„e. 10DBN I I I I I I' s a«.v. r w r.rW U,w« ' ~~Y~~eryG I f I w Y.a wamn r ax ran. w.e ..«erewa r,nw.la°wxwn ~ JNeelth ~i - - i ~ - - I III, a Y.«Nr I rw rrwsWr«avoti rr• qll; REMOVE r i ~ ~ ~ _ _ F - I I ~ I I I I I ~I ~ wawa«Iw n r~ ,pr.enmw n°W nwr ,rrW .«nv«.* nv.«nwnr.xe Yrm°ewr. i I I I I i u m«e.~e n r ux reirYl.w way«. j CATCECfA'~ ! A' I I I I ~ n weYVewuw er ux v.osWa«aa«. m Ic _ I I I I I I w rner xege I ax rxr°mauen. xmwni..a, remenn nn«,, alwo rR LINDEN f l i~ I I I I I a rw,aewe s wx ww.m,ae« x..e.r~mn1 V i 15" DBH \ TT F - I I ~ I u x.n.r,ax n 11x aW,«.e«. i I Falr Health, ~ ~ . ~ ~ I I I I I I I~'j a rn.Ve«• r1 ax aw,.,ae«. I TrunN wOUrWfi / - - - - I I I I I I w oroera. a ux aw wnwr«aoawnm«Imr aaa. I I I Y rmm 1 1w re. <«auen rmeaea.vm Mr.xeer. nnwx IP interneldecay 1~ r.- I I I I I I I u w~e.e, mew raw r,~,.m.u~o~.~m,.~r. „ R6: ARBOAI T EM04AL I 1 ~ I ' ! i A101 i I I ~ I ~_i I w ew. Y..rwu uer rrmsW maw,. ranN wawxm wna..un. ~ ~ ~ _ I I ~ M CM Yxe Yxa«1 aw rr e«ar« owaeurxrnr•«e«ann aw. lJ.l ~ r F ~ qM: 0.EM0 9" OBRDRWdPT~DI~ TREE i I T _ _ _ _ - - - - - Y am««n unwn s ax r.n xre «.ae« w«°«. ~ Q ~ PROTECTIO n Ywe.. em a ew www« ' I- I I Poor Heal[h, FENCING y^ - - ~ ¦ m«.n i wx ar..,ar«. Q 8' DBH ~ ~REMOYE ~ DEAD SHRUBS: 019 ~ r n«.p«„a n rr n.n« ra, wvw,. Pemenlal danNer I q16 ! r mewls Ir ¦x c«°r,au« ~ ~ -3 1 ! ~ L~.,Fatrxeelth~ I rbf70NW00D ~OITONWODD ! Y o..w. ax aW.,a.« Q Q / 13' ~H 1 x ¦ xe..p,., n w x«ee,en«. ~ Ye«.n m . 1 r r ~ V a s w reaa« wr.rr ~ ' ~ + ~ ~ MT ` ery Ve Gaod Health I SIRAR MAPLE , _ _ _ _ _ ~ 0 ry I c Ye«.n Ym z w wer~n«mlm..,e i«xm~•n.°...«. O W 3 I ~ ~ 76" DBH ~ f q17: REMOVE ~ at9~ ABORIST ~ U ~ D - - Z1TTtT9f~bD Txrx.•w.,..ewn«n,epa,a m„¦«ems«mr.a sw r«w we,.•. m.ar a.mrm r.,, n. ~ ~ W Good HeaIN - ~ ~M. VAL _ J ' I ( F1, I ~ em,na•Y...oa aa..mr,w,naawwrerxe.vwrrw ern ev,sm •ne.ewrenene«m.emin aae.r ' -~1 Ver Goad yen rn.eensewa.xv.w^.ne.n..>.in.~...rrxri,.~T..rr .wn.a.m.+e,., J ~ ~ ~ :SGCanopy .1' • / IR"DBH .er«emnman.wnm ~ r«v,rem..~.a....aa..eer,w ~ N ~ m ,a-~ ~ ~ L~ ~ - - - - / Health - 19' DBH .«ax w~rwo I ~J r ~ I ' e ~ V~` ~ i~' ~ q3~ ~ ~ Aohaxardalth, ~wgrxw,r waxw warm.u«awec«rw,y ii m ~ - - I~ - , - OPEN ~ _ 1' DBH TT ! ~ r_ fatrxealth ,'l;\ SPACE i g1:REMOVE I ~ V/ AIkAiCiATINDFN ~ L I I PROVIDE 7REE I ~ Q I ~ j, 15" OBH I e- I I J I PROTECTION FENCING I Moderate Health ~ - I 1, - - - - PER CITY REQUIREMENTS, I IL I ~ - - TYP. I I 3 ~ f q1g I EzlsnxcTREIrDREMUN I8" ® - - TkEEN ASH I ~ , - - i ~ REfANING Pow Health 1, } W - - - - - - \ ~ r v E%ISTiNG TREE TO BE REMOVED UPON ~na~n / 1' ' \ _ ~ - ~ ~ ! ARBORIST 5 RECOMMENDATION • POOR 'AEMAVE• WEED F r;, - - : ~ ; I LIMIT OF ~ I' ( ° HEALTH OR AN UNDESIRABLE WEED SPECIES O : GREEN ASH _ GRADING ~ ! 1" ~ ~ N S I 14 ~..-J Z W Z 15 DBH I r ea L a- I C Pow Helth LIMrt OF I : F49' REMOVE ~ , ~ ~BAPPLE I I ~ W ~ _ GRADING ~q[jR~T I _ . N59: REMOVE N.' DBH _ ~ ~ [f ~ ~ 1 ! ( 13' DBH ~ `i ~ ~ ~ H L - yo4d He?I L - - I ~ / 1 E7USTIHG TREE TO BE REMOVED ~ \ / L.,~,°-°C_Htdlh F 11"DBN _ _r>.--' I I I a I ~ ~ ~ 1' \ ~ _ --,_,..-r= a62: REMOVE ~ it - I I ` Fa1r Health, I 1 f ~ ~ 058: REMOVE U • poor structure Lam- 67: REMOVE• WEED SPECIES: - A51: A BORIST 10' DBH j'~p~p~~ q17 F. \ / lLl ~ Z 'll EM L 9" DBH Gaud Health 6"DBH, Poor Health, poor structure L~EEH ASFq, ' / I W I ~ ~ W ~ 0 7 k48: REMOVE ~ \ r l l ~ 21" DBH ~ _ uuII r « _ ~ + LTfTLELEAF LINDEN F6F~l5CGST 7 ' 1t ) RC NDATION: Good Health a 5J'•0"Carropy ~ F --a-~F-- TREE PROTECTION FENCING PIR CITY lA h• - - ? I Fafr Health In Q 7D' DBH IT DBH I ~ J T D H - 057: REMOV6 1 , ~ ~ r - I F- Z s 35' 0"Canopy Good Health t 1 Poor Health, I~ ~ - ~ v/ • I ~ Good Health - ~ - ~ ~ J I ~ F LIMIT OF GRADING OF 1 / Puss le pn~ 8^ OBH, falr q60: REMOVE y' \ r - - - q16 rr Health i j I~ GREEN ASH N Z J ~ ~~ABAPPLE OAN - ~ 1q' OBH 1 ~ r IYW: REMOVE. I - J 11' OBN - - _ ~ W JSAE LINDEN 5° pgF{ q57: AABORI$ I - Goad Nmlth ~fD-SDF[IES 31'0' CanOPy /,0 ~ (n 12' DBH 18" DBH p~j- i ` ~ p Poor Health M1 r (n s I3'•l' Ca Gaad Health, J(F~ ~ ~ / q55 I lLl Good HealUl needs NxlnB ~I~QIAN ELM t ~ ~ BLUE TI STEM LUAR OF MULTI STEM ~ ( . / SPRUCE _ _ _ _ 6 g 'DBH, Pow Hea GRADING - ~ SHRUB -g" DBH, Fae Au, REuA~.N.Nb 'REE 0 MEET 'RE PROrEGrICN W OjS ~ I, I~th - - ~ STANDARCS IN B.R.,,. ';MAP'FR b•b 'ROTEGLON OF TREES ~,J}r t PoOrHgRh \ q5E - I AND Pi ANTS A!v„ G~,r OF gp~_OER5 'DE5~bN AND DATE: 17 NOV OB N52 ` Oor Inatln8 w! CMI On Irle status ~ - _ \ q15 GON5TRllG'i01x STANDARC5' A5 RED. 085: ARgORIST REMOVAL I RETAINING I! MD-NEYLOCUST RETAINING ° J AMERICAN LINDEN 20' DBH GREEN ASH 'I,,1 WALL i Ve ood Health 23' DBH 1 I 1 _ WALL r. 15-DBH Imo- 35' 6'Ca ~ DE"AI_5 ON LP-E SEE' j - Gaod Health, ~ ~ n0~' - ~ >v ~ 8 B r 1P DBH, Dea~~~ ~r Hgdltb.__ ~ s Needs raMe ,c' ~ APP;,IGANT AND Olr+' FORES'Rr STAFF TO GCORDINATE Oh TREE PRESERVATION ANC PR'uNINv SPEGiFIGAr10N9 I ~ jt > > ~ ~ i' v ~ I ~ II `OR A;,_ REMAINING TREES. + ~ p - ~ - ~ ~ r _ ~ _ _ J V ~kEENASH T,REENASH _ +1'9 ~ ~ I q11 ~ I 1 ~ 19"DBH 15'OBH ,i`NEENASH~ ~ ~ ~ ~CNLOCUST~~~~ ' ~ X6 Poor frealth Fdlf candltlon ~ q10: REMOVE qtt 11' DBN ~ q13 q14 ~ Good Health, lJ U qS: ARBORIST B CITY FORESTER ~MERKAN EUA CEDAR AVENUE J ~ ~ BLUE SPRUCE Good Condition 1 - ~kEEN ASH BEN ASH LRFEN ASH - { O { 14- DBH 8" DBH 12" DBH no bores 15' DBH 1T DBN ~ felrDHealth Fafr Health Goad Health yank waned Gaad Health FaR Health ARCHITECTURE] 20' DBH, Poor Health INC. 4R„---EC =4E _w75r ao_ aR F '.RE °_A'vN'h6 0 1D 20 ~0 ~ LP 1 ti,i"E: °REL "^tvAR" 'REE ~ 9a2 gROADrFAr ~.-E 3.a g0 ER.:.O:ORADC b0301 °¢ESEQJA' ON p~AN VDT FOR 1< P: 303-aaT-baa0 L 303-bal-E?08 303-ba8-5633 GCNS-RLG' ON `~Ju SCALE: 1" • 20'0" 5teona~le®309Archrzauvre.com doe wool J I PLAN? PALETTE ~ j ~ ~ DECIDUOUS TREES I ' 5'1E pUANTITY 5YMBOL BOTAN;GAL NAME COMMON NAME 'I, I I.5"GAL, . A5 ALER bINNALA AM„A MAPLE MJ'~ I STEM yJ~r i J'GAL. 7 LS CATALPA 5PEGIp5A WESTERN CATALPA 'j / Is'cu, a u cERUScANADENSIS EASreRN REDeuD I EXISTING--~ 1~---.-. rEx15TINb Ex1511N6 EXISTING -~r T-EXISTING EXISTING EXST'NS~ EXi57'NS ryLTI ,1EM J~EX575. GWAIN TREES I ! TREE ~EE ,PROPERTY TREE TREE, `1REE TREE, ' E%ISiINS~ TREE, A R ~ „ 1 / LISIC FENCE c / _ ) ~ REMOVE .'NE II REMGVE REMOVE ~ E5 REMOS~E p l A N N N V b I 7' LAL J M9 MALUS x'S.=RINb SNOW' SPRING SNOW y t I i \ } T..-..._.-_ r INiER10A DESIGN PLOWERINS CRABAPPLE ~ ~ D' GAL a DB DVERUJS BICOLOR SMHP WHI'E OAC 1' ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ I ~ i. 2 OBE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ ~ I ~ I ~--VINES PLANED ~ ~r z LA. J of OaERUiS Eu1P~ID,41s NORTHERN PIN oAK VINES P ANTES TBD PV CITY STAFF- T 6 50D ALONG Ex GHAIA ' ~ ALONG FENCE. ~ ~,p LG, 3.KE RACK, EXSTG G A N INK NGE SIGHT J' CAL J aR aLERaS RLeRA NORTHERN REV OAK ® ~Op ~ ~y> ~ LI+IK FENCE, 'YP, ExSTG. G++A:v 5 BIKES ttP. O ~ p0 ~ ~ uNK FENCE I ED 55 DRIVE TRIANGLE ~ +NI' rDA_, s Pc PYRLSC ~ R ANA cHANTLLe~R~.ve ~ ~ _ A I l~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I~GDNGRETE SHAR ACGE f ~ - ~ `r, IAZN~o3~ us o J cA-, 5 SP Sow+oRA Y 5TAMPE.. 1.~'4 ~r,~ I I aAPONILA rae~NESe A6oDA I ~ I - I 1 ' NOR I ~ ~ ! , } I ~ ~ I BUILDI I I I IuACOpvATA'r.REENSPIRE' sREErr.~IrtuvDEN ~ _ p I ~ ~ . r cu. J n T t _ r e GAL. 6 LA JLMUS AMSRGANA VALLE" FORGE - ~ ` ~D I I M5 L I N5 L I TG L ~ ~ VALLEY FORGE AMERtAh ELM ~ ~ ' l ' _ ~ ~D ~trrlx ~l'r ltl'il~ yyyy~~~~ . L~ DEUDJOUS St+RvBS p a Q'., I I } 50C 512E OdANT.TY S~M80L BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME ~ ~ N,?- ~ r .-•q~ ~ _ NORTH .4TTAG-IED fO ~ ~ DUPLEX COVERED 1 ; I uA~ s bAL GLD LARYOPTERS x DAR<KN16HT BLUE O'' `p ~=eG ~ _ -I 5P TRASH SINGLE SINGLE FAMILY ~ SIN LE ; cLANmNENSIsoAmcKNiarr'MST~w,Ea ZJA,, ~L~~p ReMO'h j' rv ~o5.>RE FAMILY ~ H SE5 F ICY 'I~ rpI-alLDlr~b r S bAL. HS HIBIYJ,'5 SY0.IAd5 51NSLE RED~PLRP~E r NTF A G f ~ ~ l'. ' 'I DOORS i O E 6 ' 7 ' .6R TE H SE 4 OU RI ALFA ~ - rd i ' WOODe vGE' - RANS~T ~ ~ ' ~.c ARG ' G r^ ' SHEL'FR r - ~ i a 5 RED _ 5 GAL. T LONIGERA 7ATARICA ARNOLD' , i 0 PG ARNCLDS RED' HC~'SULKLE ! - ~ i ~ ~ U DRAW N65 ~ 02 ~ I ~ ' - sGU, PA PenovsKAATRn.IC,Fa.u wsSIANSAbe II ~ . ~ P- ~ ~ OURTYARD I - 2 PG ~ I~ _ TREE l , 1 EX. - S GAL. PP POTENT LIA FR.TIC05A PINK BEhTY 1~ t 1 ~-.U, TREE 50D --~JJ r „Y' Y' -ENTRY OHO P NK BEADY' Po*ENnLLA I ~ ~®v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~~rr TEATURE O O O ~ O I ~ ' ~ ~ i ~ W _ W r6ARA ~ 2 5P RI ~ ~ ~ z I GG I cG I 56A1. RA6 RNJS AitOMA'.ILA GROW LOW 9VMAL FjRA"E , ~ EXTEN~~ 'GROW LOW' ~ I ^ T RI V , = DFLO MOVABLE ~ LA R `r U ' 0 ~ J ~ 5 5AL RA R:BES hUREUH bOLDEN LL'0.RAN' X5'5.-' i I - ' F SEATIMPOBED / MlF ~ N EXSTS. TREE, MOVAB E SEAT'N ~ TRE'. ~ O ~ _ REMOVE ~ EXISTING I . ~ REMO'!E I ON C.9LORED .GRANITE I _ WAI.4 YT RP,~~ ~ ~ ~ / TREE, I 'CONCRETE PLAZA _ ~ '"~q~" ~ JU 'r O REMOVE Q I s GAL. RMa RosA x McIDILApv RED SINGLE ~D SHrare I ~'1 I ~ ~ s~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~I I ~ ~ Rose I GROSS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I AG ~ . WALK ~ I EXIST N6 5 3A~. RMn R05A x MEIDILA1y WHITE DOUBLE WHITE 5n0.LB B~' 1~' \ STAMPED ? 0 I SOUTH ~ ~ TREES ~ ~ I W Q e ~ ~ Rd9e ~ - II BROnowar ' POLE, STOP( BUILDING ~ ~:I`~''u concRETE ~ygHTRf,N6E ' (DUPLEX Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 Ga sL SP~REA JAPo`1LA wSON ~aN PLASH ~IReA I I A6 ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ Gs I ~ Q F. ~ r ~ 10~ N; ~ Exsrb. _ SINGLE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ O 5 GA- s0 SYNoHORICARP~ MOUMAN 5Y/®eRR" III ~ L ~ ~ M A?-AGHED FAMIL ~ Q I , DREDPwu9 -B KE y-~ Hx5'G. / GOV°_RED - OPEN' ~ r ~ O ~ U I I i' RACK, `REE, TRASH HOUSE 3 ' ~ w W 5 bA.. 9M1 SYR~NbA FR'ERI' MI%K~M' M199 K'M DnARt B BIKES I I NO" EMOVE ' ENCLOSURE ! PAC ~ ~ L` U KOREAN LILAC Tub I ( ~ WITH 55DDE ~ N 1 W I i r 0 5 G4. VL VIBURNLM LEMAGp NANNYBERRY ViB.RWM 0' Y. ~FG ~ SEE AR ~D 5 bPL. Vr VIBURA4M +RILOBLM LOMPAG' AMERICAN p REMOVE ! 2 5P ~ N J COMPACTA' cRANeEarr (1_ ~ l' I I~y-~p ypw Ex15TING 1 y r ~ ' UA ~J ~ LSaY - I TREES f 1 ~ 'I nn ~ I. I _ m SCHOOL i SIZE C81AN ITY SYMBOL E+OTANIGAL NA~ COMMON NAME a r ` E`JERGREEN SHRUBS I cco o eR CONCRETE r 1/`JJ\ T ~ Ga 5 bAL. AL ARC105"APH'/L05V% PANGNITO MANZANiTA ' L. _ `T` ~I BUILDING I '~1 r.: {J Hy ~51AMPED I TG 1 ~ ~ O r ~ ,G • ~ GONG, RT, WALL A4 coLORADOeNSIS Y J GGl~ ® ~ B D P, t_'~ ~ k+ rUSTONE nP,rro-~'_ !SINGLE ! I S GAL. BM BVru'S MGRO~'X'LLA WINTER GEM BDXWO00 1 ' ~ j ~ _ , INy)LARIS nIHrER GEM' I 4 ~-eAlseD T„ ~ ~ ! N0, TH FAMILY ~ , . I I oe E PLANTER ~ ,k, ExsTb-, ®0° HOUSE 2 I GARRIAUE UN~f I - 56AL. LA L070rEA5TER APiLULATVS wNT~ORESEPER ~~~II BIffN'GN ~*~~®r~ REMOVE ~ ~ ~ STAMPED /'\I . ` ~ 1 ~ 5 6AL_ EFV EWN+MLS FORTA•EI PJRPLE LEAF ~ ! ~ i L 1' ~00 Tf co_Ow,TUS I , . ~ - _ . . QQ~ . NGRE - - 1~ 7~lIlR~ I I ~'I 5 OPL. EFE ELONYMLS FDRTR.fI EMERALD GAIETY EX. ~ `••r j ~ ~ ~ ' O . Q ~ 1 l r' I ~ \ ~ j~. eMeRA-D GAIEY' EJONYMLS ~ EXI5T 5 50D I AG `IT T I TREE T 1 5 .KGO I ]N r EXIFTL : GAL. ,lw 'w'6N¢~ rgRl$GNfALlS Hobae'e LuNIPeR ''I WANG. R N6ER- ~ ! I r-: , NS ® S TREE ~S.CEWALK LL NI STONE WALL ~ ' ~ t //////yyy~''~~~~~~ SOUTH GAP.'YP HE Syr r ~ T I GAL. S AMIPERL55ABINA CALGARY CARPET ~ r~A , r ~~OYER GE UNLT - ` ~ - ~ ~ « RANbE: SOD CARRIA ' ~ O I , I I cA,.cARY cAareT ANIFER I ~ ~ - ~ ~ CONC.- ~ EXISTtvG r'••, ~ ~ ~ GENTLY 1 ! D 5 GAL. .hT 11NIPERLS SGOPOLORUM TABLE i0P BLUE I f c ~ 14 ~ ExSTS.a R'.OG HALL TREE=' gl,pp~A7UIta TABLE TOP eLL_ ,l1NIFER I ~ - W/'NONE ~ ' REMOVE EsEUCH 5E- ~ TREES r''-• SINGLE , wATeR I ` • ,r , 5 GAL. PPM PILEA PVN5E45 MESA vERDE WAL_ ~ GAP, W;S_L ••r 'QUA TY r ~ ~ I Z Ii ' 'MESA vERDE' SPRLGE Ht S~ p OEGOMP05E7 HT, RANGE: ~ FNHANOEMENr I w ~ ~ I OB « RANGE GRANITE I-6' HOUSE 1 rr I AND STORM ~ 5 GAL FMS PIwS MiGO SLCWMCLNID MUGD ~ ~ I' E EX5?6. ~ ~ WATER I F~ 5LOWMOJND PI,~ ~TRE,-.. ~ O DETENTION ~ s. r ~ ~ I ~ 5 GAL. PMW PIwS M%O'iY1ITe WHITE BUD 1-L60 ~ ? r i ~ -fin( F ~ AREA 1 BrD' Plrg RAISED Ez5T6. ~I- 1 - ;H PLANTER-' TREE O f~ ~ - ~ ~ EX, A , r ~ > - ~ O ( I ~I SOD ~ ; _ .TREE ~ PERENNALS "REE r + ,s, ~ ~ I~y~~~,Y~7 ~^p~'I 'ii ~ U F I ~r ® ®o i S:Z_ Y TAN'. A NAMz •M N NAME / ' ~ ~ QJANTItt 5 M90L BO G L GON 0 r ~ f - ~ ~ ~ i~ M I I a~ _ / ' ASTALHE Rr,PE5TR15 S;NSET Hi%+DP v. ~ - 1 G.4, AR Ab ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ---r_ - 'i Ili Z I GAL. eL BERLAND'ERA cNOCaLA*E F~oWER ~ I'~~ ~ N,., / ~ Y ' S \ Y ,r . r, + LTRATA IGAL. GA GAILLARDM ARISTATA NATIVE BLg16CET ( 5+.Sh' ~°RGPERT' " ` I UA r-LOWER DRY GREEKBED'c-' 1 iRIAN6.E LINE Z NEW B'KE RAG 5, I ~ LEX5T5. ! GARDEN. WATER 11l TRIANGLE F DATE: 17 NOV OB IbAL. N9D HEMERC6ALU5 STELLA sreLLA De oao 0 EIKE5 'DIAL ( li TRE_5 ) vE oRO' DAYLILY OVAL TY ENHANG'cMEN7 ~ ~ KEEP EXST6. BIKE ~ EXST6. TREE, EXSTG. c~ AND STORM SVATER EXSTG. E%15TIN5 CEDAR AVENUE EXST6. RAGK5 :20 B KE ~ ~ REMOVE TREE -DRY GR__FBED GARDEN: Vt4TER I-I UA y ! 1 GAL, I, IR15 NYERIDB BEARDeo'R'y DETENTION AREA rREE, Rh-MOVE TREES TREE SPADES) 'I r OUALI'~ EW;ANGEMEN? AND 5TOR~ ZONE BOUNDAR. L'.NE WATER DETENT,CN AREA EXST6, TREES IGAL, UM LAVENDJLA AN6J5TIROLIA LAVENDER I 13 SEP 07 'MLN'STEAV' ' 1 i SEPT OB B I GAL MM MIRABLIS Desear PouR o ORNAMENTAL bRA55E5 VINES - 1-vLrIP`oRA LLOUC i SIZE QOANT!TY SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE OUANTIN 5YMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME 17 NOV OB I GAL. NF NEPETA x FM55ENII CATMINT j ' ] bAL GAO LALAMA6R03115 VA0.'6aiE0 FEATHER 'i IGAL. L.M LONILERA aAPONICA HALL'S NONErS:GKLE R 14 ZO ~ ' bAL. OLM OENTHERA LAESPIipSA WHITE EVENINb AUiT'.F_LRA 'OVERDAM ReeD GRASS NAL.IANA' - NAR6INATA PRIMROSE ~ ~ 1 bAL LAk GALAMA6ROG7'S FEATHER REED GR 'M IGAL. PD PARTMENOLIS°J/S VIRSrNIA LFEEPER I bAL. PP FEN5TEMON PNELEAF PEN5IEMON ARVND'NALEA GUINOVEPd-IA SEALS. _ t0~-0. ~O~ I - 'KARL 'ORESTER' I PuulFaluS i Z GAL H9 NEL!CTOTRILHd+ BLVE AVENA 6M55 IGAL. PA POLY50WN ALBERT( SILVER LA(R VIK IGAL. P9 PEN5T5MON ROOKY MOUNTAIN ARCHITECTURE - srRlcnn PENSrEMON eeNPeRVIaENS I LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR GTY ~ PJRF GRASS ,1/• 56AL 3 PAT PZROV9KIA RJfa'AN SAGE 76AL. M5 M+SGANTHV551NEN515 PURPLE MAIDEN bRA'h REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION It,{,,, ATRIPLIGIF0.1A FLFyR5LEN5' ~ ~ 50D -LOCAL SRONN REVEILLE LOW-WATER BLUESRA55 BEND I GAL. Rc RAne'DA U?LUNNIPERA rrexlcAN HAT I J GAL w PANICLM vIRGATVH SHENANDOAH RED REFER TO LANDSCAPE DETAIL SHEE'S ARGNITEGTJRE LAND5G4°E ARGHI'EGTURE P_AVNING 'NEXLAN HAT' CONEFLOWER SHENANDOAN SWITON 6RA55 ~p.2 FOR LANDSCAPE REOU'REMENTS TABLE, I GAL- a sw SALVIA PAgHYPMLLA MaLAVe SASE I PLANTING NOTES AND ADDITIONAL 194: BROADWAY 5V1'E 3 4 BOULDER, COLORADO 80302 ~I~~; i ]GAL. PM PENN5B'IM HARDY FCL4ITAIN I GAL. s 5B srncHrs BYANTINA LAMBS BAR ALweuwclne3 BRASS INFORMATION P: 903-441-6448 G: 303-641-6108 F, 303-649-5683 'HAMELN' JOB' WWII 5topndnie®303ArcbitectuTa.corF , I GAL V5 VERONICA SPILATA BLUE SPIKE 1ALL DLUE' ~AEEDYELL I ' '.I -!.HL YL 5RA,) y -VNi rl FRAM GE4 M :r ~+A A VH~MUNx I ~ 1 / VIYJI AC',R[RY ?EGFICAI ONS 7~NR 3. ORARQ ~ I ~ ~~~~~t~11TTT Iu Y1R SI~FIr \ ' ~ ~ J`r. L•nNG / `1 y , i rt N~RtIY Ru ttc.. ~.y :ell A , ~ nR~.?y r _ ;aF sAK orwva sla suAL ])1N SF IT,n„ ~'L ~ ~ 4~ANG CO ~1 ~ / ~ J ~uoKT yl~y'''d~ T Nc a~~A I q n, H A N \An11FNi gyt51 ~ f ~I:',: EIIVKC ~ n[ ufl r 1l JvA f ~ r - zM[xp10 SDl-r~~ ~rf ~ A; ~ .I N J5n- _ I A W' - ~ P L N 1 N G b I _ ,I .I ~ r L ~ a tiff un uraNpN ~ INTER100. DESIGN n.cl nAU _ tC Y ~ ;~tW~r' I , ~ A J \:NS'VRNFp Spl I IIf RL~Srssxn~, 7 M'W s nC4 n v t•.~ F:.l~ 1 [ I J ~ I ~ - W~ soF 1 ~l^'/ ~ win ~wva a ~~RaiYEisl n ~1 y ~ c _ y II~~ / NhOV SIRx RLN MN- l / ".;'L'~'. 11 4'il n r ~ Il'1 ! ~ / f~l NC INS rfA ~ ~I. N u. p4r Af t',+.. ~ ~ I Nl1M[: nNS Cn "f 1 'J S I S l 11 i ' ul ;Y'Etp Rf l NL R~'t Mn'VLY fRAIC AREI SCO-.REF I 1 ~ ~9 RRO-F`1~.T CAR r,.I~ I)•, 7 ; ~1 v; •MA ~ tt~r _ ~-r st'. . , 1.. Li eAS ARGNp "SE~dREO t0 S1ANF n • ~ Nz' LN r<+tL I IAFFS RER /.l-"~ ' .Ul:l i, J f A NU 'P'/ J'•=1 9FCYCA141S I ~ If t - ~ n: 'I I acauyz 1N,BRRLA ,z ~rf J \\T~ ~ _ ~ w ~ BA 1 l ~ ~ JJFG[ias / In ' ~ r r ~I' ,1'~4 4L1 ? 1. 11/,G YCIiR ~1: ,~.L( N~N '1 / L R G _ 9C]r BA.t 'L A~ 1~ ~ C ~.n4 r'~ RM T 'I' _ i~% a't e 1 lir'~1 f)II )1,1,11 ny J .l ! ~ I ~ ors r~ ~ t ~ , ~ ~ ' ~ ..Ere _ ; ~ I N eAL. I'= 1114 - - - ~ F a ~ _ m• NN.. ' ~ I A , , w ro pL 1 ' 1 - - A r ~ 1 ABON A.WROA\. N~:- rJasruaFn aeaAOF 'NIES CM7M:y tM~~Hi'~ ",VLN, A,l 1(YrLlp. YAIlNML51RQl IN'yJR AWJ ~ FAklr I NRgt 1(r NIA• p NIM_I'!p tlNN~AR :n,. ::I G) ~1HA!:I - y... s. i'r :~l u' ;:u,-'a_J : IJ~ as„ ~lir OF 9CLL7ER, COLORA00 J,.r INtE ~u`xlvw e. „ +,w CI Y 0~ BOU.UER. CO.ORA00 .,oar u, aap ~ ~ PRO`ECTED ROUT GRADE CHANGE ~`x'~'~a~'° 7REE GRATE ~al - -r 1 7 ~ 1 1 i vane _ r- ~ wAn~: k F p:i- ~ .D ':If? ,.q R ?RF SAN[) 5 ~R~BS r~,tl LLB _ J 1~ 1 i 4 ~`'1- - - ~'L1~ ,'I\;~ - - GITY OF BOULDER DETAIL 3.12: CITY OF BOULDER DETAIL 3.04: CITY OF BOULDER DETAIL 3.03: CITY OF BOULDER DETAIL 3.02: 0 PROT~GTED ROOT ZONE AND DRIP LINE GRADE GRANGE AROUND EXISTING TREES TREE GRATE FOR SIDEWALK PLANTIN6 TREE5 3 5HRUB5 PLANTIN6 DETAIL I ~ Q~ 0 Z o0 0~~ W ~To N Z r~ C] 2 m N Q PLANTING NOTES LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS TABLE 1. ALL PLANT NATERIAL SHALL MEET SPEGIFICATION9 OF THE AMERICAN A55OCIATICN OF ENTIRE SITE -TOTAL LOT SIZE, 190,110 5.F. M1RSEfiYMEN (AAW FOR ILT>BER ONE GRADE. ALL TREES SHALL BE BALLED AND BJRLAPPED OR TOTAL PARKING LOT SIZE: 14,161 S.P. EQUIVALENT. SLRFP.GE PARKING AREA 719 S.F. 2. TREES SHALL NOT BE PLANTED GL05ER THAN 4 FEE7 TO ANY 6A5 OR ELECTRICAL LINE AND NO VEHICLE DROPGfF /SHARED ACCESS DRIVE 19469 S.F. GL05ER THAN 10 PEST TO ANY WA1ER OR 5EWER LII~, LARGE SHRUBS SHALL NOT BE PLANTED CLOSER THAN 4 FEET TO ANY WATER OR SEWER LINE. LOGATION5 OP ALL UTILITIE5 5HALL ~ TOTAL AREA COVERED BY BUILDINGS 40,0]4 S.P. VERIFIED IN THE FIH.D PRIOR TO PLANTINS TREES AND LARGE SHRUBS. RH0 gITEI TOTAL BUILDING f.OVERA6E 90,104 9.F. J 9, bRADES SHALL BE SET TO ALLOW FOR PROPER DRAINAGE AWAY PROM ALL 5TR11CNRE5. RHI SITE: TOTAL SINGLE FAMILY BJILDING COVERAGE 9,000 gF. D6R ~ MAINTAIN SMOOTH PRGf'ILE5 AND BE FREE OF SURFACE DEBRI5, BI,MPS 1 RHI 511E1 TOTAL SINGLE FAMILY PORCH GOVERAJSE 900 S.P. W ~ 4, ALL SHRJB EEDS ADJACENT TO TURF AREAS SHALL BE EDGED WITH RYER50N OR PPPROVED TOTAL AREA NOT COVERED BY A BUIIDIN6 OR 76,908 5 F. 0 EQUIVALENT ROLLED STEEL EDGER, PARKING LOi 5, ALL SHRI~ BED AREAS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH A 3" LAYER OF WOODBARK MJLGH OVER WEED REQUIRED PROVIDED ~J,J BARRIER FABRIC. PERENNIALS AND 6ROUNDGOVER AREAS SHALL BE MJLGHED WITH A S' LAYER OF TOTAL AIThIEER OF 51RFAGE PARKING STALLS 6 8 a ~ 5HREDDED WOODBARK MACH, ~l TOTAL INT. PARKING LOT LANDSCAPED AREA NA NA U b. DURINb CANSTpllGTION, PREVENT GLEANING J9F EQJIPMENT, THE STORAGE OR DISPOSAL OF WASTE EllILDING MATERIALS (LE. PAINT, OILS, SOLYEN79, P9PHAL7, CANGRETE, MORTAR, ETC) WITHIN THE TOTAL INTERIOR PARK NS LOT LANDSCAPED Q DRIPLINE OF ANY PROTECTED TREE, AREA A5 A % OF TOTAL PARKINb LOT AREA NA NA 7. ALL AREAS DESIGNATED POR PLAN71N6 0ED5 SHALL BQ ANE;ND£D WITH b CUBIC YARDS FER TOTAL ~ OF TREES IN INTERIOR LOT Z 1,000 gGUARE FEET OF MANURC COMPOST THE CONTRAGTIOR SHALL PREPARE TTY SUBGRADE BY LAND5CAPED AREA 06 g9 JQ ROTOTILLIN6 TO A DEPTH OF S" THEN ADDINb THE 501E AMENDMENTS AND ROTOTILLINb TO A DEPTH TOTAL PERIhtE7ER PARKING LOT OF S". LANDSCAPED AREA NA NA DATE', 17NOV09 8. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR 5HALL VERIFY ALL MATERIAL OUANTITIES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. TOTAL N.RHBER OF STREET TREES 79 79 AGNAL N1h~ER OF 5YMBOLS SHALL HAVE PRIORITY OVER THE GpJANTItt DESIGNATED. 9. REFER TO THE Cltt CF BOULDER'S DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STAPIDARDS' AND 'LANDSCAPE TOTAL QUANTITY GP PLANT MATERIAL ON TREES / 5HR1R5 TREES / SHRIJ85 REOUIREMENTS FOR STRE^c f9GAPE5, PARKINb L075 AND ALL OTHER DE/ELOPh1ENT5' SITE PLAN (tl ]NGLUDES KEPT EXISTING TREES) 91 ! X95 77 /909 Ilt ID. REFB1 70 THE CIVIL ENGINEERINb DRAWINGS FOR bRADINb AND UTILITY INFORMATION TOTAL QUANTITY OF KEFT E%15TIN6 TREE5 IS TREES 40 TREES i 3a3 - ARCHITECTURE, - INC. ARGHITEGNRE LANDSCAPE ARGHITEGTURE PLANNINb 1947 BROADWAY, SUITE 914 BOULDER, COLORADO 80907 P: 903-447-6448 G: 309.641-6708 f: 305-648-5669 Stephanlee309Archltecture.wm JOB: WVdI 1p~'I dl x c ~ti' r ~_..I~'° Ord::.: 51 d~ ~ ~ ARCHi1E(1URE _ a S'.- 7tANNING 6 7 w' a ~ , ~ ~ lANG@TlAR'lA SIOLlt~TM r ~ •s w~ y'. r _~t ~ iNTER100.DESIGN INI'OIIMAL P;.v °r ~ r ~ a ~ y; mQEDYl~Y MOVAE'AP ' ~ r~ ' , y ^ ' C9L?ltl~ ~ HIRIUT011!' f~^1fr ~ I~'-a 'i ~o.soM sraE~' GOV~Im M COf10U51 ~ 1E.;,- 't * or o, co aoaoa y ,rri ioJ evos e~ov y ~ 1X1 .f ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ i 1S.a ~ - (~~~\/J~~~y,,} ~ ~f i..l~~~A''G'*"~~ r ~ 11N11(~l,r'IUllll t , o 3(..r , ° ° PHOTO EXAMPLE 2: PHOTO EXAMPLE I: BIRTHDAY PARTY AT INFORMAL GATHERING NODE INFORMAL GATHERING NODE AT INFORMAL GATHERING NODE AT NOMAD GOHOUSING IN BOULDER, COLORADO NOMAD GOHOU5ING IN BOULDER, COLORADO NEAR BROADY'lAY BUILDING b INTERIOR COURTYARD SGALE: I'=10'-0" W I y dl ~ ~ ~ ~ o r1l~~~ ~ ¦ ~ ~ ~ ti ~I o I J o~ ~ o , ® J w Q ,f Is3 Z Q~ SIOC'IrLK M, ~ r~ A a ~ ; 4 ~ ~ ~ V ~ L W ~ SOD ~t . y i . Y_. ~ r O D~dMALMOVIEL! ~ ~ ~ Z r ~ q e~co>~idNb ~ m - - Gon+ru+lrr ~tt~`~'~ OU PHOTO EXAMPLE 4: PHOTO EXAMPLE 3: (n ~ ~ INFORMAL GATHERING NODE EXAMPLE INFORMAL GATHERING NODE EXAMPLE, Q ~ SUN AND WIND GOHOUSIN6 DENMARK GOHOUSIN6 COMMUNITY. EAST COAST ~ , XbAR w w~Le Tra 00 INFORMAL GATHERING NODE NEAR NORTH DUPLEX BUILDING 8 INTERIOR COURTYARD SGALE: I'=10'-0" J a y ~ - nlLIIY d YI! ya~u-k I vr~iweu~i.orxm" arr i yr nrac urx rer I - ~ a vraae ur, sierm Q g ENTRY FEATURE EXAMPLE RETAINING WALL EXAMPLE oaTe: n Navoe SGALE: I/4'=I'-0" SGALE: I/4'=1'-O° BENCH EXAMPLE; - DUMOR 5' LONG STEEL $ENGH MODEL 160 OR SIMILAR 303 - ARCHITECTURE, - INC. N_ OT :BIKE RACK LAYOUT AND ARGHITEG~URE LAND9GAPf ARGHITEGri112E PLANNING 5P[:GS POUND ON SHEET LP-5 LP-4 194] BROADWAY, SUITE 914 BOULDER, COLORADO 80902 P: 909-441-6448 G: 909-641-6108 P: °09-648-5689 5tephanlss908Prehlteoture aom Job; WVdI ~1 ~ ADJACENT STRUCTURE ~ ~ ADJACENT STRULNRE ~ ~ -ADJACENT STRUCTURE 2S, 90LAR FENCE ~ ~ ADJACENT STRUCTURE 1 J ~3`'-O'S°LAR FENCE - / III _~~10AM_- ~y i_-~~- 1 ~ .l~Prn ~ V F ~ ~ ~ F ~ ARCHITECTURE ~ PLANNING & _ - - ~ \ ~ - , - - - ~ )]''O'SOLI'R FENGE~ \ INTERIOR DESIGN i `1,~ _ - _W1 \ 10 AM ~ / _ 7 ~ ~ ~ 1,S'°5°LAR FENCE. \ , / T------ \ ~ ~ 3ooa I ~r - ~ ~ oNO ~o~sen sraeEl - ~ ~ I ~ _ - \ ~ ~ .OER, (0 80304 _ I r = - ~ ~ ~ ~ NE. 703 aga.0904 Fe T re Fc - n. F" - f 0 rc I~_ "`~"'F4"'',Tt--.^~.~.' tAA. O-0?-4/4~C 100 . - - - _ - - ~ _ 7 _ 4y_ ~ I . A ~ ~ ~o I~ 6 I ~ B ~ ~ ~ 9 I ~ y 1 ~ ~ I ~ ? I ! 7 ~ o 1 I ~ n 1 I _ 1 i - ~ ~ ~3 i 9 I 7 i - A ~ ~ 1 . u - - r--- a r0_ 1 7 A ~ - - x x r~ f x e w ~ 1 a x0 a i - ~ i i A 0 ~ n_i ~ ~ I I ~ ~ I 1 E I l I E N" \ ' I \ 1 ` 5 1 \ 9 y~ ~ OM' ` I _ ~ ~ p M 1 ~i3r ~ F 1\ 6 V r R ~ A i O i - ~ i 1 J 7 ~ J w °a SOLAR 5HADOW 12 PMEDEC 21 SOLAR SHADOW 10 AM~DEC 21 ZO W T NJ Z r] 0 ~ m 2 N SOLAR ANALYSIS SOLAR ANALYSIS a ~ ~ ~ Q CHART C SOLAR ANALYSIS SOLAR ANALYSIS CHART ~ ~ ~ ADJAGENTSTR°LT°RF.__ _ ~ ~ ADJAGENTSTRDGTURE- - _ - _ _ - 25'•0" FENCE & 12'-0" CHART CHART ~ NORTH DUPLEX % ~ r `:~O E°LARFENG~ - - ~ - - @ BROADWAY BLDG ~ NORTH BLDG ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / E BLDG ~ ' A ~ ~ ~ FENC ) ~ HGi AIY XGf A1V AOlU81E0 ADIUSIEO AOJU5IED _ - ~ - - - - - / SHADOW lEN01H _ SHADOW LENGTH SNAOOW l3FiT1 _ _ SXAODW LENGTH 'OIM MADE 10AM NOON 7fM 101X1 GAAOF LOAM NOON 71M ~ 1]-0'SOLAR 2 PM~ 1101X1 10AM NOON 7/M 101Nt LOAM NOON 71M GIUOE OBAOE I ~ - ~ _ _ T ~ -v----L--- - N_A 22 58 Sd 52 44.66 6050 _ D A 2920 75 79 59 40 _ F A 75,00 64 76 49.50 66.91 6_A 25 77 66.30 50 54 ~ / - - F_ B 75,00 66.99 50.00 67.58 I e B 2552 63.65 19.54 ~ 67.67 '80,03 \ ~ / ~ / F C 6625 51.00 69.56 B C 26.52 66.97 52041 10.28 N B 2308 57 &S 45.66 61.16 D 3 29.70 7605 SB,40 80.69 ~ Oy N C 2308 5851 4566 6182 4C 30,40 7672 59.10 80,69 / - ~ ~ 17 F„0 75,00 66.25 5100 69.56 B D 2652 66.30 1 50 54 1 7028 N D 22,58 5705 4516 6t 76 D_D 2910 AJ9 59,90 8175 ~ ~ 1% ~ ~ ~__r--~ , nee ~ 1 F_E 75 W 64.97 52.00 68.21 B E 26.52 66.30 SO.Sd 70_.28 II- fill FF 8f 2518 62.75', 4786 66.73 ~ NE 2725 68.26 56.00 72.11 pE 27,9) 6956S1~I77.54 r0. - fe ~ ~"FC-~T3'~1,F,•-'/_ ~ 7~--- - Q 7500 62.94 18.50 66.25 ~ N_F 19,87 5067 7924 53.98 i D' 2750 6956 SL50 F G 7500 64.9'3 50.00 67.58 B G 25,18 6215' 48,76 66.73 ~ N G 19.87 _4802 ~ 38.24 53x2 D G_28,15 7128 55,1]' 7526 I / F H 2.5,Oq~dd 26 69.50 66.91 8-K ~ 33.68 i 84.61 65.76 89.25 N H 20,12 50.0150.01 7~ 0 H 28,40 7261 55.80 75.92 _ Ay _ _ //A / N/ r / / / ' F I u.00 ~ B l 131,18 ~ 85,91 65.86 90.58 N_I _ 2129_53.77 1 41.5A SSJ6 _ OJ 28,40 71,95 56,9_0 ~ 75.91 - _ 71 i 8 M 7118 ~ 86.60 6796 9256 N 1 21,54 SOJ7 6208 57,08 ~ D_ 28J5 7128 5630 7516 ~ ~ / ~y f A 17.00 29.95 23.00 71.14 B P 41,68 ~ 117.10 8686 119.06 N K 20,85 3260 10.70 5159 D [ 3 25 _ 78.91 dL50 &7.18 ~ Q E ~ Q F C 17.00 _ 70.60 25.00 33.19 1 N_N 20,70 5220 40,90 54,85-~ ~ D N 27,~ 7777 56,80 76.58 I I ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~O/~ F 0 17.00 17260_ __2500 33.79 1 V J _ ~ ~ F E 17.00 I J0.74 2100 J2.46 N 0 1953 4910 ~ 7856 SITS 1, SITE REVIEW 128EP N.0 20.03 50 96 40 06 53.74 0 0 27.1 S 72.fi1 55,90 75.92 N P 1978_4977 39 D6 5308 ' H ~ - + _ 0 P ~ 21.15 72.fi1 56,90 75.92 ~ ` sueMiTru RmB i ~ FF 17A0 ~t9 22,50 70.48 p0 28.15 7377 56,80 76.58 r ~ _ ~ I SITE REVIEW 11 NDV F G 17.00 30 74 2100 3146 ~ 9 E e r _ f H 17.00 70.0.9 2350 ]2.16 N R 22 A9 56,95 4398 59,60 ~ 0 R 3000. 1, BOJ6 6200 ' 8.1,14 6 ° @ n 1 R .c is _L~A~ ~IgB F I 1 11.00 '70.49 23.50 JI.11 N S 2224 56.95 47.48 58,94 ~ ~ % F B - _ Ni 22A9 5695 43481 5960 ~ o~ i i N U 22.19 ~ 57,61 13.98 60,E it I 11 ' _ R N Y 27.00 69,90 52..W 70.89 ~ 11 ~ I _ ~ c y~i i A R i x - I 0 I N l l ~ _ 7 ~ 7 ~ 1 R'/ 1 1 i ~ ~I - I ' i - I ~ I' 7 - - 1 ~ ~ = 1 ~ ~ i ~ 8- 7 1 ~ _ I SOLAR SHADOW 2 PM DEC 21 0'1 scALB: r' . 20' ~ JOB: WASH VILL ATTACHMENT K p..'O ~ Rv ~ j ~ :1i1 t R ~ ~ ~ 4~ y ~ ~i~ t ~ U ~A C A ~ R ~ ` , ~ V A" i 'd ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r r 1 ' ~ I ' ~ ~ ~ IN ~ r _ 4 _ _ .:t,~ ~q~ 1Y ~ ~ ~ . r~""~.- q~ ~'V P, _ . i. i _ _ _ _ 4 SCN _ ~ _ _ , I , ~X~~F a a~ ~ i~ ~ l 4 , {+ra~ '(f 7 ~ ~ ~ A' ~ a. ' S.`-_ a ~ "r• ,t ~'G _ _ ~ S^~~~~~ Mwif ~ .'fit,„." ~ - : . ! !b~_ ~ - C M '1 ` I .a~uJ r NI ! , _ , - - -ai: s 1 ~ w,._. ~sY'"~~. .:»w• ~ R ;''tL _ kv~S~!'N+.rytt ; J~~ ~,'C~4"~ ~ - +•ri 'r9 ',t~~'y - - E ~¦t _ T P y ~~YJ6i ~ - " ~ ~ ~ ~ 'N lI' ~r Y L~f/.R~ yf}~'~'?ry~ i~ r~, yW. ~ .,;-T ~ :s. ~ ...yam. yn ~..~q,..~__. [ ~+n I{ Y N ~ / f ~ 'f. ' ...i F~ ~ .,w,...e. ; ,r, ` '.'tlr, f; i ~ _ 7 S~yqrr ~y .ry q~' .y~"{,3~ 1M~'. ~ j rte. i , M~ ~ • , i• ' ~ ~ ~ T 47~'~ Sti n~~ ~ f h . _ ~ ~r . ~ ,F' A"~ ~ ~ ) i P 9s'F ~ 5~~~ _ - - r Atlfi'/r~ ~ ~7c' - ~ ~ S. "ai,. ~ t ~ ~ Sr ~ ~ 1 ,c Ty N ~ ~~Y ~ -~J. ~ 1.. 5 , s` t _ ' ~ ti !a•q 1.' i ~ _ _Y x„ ~.~..a"'{ 'SEt h ..r _ e V .~i'n'~gils®~. ' ' WASHINGTON VILLAGE ~'V v1aL5L 6IGi rOn 16on~fe,,lm,, i 1215 CEDAR AVE BOULDER COLORADO , ~ ~ / I 1 G z CNSh~ 3 - FmsWdx A ~ ~ „ - r - I , , I _ ~ f A~",9 ` I y „ { 1 I I r ~ t.~~ - ~I~ I ~.:I ~ _ 1 Ill.. ~-F~ FF ,'I ~ t.~*. . ~ I r ~nn 1. 1 I, t. N I I 1 i , xn - ~ y a ~ I I. l u , _ ParrallelPaMlnq ~ ~ Possible Ent ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 i~ ~ - 1 1 BusSh r~r ' - frtK J:.. ~~t I 1 t 1 Tree Grate ~ I I~ I per aty standard ~ " - t I , r ~ ~ ~ ~ - Typical Uegelaled Paous ~ I - ~ i ,II ~~_-%w T ~ ~J i Q Pavement Zone ~ < l ' Concrete Bus ~ ~ t' STOP Pad ~ ul s? ~ ~CNSher Fines Walk ('GlaSSPave"rX~- r.°.- 1 t. ~ I Tree Grate ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ T r _ _ ~p r rt~. _ {per mty elan ral r ' r. ~ y 4 r _ ~ ~ ~~DlninerE~w~~ura n ~ ~ ~ ~ s rvAy Lawn ~ 1 t ~ ~v Ce tral Act' d~' _ ~ - - d r. „ zl I~ ~ ~ gT„rrace Blue Grass Tur _ 1 , ti i i - - l o' d t Cross Wa ~ - ~ •aa ~I {l Ho!Jub ~ f - ~ y- ~ aiea I I nr s: ~ - > CU~1 ` ~ { ~C Y lr fi~ i ~ ; - I I ~ ~ ~ GNShgr Fnes Walk i Crh I - - 33 r ~ ) I y ~ ~11yyr 1"I _ ~ ! 11 t ~ Sd Tf' LI LJ ~ dTi }f _ i I ? Water ten r,° f `ACA R;hp _J ~ ff f 4'~ l T ~ y ~ Concrete DrNe ~ 1 I Cw II Y_' SaneBench~~ ~ ~ Entry ~ 1 t/ ~'f'~ I 1 I I . j .A Orop•011 ~I ~ s x f3wyGaRack 1 +,`t ' v Raised ~ ~ I _ 1 'r - 7 l ~ ~ ~ ~ s: ' ~ r C' t ~ ~ Planter 'I ~~p~~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ U r i ' ~ ~ t ~ - ~ ~ o a~ ; ~ _ 1 ~q ~ - - ~ - ~ yr l ~ ~ ~ 1.. i ; ~ ~ - i ~ 'I ryry `;c r ,.r~.,rx; ~ lr Y I,I I, t i I t ~ a I, 1 ~ l t_leotionPOndOutlot ~ _ ~ ~i ~ - j ~,J i ~ ~ Accessible ~mp Per ~ r. T _P~FI f +~kVE ...1.. ~:.a»._ ± - - , City Requ emenls - - ~ ~ _ - , - - -r I - - _ ~ ' - -~s _ t ~toneBench ~•~.T > Accessible Pedes[nan Entry Existing 18 Dla Green Paved Yehicle Enry n Exists Tree To Ash Tree To Be Removed C EAR AVEN UE _ Remaning EnsUng t0" Cia Black Locust D„u To Pair Hrnllh Trer• To Re Removal !Lndesnahle S{:aClaS) ' ~ WASHINGTON VILLAGE ' , wesulracroN o to >o ,o 1L'onder6n W 1215 CEDAR AYE BOULDER COLORADO 1 ~ , ~ ~fl 1~ ~ r, a ~G ~~4'P ~ r, ~ ~ ~ 4 ' ~ ' r ~ jt r U, ~ ~ ' ~y~(r .ter, _ : ~ ~ +1 _ _ i ~ i ~ I ,II I a ~ a. ~,f,~~~` y i t ; k ~ ~ t J i ~Ji'G~ I ~ - - y'~~ Gk~` ~l. r--it=7 r~~~ _C y~~! ~ ~ ~~Yl~jl'~". ~S 4 ~ 1 L{~. 1~ _ fti'~ i.. '~~)r-- ,~j t ~ ~t~~ir~~ ~ rV~. S~'v~~i~~yy b ~ ~ ~i ~~.,;'J/NY C i~ ~~'~`j(~"' ~y~-~ ~ ~7~[, i i~ ~r I-~ T~ i °;I ~iF -Sy:: it ^`a~'Y~ ?.~~~rl ;J,1 -~.f ~-,d ~ -i ~::~"~r-.: -r ~ - a _ - _ Cr Fhv,l " ~ ~~~']Y O' I q ~ _ I~,`,,,~~.jj~ii-~".: ~ii'AAIW'~'f.? ,.j,l: ~ ~ - : _ - •%I~ i'. ii aj r i ~ I~, s7 ~ a• -.•c ~ ~ I'i , l ; ` ~ ~ i .r~; yr \ i ~ I ~ ~ I 1 a.;; Il~' ~r.-,p~` dry, ~ ~ ~ ~,i t~ r;~_JT ~ ~ r, x~'_ ~ - - - _ _ - I , ddo~ r~~ H ~ •c _ _ 1 I / ~'„r wn ~.rt+.k„_.r /J, _ ~ r I~ ?~I .r S'~r1~__v'.~ l~i~~. ~~~D'0""ra~+.,'~ t 1.,~ r YY ~I ~ ~J e'o'n, I. I _ _ - ~(f , , r'+ ~ r ' ~ . J'~.~ ii ~ w ~ rte,-r /(Jf~~! u~?,~7" r > ~~_Y ~G~ rs~" ~ 5:G ~~,+,~fl~ 'r t~ y . e` ~ :r i.~~'~•'/ ~ 9 ~,y,`_ E r.'~ ~ wPd ,~~d .f,~ p'~f 1!',lr~~' J ~ ~ lt.;"y'1 ~`e' r, ~Sl`«~~~ C,. rf`','?li - - .~.`11 _ ~ l ~ ~ i ~ ^ riP v ry ~,ri vii ~ ' V";,.. f ~ _~i its ~ ` ~ 1 / ~ ~ R . ~:v ~ ~ . 1F ~ y s"-r! / '~j~ ~ . ~ ~,i }',;~~o>!~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~k~~crY% ~Y z4 r 'L ~ , ~ ~j'I ri~~ , ~kr ~ t`a' 1~~' Y~ , '~y~ ~ ~ ~»r \y,[i~ ;a,~_.::,«.r.`Y.~j~... ~':~i ti 1 ~ ~i~rl {f~' f yTMJ'^n,~v Lr~ ~ ~ _ ~~1y" 7 ` ~ ® VIEW TOWARDS SOUTHWEST CORNER ~ ® VIEW TOWARDS VEHICULAR ENTRY ~ B ~ B ° ~ ~ r i ' ' WASHINGTON VILLAGE wASNIHGr ON Vbonder&'~ ' ~ °""~E 1215 CEDAR AVE BOULDER COLORADO ~ ~,n... IJ~~, .-r , ~ 1 ~ } yyy~~~ I ; I, \ ? , I l~t(~/ 11 V ~ _ ~ ~ ~ 1 I r ~4t ~ fix', i'Y+I ~~;"'"~r""__,;', irW ' f/,.!r~_ -,r ~ .q / J~ \ ,t11 ~ r/i ~ I I I I! I ~ f .(Jyjy~/ :7 tel. I I r _ ~ - ~ ti ~ I ` ~ -'~'Gb- F)S'y - ° } ~ j ~ - MI rd ~ ~ ~ I ;~~l I" tl: ,'I L.'I" y. %r~ ~ I ° f l ~I~~ ~I -~ya(([~~~.'J{ _ 1 ~ ~ ~ III ~#rf~ , N' ~ ~I'I J~i ~Y, l i//' ` I'~-~t~. ~ 4 r Il, ~ l ~ ~ J-_ li I ' ~ II 1 1' ~ e , , i / ~ 1 . b e .~1~ ~ ® VIEW THRU NORTHWEST PEDESTRIAN PATH ~ ® VIEW TOWARDS NORTHWEST PEDESTRIAN ENTRY ~B I j ° ~ ~ ' ' WASHINGTON VILLAGE wesulecrov bbbndedm~d ~ ` 1215 CEDAR AVE BOULDER COLORADO . a~ ~ 1 _ _ ~A.~ f 1,1,E ~ , (Y ~ ~~'f ~ _ ti ~ i' ~ ~ , ~,,;~y ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~?~'S' ~i r 'r 1 ~ ~Ek ~ f ~ d f, li~~ ~ 1 ~ y.~ H~- L~ ~ \ / ; r / ~,C N ~ ~i i a j ~ ~ . lam'"{- ~n~(. t--~L . sµ~~~~ iQ ~~:I ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ I ~ r ~il~ 1 ia' 'Q'. ~ - '`r'~-... ~ r j; ` i o ~ ~ ~ ® nr.oe r... ~ ~ ~ "'~M:alarri°a+aK ~ .y. +~.1'w;ir ~:y VIEW TOWARDS SOUTHERN PEDESTRIAN ENTRY r ~ ~ J L w ~ w / . ~ ~ 'I ~ ~ ~ f' : -n ~ , t A '~,t, ~ ~ ~ ~ a'C ~ ~ f~/ ~i ~ ~ _ i ~ ~i . ~ . . _ _ •x ; ' t - _ - - - _ - ~ ~ ~ K _ , _ SINGLE FAMILY LOTS MASSING STUDY ' w s„,„~,~, WASHINGTON VILLAGE lbonderlun~i ~ Y"`°" 1215 CEDAR AVE BOULDER COLORADO ~ww.a.. 4 L yy ~ r e7. ~ aem e,~ x44 ~ ~ c! cf ve c~• re r. cio .i m] ~ we ; u. ___a •sw*2a yy ~ . xe 9 ; iceae ~ ~ - ' e] ~ ca. yea en,ap ~7'd 1 .........i nM~+.o+ J........._ ................1_..... ue ~ ,a.oa ...ti I ue PARKING GARAGE ~ . !16 ~ ell L2! aemw~eo mree 4 w] pf0 u.r.. a....da.ew xo.ner.. ~iww.n O pip p~,a !i0 !il !2] !]I pl1 !26 Li~ i* r.... .aw~+eo !ia ~ ~ ;j ~ 2cene € r aewl~ dM.Y.OT 6Si ~ n c. _ YS 7 !!i <~w-.~. W , i l7 L_..... ~ ~ ~ G e!! I ~ -I v.n Z ~ _ ,,,..x, aa. C „w.- i .eww J i ]uap / ay m~ .ea emn~e ~ , M.r.p? y d t~ ovrae omct ~ Ln _.._._...._.........I i ~ oat e!d d ~ M~. ~ omit a.ff~,l, eei .a.. A ~ 1 I r I ' .eww[0 emn av~i I ]c.x! omit ~ ~ ~ •e. arvs.e M.•.c at<p..a, t-~ HISTORIC SCHOOL ~ _........._....._t - - - - 64 a.. :u.;, r< .aalat'~aatllt.,,! ,a.nla FMeiXOI h.~.rv , , ' ~ e!n L..A.! .......i _.._._.._..1 , ccxt.ccn! wn dawrrco ]c.aa Z n..ely sce ,.,w,. J_ j 7 m F N LI6RARY eonw w• wa i ea i .lw.,eo ~ 2L,aa e!!tlvrt Rapinbp ' tAMh~'.O' ~If~ WASHINGTON VILLAGE _ r j .r,_ ' ~ ~ WdSNINGiOY 0 1 N L lliuuletG, N , W YI lldG F 1215 CEDAR AVE BOULDER COLORADO i! ! • - - 1 - ~ m' E~~, _ ' tFPA1oE 1FPM nna[E iFAPACE I (1 Eo n emn ~ - r . O Eon B nWN FAO OOM M.1 OOM ~ Eon I onax ~ ~ ~ . oFM/!FD OFN IlE! oFNIlEJ oEXIKn ~ ~ ~ ' ~ t... ~ ' 000 G]? j ~i i I J ~ N1~ 'I 5 NIL ~ ~ S UYI~p ~ ~ un.e unx? ©z ~ urix! ~ xnc«Ex _ I I I - ~ ~ pscxEx _ ee~ c:e emm cx ~x E M17 t i ~ 4 _ e7 3. i 4 `x NORTH BUIIUING z ~ ' .nnx - ' ~F I t7 f 8 ~Il~ `JJr - -~,t. ~ p ! _ i~ D ~ _ . l;~! (T _ k ~ a ~ ~ ~ g~ - ! \S ~ , o r. " I. - s- i ! i 0 ~ r.,~~ E ro~ i _ Y,~ - ~glCxEx~ K I'. I~ 1 y ` J . Ai~ ` GnnOnf I` ~ 3 n • ~ ~ ~ _r / ~ ~ ~I ~ i F.~ annnoE ~ x!x ~ uuxonr xEar~~wx . S f" Z co~wuwrr wcE - E. J _ ~~U,7 ~ n"._..... ~y~'"~ HISTGRIC SCHUGL v, .ti - piw ~I ~ ~ e ~ - 1 L._ V~r._ ..r rusx • orcnu urwu 1 _ eeoanoou 'i0 Eeenw"w ~J) 1 ~ caw ~ - A s ® niExEx pAp.10! i 0 r I m__ ~ n. 1 l.._...... pwxp dxw0 _ + n NinO . , - 9 _ _ - ~ ~ ~ ~~nnoAE y _ _ 1't , f:: 111'i ~ 7J"\~~~0^ 1 iI~J~ I LIBp~ARY iii ~ oix~ ~ T ~ ~ 1 ~~1 ~~=~a~~~ per; ~ .~Ena~~ ~ 8 f ~a~; ~ ~ ~,~C~~cf ~!`~~`1 i. / ~ ran (,j ~ r / of , J , --r" ~ / ~ ~ ~ armor ~ X~~.,(~ ~ i 1.~____._ - - - - ie ~ ' WASHINGTON VILLAGE ~ II' W YILSLAGE i0N 0 1! 92 j ' Y Y6onde~fu~ ~ 1215 CEDAR AVE BOULDER COLORADO N i [C RCN ttCX oeCx Bf?POO~y BiDAO[Yh U x vex i~ ~ ttR Y Y1 8rtx S - ~ ~ - BFDRDOx ~ ~ IEpI00M BfOR00M 9~FWY ] B6 _ _ [o a [v _ _ _ _._.J . gg xro ~ ~ 8 xiu uwwo lmx0 gMxO gxeq xMINO qMW LM11x0 uNlp tneNl s ~ ~ ® u~ ~ x~ ° 3: ~y ~..1 ~ 6xrtlY 6«Ar txf I u......... • 4 ~ ~ NORTH BUILDING .'m"x" w:" ~6 .+r i r ' 3P . .............J: i ~ ~ ~ C- ` ~ ~ i ~ ow~~oxuox .rvro _ O 1 Ja___ . i ~ _ v~ € ~ unxo m ~ a tl ; ~ i i ~p - unxo ..~d. I.. ~ xYxa INxp ~ o, i ~ x~ x~~Ex xNxex x6 ~ i - - ~ .9 _ ~.x .xew aan "x'anaox ~..o. ~ gg a"6niooe OC 6 i ~ i v:, l_ _ i ~ _._..y x ~g ~ ~ RIC~S _J moxnca o- aroxnoF ~ r-'~ . B] 'i i g ~ eeeoexa~oY : f~ _ i 'rcxex ' xrtcxe"' RRI[3 ~ eFO~a~Y ~ n I .:iT: i HI i NJ mxmuxn LNe10 ~ uvMO MxxO BNOY uvixo o re lMNO I r _ i l_ I n.r ~ • ' WASHINGTON VILLAGE w wnsxixcroH e e re a _ ~;6lwipderl~;" ~ ~"`n" 1215 CEDAR AVE BOULDER COLORADO N ,.r~ , i i a 2~ M,.~. ,u, I! s+ ~ 1~ I 5 i a 3~ ~W • i ~ pp - ORTH BUILDING, ~ ~Yi ~~~.m ICJ ~..~w~. ~~~ww rurwv rwww ~,i Ii~r If I I'.14. I~i'~, 7~ - p a~ _ D _ o 0 m ~I, ~E ew • Ij ~ ,mss II O e~neoau m ® ~ eEwaa Fono ~ ~yi ;j . 6i Y - \ ' 2 ~ em ~ ~ i ~ .ccx j i_ HISTDRIC~ ~l_....... ~6L~ I ~ a$ • F~ k~ .R,a ~S Wq~R •p ~ ~ EDP ~ ij 1~ I / f ~ ~ ~ ' WASHINGTQN VILLAGE wns Hin~ro*+ a e ~e v d L bimdednn~! N ~ Y 1215 CEDAR AVE BOULDER COLORADO ~ ~ ,,r. _ m.. h t~ = - y , ~,+-»..~,.,.»,+.c.,.~.. ~ ~ _ I A ;u _ 7 ~w r' _ p ~ ; >e r r - . r ~ 9iM „ M1 ~ d,~1P r r' o,, 3cm ~ .rawuuiauus~ ~wwawu.kwe ~ , u f r. I ,,'rat .:~,a o ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 x t ~ V . 4 ~ ~ i' ..--7 .+i.: -~•.~~~1 ~elLYir~7i1 kx. t~l~ _ C. ~ y~ ..._.i v. _ N... M~ '.W r _ ~ ~ ~ h /J ~ \ :may ~ ..~i. ~ R I ~ F ~ 1 „ ~ - ~ I.,...,~T ~ 4 _ f . ~tr. ~ k r ~ } ~ ~ ~ y . g _ _ r i ~ „ , -~-y- ~ ~ L _ ~ ~ _ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L r a S g9 _ t V { 1i6~ , _ . I . Ii , v ~ - e~ ~ f rJ - r x 11 ^ ' .lY ~ ,a °L, .y,., n ~ _ ~MP+~ v-. _ ~ ,w,f~,~G,o~ WASHINGTON VILLAGE VIII~GF B ~ B ea 121SCEDARAYE BOIN.DER COLORADO r. fir.- 1 ~r ~ . _ _ 'r" r ~ ~ ~ - F 1..,~ _ _ w;; v.,..,~ , _ ~ - - - - ..nay ~ L ss -i t-d _ _ _ T r , ~ . , fi I ' j ~`Y -T_~,.-TAG.. ~ ~ t~' i i ~ J y, ~ 1 .e", ` ~ A. . ' , i/ ^ ~~r ~ a + ~ w ~ . ~ ~ ~ n - b ~ f `,~y w„~,M~Ta~ WASHINGTON VILLAGE ~vP YiII~GF 1215 CEDAR AYE B00.0E4i COLORApO e ~ e 1 - P~ '~O ~ ~ - ~ - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - ~Y ~ , . i~ s~~~ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ~ , _ Y p _ a V n ~:J :.i:~r BROADWAY BLDG EAST ELEVATION , . s~'r;,., ;M:. _ _ _ w. . f ~~~-~a~~ ~ ~ T { r`.. ~ i ~ ~ x~0 ~ ,~F a , al_il_ I { , . - ~ _ 6fFA9 0®1~ ~ ` ~s:. ~ 3. _ _ _ . . T NORTH BLDG SOUTH ELEVATION ' WASHINGTON VILLAGE a" K wasuie Gra+ o ~ ~ ie ~a,.~ ~ Yb~nder4~-= ~ °"`°0F 1215 CEDARAVE80ULDERCOLORA~O i ~ f 7 k_ _ - ~ ~ >`^F - ~ r - ~ , y - - - _ _ EAST BLDGS WEST ELEVATION ~ y ~~:~f!: n , Ir ~ r.. y. a. 4~ Lr _ ~ i 1. 1' ~ ~ ~ . RP'.', + ~ Y i... ~ ~ - SCHOOL BLDG NORTH ELEVATION ' ' x. WASHINGTON VILLAGE W65NINGtOV ~ ~ ~ ~ 6onrferfun~! ~ Y""" 1215 CEDAR AVE BOULDER COLORADO WASHINGTON VILLAGE 'I ' ' 'I LAND USE RESUBMITTAL SEPT 13, 2007 ' 1 1 Io~LGM KOWINA r~elAe i ARCHITECTURE I~ t _ r { - PLANNING d }7F jl ~ INTERIOR DESIGN r~ c_ u _ .r{ l f I ~ _~j ~ are r13 I _ ~ I ~ ± 30DB FOLSOM STFEEi - I ~ SOU: DEE, CO 80304 ~ DHONE: 303~a/1~6904 _ ew.PwA.ewwr»ronee coMNOHm NOen*AL - _ FA%- 303-/aP-6160 - ALPI ~ _ - ~ -Ia 1~ t _ 3~ -„-covHUN:rr rrlA f~ t~'~ - ~ ~ 'i ~r~l I ~ :ir ~ 1Y~~ _ ~ JD P ~ R - ~ Y Y ~ N4vG ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~i I r y -~.-I~-- ~ ~.A '.d ~ ~4. r JI~T, -1 x.~ ~ t '1:v A 'i i ~ R' y' t=~.Y , VICINITY MAP ~ - f~~ ~`;~~>•t~-~a r.~ ' ~ I I '~~yp1~ 1 J I ~ I W1~ NO?T09CALE L T i ~i# ~ I 1 L ~ ~ I IHP+ : S~ ~.1~~ Iti ~ i,~~ v ~ lel,,. ~ 1. yp ~I j L ~ ' Arm A ~`J~ - ~ 1~ ~ ~ _ ~i.~ 2 ~~P- I ~Q/ `q `L`_~~ e'N 'I ,11. 4- ~~i~i'~"`yF'-~'=il ~ .III yQ~ iy t ~~r h~Nr'1'1- A ~t~ +N~; ~ t. I ~I ~ V - I-IU~ '1 i ~ i~ ~~L-y.' ~ II ~ OJ GENERAL NOTES; ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 °m 1 'I : y~ ~ I V) I WNO'9CALE ORAIMNG9 COh AACT0R SHALL V° IFY ALI ' ~ 7 DIMEM91ON9 ANO CONDIT ON9 RNY?9CPEPANC E9 BETWEEN.NE ~ _ OAAWINOS AN? E%19'ING GOND 1 ON9 SHALL BE AEPOAFEO TO AACH1< TORE INCOAPORA-EL MMPOI0.7ELV. 2 iH SRROI T8 A'CCMPL N~ ALl00VE WrINO OU,Ai9N9 GnC NAN.,90WLv116 CODEa OP,gVENAPR30 TPr APEAIN yhIICH 'I T!S BUI'J. 3 ^OViRAOTOR iO'?.OV',]EPAV FOR ALLCTVANDgq CC'JNiv PERM?9 I ' RECJ,RE`t0 W"dPLE-E iNE PgO:ECT UNLESS OTnER ARHAN3E4ENi94AVE SEEN APPROVED 9Y TIIE CLIEN" 7=E EP?E"EE°'N9 EWNTRA?'OR9"""W"`KT"E PLAN LEGEND: ABBREVIATIONS: I SHEET INDEX: PROJECT TEAM; 9.T 1W E NV A YC1H ARC ITEC i~IOENTIFY911EACCE99 I R ~.~A FAS ~E9PE'.A R07 C.E ANOAREAB'Ofl THE 91~}^N? \G FMATEA AL9 ANp CE9AB I ,:JNTAAC q C'"1RDINA E W f ARCMI'EGTURE INCORPOPATED I ' 74E MECHA'0.v GALAN\9E~CT9CA 9U9:ON~RAC DABPRIAOA YO ~N ~1 'A'WDFpAAECLL HE OHT A!V ABJVE I AOD AD)'TIONAL RDUGH IN RCCEOURE9 AFF ARJVE FIN19NED PLOOR I e PADV'D A N ~ESSaPYBAggcADEs wARNINOe1oNe ax?DEYICEB ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS; DEVELOPER, iO PROTEC'P„9LC. AND EM'l0YEE9 r4R000NOUi iNl9 WgAN. BlW BELOW 1 MA'N'A\h,REOUAECACCE99 A.YO EGRESS THACJD.'OL17H~8 !M A~L~~BLOCKING 'I WA COVERBHEET VJON?ERUNC HILL?EVELOPMENi CO ~"rc NEW WAL: ~CChCPETE BOW BOTTOM OF WALL 18M 0POAOWAY B VA N'AY MFWCRKAPEACEANANDFAEEOFDEAR19 CAB DABINE' C.B SITE P;AN,BETEACN ~M1'FORMATION BOV'~-CER CJ !0379 1 TH HE 9HA LSE NC CHANGES MADE iO'nE CONBTAUCTION 30.}/gB.9yB1 JO~.,,NEN9 R9P C'I:~GITIDVB WITHOU"*HEflNAlAMAOVALCF Cl CENTERONE 01.0 PAELIMINAAVOA,Aro:NG 80AA1nAGE PLAN CONTP.CT LAUREL FANNING AEI'. ~T uA IM^CgPORAT 0.EN'?SPECTOR 090THEP COL p~OLUMN C7.0 PflEUMINAAYU'ILITY PLAN CONS:; 1AN 9APPAClP.OF AVY hANl3E9HALL SE ~AEv0A7FO TO CONC CCNOAETE LP~7 LANDSCAPE PLAN Aa;"T iuR NCCAPCRAr PP CR TO AVV CHANGE dE;NG MADE NE'N WALL ~A'CMU COM CONTINUOUS C G.\iRAO R9'A'~ OR9E PV AA\FACTU~EA 91N9TR~CTON9 ANA I - ~ L,~ T T PG.'EDUR 90 N'9ial.lATCNOFA FdATERiA_ANCECUIPMENT 0!L ?WBLEPowNT 0,1 90LAfl8HADOW ANALY9 M19 I ARCf111 EC 1~ ASH-CTURE INCORPOAATEC 9hA lBE INFOAIkDIFiHl9 i DET DETAIL B.1A 90LA,997UDVeECT10N9 CONFLICT91N ANY WAY TOTNE DE9 ON INTENT OF TNEBE OCCUMENiB- ARCHIEG*~PE INCORPoAATEO DIA DIAMETER 1.1 PARK{NO P'AN SC6B W.90M BTREE? NEWW0.LL~PAATIAL HEK3Hr DIY DInffNBN]N I 0.1 fIR9T FLOOR AAEACALCULAT~ON6 ~ DN DOwN B.1 SECOND ANO THIRD FLOOR AAEACA',.CUUTN)N6 adu<w ad zo ea5a ' OA DOCA DI DONNBPOUT to GAPAGEIBABEMEN?NEVPLAN .Cn'AC?ACR:AN SOPNEA ~ y~yr-~^~y CW D19HWA9XEA 1,1 LAST FLCOA NEY PLW ' L_?_S ~~6J NEW WALL~UND9CAPE i EMIT EMHAV87 ~ 1A 9ECON7 FLOOR NEY PLAN I. NOTICE - DUTY OF I E%AN~A ,1 r111RD RL00fl?1COF KEY PUN i F00 FACE OF CONePErE A1.1 hIBTOAIC BA9EMENTIFIRBi FLCOA PLANS CIVIL ENGINEER; FOM FACE OF MA90NR1' A1.1 HN)TORIC BECONO FLOOR PlAN9ROWER PUNBhIBRARVELEVATIONB JVA INCORPOAATEC COOPERATION. EK1971NO WALL 70 REMAIN FOB FACf OF 9*JC A7.7 FI9TORro 8CH0OLELEVA710N9 I 13199PRVCE SiAEET O FNOAD! FINI9hE0GAAOE EOJLOEA CO BD301 PN FINISHED A71 BROADWAY BUIIDINOOARAOFJFIPST FLOCA PLANS 1C5Aa<'95' I FNDII FOUNDATION ALP BROADWAY BUILDINOBECCNDRHiflO FLCOA PLANS CON-ACT DHAPL'E NAGEP ' FLA FLOOR A7~1 BROADWAY BWLOINO 6LEVA710N8 REL A9EANC At.C.iANCE OF-4E90oC IVFNS~NCCATE9 FP FIPEPLACE ~ aoP RA' uAroNOr~cwrvFq HEP ~hRACrcRahD FnzR PPEEZSR Al9 NDRTHauILOINGFLwRauNS ~ LANDSCAPE DESIGNER: II AR'E. C'UA WfOA°OAA1E0 ALTHCU AR pI+ITE~^vRE ~Ild1lllA~AJ1771/1 EK19TING WALL TO BE flEM0VE0 DA aRASE A11 NORTH BUILDING ELEVAii0N9 PPCRAfE AND.9 CONSUL AN 6NAVF FORMED THEIR 5 RVI 31h1 DU ARE ANCC 0 N E E ~CANNOTOWRANTEE OWB GYPSUM WALL ~AIb 0.!,f EAST BUILONO fL00RPUN9 BHAP'N6 A980C,ATEB v RFE ION N. ERggqS.OM13B ONfi OR 9CREPANCIE9D{9COVERED H8 M09E&BB AB,7 EABiBUIL0N0 ELEVATfONE 1B B6 %TEENTH 97RcE' BY E SEO ~E6E p,",HEN 99MA.' BE AEFCRT DIMNEUTATELY iO pWGy NOi HEd9M BOU DER, CO 80381 ~ " AC.IT'OTUAEINCORPOAATF.O A.~i0009GB 9MP E\OTICETO 9EC110N MPAKER MWX HOT WATER NEATER 38&71508 I RRC IT°_CTURE NCOP°CRATEC 0. A.I,Et<APCH E..TJRE INTO INFORMATION COryiACT;EPPY SHARN9 1YYCRPOPATED PROMANV RE9PON9,EIUTY OF tHE OCN9ECUENCE5. INIW IK'9GUTICN I, INi INTERIOR /A1 I,I A WORK 9HA WNP:YVd-NA A.c°AB:f L(xALA1C 9TA*EC~EB ' LT LIGNTpNO) VJ DflD'n'AVCtsArroREaLAlonsAPgovAL3YRN'N9PCT~DGF9NC1 I ~~p~1(~~~y~ Lu L?w :TAOE SURVEYOR: ~ CONBTRLR A iNCRI YT07EV ATE FgOM-~~E DRAW N0.909 DOS w7lLLY) WALLREYATION kMMEP NA% MAgMUM 9PCIFCATION9 DO V~i9 ~.E AVnnG9 YERIFr ALL AEh8roN90N I MOF MEDIUM CEN91TY F18EA00AR0 ~ I, 811E 9'TE VAIFC ON Of A!.OI+IfN3lON9 ANOCON01 NB 9HA,[BE MIN MINIMUM F~,gTIRONS, INC~9URVEYIND AENOINEERWO W ERE9°DYBIe ~.iYO N-CON RACTOR ANY 019CR AVCIE9'N THE A11L METAL 3815 fl18 AVEe1C8 pRAYA NO90A BETWFEh E%'9TIN0 COYOITONS0.NO'NEC AWIN]99HA~L MFR M0.WJFACTURER BOULOEA COBD30t BE EPOR-ED OAR HTEC-UAE INCUR f)PA'rFD IMMEOh ELY ANY I EJ. {6M1ADB ELEVI WA NOT APPVOABLE 933.aa57601 7 VA'~UN9 MACE ROM'+E PiA49 VniHCI.T'Hf CONSEhr CF ~ ~ NEWGMOE ELEVATgN MARKER NIC NOT MCOhTIWCT ! CONTACT GREG MEYER O AR 11~'EGi E N„CRPONATED ARE UNALTNORREO FA,,,gE"U NFC NOT PORCON9TRIICTION 039EFVE TNE9E PR7CEDUPE99NALL AEUEVEARCH:TECTURE NOM NDMIBNEAL NCOAPORATED OF RE9PON81BIlRY PoAALL W NBEOUENCES ARISING ocrGFeuanao7roNS aD oNC=_NrER ® E%BL (6M1ADE ELEV) ENIBrING GRADE ELEVATION AURNEA ~ PL UTE,PACPEATY LINE P10 PAINT, PAINTED I n"~° nie~IISRADIUS DATE: 13 $EP707 RAO RADIUS AE: REfFA •D REVISIONS Q REMODEL NOTES. PgDPERTYLNE REFR gEFRGEPATOA i - REBI AEODUTION`6` Rea~D REamREO IiE6ll11ENEN79 ecH,IDHBD sa~DULE BIM 91MIUF I /BT 9TA:NLE399TEEL - - - - - - BJILDING BELOW 8}L 9TEE; li I THEE%'~BTING OONDI'ON'B BI~OWh'ON THESE OAA'A'IN09 AgEC0AroIlED T TPEA0191 FPAMAECORO?RAWIryD9ANC MAY NC'9:-D'N ACTUAL00>v01T~ON9 TIO IO BE DETEAhBNED yEAIFYALLEX9TIVG OIMEN91CN9 AND CONOTIONS OY9IE AND TAD tt1UN0UEl GROOVE I - NOTIPYiHEAP.,H'ECT OFALLDIBCREPANUF9 AhD CONF::C19 TNK iH~CXNEB9 1. FOAITEM9 NOi 9PEC¢ICALLV OE'RILED. MA7?H OEV/WC1AK'0 TOP IOPWNG I. E%19TNG WHERE NEWDETAILBARE INCONFIICTWIiHE%(9TING I BUILDINOiACOF ABOVE TOE 1GP DF OONCRFTE _ FEATURES WTHE BJIID'.NC NU*IFYARCHRECi PAIORT09TpflT OF T01 rOP DF8U8 NOAK 'i TOW 70P DF WAIL B. LHE CpryiMCTCR NEEOB'O INFOAMTHE CLIENT INAPhELY RUNNER TYP VPICAL OFANY L09B OF UT._ilE9'O THE BNLDINO OUR~NG ANY PIUSE OFTHE UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERAW9E PAOJECI V VO171A0E1 I. BEFORE DEMAL:TIC4 iNE G>7n'iPACTORBNALL AEVIEWW97H ~ CEN7EALINE yCA VINYL07VE BASE AROH!TECTURE INCOR~OAATED THE AREA80EBIGNATED TO PE OF VIF VERIFY IN FIELD E9TOAIC!N'EPE9]tO THEL~ALJURIBOICTION,OA PERSONAL WD WCG9 - INTEAEBT'OTHEC'JENi WDW WINDOW 5. PROVIDE AND MANTAIN'EMPOAAPYPARTRNNi9 hS NECE88ARY TO ' PREVENT iHB 9PREAp OF W91 FVME9. h'019E AND SMOKE TO o---.-...-wr FENCE LINE I ADJACEM AREAS, CWRO'NATE WITH OWNERAACIIITV MANAGER qP LOWTIONAn'D'.M',nU. ' B. PflOTECTALL E%'S'ING ITEMS AN097RUCNAE9 NOT INOICATEO TO BE ALTERED 1. PROH An'p P,EPAIfl ALL 9URFRCE9 WHERE DEMOMTIgV OCCURA. WHERE EXI3TIN0 FIN~9HE9AEMAINORARE EK7ENDE0 MATCH ^ ^ AAEAOF DRAWING PEY791DN %19TING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWIBESYFINI9H8CMEOUIE IMIEPE ~ w ~"F I I, NEW P.N'SHE9 APE PPOV,OEO, PATCH AND AEPAIRBURFACE9 TO ACCEPT NEW FINISH MATERiAl.S i ' B.ACC:83OY USE OF AgEA90F YNE 5UILOIh'O OUTBIOE OF TVE Q ' IMMEDIATE PROJECT TO BE ONLY BY APPROVALOF hIE CLENT REVISION NUMBER MIRKEA JOB' WASH VILL Lot Lot Buildable Max Princlple Bldp Max. FAR Lot Area FAR rcDUestetl Area , Area rea max_w/ arage& tudlo+InEnveoRe AR oneac of w arae st lo~ ~IQINOPLACEMENTd,a~TSACK9 A 3 5957 4138 4638 0.78 3872 0.65 3872 _ _ 4 5957 3606 4106 C.69 3872 0.65 3872 NOTE: ALL NEIOHTB ARE MEASURED TOORADE FROM 46'BOUTH Of 5958 60 4106 0. 9 3 7 0.6 87 ~ LOWEST POINT ON THE STRUCTURE (ttPICAILY, THE BOOTH EASTERN 6 S9S8 3606 4106 0,69 3873 0,65 3873 CORNEROFTHEBUILDINGI_ _ _ _ _ _ • ~ r 7 5576 4830 0 0.6 3 4 .7 3903 ;RH•220NE OutlOt 1860 _ BROADWAY MI%EO UBE STRUCTURE A q (H I T E C T U R E Minimum Tarqat Area far pro forma IB 3000 of for Princlple Bulldinq 9 500 Bf Garage & Studla , SETBACK FORTWO STORY BUILDING MAS9E9 tt.d' PLANNING d NOt61 SETBACK FOR THIRD3TORYBUILDINGMASSE9 81.0' INTERIOR DESIGN Lot Areas are approzlmatlons (to be flxe0 wlCh Final Plat dimensions). MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT Uor Broadway Bulkangl ALO' Buildable Areas ere aDProxlmate arca5 based on the envelope within the Princlple Bulldinq setbacks B allowable Solar Shadow CEDAR AVENUE EAST BUILDING 80UTN SETBACK FOA PRINCIPLE BUILDING 10.0' ~ ~ \ I MAX;MUM BUILDING HEIGHT J6.0' - ~ V t ~ V t ADJACENT I I-- NORTH PROPERTY LINE NORTH BUILDINOaACCE880RY BLOGB ~ ~ Y sj / 9TRUCTURE I I V ~ i 5 /I I SETBACK FOA TVIO STORY BUILDING MA95E8 110' 3008 FOLSOM 6TEEEi i ~ _ _ _ v I 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ SETBACK FOA THIRD 6TORY BUILDING MA63E9 ep,p~ BOULDER, CO 80304 3 I t ~ ~ SETBACK FOR ACCES9gRYSTRUCTUREB 10.0' DNON630)441-6904 \ 1 1 MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IIor North Building) 8d,0' i FAX. 303-414-6160 / P PRNATE ALLEY NORTH BUILDING, EAST BUILDIN06, IACCEBSOAY BLDOH \ \ SAC,IACENT - - _ _ ~~!DJACENT 1 ' \ ~ SfiTBACK~FORACCESSORvBUILDINOS B.b' ' ~ STACIGTURE 51\RUCTURE 13 ~ i~ \ q~.p~ MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IIa EIet &Illdingel 71,76' I rnee~_~nH Sloarv~Lx eytl5rlN6zo ~ rarer t ' w~ xT urvN E1f~18TINST0~HI8B RICRICBUICOINGFEIGRLTie u ower ii _ ~ i .-x"`'T--` El~L€ r. lMR,aw. RL•1T NE _ oHe uNeeauNO~Rr _ Sg~~(qt~~EE CI I ~ \ V / b srcE nxc / ~ ' _ . / ' - 7 T AR Y PBQI<6INOl~or I o e W _ \ PAONTVARO SETBACK FOR ONEdTW09TOAV BUILDING MA88ES (for LOfe46®6.p ~Ef ~ ~ I ! ate' ~ ~ ~ / - ~ INTERIDR SETBACK FOR PRINCIPLEdACCESSORY BUILDINGS (Im Lat 21 V L63 i I'1; t / / \ MINIMUM GOUTS SIOEYARO SETBACK 7a.0'minua NOrlh BldryaM 8N6aop _ MINMUM NORTH SIDEYARC SETBACK &0 a, • I I TERRACE I `EPPACE ~ i ~ II vv CUMULATIVE 910EYARD 9ETBACKB 160 1I ,`I 7 ~ I I', r b INTERIOR SETBACK FOR PRINCIPLEdACGESBORYBUILDINGS (tor Late 3, 4,588) ' I T:RRACE I ~~T~ / 3 LOr2 / \ ~ / MINIMUM 90UTH SIDEYARO SETBACK taA'minua NoHh SldeyeN HNblekl I / 'I MINIMUM NORTH 610EYARO 9ETBAGK a0' I I 5 Ieo ~ cw ~ / I CUMULATIVE SIDEYARD SETBACN9 160' ' I I - ~ J c ~ r I 1NTERIOR9ETfiACN FOR PRINCIPLEdACCESSORY BllILDING9 (lor Lot 7( ~ WQ 1 I / ~ / I~ ' MINIMUM SOUTH SIDEYARD SETBACK FROM STREET (plus t2.0'OUVOt) Od I ~ 11 ROOF a4se,z3~ , PI ETRJGK ruIeN AROUND , 71 / ~ MINIMUM NORTH SIDEYAR09ET8ACK 6.0' ~ Q I RED, Ev15ED G~VIL DRANINeS / / 7a D' ~ i ~ / ~j \ ~ / ~ I ~ FOR DIMlN51OH5/.J ~ - _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ I VAT ALE I ENL',ell.ELA.fe,SilG~gA.YQL4.gl~. ,__i x Q O ~ f / REARYARD SE': BACK FORAGCE590RY BUILDINGS 1.0' II I (N R BUI DIN) / 5~6 I / MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR PRINC1PlE BUILDINGS 86,0' Z ~ / ~ ~ ~ _ X ~ 11 cn l ~ l / MA%MUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR ACCE9SOR BUILD NGS 70.0' g I X / ` MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN PRINCIPLEdACCESSOAYBUILDING6 0.0' ~ ~ ~ L, i I ~ / I 'i 44 a ! ~ I I~ ' / 1 A r v~L ~ rN- ~ I, ,a'~ I 1, r 7 ~ ~ / - ~ / KA ~ ~ ~ I ~ J _ rare ~ f I /I /~v - - 1 / DPlN SPACE CALCULAT10N8 FOR THl RH•720N! ~ ~ I ~y ~ (~},f.7 ~ 1 I I 11 ~ ! ~ 3 / RH420NE TOTAL LOT 9IIE 96,a333F ~ ~ / I R C~IREC OPEN SPACE FOR BII I 1 / PROPOSED CPEN SPACE EXC' ' ECK9 676a08F I ~ ~p3T~ L~ ~ y7 / / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ ~ _ _ _ ~ ~ / ~ E IMU'M PERCENiAOEOF PA~uDIN3~RIVA~EICACE FORR ~~70% 17,7278E I r ~ ~ gg ~ ~ f I I ~ t _ - - - - ~ _ _ _ MIN OPOSEOOPEh'9~ H~220NE 4Bk ~ X11 ~ ~ r'. ~ Q 4 I r +OI < Sd ~ t I I ~ / y / I I i l ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 r - I I I v ~ a„ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ / ~ t~ z ~ ' I' pp / / ~ ~ ~ ~7 ~ I ~ U __~/_-____l_ _ ~ : / i ~ -ill I1 Q ~ / / ~ Ii ~ I ~ ~ iy ~ ~ ~ I / I r I ~ ~ E%I'TINGSCHOOLBUILOING L r~ ~ LDrs /v /r r III t I, \ T I r / / p ~ v \ ACCEB60RYU8E8 TO RESIDENTIAL /I K I ~ ~I F / C R ~ , W r I-0. .NK'AAVP. ~ ~i „ 1 \ I a s I ' I V t ti{ r / ! ~ f ~ r a l~ v I ~ / 11 'fir 1 I \ I I - - - - - - \ ~ -i - ~ - N II r 1 I / A I i ~ ~ExISr Oh• T.: 4 I I I ` I I / / 6TRl~C lAM1KiN6 tl-~ / / T' I EVT I l I LOTa / ti's I 1 / I N I I I I', z wl ~ I DA®t5, I _ v ~ l~ 1/ i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q li r I r i ~ v I l~ I ~ i r I / ~ / ~ II I v 1 v - U LIBRARY/ i~ I~ ~ ~ 1 i l I v I ~ l ~ ADDIT]ON/ i, ~ ~ I tlr I d I / ~ ~ d ~ .y' l I ~ ~ LIJ~,J i J / _ _ . T i ~ / 7 i i I 1 - 81GYG.ERAGKe _ i~ i / I / / /n~ / ~ ~ v, ? I \ h~/, ~ _ ~ _ _ ~ ^ _ - ~H15 LOLATION I i ~ I ~ 4" _ T CSI - - - - - - ~ ISTING LIBRA Y' ~ I y~ I h~, ,3v x ~ ~ ^ i ~ DATE: 13SEPT07 : ^I ~ ~ ~ A ' ~ WITH AppCE390AY i ~ r I i r t ~I i `V ~ 1 ~ V ~ U9E9TOAE6IDENTIAI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 63e ' ~ I \ _ - 1 aaa~ ~ I adat. I I ton I REVISIONS \ V _ I I r ~ - ~ I I ~ ~ ~ q9P_-'~~ / i i / \ 1 \ - - - / ~ ~ i i T N 'I r~ t39EPT07 I' i ~ L. , . I - _ ' _ - ~ o- a' --~I- i~ r ti~ I - / N _ ¢ ' , y- ~ - - - - - - - a ~ / _J _ ~atll g5 Q 1 ~lx15Yry50N- ~ 'I iG / I I I ~ 1 srReerPARKINa / AUT08 I IN CEDAR~IIENUE ~E%15TIN60N• AUTOd I BIKE ,PEDESTRIAN _ SrReerrARKlNS I BIKE exlSrllusoN- ~-ACCE'SS-'- I {l, ~ ereee*oARICNINo I ~ ~ I i ~ exlSrlws zorve ~INe eounoARr ' ~ % O e 0 :+ew zoNe'ur+e eo~noARr I SITE PLAN ~ m SC ' ~ ~I J I JOB', WASH VILL „ \ i I ~ ' ~ , r ~ , - _ _ _ '~I ~y~ GR458E0 SCALE ACCESS PATH ~ CDNNECi 70 , ' __..~__..~~w" ___~~a~_~__ E%I$7 WALK ~ ~ __~~~r.~ ~_~.a~___~_ r- ALAN NINiG qS I _ - ~ I - _ ~ RE7AMING I ~ I Nif RiOR Df SiGN ~ 9890 ~ 1_ ~:~a PI'S Ala e ~ : - ~ ~ _ roan.ni nM Ste•rr ~ ~ 3R8 GRADE ERFJJ( 92 ~ ~ I ~ i I Roworr ce~enan, q~ i PH E -oa I . ~ i ~ ~nP, - - - LO I , ~ ' GRASSEOSdALE rn~ ~o) ~ 25' NORTH OF PL I PROPOSED rRENCR DRgiN ~ ~ i- ~ ~ ~ I I (nP ®EnaR Earl ~ ; ~ SUMP PUMP 1, ~ I eELOw GRADE NORTH iD sraRM s3awao I ~ ~ Y ~ ~ ~ +-Q ~ ~ PIAZA w/ BUILDING 9750 - ~ ~ i I ~ ~ FFE-5398.4fi ~ ~ ' 8'SW ~ ~ PARKING~FDN FFG=5388.46 I~bX 8Ax ' ~ 4AR 9Db2 NP j ~ EASEMEM ~ ND DrunlNS wRNlw DRIP 11- _ a2'1 (Ir1 \ i1 I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ jna of EKlsr rRFE I 2DR 2 x ~ ~ 1 L " , s' eDNe I I i~ WALK ~ ~ ~ PARKING GARAGE ~ ~ ~ ~ I i ~ - - DrulNS 7o u,ND/aL _ ~ ~ ~ ~ RrraW~o 91, ~ ~ 95n.~~ ' f B' TREE i _ . n3w.rs~ rm+~ r~«m I ~ ~ ~ ~.'I I ~ LOT' 3 7 ~ UWN ~ _ Swct~ER ~AN1ARV r ~980d, ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~~h ~ ~ I ~ I ~ir ~ . r I r hrP, aE M.Gr) _~o ~I ~ ' i~ 8'~ CONC i~ i, ~ ~ ~ ~ r I I I i I, ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ 90~ ~ ~ 9u5PAD~ e e ~ ~ I ~ f ~ !r ~42 CF DRNN ' ~ V 1 91 UiFALLS ~ 5' CONC PAN , 0'~ ~ ~ PROPOSED ~ I ~ ~ - ~ ~ °i I ~ ®cf of Al~v i ' BROADWAY L ~ III ~ I 1 I BUILDING , ~ ~ r' PROPOSED i ~ I I I ~ 0 ~ i FFE=639896 ~ I ~Sr ~ LOT 4 o FFG=53as 45 ~ ~ ~ I I - 't' ' I j BUILDING III I sD' ASPHALT ~ ~ Q Q _ _ DE1p ~EAISi ~ ~ - ~ FFE=VARIES ~ { t ~ i ' DRrvE ~ I ~ ' IWALR ~ _ I ' ~ 11 I ~ I ~ I I I Z 0 POND 8 ' I ~ I .~I ~ ~ ~ ~ I wart~a~aa~N ~ ~ I ~ - -~I - 53-~ - ~ ~ ~ Q ~0 ~ ~ I I ref ~ ~ ~ I I ~ II w ~I / i 0 V ! , 1 I ~ (2,800 GF) - - - ~ ~ i I i~ ~ ~ ~ ~~1~ ~ ~ I P ~ ~ ~4i i ~ ~y ~ V/ ~ i ~ _ i L. I PUBLIC 6WN7ENANCE ~ ~i W ~ Aj J it PUBEC MAIMENANCE ~ , I`kG I ACCESS ESM7 i ~ ~ ~ i ~ I Z ~ ~ - ~ ADGE99 ESMT I ~ LOT 5 ~I I! I ~ - Ii1 0 - h ~~1 I ~ CRA95PAVE' i (n - 4" PVC BLDG r3 ~ ~ 4S ~ ~ - - ~ ~ INFIL1Rd?ION WATER ~I ~i ~ ~ m _ _ I ' ~ ~ - - ~ ~ UNDEADRAM SUMP PUMP _ ~ BD ~ _ - - g OUN.ITY ARFAS 20% TREDNGH DRNNfROM BNG I ~ LIMNED RELEASE ~ ~ 6 ~ - I QYP-4) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h7 ~ ~ r ro soRM - I 92--~Tn l - - - - - - - ~ ~ ` ~ H,... , ~ ~ _ ~ SUUP PUNP 88.30 i I I waiER OUIMV OVi SJB9 0 ~ +92. d ~92 3 ®0 LOFT ' wC i i ~ ~ ~ _ _ ~ N1D SPILLWAY 92 J0 m ~ i 92~~ ~ 4' 3000' 7s'siDeAgx/DRAINAGE uwaEais7 ~ I o l Y i _ _ . ` ~ PUBLIC U71LIlY EASEMENT ~ ~ WPlH ~ , 4° we ouaGiuRE eac~Dw~R s or~c~ a~ ~ Q ~ - i _ ' ~~L~ n ti~ _ . _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ 11 I ~2DE0D ~QT 6 ~ ~ ~ a' sorrc wa1K AS PART OF GPNOL IMPR?V ENiS A re - ~ _ ~ -1 a' i,~ r ~ B' TREE UWN PROoCCT Br Cltt OF BCUtOER Bg~ i ~ RETUNING ~ I L_ ~ PUBIC AND SNARfO i ! i g6 WALLS I ~ _ I ACCESS E4SNEN' \ I 89 i iEMPORARr a° OuiFALL ~ ~ i~ t = AK ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 96 ~ ~ ~ .ROOF OWUN ODtFALL ' ~ ~ 88--~ 81 ~ r0 eE REMrn~D uvoN , °s , a ~ o~• F , i ~ caoea w/ ARCH/MLGP1 I { ~ 1 ~ ~ COMPLEDON OF UNDERDRAIN I t / ~ ~ 1 ~ Q1 i I i ~ ~ i ~ ~ r I caNNECnoN rD FLIruRE , ~ ~ ~ ~ r- ~ ~ BAOADW6Y STORM MAIN I I: V ~ i.~'~', ~ 2'v 0 ,r { ~I. I I a 1_ 12' wG'~ROOF DRAIN ~ ~ ' ~r=' ~ RHiAIN~p I ( I 95~ ~ ' ~ : PROPOSED ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ AHD TRErvaR DRAIN LV~ \J~_ ~ ~ WALLS ~ 5, SOUTHEAST ~ Q J I SUMP PUMP ~ 11 f OUTLOT A LOT 7 j' ~ DiseBARDE autFaLL ~ l j ; ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ FIELD INL~ # BUII~ING I ~ I ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ 4- PDBLIC p1AINIENANCE ~ j~='~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ FFE=639090 ~ ORNNACE& ~ I ~ W 7 ' ~CESS ESMi ~ I _ • 8Bg7 INFILiRAl10N SCALE POND A - ~ ~ - I ~ g5 25 FROM BACK OF WALK ~ ~ RETAINING WAIL I ~ ~ DE~EN??N 9150i HP 1YP A FAGH LOf I I ~ ~ ' ~ ~ + ~ ~ ~7L~G•Rrc i ~laOEF ~~vG~-~-- I ,a 7 ~ ~ I lows0e7io h~ ; ~ DY y~ ~ ^ I H `i' 2b00 CF / q lOP ~ - ~ ~i I _ a r IOO~YR y~~~A B151) 1~ , OF BERM -rvl. +91.2P - Ug r ~I{, IC I~~r I~ ~ Q d CAiEft OVALIIY S A~C7URE ~ ~ BO _ , - ~ 'i ~ ~I. , W ~ ~ AND ~iuwAr ~ ~ - ~ - - ~ j ~ a~1ob. _ "„j ~ _ ; ~ INV OUi $J90.S0 ~ i ~ RELOCATE E~1$T ~ ~ ' ~ 10POfBERM ALL - ~ I ~ 7 L ~ , ' DRNF RAMP ~ I REHDVf ElR$T 578710 i I _ DEMD WAIT 20" SY CNASE ~ Flflo RJLE7 FIELD INLET ~ U SW CR45E COONCESW E%IS7 ~ F''''w'1 ~ ' - ~ CEDARAVENUE ~ ~ I ' ~ ~ I-,,~ - - POND C ~ f.'.'3.:5 t ~ - - - ~ 20 SW CR45E ~ ~ `V1 DATE. 29 JUNE O7 - ~ ~ . , . " ' I r \ -WATER WALhY 4*'Sl ~ i REVISIONS L, v-.,.. a .,a._.-. ~ . _ . ~ 1750 GI) - j9 .4-. ~ w _ - 133EP 07 - 1 i h p • ~ b .7d ~u Gq - _ ~~lal ~~I N ~ ~ _ - . - ,cy, ~ ' C1.0 20 0 20 40 SCALE OF FEET J06, 141 L.... _ ~Qq6~~ ~ ~ LfH ® O~A'Y~rA - ~ - ~ ~ ~ 4~ - AND DfILWWC MUR[ SS MH ti~ (SEE UTILItt NOTE N0.7J r- ---~__-__~-_^_c I Y .._=k i Y li F I I Y Y~' aHN~ Ylw vT^ ~ ~ II ~ ~ dR(Nt'E(fUPi I ~ LOT 2 ' PLANNING a'snN MH I I ~ Nif AtOR DF9GN ~ ~ RIM 0391,Q0 ,t'I I ~ ~ I I INV our sae3aR 1 E ~ .L PROPOSED I-- ~ ~ 300D fDISdN S1At Fi NORTH I I 1 I I ~ ~ yn, Puu w/ BUILDING s3as3D i ~ vNO~F n~;~P ~I _ o ~ I ~ AOII40fR,t0 AA ' - ~ ~ BELDWGRADE FFE=579846 tig PARKING/NN FFG=538846 ~ FDC ~ I F'4y ~~~~~~F ~ " KM ~ / 1- ~ ICI I ~ I~- I o ®w ~ ~ ~ ~ I I (ttP-BI I ~ I ~a = I A I ANDS°cV 1 L_ 1 _ ~ I I ~ ~ - - LL ~ ~ ~ _ BAOAl7WAY ~ ~ i~ ~ p - ~ - - ~ ~ I I ~P~NO~siAVC m zoz NI~QT ~ J ~ ~ i BUILDING ~ ~ ~ _ _ D'~ I ~ I a'>,a' wooo wwKER Posr I I' n, N FfE~6J96.46 - - ~ l ~ ~ I 6 LF 6' DIP . _ (PAINTED cREEN~ ~ ~ ~ I . a ao3a, q EFC=bJ88.46 ~ V ~ _ - I ~ I - ' - - ' o u ni . ~ om - I I i ( 160 U 6' PVC ~ ,~,~^I ru x>.uaini F _ ~ ~ 6( 9~ G a'»8' WYE i B">b" TEE W/ TB6 FH ABSEMBLY W/ I ~ SIDEWALK ESMi 0 ~ \ ~ ~ 10 LF 6" DIP, 18' SIDE AL BUS SHEtffH AREA, ~T ~ - ~ I ~ EASEM i CCORD UNAL ESMT IOCAiION~ ~ 6' Cl, 6' SOLO SLEEVE I E%iENv w/ FINAL DESIGN ~ PROPOSED I I (I I I ~ I i - ~ ~ LOT 1 Bu~LO Nc ~ ~ ~ II I ; LOT 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ FFE_RE AREH I I ; I J j { I I II _ - j I Y r-- a'~' rEE w/ re I~ I I I J 0 w I, j ~ ~ I Y e' aND a' cvs I I ~ p l , ~ ~~~I~ ~ ~ ' PueLle Mwrarfw~ncf J, ~I ~ Flet sEr~~lE ~ III i ~I-~----~-- ~ ~ ~ Q _ ~L~' ACCESS ESMi I ~ _ ~ _ _ I, I I a, p d, ~ J n EF oz ~I I ra ~oeaNeEenorr _ ~ - _ ~ I ~ I i I I I ~I I ~ ~ ~ Q I~ ~ REROUTE INTERNAL ~ " ~ ~ J I LQT ~ I w ~ (ttP, RE MECH~ _ 8'15" wrE _ SERVCE CDNNECHONS _ ~ ~ `L- I__ ~ ~ ~1~ U ~ CAP a' FU1U ~ SAN SERV~CEA i0 SOUTH SIDE DF BLDG ' I~,,.Y ~ ~ ~ I - ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ®RMNN I i TVERIFY 511E AND LOCATION) I - ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ Z N ~ T 1 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ 71 Lf 6' DIP ~ ~ I ~ FIRESfRVICE ~ ' ~I I ~ I m ~ . ~ I I I u IG AwNTErurvcE ~ ' ~ ~ ~ I ACCESS ESMr 4, "2 ,D~W~ 7. .45 i ~I, I I I. I V/ 6"~" rEE W/ ~ ~ ~ ~ L- ~ JO.00' 7S 61DfWALV~gWNACE~ li I- SOWO SLEfVf, rB EDC J NBUC DNUtt EABEMENr . ANU 6" GV ~ _ ~ 1~,' - EASMENI r I 2° sE~ncE ~ ~ ~ - . ~ , .I ' I I I auaL~c DAHO sr~REfl ~ V T 6 I I I - ~ ~ raa Ii I - ~ ~ _ ~ I usuMEO WATER I I ~ ' 31 LF 2' COPPER J ~ ~ i BEAVICE TO ACCESSORY. I ACCESS FASMENi WATER METER PIT BUAWNC (VEPoP(L I ( i I DOMESTIC WRIER SERVICE - ~ ~ ~ F FOR FUTURE 3~4' w/2"MtiERVAUf,f ~ ~ it __-__________DBLYFIFR__ I' Y I s LF a" DIP FIRe lrm-o ®urH sr E%IST 2 WATER YAULi _ 4 r8 iEc w r8 - - / t' DOM SERVCE r0 BE USEU FOR ~ . - fi - AND 4" GV a~ ELECTRICAL TAP w/ 28 U LOrI IRRIGATION ~ ~ ~ I - ( j ~ ~ EASEMENT ~ PIUMBi01'vOKE RETURN s° METER To Dlrr ¢ ~ PROPOSED I I ~ 4 REFli VAULT FOR I' IRRIGATION ~ ~ ~ ) ~ ° - ~ ~ J METER PER cIn srANDARDS o I e9 LF A~ gIP ~ ~ ~ y SOUTHEAST I I I I v METER PIr ac ~ I LOCATE LID OUi OF WALN(rvP; Q F I FlRE SERw6~ - , / ~ 35 if 1' COPPER STUB UNDER WALE _ I I I ~ BUILDING i l iRE'~ Ls:APE; ~ ~ DOMESTIC wwrER sER~CE ~ LQT ~ {rrr-6 ®I3TH sr) ~ ~I ~ d9 L s" cDPPER ~ LL w/ I' uETER PH ~ FFE=RE, ARGe I _ _ DOMEST~ WA R SERVCE a ~ ^ ~V ~ ~ PuB41D MAINTENANDE M 1 i ~sf LF Ts° DoaPER ~ I~_ I I I ACCESS ESMi _ ' IC WRIER w/ ~ I ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ I ~ J_ ` 5' METER VAVL1 ~ - / PROPOSEDFUNRE B= WL ~ ~ ~ I BURY OVERHEA? 1~ ~ ~ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~i IN ~ PER C11Y O BROADwaY ~ Q.: ( DRLS ~ ~ _ ~I+ - I I QUTLOT A ~ ~ ttP SFE UiU_N0, _=p- s6- sc-- s' - '9' t::r'1 I 1 F~uLDERj ---TENOa _ ~ I - ELECTRICAL - . , ~ i IR ~ i 1yypp EASEUENT n p ~ - ' E'- 4 I _r j~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ 1000' F-` ~ ~ Z ( h I DELIO POWER POLE, I I ~1 `PROPOSED ~A I REROUTE OH UNURE6, I ' E815TIN6 i`~ - CWRD w/ UTllitt OWNER I ~ I S' DDMESDC 1REE TREE v,~+-~y f` ~ q - J TYP (ttP, RE: LSL^PEj r'.T~'-i ( ) i ' (~*'7 4' FIRE SEHNCE SERVCE TAP 6'x6' LEE w _ CEDAR AVENUE / ~ w - TAP 8 4' GV ~ ~ 6' SOLID SLEEVE. ~ ~T':7 >&"WYE -~p-n _ F~,'°'EI FUTURE SS MH ~ - I - T8, 2fi~ GVS A._. __J (SEE UHlltt N07E N03) ~ile~r a `I WATER uETEA .SERVICE TRAP 8""6' REDUCER ( ~ - I ~ _ ~ ~ q I ""I ®2p~F F ~ e':" d " • - I bU DOMESTIC ` DATE: 29 JUNE 07 • `C' L METER - q ~ p ~L 1.8" DOMESRC 4' SAN MH L I ` - A F'• - - I SERVCE TAP RIM SJB70o ~ ~ ~ ~,a ~ I~ AEV151PN3 ~ INV IN (N)538L04 PR 135EP 07 4~ CITY OF BOULDER CONSTRUCTION NOTES: CITY OF BOULDER CONSTRUCTION NOTES CONL INV IN srer~D ~ ~--.-~--.T P ° - ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE. WRH THE 'DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS' OF THE CITY 6- THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTWN AND MAINiNN A COMPLETE ANO APPROVED SET OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS. THESE INV OUT (E) 53809 EK L __A;~A OF BOULDER, AND SHALL BE COMPLETED r0 THE SATISFAC110N OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, IN THE EVENT DRAWINGS, AND ANY REWIRED PERMITS, SHALL BE AVAIUBLE Ai THE PAP1ECi SITE Ai ALL TIMES AND SFW1L BE WJIE (vERIFY) . ' THAT A DESIGN ELEMEHi DOES NOi REFLECT Gltt STANDARDS, ME MAIIEft MUS1 BE IMME014TELY BROUGHT TO THE AVNUBLE i0 CItt STAff UPON REQUEST. k CONSTRUCTON PUNS ARE NOi READAY AVNUBLE A7 THE PRQ1ECr SITE. - ATTENTION OF THE ENGINEER AND THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WOANS. THE ENGINEER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FDR THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MAY ISSUE A STOP WDRK ORDER AND HALT ALL CONSTRUCTON ACTMIIES PENDING RECOMMENDING A SOIOTION OR ALTERNATNE SOWrIONS i0 THE CNY FOR REVIEW AND WxPROVM1L. COMPLIANCE BY THE CONTRACTOR UTILITY NOTES: - 2, THE APPROVAL OF A CONSTRUCTION PLAN DO6S NOi RELIEVE rHf CONTRACTOR OF THE REBPONSIBILRY OF 7. THE CONTRACTOR AGREES 10 COMMY N11N THE PROVISIONS OF THE iRAFTIC CONTROL PUN AND iNF "MANUAL ON I. OWNER AND CONTRACTOR i0 VERITY fINAI TAP S2ES BASED ON ' CONSTRUCHNG WORKABLE PUBLIC IMPAOVEMENIS, ALL RE'nSIONS ANDIOA CORREC110NE REWIRED WI0. BE SOLELY UtUfOAM rRAfRC CONTROL DEVICES," PART IV, FOR CONSTRUCTION SIGNAGE AND TRAFFIC CONTROL FlNAt FIKTURE CWNTS. AT iNE TIME DF BNLOING PERMIT APPLICATION ~ - ~H• ~ - 1HE CONIRACTOA'S AESPONSIBIIITY, ANO Ai THEIR EkPENSE. 8. ALL 60RPlUS MATERIALS, TOOLS, AND TEMPORARY STRUCTURES, fURNISNEO BY 1HE CONTRACTOR, SHALL BE AND ADJUST TAP SIZES AND 1AP FEES ACCORDINGLY. 1. THESE PUNS HAVE BEEN CHECKED BY THE Cltt OF BOULDER ONLY FOR CONFOR~,NCE WITH THE "DESIGN ANp REMOVED FROM THE PROJECT SNE BY THE COHTRACIOR ALl DEBRS AND RUBBISH CAUSED BY THE OPERATIONS Cf y, FINAL SANITARY, WATER, AND OTHER MLItt ALIGNMENTS i0 BE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS,' COUPLMNLE WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONpTIONS, AND FOR GENERAL CONCEPTUAL THE CONTRACTOR BNALL DE REMOVED, AND THE AAFA CV9CUPIED DURING CONSTRUCHON ACTmDES SHALL BE AEBiOREO DETEALnNFD IN THE FIF1D 848ED ON ENCOUNTERED FIELD CONDITIONS. - ~ E%S1~ING~DRFPROPOSED CRMENSNIONS, NES~OCWOORDNRTES, OR 6RADE~SESHOwN, NCIUDING ALL E%~ISTING UTILIII~ESY OF DREC70RROFNP B~C OWORKS WITHIN 18 HOURS OF PROJECT COMPLE?ON. UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ~71HttOLENEIEVA~TIOAB. ETC~IBASED ONIE ISTINGA~TLIttt ELEVATIONS. ~ ~I ~ - I, SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN, 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE tttEf AND LANDSCAPE PROIECTNIN AS SFE FORTH IN GRAFTER 6fi, PROTECDON 3. FUNRE BROADWAY SANITARY MNN RFAUCNMENi. BASED ON 4 UTllltt LOCATIONS SHOWN REFLECT AVAIIABLf RECORD DAIR. THE CONiAACiOR SHALL 1A%E PREGUTONARY OF TREES AND PUNTS," BWIDER REVISED CODE (B,A,C.) 1981 AND THE CITY of BOULDER DESIGN AND CONSiRUCDON gSCUSSIONS wRH CITY STAFF, UNDER A SEPARaiE AGREEMENT THE I MEASURES i0 PROTECT Pll MIUY ONES SHOWN AND OTHERWISE IOfATEO. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE STANDARDS {OCS), ALL (ANDSCAPING SHALL BE FRONDED ANO MNMAINED 1H COMPLANCE WITH THE APPROVED DEVELOPER WILL AGREE [0 PARTICIPATE IN THE DESIGN AND COST OF "UDLITY NOTIFlG710N CENTER OF WLORADO' A7 I-800-922-1987 PoR UIMY LOCATES 21 HOURS PRIOR 10 UNDSCAPING PUN. B.A.C. AND DGS. THE SANITARY IJAIN RFALIGNMEM (SHOWN CONCEPiUAIIY ON THESE l:Jl BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, IO. THE CONTRACTOR G AEOVIRED i0 PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL uFASURES IN PLANS TOR REFERENCE ONLY) Ar THE RME THE Cltt COMMENCES THE 5. EETORE WORK BEGINS, THE WNTRAGiIXt SHALL OBTAN A PERNIi i0 WDRK IN 1HE RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM THE CITY ACCORDANCE W11N THE URBAN ORANAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT "URBAN S10RM DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL BROADWAY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT. 20 0 20 10 ANO MUST NOlltt THE CAY RICHi-OF-WAY INSPECTION STATE AT LFASi 2a HOURS IN ATNANCE Of COMMENCING uOLllNf 3", THE M STANDARD PLANS OF iNE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AND THE APPRMED a, DEVELOPER TO COORDINATE RELOCATk7N ANO/OR UPGRADE OF All SCnLE OF FEET ~ JOB 1413c~ CDNSIRUCDDN ACIIVIDES, EROSION CONTROL PUN. ME DIRECTOR DF PUBLIC WORKS MAY REWIRE THE CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ADDDIONAL NON-CJ1Y UHLIDES WITH RESPECTIVE UTILITY OWNER (G75, ELEC, TEIE, _ EROSION CONTROL MEASURES DUE TO UNFORESEEN EROSION PROBLEMS DR IF THE PLANS DO NOT FUNCTION AS ETC.). ONSITE OVERHEAD MUTIES AND OVERHEAD UTILHIES IN THE IMENDED. IMMEDIAIELV ADJACENT RICHi-OF-WAY AREA TO BE BUR,fO. PLANTING LEGEND: ~ ~ Ex13TING OECIDUDUB TREE ~ TD REMAIN Y' I I _ ~ ~ i Chahar "r'ti ' ENI9TINGEVERGREENTREE ~QeWSk ~ -v ~ ' ARCHITECTURE TO REMAIN ~ ~ - _ F _ ~ - - - _ PLANNING 6 i^~ ~ur~~ ~i _ ~--`d- ~ -'I, ~ h - - ~ INTERIOR DESIGN I - - - - - 'fir-- _ ; E%ISTING DECIDUOUS TAEE y TOaEREMGVED y w I I~ 0 N Ile'' _ _ 3008 FOLSOM SIREEi d SgM Gn j - -I r- zp'-~- Z~-' '-I I AOUIDE R, CO A0704 L L s x}~ _I-~- ~ II _ RHONE. J03~a41-6904 ERISTING EVERGREENTREE i _ _ - ~r~ ~ i-1 i 'r rAx303~u4~6t 60 T08E REMOVFA ~ r ' ~ ' I u L - - - - - - - I I ~ ® ~ ~ ~ 1 STREET TREES: Po&slbl (Entry l ~ ~ " n lr. s e i I l - - ~!I Amedcen Elm (Ulmua americans) 2"caliper _ - l I Lirileleaf Linden (Tills cordate) 2" cellper I _ _ _ _ _ a _ _ z I _ ~ ~ ~ W Bus Shelter ~ -I - - - - - _L~ ' Tree rate _ L r C' st dard a iU~ nY ~ ) I~ - '.e ~'a. Concrete i * ~v ~ Typo Porous ~ ( P , Bus _ ~ e i al Vegetated DECIDUOUS TREES: i ~ ~ Hone ocust Gledftaia trlacanthos) 2" tali er Cru ' _ Pavement Zone ' l Sto Pad I ~er Fines w 'k p'GrassPave° or similar] J O ~ ~ Hawthorn (Cretaegus sap.) 2" cellper ; ~ - - W Tree rat ~ ~ _ - i J ~ , _ i ~QO (perciyata dard) I ~ a ~ ~ - L~ ~ ~ I a ~ Q 0 EVERGREEN TREES I ~ We~~ ' Central Activity Lawn ~ ~ Q U O Ponderosa Plne Pi ( nus ponderosa) a' ht. l _ > (Blue Grass Turn ~ I L U ~ ,_i_.:__~_ _ ~ + I- ' l T o I I I W ~ C ss Walk ' ServiceheRNAAmelanchleRcana~densia ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ Z I r Q m9 ( ) 10'-12' clu p + ~ ' ~ I m Cherry (Prunus sap.} 1"cellper ® ~ ' ' ~ - i lr ~ 'r_ , ,t-- I I DECIDUOUS SHRUBS. :?.I - _ - ~ ~ ; , ~ ~ _i _ Q _ _ T°~ - Amedcen Crenb - - - I a Bush Ihumum lrHohum 5 al. nY (Y i I f i _ i Boulder Raspberry (Oreabetua (Rubus) delldosus) 5 gal. ` - I ~ Ty~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Crusher Fines Walk a ~i Three Leef Sumac (Rhus tdlobala) 5 gal, v ~ ~ - - - - Golden Currant (gibes aureum) 5 gal, ~ - - - u°~° ~ 1. I ~ - N - 1 v i BumaldJepaneseS Irea S Irae'a onice'Bumalde' 5 el. P I (P 1P 9 • ~ Ra It r bb h ush Ch th mn I. a us nauaeosus 5 a ( ~ 9 r' - i Snowt>arry(Symphohcarpuselbus) 5gel. ' RissdWlk ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ Red Osier Dogwood (Swede sedcae) 5 gal. WatarDetantim >>rl~~ . ACA R'm ' 'tae - ~ Concrete Drive Garden P ~ Ston~'~6ench ~ ~I~s ~ 0 ~ Ent late Ir - EVERGREENSHRUBS: ~ ~ Vehl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Shore Juniper (Juniparus conferta) 5 gal, r ~ , ~ r~ Dr ~Oti r ' ~ - - ~ Raised 1 ~ _ • ',.Planter ~ ~ ~o~J~ r, _ ~ ' f +~1 I Common Juniper (Jonipema communis ssp. alpine) 3 gat OQ~~ODu 1' ~ i I. I '~1 D~, 0~ ~ i'~ I S '~1 u a ORNAM~EGNTALGRASSES: I " bdo i Z ' ~ ~ + ~ I Malden Gress Mlscanthua smensus Grecllllmus' V I _ ~ Q ( ) 3 gal. gt a J Cesalen Fountain Grass (Penniaetum 1 gaL ~ ' ~rrnAround I Site Triang - J - a elopecuroides'Caeslan') i - W li Blg Blueslem (Andropogon gererdll) 1 gal. I - I ~ ~ Dat ' n Pond_ Cutlol ~ - Swltchgress (Penicum virgetum) 1 gaL I ~ Site Trlang rt. U ' a+ ~ J^ . OPERTYLINE ~ ~ _r Accessible amp Per - - , - + _ 5 N I PERENNIALS 8 GROUNDCOVERS: City Re irements r - i - ~ ` Purple Cone Flower (Echinacea purpurea) 1 gel, ' . , ~ ~ + Z Deylily (Hemerocallis) t gel. ~ ' ~ + ~ s ~ t Blecka~~y{e(yd~{~Susan {Rudbeckie hirta) 3 gal, is z ~ „ Io , a s ; A V" I ~ - ' I I ~ I Stone Bench Accessible Pedestrian Entry Plumbego (Ceratostigma plumbaginoides) 1 gel. - - _ i Oregon~grepe (Mehonla repena) 1 gel. Existing 18' Dia. Green Paved Vehicle Entry - - _ - - I DATE', 19 SEP oT L Periwinkle (Vince Minor} 1 gal. qsh Tree To Be Removed Existing Tree To Existing iD" Dia. Black Locust Remain Due To Poor Health Tree To Be Removed t3 5EP 07 ® b (Undesirable Species) BOULDER O - KENTUCKYBLUEGRASS TURF REQUIRED OPEN SPACE : - I RequUed Open Space: 20%of Tolel Aree =17327 SF ~ n n 5 H b P I N S TALL FESCUE TURF Pro oaed 0 an S ace' 42 539 SF . I ~ I ~ ~ S S 0 I A 'I' I? S P P P ~ ~ 0 10 20 40 N O R T H ~ PIANNlNG NABANOLSICN fANOSCAPEAPCNIrfCraAE - SCALE: 1" c 20 ° so nl~oa~i,o..o:. I mAaz+so tin o~~ I 4~~,R~:or~ N 0 T E : LP_1 1. This is a preliminary landscape plan, not for conalmctlon. J06: WASH I I ~ _ 1 I ¢ 9 i , e[.ax"[AC. I . L. _ _ . _ . ,t ~ . L ~ i ~ ioA~iNw~x[ni~t~ 1 "I ~'auN lruGYW 1 wJAC[xryrnucrune p~a'eu~oMa _ ~l wlACexrmwcrurz' waACm+*nn.'crarz 1 I I ` I ~['~-o-wunnxc[ I •I---x f L_ I ~L _io ~ _ 1 I - - 1[d IO~An1[MG[N aL n. JOAN _ V aowAOOn ~ i I[rN w/xtw [ow uw I ~,~,N ~ y---,----- , ] ~ 1 , 1 ~ \ I ~ .,i~ ~ IxAOan. toAN E~ I ~ ' ' o~or o nlonw~ ~~~'1 ~ ~ n¢varrwNmA~~~ I ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ I wox [uenrcru o6oro~o+ l : ~ cowlrxN I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ARCHiECiURE . 7 ~ i i ~ ~ [awaw I[.e, 7 ~ . ~ ` 1 e~u.ooA?'oA r--~ I ~ PLANNING & r l i ~ ~ I''°'wun ma. ~`m~' 'r~rr ~ 1. ~ ~ ~Yawue nx INTERIOR RESIGN yl / ~ ;hpbA ~ _ _ ^ ~ ~ ~ NMOan[raAN ~1~'N/Wry: ! I \ ~lM1 \ JJLL x 4 ~ t ~ V ` V x ~ ~ ~ ~ "S'" ~ E 3008 fOl50M SiREEi " ~ (A _ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ 9omoeu, co ea3oa I v1 8 N x w 1'IF i ~ - - r `-~---~F^""^ " - 0 l PN N 0 E. 303 144 b0 4 it _ 17 _ A, ~ Pu ~ / ia.axrA x ~ 'k~-~-^w+_-'--x-~-,....,...d..~,. fAx. 303-414.6160 7 Irf \ ....,.yy,y _ ~ z,J f . `wr-+~r . +-.r+.~'._ ~+-~~I~ E~~ ~ . ~ - ^ ~r 5 \ 1 A . dFy / I 7 ~ ~ y IY I r w...r n J Ta",."" g ~ ~ / r *.+«+r+ - -r+++-~ . H+-wa.4 ~ E / 9 i.J I i, - i ~ - ~ n.q ~ 0 7 90 ~r. N e i n.c Nd 7 i 7 xo I ~ I ~ ~ x I V ~ ' ~vr I ~ na ~ ~ Ivv 7 I ~ V ~ 17 7 ei ~ No ~~9, ~ I I W II 77 ~ / I ~ _1 _ ~ / [ ; s / ~ r ~-s, I .v_a x n x. r N - B~ r Q ~ ~ \ I / 7 ~ 7 I I 17 ~ \VI ' / 1 7 Bx r/ _ / 8 7 ~f ~ v~~ ~ 7 ~ 7 r [ ~ ~r w ~ Ji r~~~ \ ] 7 l V.A r / / ~ r x/ - <o SOLAR SHADOW 12PM DEC 21 2 ~ SOLAR SHADOW 10AM DEC 21 t Z ¢ 0 o f U o.t ~ i ~'I U~ w 50LAR ANALYSIS CHART ~ SOLAR ANALYSIS CHART Z, ~ o 25'•0" FENCE & SETBACK STUDY @ BROADWAY BLDG ! m AomsrFO A 64 pIN ~ OIH ~ ~ laa[mArir ~ ~ T_fxADOW LFN _ ~ _ aul[[nmrrv V NOi AIV I 1 N LOINS / ~IOAM NOON 21M H01 AIV ~ - ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~.a~yyp^ _ - p[AOB IOINI rOAM NOON 71M T~_-J AO1Wxr [•nYLruRli I e [ 2750 74. B ~ ~ 12.88 ~ _ _ _ _ ....................__...............1 55.50 _ 1~ , l w~ rIWC'N~! ~ - - ~ i NVgw.aM~µ [ W YIN fAMI uN[~ , _A zc0` dex ds.60 ~ DD~9' ~ 8 c 26.29 69Sd 52.50 ' FB 15^06193 tix 61.SB 55.00 I' - _ [r-a launr[AC[ wAOO (17 i ~C 76x 6e.25 c~, r0 6954 - alC lryworv.fM- [71M J 69.56 I _0 25A0 66.45 bC .69,56 B i 2675 1069 SA50 TO.B9 5 le ~ taro, i. I l L ulpGan. M r 7 1 F 4 15x 6793 i 'q d8.1< \ ~ / 7 B' 2700 71,55 11,00 71.551 f E ZS. 0 dl w1AGlM [inuGNn[ r I 94 IBk 662 I \ A ~_I••~ ~ V I / -I d_ 45 50 67,58 5, 00.67.58 ' ~ l~l 7 _G 4500 d<,9~7 5^(0 67.5E 9 G IB 50 69.09 13700 69.03 I~ ` ~ \ \ti . rN I ! ~ ~ -~t 750C ~ e146 9~ de 9. ~n IB 50 69,03 3700 49,03 ~ ! ~ I F- I 1 IS Ir IY~~wvw~ ~ j/ i F~ 2507 6193 w,5 66.7 BI / AAA 44f i 86,50 ' 96J3 79.00.96.79 / / 1 I / V ,~4(/ I J r 1.. e.. 3675 97.89 ~ 7930 97.39 / - ~rt+ ~I t p n, F_ ' 20C 3C.dB 1dA,7 3' 9C 9 4 OLx 198.05 Id,00 ~ 98.05 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i A ~ I ~ 4. ~ ~ I e'• ~ 37.75 100.04 75.505.50 1~xi. 1060 ~ ~ ~ e EI - 'k x f" A A JS x' ~ B9.u d9,CC 93.4 ff J ' y I ~ Aj 35x' 9C.'.'J d9.5C 94CB ~ / I A_ , ~ . _ r A C 36FA B9.u 69 x 'I 93.6'. ' / " `„T,"~~ F . - - ' 3 ~f:"fl' ~ 1 ~7Z A_C 36.x ' 93.10 I x 9<J4 ! r w~ / A I _ _ _ _ ' A E ,'SAC 190.10 D950 ~ 93,r. - _ 'I / Z A ~ 3500 9u7a 6907 9215 ~ 7 fir ~ ~ - 6 I / 7i I SOLAR ANALYSIS CHART ~ 3_=~~e~/' ~ ' ~ N I ~ ix, ~i ; ~ 77 ~ ~ I NORTH BLDG _ ~ .1- ~ ~ r.~ ~ , 7 ~ I `I 7~ , ~ } r ~ Aomsrto I ~ o sNAOOwueosN ~ ' n_I a. .1 ~ ~x "v~ Nx ~ ~ I i~ I i ~ 7 ~ v 7 i IO7N7 XOf AIY lOAM NOON 71M 1 I ~ ' 1 OFADE I 7 BNr r 1 ~ 4 A 30W 1186 59,5: A7~'d i S / ~ / / 7 j N d 71SC 6',61 4; ;0 6193 I ~ ~ N,d I w ~ / i W_ 4150 61,2E 47,50 D193 i [ / I x ~ ~ ~ / I ryi ~ LL ti0 4zs7 sd,r u~co : s9.u r ~ I g N f 23x3 SA.3C 6500 h'. 61 , 7 _ _ ~ O @ 1 I N ~ 2475 ! 60,95 11.$0 ~ 6493 46.75 66.2$ 5 s~ 7.39 i SOLAR H ~ S ADOW 2P N~ M D EC 21 s 26.53 e se : sz,~c ' mE9 ' A •p N_ 2e,5C 6278 dB,7C ' 6691 ~.t N OhTB', 198BPT 07 ' >'_E 43.75 SB.96 46~x h3~d0 ~ Q n l 23.75 do.p dds0 66.93 ' REVISIONS ' N_ 15.x 68eC 49.00 ' dA1d I h`M z7m bast s2oo s.a7 I 29JUNE 07 ~j N.n ns7 69.66 s4ro ~ ra~x 139EPTO7 ~ D~_0 i5.Y3 61.26 SG CC 69,56 ti ' Vp 1125 ~ 60.95 47,SD 66.25 ~ N O 84,45 bl.fi' d8.x I ed$9 N R 15.]< dE59 3'.x r0.27 N S 26.x I fi6.91 5'. SC~69.56 ' 4 i 1em hd.9' S'.'0 61.99 I N_U 11.1$ 10.89 5S.C0 ' 10.23 N V 18,25 111 56.C0 I '0.23 ' N W 2645 71,7' 3600 I i5S? i N'.% 7757 BC.E3 h3.T~ ~ BO d3 I O.~ i JOB: WR9H VILL 1 ' 1 ' DECEMBER 21ST MARCH 21ST JUNE 21ST r- r- iqq-~. ~ ~y-_~-,~ YY ~S IS 9 ~ ARCHITECTURE 'CONCEPT REVIEW - ~ ~ ~ PLANNING 6 4-1T-06 li INTERIOR DESIGN - CONCEPT REVIEWI~ I / I ~ i 12-7-06~ ~•,~u --ff / / 1 I ITE PLAN RVIEW~~ 14'~~ - I 3008 fOISOM SiREEi V 19-OT', , / I HON6E303 4044 4904 F I z DEC 21 2PM D MAR 21ST 2PM JUN 21 2PM J Fnx~ 303~a44-6:60 i J ~ I / SCALE: 1" • 20' 0.1A SCALE'. 1" - 20' ~ 0~ $CALE:1 •2 ' „ (7 I / ~ - ~ _ r-u--- ~ I' ~ ~ ~ I ~ m ~I a / ~ ~ i , ~ I J / ~r i 0 I a J 0 I I 3 0 a~ DEC 21 12PM ~ MAR 21ST 12PM r~ 1 Jl1N 21 12PM ~ ~ J SCALE; 1" - 20' 0,1A SCALE: 1" .20' ~ SCALE: 1" • 20' O,IA 01°~ y~' I~ I~ ~~`~o ~ I ~ ~ ~ Z I ~ o m I i 2 N BROADWAY SECTION NORTH , I' II _ DE' 21_ l OAM D MAR 21 ST t 0AM JUN 21 10AM J~ j SCALE~1"-20' 0.1A SCALE: 1" -2D' SCALE, 1" -20' 0,1A 1 _ 1 j u_ r - ~ I~ ~ ~I GONGE?7 REVIEW _ ~ ~ ~i 1Z-T-06 - ~ I ~ I I r i ' 18'-3" _ _ ' _ ~ ~ I i ~ I I j Z I - _ .I , _a ~ i M „ U i w r z / I ' - - ~ MAR 1 PM ~ JUN 212PM J J ' DEC 21 2PM f u 1 2 ST 2 M ~ ~ / /R SCALE: 1" -20' O.tA SCALE; 1" -20' ~ SGALE;1" .20' 0.1A O / / OHAN6E MADE I V ~ ~ ~ / SUBSEQUENT TO ' Z ~ I ~ d / / NE16HBORHOOD ~ i it / ' MEETIN65.4-06 ~ ~ ~ ~ / / f, / / ~ ~ ~ -tee ~ y ~ ~i V / ~ ~ i OC I i1 i N I F DATE: 28 JUNE 07 O iiEVI310N3 Q 'I Z DEC 21 12PM n MAR 21ST 12PM n JUN 21 ] 2PM n _ ALE: 1" -20' OJA SCALE: 1" -20' '0~ SCALE: 1" -20' 0.1A 2B JUNE 01 Qj ~.~8 > I 16 i i 3 SEP 07 ~ ~ , I ~ ~ ~ ~ I © ' _ NORTH SEGTI N _ 0 2 / _ 1 AL " ' I ' t '1 ~,i I 0.1 A DEC2110AM D MAR27ST10AM JUN2110AM J JOB: WASHVILL SCALE: 1" -2D' 0.1A SCALE:i" -20' ~ SCALE: 1" -20' 0.1A PARKING SUMMARY APrIIONE ON BRE _ _ _ i._ BELOW BUILGNO BTRUCNREO PARKING c'o ' 1' ~ I ua I ue ~ 1 t A' • A e NORTH BUILOIND 2B 1 • I q~ ~ e,e cn vA e 1 e•• e'1 c'• eao w~ m]~ o .I d r .AUMAo ON-0RAOL PARALLEL PAIE(INO I' ~ ne1,w•A r EAST OF NORTH 8U]LDINO ?cnwA •nw,~,.,,a, ARCHITECTURE I ..,~~n\ _ PLANNING B ON-0RADi INTERIOR DAR0.0EICARPORT PARKING ~ J' ' ~ ~ NTERIOR DESIGN EAST BUILDlN08 A n I PAAKI A A E TOTAL CARS PAOVIplp FOR RH•2 20N! ON•81TE ~ evLO.1 1 I t PERCENTAGEGF COMPACr9PACE9 2B COMPACT BPACE6 =J8.6% ww.•~u,°• I d ~ pi cal 1 RL•1 ION!••ON BRE TZ ne i ~ I I~~ ~I M0 ~ I,a I ' I 3008 FOL60M STREET ° , I'• I?0 11f Ail A]n ~ 1?I 191 A? c]1 1 I I BOULDER, CO 80304 OWORADE INTlRIOIi GARAGE PARKING ~ `1. nu~~ee I PHONE, 303~444~d904 1~] I i, ~ ?cnq ~ fA%-303~414~6750 .......---.__..........+I `It rea AVA_e IP~Ieumedw2antorwcT A,nplAtlmllydenched uvtl ~~N L•1 NE ON•BITE 1Z a I, TOTAL AMOUNT OF PARKING SPACES PROVIDED ON BIT! ~ w 1 !T ON STREET PARKING ~ ~ Aee..__..., i 1 CEDAR AVEM1UE 13 ~ D f91h STREET 1t ~ W'' TOTAL AMOUNT OF PARKING SPACES AYAIUBLE OH STREET I V 2A ~ ~ col 1 ,\w S Ae+ 'I , ~7 MbVEC PARKING ANALYSIS ( •CA1HhA ~ Q , .n~~.~? GAR9NNIT TDrAt ~ ? 111 - w RH•2 ZONE CONTRIBUTING AREAS uNIT SIZE (4 MAX~~UNI19 CARS ~ r"-~.- A , PAIVATe A[81DENTIALARlABIoouMtpewtltolAl rAg0lrAtl ApaAp G1 HISTORIC SCHOOL ' FlH~T FL6TORY MARKET P.ATc Udo) I . , N1 '~STOPY MARKET RATE UNIT (90uTHWE9T 810E) 1162 4 i d i AIA ® ' ~ J Q NIT (SOUTHEAST 99E] 1 - .160 4 1 d 9ECONC LOOA fepla to lnNrorconldor7 1 d 1 OU Ha ' STORY MAPKEi RATE'JNR (90UTNWEST 1 d>,K>nn:r Aev ~ ~ ~ H6 tSTORY MARKET UNIT;NORTHWEST) '352 4 7 4 Htl~Oy"~q~~~ n ^ ( I 216 d 1 4 r t ( .u: HA 6TORY MARKET RATE uNl' SOUTHEAST {,115 4 f 8 HE 19'ORY MODERATE UNIT NORTHEAST i,t73 4 1 d I nlavrq yi r Q BROADWAY BUILOIN ~ ?u~A ~ ~ FIRST FLOOR (w!la to Atlll ' B1 AFFCAOABLE UNR9 ~ reaAVOU HI T RI S H00 ~ ~ •nvr'.•4r a 5 9ECON0 F,00R lexlta vle dtnaoor OOrch to Mtlrlowen) i m 1 =1 0 _ _ _ I NI B9 1•BTORY MARKET RATE ~ r- B4 2~9TOPY MARK TPAT UNIT (SOU?HI 23)5 4 1 4 ~ B9 2~970RY MARK~'ATE UNR f90UTB) t,763 4 1 a r u1 . ( LEl 1,574 6 2 6 BTORYMAAN ,RAT NIT TH C57 6 1 d E ~ E EUNRS (MIDD) 338 l 1 4 ' 1 NORTH BINLOIHO ~ u1 i FIRST FLOOR UxIN ro Tetle neo u.ww I N2 4Ff0A0ABLE UNRB 7.00E 3 4 t2 ~ , Nt 2810RV MARKET RATE UNITS IEABT8WE97t 1 B3B d 2 9 ~ net w1c SECOND ROCR (exits vlAOUWaor porcgm etdr rowers? L7 ~i,~ xnRA . S wo reA A.vs~c '~8 M UNI S ( 1.005 3 4 +Z ~ EAST B L NG H p o tl1J i s !2 3~STOPY MODERATE AFFORDABLE TOWNHOUSES(MIDDLE) ',238 d 4 '6 i 0 T OW !2 3~Si0AY MAAKE~RA'Er NHOU9ES INCRT~63OUT~ 1,786 8 2 S ~ CAST BUILGN080UTH Lln la Ids) ~ \I - N w~ ~I~ 1235 4 ; ~ ~ li ~ ~ I LN LIBRARY !1 9~STORV MAAKE'RATE J`,T 1756 4 ~ 4 e?e I H•2 E R I NTIAL P AKING RE UIRED r LAnd U Cady 91 120 I RH-2zor4rPnlanlt rFR?nF4e IDPN?IaLUSl- I ,te in rARel'r.~ , , ~ I Ina FEPGENTAGEIPARKING REDUCTION FOk NEaiCENTIAI 19P 1 ~a ~ a1 ' •u wAa I. OFFICL UBE OFFICES 9F,'CAP • Pe ce aoP-ce cee, ~ ~ •nv~Lr _e• • ~ 1 , 2 2 I I 22 ~L._._ HN~2 ZONE TOTAL PARKIMG FlEDUCfION REQUESTED I(~~ {refer to PARYJNG 6UMMAFlYJ I n.Y 4~w.11 TGTAL NUMBER OF SPACES RiLJ L','NNPZONF. ~ TOTAL PERCENTAGE PARKINr A. PUL~ ION FCOUESTf!] T-- e ^ I I LL 1 PARKING PLAN ~ CITY OF BOULDER COMPARABLE PARKING REDUCTION REQUESTED jPARKING KEY Y HIGH DENSITY HOUSING ZONES (29 JUNE 07) s• sTANDAIxD sPACe ~ IN TNlRM•2 ZONl,1NlRl AAl81 REMDENTIAL UNITE PRO?08lD. STANDARD THIS ZONE UNRW80NABLY BURDlN9 THE APPLICANT WITH AN UNWAARANilD PARIONC RlOUIRFMlNT, GIVlN THE COHOU81Np UBC G•GOMPAGT SPADE I Q UNIT TYPE REQUIREMENTS NUMBER OF UNITS TOTAL CA0.5 DESIGNATED 4L IBEDRWMUNR !CAF t0 10 28EOROCM UNR 15CAR9 22 37 ~ iYRCALIY AlOURCO AAliCAR FOR THl FIRST 6008E OFAUNIi,6AN ADDITIONAL PARKIN08P0T FORlACH 9UB8lOUlN19W 9F, MA%IMUM OF WNIT. ~.j OFFIGE PAPlKIN6 3 BEDROOM UNI' 2 CARS 2 4 CONBEOUENTLY, FOR EXAMPLE, A 1171 BF MODERATE AFFORDABLE 1 BEDROOM UNR IB REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A PARKING SPACES, DATE: 13 SEPT D7 62 TNlSl9UNAEASONABLEAN000ESNOTMEfTTNEINiENT10NOFTNEBUSTAINABILITYPROVA410N80FTNEBVCP Q REVISIONS RH•2 20NE PARKING REDUCTION REOUESTEp FOR RE8IDENTIAI UBE (refer tc PAgN1NG 9UMMAPY; THIS iACILITY 18 PRIMARILY Ol810NED FOR FLOlRLY REBOlNTB, THlRlBYALIOWINO A?ARKNO REDUCTION OF UPTO iMA, BY 0001. 29 JUNE 07 Q ~OTALNUMBEP OF SPACES PR041OED FOR RE9IDENiMLU9E 43 PERCENTAGE PARKING REDUCTION FOR RESIDENTIAL UBE B,BAfi LINlW18L IT 180UAlKPlRIlNCE THAT COHOUBIND COMMUNITIlBTYPICALLY DO NOT NElDMOAC THANICAA PlR Al81OlNTIAL UNIT 13 SEPT D7 Q ~'I IT IB OOMMON THAI CO~NOU81N0 RC81DlNT8 WILL lVlN SHARE CARS, OR HAV! A COMMONLY OWNlO VlHICLE (A RCK-0P TRUCK OR VANJ FOA COMMUNTY UBE - iH1819 BOAN•OUT BY IXPERIlNCE IN OVFP 1991MILAR COMMUNITIlB DE910Nl0IN THIS COUNTRY BY DUflBLLYlB A OUR CO•HDU9ING CONSUITANTa, CIT 0 LD RCOMPARABLE ANOIH FACT, iHEBUYlA&AL81DlNT90f iHl6l UNITE HAVC AIAEAOYACNNOWLl00lDTHATAI CAA PIRUNIT COUNT 188UFFICIENTfOR THEIR NEl08 - HIGHDENSITY HOUSING ZONES (13 SEPT 07) INADDRIDN,THIBFACaITralrsononlOFTNeMOSreFFecllvelvseRVwTRaN81TRO0re61NrHeGTY6FRONTaONroABIKlPArnbaTHeTI, STANDARD CAR UNITTYPE REQUIREMENTS NUMBER OF UNITS TOTAL CARS IT IB WITHIN ONl BLOCK OFA NEIOHBORX000 BXOPPINO ClNTLR RECRlATION CLNT[RAM[GCAL FAGLITIl9; t BEDRCOM UNIT 1 10 10 - 28EDROO4UNR L5 t5 225 AN018 PRACTICALLY AATON!'BTMROW PROMANlIOHBORH000 PARKAND COMMUNITY OARO[N. ~ J BEDROOM UNR 2 9 l8 50,5 NO 817E BETTER 8UIT6 A BUBSTANTUIL PARKING REDUCTION, o i w RH•7 ZONE PARKING REDUCTION REOUEBTEO FOR RESIDENTIAL USE CONBEOUENTLY, WE BELIEVE THAT THE REOUEBTEO PARKING REDUCTION IB FULLY SUPPORTABLE ON TXIB BITE 1 Je1er to PARKMG BUMMARYf TOTAL NUMBER OP 9PACE8 PROVIDED FOA RE91OENTIAL USE 53 i A TA A R JOB' WASH VILL TOTAL SITE AREA 130,710 6f ~ ~ PROP08E0 RH~220NE B9.tL33 9F PROP08E0 RL•110NE 42,077 9F 1 1• t 1 FLOORAREA CALCULATIONS Reeldentlal (Ploonrn he. 6nn mnwred to Ih~ outdd~ of ~zt4nla fr~minp, a autUd. wdaa of ariErla welU In can with no 4uMrla Inminp) ARCHITECTURE I FLaNNING 6 i RH-0IONE INJEAIOR DESIGN BROADWAY BUILDING FIRB7 FLDOP 7171 SECOND F,OOR r7Ay rN~AD a DOR ~ TOTAL '1618 )DDB FOL90M 9TAEEi EOULDEA, CO 80304 NGRTH BUILDING © i PHONE 303-44b6904 _ _ AVaB'F;.pOf+ 8'b fA%. 303~It4~6160 I" 9ECCN0?DOA 599 ' s - --ten",. ~ r ~.zt ~ 7ya r.r4y TOTAL 11716 W~ b ~ r~ w EAST BUILDINGS d ~wws nMer J `~mw nswu ~ 9.19EME?.r tA0 i 1 L FIRST FLOOA 9972 I ?A,,wEL ,~In, ` J _ uVih0900N 71N ~ 4- r ar~re a!nso onurn earr ®.ow w~---- 1 9cH0a 9u~~O NO TOTAL ~ 7I84© I W I I ~ ~ E ~ °M1 TOTAL 71p4 , Q Z '~i pAm ~ ~ Mtn' Iwn ^ llFr WI _ TOTAL RESIDENTIAL SF 44220 Q ~ W Q , ~ ~ TERA~cE © TOTALALLOWABLE ) ~ RESIDENTIAL SF IN RH-2 Q ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ; p I ,1-0• 88833 X .5 FAR = 44318.5 ~ J - _ Z ~ rs ~ D U ~ w ~ I - e ~ W 'I i E ~ ~ NORTH BUILDING I ~ I • 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~ ° ° I_ FLOORAREA CALCULATIONS Non•Reeldentlal ~ ~ p ~ k ~ Floor nn ha. tsnn mwund to tb I N r Ir ml ( e ouu de of 4RM o w np, a J S3 N Q - ! dE urine Lxt I wEll Ina with n s r I < 4 I _ ~ ~I, ~ ~ ! RN 720NE ~ m Q<o ~ I 6 ~ BROADWAY BUILDING I m ~ ~ ++u•- - 5A9'FLODR COMMERCIAL Epl1 ~i, ~I ' ~ HIBTOPoC 6S CHOOL BUILDINGh ~ ~ O, w • TA 26868 Q PJ' L.# ~~1~ j,.o~ I NORTH BUILDING m5 P 6 I`\ F,ASrFLOOA o ~ I p ~ « ~ ~ Q _ _ _ eECONDFLOOA a III I 0 a, ~ Y ~ E I I 9 k _ ~ EAST BUILDING p b FIPB'FLOOR 0 b.~ I 1 ~ ~uuw' ~ - 'no^moti' 0 ~ ~ _ ",row. asesm ~ ~ ~ rwwn _ _ _ ~ 8ECO4D FLWa 0 , P ® 41 SCHOOL BUILDING Q R I J ~ ~ ~,__,_3 ~ - - - ~ B.a9EUENT FlaerFLOOA ~1 „ I ~y.--~--~----IPJ-tF. CAMNUN~TY 9P,ICE 219, 7NI Q I, ~ IIC w _ _ _ I A~~. 7W IW, I,Mt ~ ~ U4~J{ r I.~ ~w ur , _ _ CFFGE ,2a! 7,119 ~ b ~ D h , 0 I ~ ro ~ - - - ~ DTMER;MEvu,ee-"I es1 ,'s ~4eA q~ d LIBRARY 1663 ~ I A ENTRY PLA ® ! 9 ~ - - - - TOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL Sf 38887 U I ~ I aoaaccess H $ I J ~ } ~ •M•- TOTpI BUILDING FLOOR AREA 80887 Q I ~ ~ ~1_ ~ W I e>GrcLe Luc • ~ . t =~,t I ~ I I II r"e~oc.rio" 1 ~ i Q I ~ u~ I ~ L ~r~ ouw ~ ~ I O EXISTING LIBRARY ' I ~ Iwlww i J iw I 1 I -BOIC1fIAd~- L. ~ ' - - I - - - - - I LL I DATE: 13 SEPT07 - ~ - EAST BUILDING BASEMENT ~ ~ REVISIGHS Q \ 29 JUNE O7 1 0 i [ ,1 a 13SEPT07 ~Exrornuo". ~ 1 1 ~ !M!!'nltt\6 AuT08 x N CEDARAVENUE ~ez~s*INSO"- AUTC6 BIKE PEDESTRIAN 9rRee*r~Rx,r~6 BIKE ~ - ' - - ' ar~cc¢----- - RESIDENTIALFLOOR AREA MAIN LEVEL 2 . a.3 - I ' 0.3 JOB' WASH VILL TOTAL SITE AREA 130,710 SF . ~ PROP09E0 RF4P IONE 88,&73 SF PROD09ED AL•1 TONE 41,077 SF I FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS Realdantlel (Floor eras hoe been measured to the outalde of exbdor keminq, ar outside eudaee of exledor wells in cease wAh no exudor lnminq) A R C H I T E C T U R E PLANNING M RN•120NE INTEAIOR DESIGN BROADWAY BUILDING i FiASTFLOOR z4z4 BECOVD Fl00R 7¢9e TH1R0 FLOOR TOTAL 2518 7008 FOLSOM STREET NORTH BUILDING ® BOULDER, co Bo30/ PHONE 303-441-6904 FIRAT FLDOR 8'4C fqX. 303-414-6160 9ECIX~0 FLOOR 6678 14 ~ k - - ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ . B F AeTSUoIoLDINGS TOTAL cA1P 11715 I', 6'0" BABEMENT 7R6 ~ ~ - LIVING dOOM ¢484 c w > 9ECOK0 FLOOR 6e49 'pm, .sea,,, TOTAL 2794 W I 4~~ a~ I ~ ~a~, cw~ rlwo'dr ~ o " r1~u - scNOa9uu.mNa ~ I( ~ ® _ ~ FiRSTFLOOR zen - _ _ _ _ _ _ esconoFLOOR 4ee~ b II t! TOTAL 71x2 II I m r4 ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ ! N~ i li ~ ~ ~fl, ~ a~1 ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ TOTAL RESIDENTIAL SF 44220 ® ~I ~ W Q ' ~a a n I TOTAL ALLOWABLE ~ ~ - I M Iron ~ RESIDENTIAL SF IN RH•2 II Q Q ~ ~ t~~Ip~~I~µI!I!µ'I~,~!I!~~',~ 88633X.5FARa 44318,5 Z ~J i ~i rii } ~ NORTH BUILDING - ~ ~ ~ ; I W m ~ ~ I,~ L ~ e n I ~ :T ' a FLOORAREACALCULATIONS Non•Realdenllal ~ ~ p ~ ® I. [ I I ~ ! ~ (floor uw hea bwn mwaurod to the outelde of exterior framing, a ~ N I. _ { outelde code a al exterl wdb In e a with no exterior }nmin ~ t J I I _ a ~ ~ ' RH•P TONE T O I ~ < ~ ~ ~ f . ~i _ _ ~ J - - I BROADWAY BUILDING I ~e m * H I ~ _ `H ~ flS r x~OO` o~oo I T oaAnOE ;ee94 gg ~ FIR9'OAOP COMMEACML 964 ~I ~6 ~ ~R I i ~ ~ ~ uv, I x rAL 2e5ee ~i Q II ih ® I + 3 NORTH BUILDING ~ 5 b ~ ~ tl m 4 ~ FIR9'Fi00P 0 ,1 F ^ :Ii tl b b' , 1~ ~"1 6EGONC .DOA C N Vic:- ~ I 9 dl ~ ~ ~ ~,~«a - ~ ~ 's' a i L 1 I I it ~ 69 I ~ I EAST BUILDING , 3~ ana axa k! i it b ~ ~ m,a, 'i FweTF,ooR c A f~ ! ~ ~ - - ~ ® 1 ~ eecorvo F~ooA c i n ~ ~ I ~ 8 ~ ~ II R i I I ~ ~ y 9CHDOL BUILDING i n f~ ~ 4 ~n - ~ - _ J ~ g~- BASEMENT FIRBi R00R 1V t 8 ip y-~ y I COMMUN~TY BP4CE Il/61 ¢Ael VJ ~.1 ~ N e ~tl ~ Y~ fe f_ 9U~11" ~ i.~.3~e- BO 17 + M~2_ 761 1179 1927 O ^ - - ~ see ~ OFFICE X24! I ® j ~ - ~ ~ } {j , O1HE91MECH~B0.TM) G61 413 I3EY ~ e i I ~I' - fd';' x416 I LL tit ~ },r I LIBRAPY 1533 ~ W a9 0~ e' III I ~ ® ~u=~; -,pro _ I ~J ~II _ _ _ ' ~ a~ 4-- 1 TOTAL NON•RESIDENTUIL SF 38687 J ~ I 91 I ~ Q (r ra+.i' HI9TOAIC aCH OL ~ i ~o~ 1 U D 6'.5 u .iP 2R-B' no 1 ~ a« TOTAL BUILDING FLOORAREA 80887 ~ Q ~ I t LLI ~ ~'s I ISO BWAY FLOOR AREA PLAN THIRD LEVEL 3 IF, ~ at I f r ~ ~I Q as i ~ I ~ 0 .:I~ I ~--I I ~ W I~ N I e ,.•,o.,,. ~ ~ a,„~ ~ ~ LL r., I I._~_. ~ ~ I , ~ I j:F DATE: 13,IEPT07 _ - i---- II 1 , , ~ i REVI910NS ' 28 JUNE 07 Q1 . 13SEPT07 © 11 RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA PLAN SECOND LEVEL n EAST BLDG PLAN SECOND LEVEL n I c r •2B 4 L : .zo 0.4 JOB: WASH VILL li r ~ ARCHITECipRE I ~I DLANNING 6 eG ~ INTERI00. DE9WN IL E 1]r ITT e~°3 ~ ~ GII ~I G'Y ~ C11 ~ LIY G•.~ G!r G'~r I G70 WI ~ G77 Lan p. ~ AHWIO r AI ~ - O ~ ~ (J ~ ]EARI I ~ "~p~Jti~II~ 110 q4 'r'~ I rAHILVnL07 11 Y ' 3008 fOl80M Si0.EEi . BOUT OER. CO 80304 I, VHONF 303dU~6909 nxa, fh%307~444~6160 In PARKING GARAGE ~ , a ' o o p p In w1 111 I' ~ n1 ~ 1.. ae a+ 1]7 171 'I 1]4 w1 n. Ir w~ ~ ii I 1.... +L.o•. .u.e i ,morn, ~ .xw1o ' ~ ~ ru nelu i ' rAHllr LOT I, Cr i h }`Q6 F i i W I ~ I .~.q",er IIa NI ~ ~ i I n i • 'i ~I Z J ~ O ~ ~ ~ O ~ = U Y ' Ea. W _..i ~l~ .4„~~~ ~ AIIlRA10 ~ ~ ~ m .u1"IL1 I, f ~ F ~ rAYnLr LoT m I ..ii=.. ' WWW , r m I orrol i a ~~I Iron - 3 na i i IU rn7e i, uncl Iuualxr 11+ .oww°.w •w wa..~: w i AIIWIO Ilron. lcA11 VjjOp rle IiNIN I aaol , rAMLV Lpr ' ' HISTORIC SCHOOL Guurr W ~ ' i ' . wwlun , un IGIV11 1LLY row wgRwar ~ o~~'"~". NI •N„. i Y If...E71 ~ I i.• `.•.7G.T.vwe Z •V O1a.pw - ~ HIUHIO W ~trr{{ i~ i IAC ]GAM L. w~a"' ~ /IM1 NNOLI 11I . ~ ~ rAH.rLOT i N I GMM m I 1 m I __.T.-..---. Z VFJ .ia~m a, t W .Y. LIBRARY G!• I a L... ......._14] w Y MWHIp ~ fGR1 ~ /41MIM1 141 y rIR MrIL1 I rAwRLr.o- ~0.TE. 199EPT 07 • ! 199EPf 07 V IfD' vW~llllli. - I ~wE.., W~~1~ - BASEMENTIGARAGE PLAN ~ II AL ~.o 1.0 U ~a9 wAaHmu „ it ~ r - ' ~ i :6 ~'r ~ I ARCHIIECTOAE ~e t!"-~R PLANNING 8 T' INTFAIOR DESIGN iNllAp IgR1C1 i ilAR1p tglletl ~ NAB 1~}U,M IM~IiIAy MAC M.111IR _ , e ~ ~ r ~ ~ I i. ~ _ r olxreeo oplelo ouuelo oex~eeo ~j X00 G9? I ~ ~ 3008 ~O15OM SiRFEi I - - _ ~ BOUlOER, CO 8030/ ~ ~ PHONE 303-4446904 wxa ~ fAX 703-494-61d0 wap . arxn e'' .ure+o_ ~ i K IMx/ WIM I~ ~ I(rlil q~ 1 prole.., n ~ T ~ f I 1 , prtwv wpr Mpv wp, I I fie, I GU _ Nr Jf~R~ IiaPY ItF I li e ~ ~ ~ NORTH9UI DNO ~ 1 ..E - r . - - ~ J , i ~ w p F ' dArQl ~ I I ~ _ 1 I ~ "Y~3re in I i m ~ ~ y~y ~ :~r ;•~h~ ~ ~ ' 1 ~ V ~ Q h~"'~~ ~ ~ - 1~ ~ i pxina cAnroer ~ ~ W I ~r=7'-ld. 61 p e ~ n i. ~ ~ ~ R-- yy r~ ''i i ~1 . ~ ~ j gRexe J 1 n.. C 1 ~I GBPOnt - ~Q:~ 3 ~ i. 3~ ~ _ ~~~I u,wn ~ ` anPOl I ~ ~ ~ 1~rt4TJN utCMlx f ~ i ~ pNNO I ~ ~r ~ - ILA ~ ii, .F.,- ~ I mrawttwcl ~ 1 ~ ~ ^ HI TORIC SCH00 ~ Mme ^+~I; ~ i ~i iRMx T ~ M4~+ , MCxpY CeFI ~ lL ~ I f pfCXIN ~ I ~ LL' ~ all,pl ~ ~ ? ~ I J r - ~ I . ~ r, i w x ~ SEC ~ ~ +i4r. ~ I ~L~ ' pMixp CRRPMi V/ i; ~ ~ giaex, ? i- - ~ ~ r < _ ~ ~a ~ ~ ,r i I f ~ 1 pxpo~ 1 lP~r II dV , ~ ' iii ~ ~ ~~i ' I ~ _ LI~RY i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I i _ ~1~, i~ ~ , I W ~ ~ Y ~ ~ ~ / ~i ~~yy'' ~~.r~~ . • ~ lid ~ 1!C ~y~~ i ~ ~ ~ DATE. 13 SEPT 07 ''~r5) 4 4.~, I{~L:.. i,~ REVI51ONS _ _ ~ 735EP707 i„ r ~ i ~ L--- _ ~ _ _ _ _ - I - - - - ~ - .,0 E F F _._-___T_. 4 D 9 1 FIRST LEVEL PLANS 1 l1 JOB. WASH VILL ARCHITECTURE ,~'i ~ ~ PLANNING d ~ INTERIOR DESIGN otcX oecX oecX o1cX ' evtaaoN R1 i C¦Q owx ~ IenapONn ~ E . _ NMtt1 NAItta MMYlR NMRta _ Ea Mn~nY BWL IX/ 0Ig100M IIOa00N GINI Olxl IIMnnM m e1o etc ew _ _ _ _ _ k _ _ I _ 3008 FOLBOM S1REEi F ~ R1~ ~ BOUI DER, CO 80304 v~ ~ PwONE. 303-4N-6904 ~ i ~ ~ © uxxo wll I FAX'. 703~/44~6160 I ' uNxn p~+wo olXUbt pxwn olxup uxxo uxxc uxxo ' Llnxo S ~ ~ ~ Ci 1 FNiAY IXAY lMRY giRY ' CCE~iii tc Imx ax ircx ' ~ aY ~ ~ ~ BU LDING~ Lp'„~„ ~ .w ~ II ;~,~u NOATH I W 9g x.......... _ i..:...~~.. € I r~ - ii I i, d I ~ ~ I' I, ® r ~ 0 ~ yy _ ~ _ uvun ~ ~ ~I ! ~ I ~IQJ 4 O Q ~ ~i I ~ I ?xxn ~ ~~R' U •'a f0 r V ~ ~ k i J ® Z~~ ~'I - o ~ ' LaMG i NxNE. NbN LINIp III NI r Ny ~ I~~ pXINn RwINO' I e AIiCNIM ' X ) arcc IN l :1 . I i ® ® L_ 'I l ....,r xa1nn Hama ,I; i - ~.xrouLw a w i; „ ~ IIDRnnM IWanOY ~ ° I . ,1 ~ HIC S nMWX11YIPan „,.l... . _ .,.•7 ri I _ i c~otto~ ~ ~ ~ ' p /I~a00N LINNn ~ ~I1Cx1N I XIRIp' W1BRR n._.,.' co m~i.an ~ NpxC I, RNOY Dw1M ttWip ~ ~ W J 0 NuM NNNn O U I W f~ ~,r ~ I~ GI. r~~ Z 'i ; u12' unXO g ~h• ~ I I I i f~"I ~ } w I n 1 Y !ro I ~ ~ - Llxxa l.~, I I DATE: 18 SEPT 07 133EPf 01 I SECOND LEVEL PLANS ~ L 1- 12 - U 112 I~ JOB. WASH VILL I I e~ ARCHIIECIURE ~~h PLANNING 6 I~ M„~ ~ INTERIOR DESIGN L r i ~ ~ ~ ~ ri~ 3ouio a~~o aoR3oa ` ! iMONE 303-a1P.6904 P 4" ~ ~ FAA. 303~414~6160 a~ i@ ~ ~ ~ ~ @@p I I I ORTH B L IN ' UI D G 1 T -S ! I @@I ~ M1libw I NtA00!I RUAe! _ 1 ! a@~ ~ ~ r , ~ , W Y, , i o @i - _ _ ~ ~ ~1~~ - ~,j.~ JAI Q ! ~ ' p ~I i z ~ eeoeaae I ~ O i@ M„ M I n • ewnooM ~ ` m ~ noppoM ~ ~ ~ Q ~I ' y m 'h ~ @ _ : ~ ~ li ~ ~ ~ 0 a ~ - , Zi 4 ao ~ @~ O~!~U 6 Q 1 - ~ ~ ewno~a~M ~ eono~n ~ ~ ~ ~ C) I m m ~ ~ ~ V' 1i z{~ ~ ICI ~ I N ® Meoeaax I y r ~ ~ Q @@' ~ I'I @i I' @@? ~ r m ~@ _ ~ Z r O i m "1 ' MP RP 1 I' BwA0G1! , 9!M M T 1 00 @ 5 e@7 ~ @ : , ~ - C., ~ t ~ i ~ eul pmoaM ~ @' I ~ ~ ! IROGM ~ ; I ~@ i@ !oM e aae i , ~ L__.~ ~ i i i I ~ . I / r~ i ~ ~ Mean i, t': . . , ,HISTORIC \ 3CAif6C ~@' ~@ I ! ~ ROOF PLAN BROAD 3 ~ { , 1.3 e ' I` 4' i eeew>a! , • 1 '~Y:: e ~ lwaaae.. , ; . a@ @p F ~ I 3@ @@ i I ~ J n i lLl ae~oaoa~ eeoeooM e:w ~ @ J E7 a U i ZL. QTY-; ~ I m m 46 ~ ~ eeoeopM k F ~ Q 7 F> Z I w 7~11~1, ~ eeono~M ~ eweotlM R,F.' ~'.i ~i r a _ } ~ nonoax ~ @~ ~ Wma ~I ~@ ~¢@ ~ ewnooM i 1 r PATE: 139EPT 01 _ _ _ } ~ - =~'_r.... , 1 ` 'r . ~ AEVI310NS 13 SEPT P7 i { THIRDLEVEL PLANS 2 ROOF PLAN EAST t c ~ 1ne•, 1.3 A. .o t3 ~ - 1.3 da3 wn3HVlu I A ~ ARCHITECTURE PLANNING b INTERIOR DESIGN t ~ ' 3008 fOLSOM STREET BOUIDEA, CO B030a ' OHONE~. 303~141~6904 ~ i i I fA% 303-494-61 d0 _ I,,, i, I I I I ~ ~ -'I I ' OFFICE OFFICE I' - ~ ~ i ~I 'I ! - J i I 1 i' KITCHEN DINING SITTING RM. ~ STORAGE STORAGE W Z ~ I ~ I F "11 ~ D ~ FFICE Q ~ i _ J j o - m LAUNDRY V ~ MEDITATION OFFICE ~ O I Q O i ~ i WOMEN MFN _ ~ O O~ O U W V ~ N II 9 J 4 T , N I n- VIA ® I - - - i RAMP COMMUNITY SPACE CHAWL = M_M m RAMP ( I' Li. ~ i ~ SPACE) i N O ,^~m,~ I ' OFFICE i, J J o a o c \ 3 V BAR v ~ ~I ELEV0.T0~ ' KIDS ~ eniNR ~dECH VAULT ~ I _ ^ .T. ~ _ _ _ RM. AIL ~ ` - ciaeer ~ ~ GALLERY `emu ~ ~ J ~ eee oa.rona AE.'. row J - `KITCHEN ee o~.niw ~e, ~ roa ~~eoenwa~r~oa. i KITCHEN" - MASTER ~ PwoR. Pwo . MASTER jr ccxn~uow euoe. ii BEDROOM ~ BEDROOM ENTRY 'ENTRY ' W WORKSHOP N ARTS 8 CRAFTS TEEN ROOM WORKSHOP ~ ' CLO&T H1 iJ `'1 I 11 i wm _ _ wm ~ ii. ~ ~ ! III a Z DINING i OININQ I IiRruoY ~ ~ Etuor I LIVING I ' LIVING ~ J I a ~.WRfiPLACE FIRlPLACV - o a o ~ o eons Q ' ~ i m BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN T J BATN ~ ~ ~ ENTRY SL7iE~JS ~ a v % ~ ~ ~ V Q i Z l r l I OFF CF ~ ~ to ~I I DATE'. 178EPT 07 ~ I I II REVI810N8 I CDMMON I I I MULTI-PURPOSE - - - - - - - - - - ~II~ _ FIRST fL00R PLAN z o~~s J08, WASH YILL~ I G%IlT1H6ANNALT I ~ , 6TVUL(Tr11 SNINdLC 8001 ii NRlT.V.Op, % T.O.%. LIVING f `"I i' i (.KING / i- i' I I aewwaoo ARCHITECTURE ~~I ;I I FlRd^..aoR c~ I ~ ! I~~~~wINDOwd PLANNING 8 II ~ _ - DINING DINING.,,. lm~1.LO, ~ i i INTERIOR DESIGN I b KITCHEN _ F_ ~!iI ~ ` KITCHEN G*ISn~;d seicK ~ 3D08 FOl50M SiREEr BOU(CER, CO R0304 ' PNDNE~ 303~Aa~-6904 WID ~ ~ W/C fAA, 3C 3-644-01 b0 MASTER ,MASTER BEDROOM ERTAV ENTRT ~ BEDRGDM WEST ELEVATION s `I~ lArN, aArR R S$ ~ E / ~_CLOlET ( '`-J Z -I T Gxle INdAllNnv g 9NMdLG 8001 bi Q OMMUNITYSPAC - J CLClEi lTULCA W ' W McAnR I STORAGE STORAGE I 1uel~ee, ' . J > TA.W. J I NIw A.~MINLLM O CLOSET' BATM GAT ruNOOw! O MABiER a I , ~ 0 O BA1N / ~ WN ~ C%S+In'69RIL'c O` = W ( ~ ' MASTER ENTRY ~ ~ w,rxwo,ll I. ~ I I ! ! r V ~ _ l~a.ddR ! IJ,f BEDROOM ITCHEN KITCHE BEDROOM ~ ~ ~ y r ~ ~-.I N ~ m H4 _ ~ I L~ LNING ~ ~ ~ L ~ t,; IAININQ " DININa NORTH ELEVATION a ; N L. _ STUDY I _ LIVING -5 FlREPUC6 FIREPLACE j I I I I 4i !%IBiNi6 AlRNALT !«IN/LG 8001 ~ ~ NM!•/LOOK ' • TAw_ ~ UJJ_/ II I ~T- ~T~- - ~ - _ BTULLO L O II~ •I~ ~ /g~~ ' i I !%IlTINd DRiLK LL Q • i., I lYF1LOOR y,__ __I-_._- _ _ _ ~I I ~ (rJ ~I lxl8^a6 nlix.9fAQ5 ~ Q ;y a 1 ~k ~ I I Ir ~ x~~ I 'ui Ir I ~ ` I ~ ~ ~ EAST ELEVATION s I z 07 TOWER ~I SITTING G f I ~ ROOM , I ti Q ~ I I ip~ I z I '•II I ' U0 I I,, ~ r.:.~~~h, I ewarlNd Al+MALT 6«IN6Le ROO1 ~ DATE', 178EPT 07 RE41810N8 TOWER FLOOR PLAN z SECOND_ FLOOR PLAN ~ ~ r,•t1L00ri-~---- - - b ~ r~ !x!siIN6 w000 - E ICI; WNDOwO I I" Iii'" FlRlT IM100, we-1LOOR 1 ~ A2 2 SOUTH ELEVATION a ~'C I ~ JOB: WASH VILL I'. roWER ro ee Re- 'I LONSTRiG.*ED TOWER TO BE RELONSTRULTED I I I~ PEND'Nb bMNr i PENDMe bMNT APPLILATbN APPLILATiON ARCHITECTURE ' ~ ' aLANNING 3 I i i ' I EKI5TIN6 ASPHALT ' swNbLEROOr INTERIOR DESIGN lN~yTIN6 WINDOWS REMOVED, INPILL TO MATLN E%9T6 eRLK. ~ ' !%1971N6 A9PNALr ' ' ' 1 SNwbLE ROOP ' - I I n000PRAM I ~ I- i, I eD00R6 nrtN I w00DPMME pDDRy WITH NewLI4reLSrose rMN9oMTOREPLACe ~ ! G ~ rMNSOMroRGPUCe PlSGAyi LONG SIMILAR - ~ -I~~IxISTINb STONE Cx15TIN6 wINpOw, I I I E%ISfINbriINDOw. 3008 IO150M STREET TO GxST'6 UN1eL5 u.N,0, I ''I~ITeLy I ~ BOULDER, CO 80304 I _ ' - p 6LA55 RAIUN6~56'MIN ABV I' ~ PHONE: 303/44-6904 ~ FINISNVecKeLevhrloNrrrPi I ~ I Exi5T 485 MArLN E%I5PN6 r INT L9 TONE FA%.307 444 6160 I L n WMDOW9 BGLOw OP OP GlILINO •pP OP GULINb _ _ PMNnNb _ _ _ _ _ __y______ PRAMINb ~ .A______ _ _ . MATCH ex 9'IN6 ~Pr~T 1 wINDOW6P NORT ~r I I I., ~ I. 1 I*~FI "°~m' I u li I RlPLALl E%15TIN6 I _ WINDOW WI*N I., I I I M I~ I I I DooRANprMNSOM I I ~ ~ u I s -I ~ ~ ' III f III' I~ I I' I I ~ ~ ~ I V 1111 wooprRAMenINDOws - L ~ blco4aPLOOR ~ - - • . t I rY I ! I-• ylG6U0 PLOD I f y~(INB10N I.j_ DDPLAGE S%1971N6 I I ~ ~ I 6 pOOR ~ BEM ~ - JBLE pDORS I Q LMTEX9iINb BRIOLKxT P~ I 1 f I~ 11~ II : I1. t REPLACE E%S~R P ~ • f ~ ~ I ~ ~ Re~ II A n MTL r. ~'I ' ~ I i~~ W/WDW TO MATLN V I~• ~rMME - J I 4 I De, KI CARDRAIL I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II ~ ! ~ III I , I. i N I I I s'r~~ ~ I II ~ ~ ~ ~I i i i I~ 1~ I_ I!~ ~ I s_ ^I ~ W Q , _~4 f L.... ~ ..._u~ -'r=----° - - --.c A, Sm PLOORR ~eus•PLOOR ^ ~ ' I ~ I~ l~l ~ 15 ~ Q O ~ > I II Z y II ` I fRN NDOW FRAME LINK~yi r^~'' i ~ w/WDWEOMA GDOOR ' ~ ~ L_~-~..'~~ -J, ~ _ ~ ~~I ~ ~ O~ QD OV eD1TY, _ W BLD~p I I- ~ ~ Nw LINK TO PROPObGD ~ T. D eROADwAreuILDINb I RCCN Z T ' VAllLT _ - I PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION_® PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION ~ ~t, I Z ,j LO i Q O BE RELOk5TRULTED rone~* I roneRroBeReco4sraucreD J - I PGNDINbbMNT APPLILATION Pe4DINb bRhNT APPIIGATIpN ~ 'I I W I I I I I I 'I E%ISTIN6 A9PXAlT E%19TIN6 AEPNALT ' ~ ~ SNINbLE ROOF NEW LINTeL5 f0 BG 4NIN5Ll ROOP O I T-..T. li PRELA57 LONL SIMILAR NEW DOORS ~ 'I ~ 70 Ex5T6 LIN'EL9 J.N.O. T I i y IV I _ I I MATLM Ex15TIN6570NE ' //1 I TO ExI5TIN6 LMTELy V J WINDOwy BSLOn / ~ V I 1 I i - GX19T1N6 BRRiK I I MATLN Ex15TIN6 (TYP) I I - WINDOWS ~ hOR,N TOP OP G11uNb INy TN OP G11L ~ O I_____ _ _ _ _ PRAMINb AMINO TMNBOM TO REPLACE ~ i ~ _ Aa~i, I ~ I ENI9~g SrDNe ~ I,~ ~ nom,. f' I, I...... x~ F I G%I'DOOR ExIbTINb T ~ I 1 -i I I i~~ ReLOCAre ~L Ex5T6 DOOM1 "~~11 j ,AND I I L?. .m-..~ ~q i IJI I. ~ ~ I ~ /IOOD PRAMG WINDOW6 J i I ~.I I I,.~ 1{{ ~ ' ~~I MA%IMI2E bLA21N6 I II I ,i~-1 I I .....................I WHEW PRELA57 GONG ~ P I _i:®..»~f. ~I i ~~I, .~)~i I:~ II .I.-.:. uNreLSIMILARroexsr's yeeonD Loon SATE T39EPT07 New MrL PRAMe I DecK46JARVMIL I h I, r I ~ - - ~ II Newe,u-vooR ylGOwvPLOOR 1'. I , ~ . - Ii... _ - - r t - - -----------•ws•PLOOR REVISIONS Q y _ EKI5rIN6 BRICK r 31 I-~ I ; I i i p=R. I, NEW •VBI.,L .L;. '~`Y~ I,, ~ I I~ - - - I., , (TYPI I i" ~ 1 J I i ~ ~ I I I i I P I ~ ~ R M P c EN*RY roRLN I f ' I;~ ~ r ~ I 6 ~ I I L I ~.1 I ~ o I ~ i ~ ~ EPLALE TL RAME ~I I ' I I I ~ I % .lz I' II WINDOWS ' I~ I ~ I I ~ I~ I I I ~~I- I,- I, eu~rLOORR il'~~i ~I~ 'i ~ ~ '°~A.®j C II~ " I ~._....I ~rlRyraooR ~ - I I ~ 1 ~ I~ - ~ ~ I~, k~ f ~ ~ r ~11 I Nlw PJBUG CNTRYPORGN PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 3 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION z A , , e. . J09 A~"!e nn~eA~ eAwox. nsove , a.+,.l on~eeove~ - eey oon~ ' I I y ~ ARCHITECTURE PLANNING & I I INTERIOR DESIGN II Ii, II py I I ~ 3000 FOLSOM S1RFEi I 4 II BOULDER, CO 86304 ' - - ~ PHOrv E. 303~4~4-6904 I Fh%~, 303~444~6160 I V LIVING I ~ ~ LIVING LIVING I, ~ LIVING I ~ ~ W I I ' - BEDROOM, IW BEDROOM I~ - m .BEDROOM ~ ~ BEDROOM J Z ~ 0 ~ ~0 D i ~ oWo n _ ~ _ I > ~ I KITCHEN I ~ KITCHEN I ~ KI`~CHEN I KITCHEN ~ Q Q l 9 - L- ~ ~ ~ 0 Q O IJJ 1 ~ - I ~ //r~~ 3'VW I II ~ n V en. I~ ~ R Z a N ~ o, _ sa ~ I g~ ~ _ ~ m I g N ~ o ~ N oC i ~ ~I I I ~ Ili FIRST FLOOR PLAN ~ I 3 I I ~ a~~3~ r i.a, ii I, ~~II ~ n.au*ee.eovs ~ .res.eove I-~'--- I I I I ~ I _ - ,~---~--~-~~-~-q . •ew..eove-y I . ~ '.~.~r~~ ~ I ~ ~I I~ ~ ~ ' w I N ~ ~ I Al Ui ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~,(ti- p ~ N N N N N P ' lti (ti P ro Q ~ P 1~ a a m ~ U IA A N ~ Q ~ i I ~ , ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ Z g 9.8 TYP ~ • 'TYP ~ ~J~.AA ~ ZiCD Z A W (~=A I Illroror ;~°~o ~ zo QO II RAMr uz~i ~~Pm I'I II~ ~ ~ G m 1. ~%SLOrG IN Thilb ARGA ONLY ~ ~ Q ~zz ~ J V"~ym 60TTOMOr D~Ay ~ I Ili; ~ RAMr roowN u ~ o II Q ~ I N ~~-a~, ~ m s s ~ 0 I 111 I ~DZ~ m lr~ 'I mNNm I CALL .-r ~ - , - a , a F-. _ , I ~ , q , p p ' elcrae ' oarE. e, Mav oT ~ ' ~ RAGKO ' ~ THIB ~ REVI810NB Q L _ ~ _ - - - - - - , s,~o~.eo°',~- - - - - - - - p LocATION I - 'w I -A 1 ~ <r ~ !4 N ~ I '~M' _z ~ ~ N I; N~ I ~,@ ;a t.~ t S ~ k i ~ 1 r . u. - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ r - . a.r. aove - . _ - - ~........r..-..-.a... - I r I I J ~ ~ _ I ~ A3.1 A ~I ' 1 I JOB. WASH VILL GARAGE PLAN 1 ,z ~ i 1 ~ ~ - ~ ~I I I~JQI, PLANTER BLW RLANTCR BLW '~i # I'~~tl ~I 'a.~ ~BW - L J 4 ll~ ~ ~ 1~1401~ I ~ 7Fp I 7K iA/' ~ f 11 VI~lEk'~~~ ~ ~ f" i € DICK BLW eiw DECK DECK DECK II DECK DecK o~ ~ DECK aecNITECTURE FLAT ~i a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ' PLANNING 6 ROOF ~ ~ A i ~ / ~ INTERIOR DESIGN - IJ ~ \ _ _ 1SITTINO MASTER STUDY ~ MASTER $ITTING~ I' ROpM BEDROOM P DECK soon vo~soM sraEET BEDROOM R00M, Bou~DeR, co aoso~ DECK ~ \ MASTER MASTER B W oeoN¢ aos ~a~-evoa BEDROOM BEDROOM ; rax.sas 44s~aiao - ~ ~ _ i LLL~~~ ~ c - ~ ~ _ - DECK - - _ _ ~ ~ - v _ ~ W I .a Fur / o - •-1 ROOF • / ~ 'J ~ ~ ~ V DECK ~ Q BLw i L J Z ~ ~ ~ FLAT .J ~ O ~I ROOF FLAT ROOF ~ J W Q ~i ';I ROOF _ A ~I ~ I ' ' I Q ~ 1,' p ,•Ir~ ' M J FLATS D. W , ~ ROOF ~ ~ ~ ~ Q O i p~o~ is I' w I I ~ a ' ~ y FLAT ~ ~ ~ ~ FLAT { ~ ~ IP : ~ FLAT Ip / ~ .I k = ROOF ~ ROOF ~ 1 ry ~ ROOF R OF ~ ~ ~ W ,~i,•,u. BLW ~ ~ BLW 4~ ~I~ BLW ~ ~Q , 0 a .n Z Q - 0 -----I-- ROOF = O m ELW ¢ (n iMMi y, W I~' ~ THIRD FLOOR PLAN z 3 II; _1 ---r---, - - - - DECK ~ ~ ~ - _ DECK ~ ~ DECD w ~ I i ~ DECK ; 0 " ~'F I L/ BEDROOM i I BEDROOM w DEC( I ~ MASTER, III ~~ECK D I M1 ' DECK a~ Q LIVING BEDROOM a. BEDROOM BEDROOM I MASTER c~ N1 M1 _ _ - _ - _ - _ ~ BEDROOM i 0 ~ ~ - - - - - ~ ~ ~ LIVING Z I 0 ~ - ~ ~ - wrn to _ ~ uwNC uvlHa ~ ~ Z i W ~ LIVING i ~ LIVING ~ / _ i ~ a L------ I $IN Nr _ ~ DINING _ ~ DINING C, ~ m O ~ ~ ~ I l~ ~ r "DINING ~ ~ DINING r - ~ COM. COM. ~ ~ ~I O i - T R Q 9 OR. STO ~ i i i ~ BEDROOM M2 c KITCHEN KITCHEN , ~ h Q ~ - ~ o r~ COM. ~ ~ COM, h. CKTRY _T ~ aroR. KITCHEN ~ KITCHEN ~ CDR' BEDR00 ~ TCHE m ~ (ITCH EXTERIOR ~ L- WALKWAY ti W TjxWAy L~~ DATE'. 2~ MAY 07 -y _J ' ~ ~ CXTERIOR ~'i REVISIONS a WAU(WAY -TrT r- ~ ~ i ~ g„ u ~ SECOND FLOOR PLAN ~ 'I - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A3.2 ,+g I. JOB WA5H VILL '4 ~ z .e.ww a ~~C~~,'~~i~K i ~ e~iL~:. ~ al~~~ ~ Jh °,~A~ i "11~~h~i7i I ~Ip n~j~iM3~iti f. , ITT i~41~Y'li ~NII 1, ~r,y"~.: 1 d ~ _________________________________t...._.__..._.______..___---____________. ~aer.e. r.. .ewn.«n• ~ .exnx . , , . - ~ nuccema eueee _ I~ ~ ~ I ~ I~ 'll i I I'i,' i(~ _ ..o II I~I~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~aa~ i~„J~_„jli I ~il~ • i ~ ~ i i I m _ - © ~ I I' rt _ ARCH TEC U E I T 0. I. ' I ~ ~ ~ PLANNING d IIIi ~ ~ I i ~ ~'Jy ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~1 ~ ' ~ ~ r ~ ~ I I ~ INTERIOR DESIGN r I~ ~ ii I I ~ I I ~ ~ :E a{i I I r 9 ~i jry r'-4 I 1 ~~I I G ~ f I ~ C' ~ ~ f ~ k j I Imo; ~ ~ ~ tll ~,a,. ~ yi---------- ~ - S; I this i _ d~^NR - I--•----- - -1--•- ..............L................... - - - --a-- _ ~ 3008 fOlEOH SfNEEi ii-7=1 ROUIDER, CO 30301 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i GHONE 303-/e66904 ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ n e FAX. 303-444~C 160 j I - - i 1 ;~.__aE ~ F~ ~a ~ .I L: ~ , ~e. . - u ...o a ~ ~ i - - ! I ~ ~I ..r W ann a+rtr ' ~ _ , /`I/~ Q WEST ELEVATIO N , J 0 J o - w¢ wo..w.. k.e~ li til~~°" yT ro~ilpl~ psi igl~nrT;alxrili~~~~.~..,h h k~. ~T~ll1 illt',`wOr 4s"IP'IRI h~iJ~ii~li P~~Pf.,~l; ! e~m.~ ~ Q~ i 3" ~ I 14 ia, iGdi . M it uua ~ I ~ 0 u I d I', M,w..~.LL O U ~ .,~.a.. ~ I 1 ~ ~ w i ¦ ~I e~, N I i Ir~ ~ II ,h, __-.~C~', -1 ~r I I I I I - ~ I 'I I ~ I V/' m 1) I 1 ~ ~ I ~ ~ I 'I ~ ~ I I ~ ° . _ ...~w 3 _ -----r--------- S x I ~ ~ A7 a ~ I II ~ ~ ~ ~ i I I I ~ I' i ~ ~~il: {I I~i g i I 'I ~I ~I li.;. II' ~g\ i I ~ II hl wr I ti I ~i o - ~ i _ ~ .1i ~ ~ .•we Z NN I O N~CM f ~ ~ P4Ri!fv0 I Q VAm ~ ~I J W I i EAST ELEVATION z ~ ~ L: , . I Z D ~.e~~, , ~ w"`"~^~^ ~ m } ~ r+~I~f 3'+ app. r, e~ee.fe ~-I` I~ .iei~.~ 1 I 4 eann Q ' ~ ~ '.I a.:.".•.~.» .eo.wwrY ~,o.'.'M«+°~°w'l L_. r r' r--, ~ I y ~nuo ~ O w.ece~.,~ 1 na.eaM ..o., w...e. _ _ . . DATE: to 9EPT 07 .uexru i~~_ _ ~ ~ y'. Y ~ 7 I~'~I ~ ~ i_F~ ~I, `J REVISIONS Q _i.. = - w;woee. ~ ew.....o. - .o,. - ~ ....I-:._.. 2A JUNE 07 'i i ~ a.,r,4 ~ ~ © t - - 13 SEFf 07 ,~J 1.1 ~ I ~ , hoeerni uerc ro I .I, 1 ii - r 1 a i I I ecNOO4'e~oa i, - _ I n,~ ~ - I - - . - - uro ..,w _ , _ .o,. . aw%r. eeo.ee I ~ x w. a I,,_ _ ~ nre. u a , ee, A3,3 I NORTH ELEVATION a SOUTH ELEVATION S JOB: WASH VILL i , ~ ~ . ~ I U _ ~ ~ ZW ~ ARCHITECTURE I;~ ~ \ ~1 I = ~ !i N ~ 1 PLANNING & INTERI00. DESIGN i v ~a ~ ~ ~ 'I ~ t7 ~ w o 'k-r - ~ ~ it ~m - -I dAL~Z•6- G a' a Z 7 5 '-LZ~~, 'L~ l ~ ~ y~ > m 3008 fOL50M STREET ~ i W F 1- C ce ~ - _ N BOULDE&, CO 80304 ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PHONE: 303J40-6904 m ~~I` ~ I, Z ~ t b O fA%. 303 484-di60 I , dAl Z• L I J I Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a I I I O a; a~ / NW ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O < dAl,Z• l dALZ•,6l m ~ im ..............1 -~k i- W W ~ ~ ~ ~ f N n Y ~a ~ I ~ m W U W Wm ~i i ~ ~ n ac ~ ~ , ~ 1.... S LJ ~ g ~ 0 ~ - V I O 0 i Z < I'I - a~;, ~ ~ Z~ I ~ ~ J Z o ~ F I .............o...., ...a:: ; D I ~ I- ~ W ~ a I o n J, ¢ 0 ~Y ~ - - ~ 9 om ~ ~ _ .,III ~ m J - ~ I ~ ~ ~D ~woa ~ ~ I~; s ~ ~ I ~ ~ o _ W i~ I I ~ J ~i ~ ~ IJ~~g 6 ' ~IIN~ $ d 0 ~0 m ~ ~ m Z N J ~ i ~ Q y ~7 - ~ ; ~ -1:7..... . ~ I ~c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F I x~ III ~ ~ ~ ~ W II~ ~ I~, g W Q im '~7W ~ f-.___. w.. ~ o n (W W I~J - ~ y ~ p ~ m ~ N C Cm ~ i ! ~I ~ _ ! .v ~ ~ ~ = L~ ~ ~ to s r ~ ' ~ a p, I II ~ ~ ~ I Q< I I ~Y -`J ~ _ W u~3 II ~ - ~ I ~ ~ ~ - ~ tl Z m ~ Z S - ~ I m Z ~ ~ ' W c - ~uoa ~ ~ I ~ t ~ U ~ Z 0 Z ~ _ U k' ~ w a ~ ~ ' n o ~8 ~8 m (1 W a ~ ~ - ~ n ~ W g ~ ~/~1R1~ I I ~ ~ - ~ _ a v II m ~ 0 II ~I ~ ~ Ci e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~W~1 m.~ ~J ( I ~x z ~ ~I~I ~ ~ j QZ ~ ~ ~ I ~W d U I ~ m i ~ I U? Z Q I Y _ I rte, . I ~ , ~ ~ ....._:.::::a7.... ' p J ~ - - ~ DATE, 2t MAY 07 S~ I I Z i REVISIDNS p ~ ~ 4 I~ ~I _ " ~ I i~ ~ 1 J i. 1~ I I I ~s~ i~ -N---- r II - 'I ~ II ~ I~__- _ I,I ~~I 1 ~ II ~ I I ~ I z. ~ I ~ A4.1 SECOND FLOORtPLAN s FIRST FLOOR PLAN z GARAGE PLAN ~ ~II - ~ JOB, WA6H VILL w.,. - , r r ~ r.rwr ..a.,,.~ r~ r I I .r-~ w,,.,, u.. r,.. ~ c.,.uLr.,~„ wFwwaeyri, Y' km - ;,gLrra~W * r~un~wwYWk'i~A'*+WOkarorlC - _ _ • 1 ~ wry; J ~ I ~ ~.M» ARCHITECTURE I ~ PLANNING 6 I ~ ~`*T II I i ~ I I L i I ~ F I B ~ q INTERIOR DESIGN I i 1 y o I i ~ xwrew..ar 'ACntMaHUw~-. ~ - I uoo _ I I~~~ 'I,_ ~ ~ ~ I 3008 fOISOM S1REE1 I I' I I ' II C E''. ~ ~'I I I BC1U l0EA CO 90301 tl I I;I t1 'I I ?HONE~. 303-111-6004 I li I ~ ~ ~ I I ~I 'I ~I~ '~I . I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ FAM. 303~U4~6160 I i I ! ~ ~'Y~urr' E, I I I I IIILi"iiiV~rrlll ; i 'I ~t II, ~ I ~i 0 I I I t ~ i i I I. f ~ i i ~ G ~ . +n raw . wrnoa I ~ .•,.r. wor unr' f SOUTH ELEVATION i W JI J' o ~ ¢o J ~ o ~ I~ r.rr rr M .a. ~ Z N ~ - ~ = m I, I - - - - - ~ ' ~ Q r, , woeemue uwl ro elroaowar «....r. e~oa I _ _ - M<.•.. i r ~ i ~ I ~ _ ~ I . oa. I) I - - -r ~I Z NORTH ELEVATION z ~ --s~-,-= , . Q W J I W i . ~ . Q, ,~.,e Z i r.r.,. J I ..,~,M I ..r,u I ~ ' .I m .ar..,. I ~r I ....o - I- ~ I I,--~ I I~ p' I I II I. ~~~I 1 I ~ I - ~I . I L Z I ~ lr"-*' ~.~..,e. .-.~»-.,u..., _ - _ a -I--------- ------r- DATE. 199EPf 07 '-~-ruri.°W ~ ~ .«..nw I e ~ REVI910N8 Q ~ ~ ,I I I y I IU ~ 24 JUNE 07 r• ~k t ~ i 138EPT01 . ..a.. ~ ~~-...-a~~~r, .a~.. u.n I 'p'-"'-~'y ~ ~ I ~h FI(YL ~ WEST ELEVATION a EAST ELEVATION 3 A4.2 -~c~T,~ ,roe, wASNVIu 1 ~ f ApCHITECIURE PLANNING b ' INTERIOR DESIGN { M ip i 3008 Ot50 5 EE BOUIDEp, CO B030i oH0eF. 30)~11~~6000 i fh%303~~~Y~61p0 s 'i. i i i' , TRASH _ _ . ~ - ~ W - ~R V _ 4-1 r~±: ~ ~ DINING , ~ CRAWL BEDROOM d : SaacS I ~ 1 h i 7 MA%IMUM ~ ~ O r'~!, a ~ ~(I CHEN ~ HEICeness J p a ~ MASTER ~ ~ 1 E1L I oecK ~ ~ LIVING TNHIgH~ GARAGE ` Z , ~ BEDROOM ~ J ~ ~ ~ Z . O ¢ BEDROOM BEw ~I, ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ D U L m W~ Ji ~ r U Q~ I BEDROOM BEDROOM eew I ~ 'i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z W m ~ _ DECK , d ~ - E28 Q I cRawE E2U WING - SPACS, I CARPORT DINING MA%IMUM - BEDROOM ~ _ - ~ ~EICHness I ~ • rHAN e'•o° KITCHEN 11 HICK ~ ~ I _,~1`~ - ~ r - ~ I _ $ITCHEN sauce . ~ ~ BEDROOM _ - - MA%IMUM HEIGHT LESS DINING rHAN e'•o~ I E2U LIVING HIGH <I CARPORT 0 1 DecK ~ , E28 Z MASTEfl ~ I E2L I k«t<, BEDROOM BEDROOM eEw ~I ~ ~ Q a ~ ; : ~ ~ ~ U) _ _ _ ~ ~ i I ~ N -Z ,~-r•~, ~I I W ---~<i BEDROOM DECK e~w E18 ~ ...i II - Q - ¢ a. MASTER E1U - BEDROOM ~ LIVING DECK E1LI I 1 ~ ~ ~ BEDROOM ,pq; '~~z I~CHEN ~ ~ BASEMENT GARAGE ~ ' ° t. ~ ~ I O N U QW W (A SECOND FLOOR PLAN 3 FIRST FLOORILOFT LEVEL PLAN z BASEMENT PLAN I ~r'~ ~ 5CA~. ^B' 4. . DATE' Yt MAY 07 REVISIONS Q A5.1 aoES wASHVIU II - ~ ~ wa...r 'wr..,waaa....1 w.ow. !.T.., 41.1211. •1 a ~ t ~ I i, 1 ~I ~ ~ c~+n~ nm kN:HIfECIUHi LEI ~ ~ PLANNING 6 _ INTERIOR DESIGN ...mow a•wno E ~ 3008 IOLSOM SiAEE~ u ur raa.u 90U:~EA, C0803C1 r~-1 pYO~O DRONE J03-111-0909 ~ ! I ~ ~ ~ *'•I•~roD~. /Ax 303 ~//4~6160 a x.tylµMlpl An w. IIDJ'114YY.Dr/111 ~UHU4H?OM IN'.11 EAST BUILDING EAST ELEVATION ~ W I~ J w $ > Q~ 0 0 ~0 F- v ~ ~ T ,•.cla~n. ~ j w~ .10.•., 41•AOI It•••l t .w e N ~ . - a W..~ " i 3 d d~ i ~ , - ~ ~ d F I I I _ ~ I I p JT! ,.u ~ry ' ~ N D . _ L~j _ e`______ I 'I _ - - 4 _ I~ n~..w1u . Dri w M14M W~1111 IMIM1,4I.IJM1/1'11 i EAST BUILDING WEST ELEVATION n I I~ O z ~ i c~ z o _ _ - ---•f-----.... I J I•xac r.r;~~y R 110.'.141. 12141•.1 MM::4w A011. w^ l________________________________ 100..1'•1 w+w.~.nw^-•_.. _ ~ ~ ~W1..i 1.w D.014'..I IMD1•Yi 4111211.'!+1 .4w.r.pw•w .n :n oMlm.l~~u ~i ` vM.n.DOnl rn, MIOIIW++.; ~ ~ ~ O ' ..011 1. n ~..1A1 _ ___-~_____~__.I r_____~.~w_~.~______. Dn IUO.'rr ew.rn w..~a roN ~ y ~ ww:-.., 1 GATE 138EPT 07 .D. ~w~ ~ r~viaroNa Q I ' .rr i r .w..D...n+. _ ® i~ .o ,A I°°I I.., Iw .w. I .r.o..~ 29 JUNE 07 Qi ' ~ w•reu•.. w.wwl+• aD..1 .1D. r._... C mss. ~ • 13 SEPf 07 Q , NIDI2nn M.140 .On 'Ib+~W121~1111 !gJ'.141•1_DI. 1111 'W., 1.1•hD1-11"f1 'W+:WI:DI.IIri 01 EAST BUILDING SOUTH ELEVATION a EAST BUILDING NORTH ELEVATION a A5.2 JOB', WASH VILL