Loading...
5A - Site Review for 985 16th St. (LUR2009-00029) CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: August 6, 2009 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of Site Review #LUR2009-00029 for the conversion of a fraternity/rooming house to an 11-unit apartment building, located at 985 16th St., Residential High Density (RH-5). Applicant / Owner: Jim Bray/Richard Putnam REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Planning & Development Services David Driskell, Executive Director of Community Planning Ruth McHeyser, Deputy Director of Community Planning Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner OBJECTIVE: 1. Hear Applicant and Staff presentations 2. Hold Public Hearing 3. Planning Board discussion: • Does the proposed application comply with the Site Review criteria found in subsection 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981? 4. Planning Board action to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application STATISTIC'S: Proposal: Site Review #LUR2009-00029 for the renovation, expansion and conversion of an existing fraternity/rooming house to an 11-unit apartment building with a mix of three- and four- bedroom units, includes an approximately 2,286 square foot addition and a 50 parking reduction. The property is located across Broadway from the CU campus. Location: 985 16th St. Size of Parcel: 18,816 square feet (0.43 acres) Zoning: Residential High Density (RH-5) Comprehensive Plan: High Density Residential (HR) AGENDA ITEM 5A Page# 1 KEY ISSUE: 1) Does the proposed application comply with the Site Review criteria found in subsection 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981? BACKGROUND: Process. The application was approved as a staff level disposition and Planning Board did not vote to call-up that decision at the July 9, 2009 Planning Board. However, a near-by apartment building owner appealed the decision to the Planning Board on July 13, 2009 via email, provided in Attachment D. Site Context. Consistent with the High Density Residential zoning and land use, the surrounding site context is varied and, in general, there are higher density sorority and fraternity houses along with apartments to the north and south of the site, with single family homes and duplexes to the west. High Density Residential north and south, along with University Hill elementary school to the east, the St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic Center to the west, and the University of Colorado main campus across Broadway. Low and Medium Density Residential are primarily located west of the site. A regional bus stop is located on Broadway, approximately 100 yards to the east of the site. Figure 1 presents an aerial map of the site and surroundings and Attachment B provides photos of the site. Figures 2 and 3 present zoning and land use. With the subject property located on the corner of Euclid Avenue and 16th Street, there are approximately 160+ on-street parking spaces within a 500 foot radius of the project site. As shown in Figure 4, an existing Neighborhood Parking Program (NPP) is located on 15th St. between Euclid and Aurora avenues (one block west), and on 16th St. between Aurora and Cascade avenues (one block south), but does not exist adjacent to the subject property on either street. However, according to the City of Boulder Downtown and University Hill Parking Management Division, a pilot Neighborhood Parking Program (NPP) was recently initiated that would provide resident-only permit parking adjacent to the site along Euclid Ave. and 16th Street as well as other areas within University Hill. Site History. The subject property was originally developed as the Alpha Delta Pi Sorority in 1961. City records indicate a number of other organizations occupied the house including Beta Theta Pi sorority, the Empathy House, the Center for Christian Study International and the Sigma Chi fraternity. The occupancy has remained essentially the same at 42 persons, although in 1971, records indicate it was as high as 45 persons. The property is currently considered non-conforming due to parking and a non-standard lot due to front and rear setbacks. BVCP Land Use. The property is designated High Density Residential (HR) on the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) land use map. The BVCP defines HR as those areas with an intended gross density above 14 dwelling units per acre. As indicated by the zoning and the BVCP land use designation, University Hill is intended to have a variety of residential densities, neighborhood serving retail and mixed-use development serving both residents and students of the University of Colorado. Refer to Figure 2 for the BVCP Land Use Map. AGENDA ITEM 5A Page# 2 Zoning. The subject property is zoned Residential High Density (RH-5), the highest residential density zoning district in the city. Refer to Figure 3 for the Zoning Map. Section 9-5 B.R.C. 1981, defines the RH-5 zoning district as: High density residential areas primarily used for a variety of types of attached residential units, including, without limitation, apartment buildings, and where complementary uses may be allowed. WIWI c y+ AOL T 1~ ` } 4 IS. `l Figure 1: Surrounding Context Project Description. As shown in the project plans, provided in Attachment F, the applicant proposes to convert the existing dormitory rooms with an occupancy of 42 residents, to 11 apartment units (seven three-bedroom units and four four-bedroom units) for a total of 37 residents. The applicant is also proposing to remove a portion of the rear of the first floor of the building to accommodate five tandem parking spaces. With construction of a third story, the floor area proposed creates a net increase of 2,286 square feet. A 50 percent parking reduction is also proposed. The project will reduce occupants by five while increasing on-site auto storage by four spaces. The proposed project would also comply with Inclusionary Zoning through payment of approximately $250,000 in cash-in-lieu fees. AGENDA ITEM 5A Page# 3 B M B~ [Ell O a PH-5 EUCLID o RL-1 . t c RH-5 DU Figure 2: d Zoning of . Subject -Av1J K, o flLD fl Ell 0) Property o o RM-2 LEO Q-n E- F, lciri IUI Ut'BLl_IIIB,.Y LW3 ~o U ject Fero * y LLJ Fiblir H _n F a,i EUCLID Fui u z AVE o wJ 0 H -ff Figure 3: Q Q 4 BVCP a © Huh Derr t Land Use Low Densitu Residential of © Q od ~ Subject CO o ~ ~o e LJ --E77 I E3. ~ a 01 Property o Q Pro L 0 ~ ~ mo u) Medium Gcnslt~_~t ReSdential ~ L3 d 0 77- C flD 4Q C33 ° [ LJ o E:1 Do FE PEI AGENDA ITEM 5A Page# 4 PENNSYLVANIA AV Subject COLLEGE _AV I Property H H H 0 cn~ -ice N C%J U) I 12 2~ 2• F- F- u EQCLID AV~ ,cJy vS 2 T J AUR~ AV a _ ~ ~ tai)' ci N ~ J = 0 2 2 ~ 2 2 t ~ a~o J C SCADE AV f" PHI MEZI BASELINE `RD Legend ■ ■ NPP Zone Expansion i Existing University Hill NPP Zone NPP hours Monday - Friday 9am-5pir / 2 hour max limit without a permit J`~ttF ~ -r{ NPP Zone Commercial & olher Single Family - condominium Building Glass - Duplex I Tnplex 4 - 8 Units - 9 Above Units University Hill Neighborhood Parking Permit Zone nj E,x of lion 1 Inch equals 500 feet Rould r ga.3o.oe Figure 4: Existing Neighborhood Parking Permit Zone in Proximity to Subject Property AGENDA ITEM 5A Page# 5 Proposed Number of Occupants. Consistent with the RH-5 zoning district, the existing structure has a long history of use as a high density residential structure. For approximately 48 years the building has been used as a fraternity or sorority, or other fraternal residential associations. The building is currently licensed for occupancy of 42 persons. Per section 9-8-6, B.R.C. 1981, the conversion for boarders to dwelling unit equivalents is 3:1 (every three boarders equal one dwelling unit). In this case, 42 boarders or occupants nets 14 dwelling unit equivalents. While this indicates that the current activity as a boarding house with 42 residents results in the same intensity as 14 dwelling units, under the RH-5 zoning, a maximum density of 27.2 dwelling units per acre is permitted. With the lot size being 18,816 s.f., a maximum of 11 units are permitted, with the number of bedrooms proposed resulting in 37 occupants. Table 1 below summarizes existing and proposed occupancy. Existing and Proposed Parking. Per section 9-6, B.R.C., 1981, required parking for a boarding house in the RH-5 zone district is two spaces per every three occupants (or 28 spaces in this case). With 14 parking spaces, the site has had a non-conforming parking condition for approximately 48 years. With conversion to an apartment complex in the RH-5 zone district, parking is based on the number of bedrooms. Two parking spaces per unit are required for three bedroom units and three spaces per unit are required for four bedroom units. With the 11 units proposed as four 4-bedroom units, and eight 3-bedroom units, 26 parking spaces would be required. This represents a decrease in parking requirement from the 28 spaces required by the current boarding house use. The applicant is proposing to provide 13 standard parking spaces and is requesting a 50 percent parking reduction. The project plans also illustrate removal of a portion of the first floor of the building at the rear to accommodate five tandem parking spaces in addition to the 13 standard spaces provided. The code is silent on tandem parking spaces and auto storage. Table I below summarizes the existing, proposed, and code standards for parking and occupancy for the RH-5 site. Table 1: Comparison of Existing and Proposed Occupant Numbers and Parking Existing Proposed Maximum under RH-5 Occupants 42 37 44 Parkin /Auto Storage 14 18* 33** * 13 std. spaces + 5 tandem * * or 26 for 37 occupants Non-Conforming Parking. Typically, a site with non-conforming parking would be subject to Use Review standards. However, the application for a parking reduction would eliminate the non-conformity subject to specific criteria found within subsection 9-2- 14(h), B.R.C. 1981. Those criteria speak specifically to impacts and nature of occupancy for parking reductions. A consistency analysis with the criteria is provided in Attachment C. Existing Non-Standard Building. The building is considered non-standard due to front and rear yard setbacks. Section 9-10-3, B.R.C. 1981 provides standards for retaining a non-standard setback that the applicant is proposing to follow: AGENDA ITEM 5A Page# 6 "Retain the exterior wall and existing foundation that it rests on. The exterior wall shall, at a minimum, retain studs and retain either the inner or exterior sheathing of the exterior wall. Interior sheathing includes, without limitation, plaster, dr°y wall or paneling. " ANALYSIS OF KEY ISSUE: 1) Does the proposed application comply with the Site Review criteria found in subsection 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981? Staff's analysis of the applicable Site Review criteria are based on the criteria specified in section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C., 1981 and are found in Attachment C. Staff finds that the proposed project will lessen the number of occupants of the site and provide more auto storage on-site for student vehicles such that it moves a non-conforming parking condition closer to the standard. The criteria specific to residential parking reductions focuses on the nature of occupancy of a site along with adequate accommodation. Nature of Occupancy. As indicated by the applicant, the intended occupants of the building are students. The applicant acknowledged that the close proximity to the main campus of CU, and the design and layout of the units lends themselves toward student housing. The nature of occupancy for university student apartment occupants across the street from campus points to a need for auto storage. This contrasts to daily or hourly use parking needs of other types of apartment occupants. While it could be considered common knowledge that the CU campus lifestyle supports walking and biking to classes, particularly when in close proximity to campus, recently completed surveys (one provided by the applicant and found in Attachment E and one provided to staff by the CU Transportation and Parking Services Department, with an excerpt found in the Site Review Criteria Analysis on page 12, that supports this assumption. The survey provided by the applicant is the Boulder Valley Transportation Survey which has been completed seven times over the past twenty years for the City of Boulder and University of Colorado to note transportation trends. As noted by the survey, approximately 62 percent of the student respondents have a motor vehicle available to them. However, approximately 72 percent of student respondents indicate that they bicycle, walk or take the bus to school. This contrasts in the survey to 44 to 48 percent of downtown Boulder employees who bicycle, walk or take the bus to work. The other survey prepared by the CU Transportation and Parking Services affirms the results of the Boulder Valley Transportation Survey but is focused on the CU students through interviews exclusively with students. That survey indicates an even higher percentage of students walked, biked or rode the bus to school and jobs. From both surveys, it is clear that while approximately two-thirds of students who attend CU come to school with a vehicle, a strong majority walk, bike, or ride the bus to campus. This indicates the need for auto storage rather than daily use parking for student renters, particularly those located across the street from campus and in close proximity to the retail and services of University Hill. AGENDA ITEM 5A Page# 7 Adequate Accommodation. The existing on-street parking context of the subject property appears to be near capacity when school is in session, as shown in photos on page 10 in Figure 6. The context is at an interface of the highest density residential zone, where a number of non-conforming buildings have existed in place for 50 years or more, and low density residential zone where many residential buildings do have alley-accessed off-street parking. While it is likely that residents of both the existing building and other nearby high density buildings are parking on the street, the application includes a provision for lowering the occupancy while increasing auto storage on-site. With the applicant's acknowledgement that the building would be marketed to student renters, the proposal to also utilize a tenant agreement to obtain a permit for parking on CU student parking lots also helps to address the issue of adequate accommodation. There are a number of student permit parking facilities that operate on a 24 hours per day, seven days per week format. The largest of the parking lots is at Williams Village approximately one-mile to the east on Baseline. As shown in Figure 5 below, there are approximately 10 acres of parking available as student permit parking at Williams Village with over 1,000 spaces shown in the parking lots below and an additional 400+ on the west side of Williams Village. This permit parking area could be accessed by the student renter via the number 203 or 225 RTD bus which has nearly 24-hour/7 day per week frequency from Broadway to Baseline and Williams Village. The university has indicated plans to redevelop Williams Village in the future but has also noted that student permit parking will remain, potentially as structured parking. SAW att tet 5 t { tax m t. ' r i lnapira* p. a of +Y r . . W w7i v ~ ~ T ?fit Fit 0 h . 'pt VFWt194s; a r h_1 Et LflCft.fkH'S t Rigirv, .t~ Jl~ eA ' Figure 5: Student Permit Parking at Williams Village Ct1 Campus Parking Facility AGENDA ITEM 5A Page# 8 1 a 1 1 1 I!a` fi I 22, _ 1111 a'. - K ' y KJLJ . r . 1 1, Street Figure 4: Photos taken During Recent Summer Evening-at 16th St. and Euclid Ave. in Proximity to Subject Property AGENDA ITEM 5A Page# 9 r FIX -Ilk . 1 T f S f rY- -jam:' - • I 1 h Figure 5: Photos During School Year at 16th St. and Euclid Ave. in Proximity to Subject Property AGENDA ITEM 5A Paee# 10 PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS: Required public notice was provided in the form of written notifications of the application for Site Review to property owners within 600 feet of the subject property. In addition, a public notice sign was posted on the property. All public notice requirements of section 9- 4, B.R.C. 1981 were met. Staff also noticed the University Hill Neighborhood Association via email, and the applicant met with representatives from UNHA. Staff received three letters of support for the project and two letters of opposition from nearby apartment building owners. All neighborhood correspondence and the UNHA meeting minutes are provided in Attachment F. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the application meets the applicable Site Review criteria found in section 9-2-15, B.R.C.1981. Therefore, staff recommends that Planning Board approve Site Review #LUR2009-00029 incorporating this staff memorandum as findings of fact and using the following recommended conditions of approval. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 1) The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be incompliance with all approved site and floor plans dated June 24, 2009, provided as Attachment F and on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department. Approved By: David Driskell, Executive Director of Community Planning ATTACHMENTS: A: Location Map B: Photos of Existing Site and On-Street Parking C: Site Review Criteria D: Correspondence Received E: Applicant's Written Statement and Submittal Materials F: Project Plans AGENDA ITEM 5A Paee# 11 ATTACHMENT A: Location Map City of Boulder Vicinity Map College Av B MS Su bject Area 6th S! 9851 Euclid Av era _p- 4'yy~y. Euclid Av l;r-irversi! y HiIJ ~'vueniary5choot IL 'J i a.+ t ~ RH-5 ~ Subjecl Aurora Av I. RM-2 Location: 985 16th St , Project Name: 98516th Street Apartments City Review Type: Nonconforming Use Review lir>rtkfer & Site Review NORTH The informallon depleted on Ihls map is prmAdad Review Number: LUR2009-00029 pro'dehlcal re"anI nlallono nly. The City o Boulder prokaes no warcanty, evpressed or Implleo, as to 1 inch= 200 feet the accuracy and brcornpleteness of the information Applicant: Jim Bray contained hereon. AGENDA ITEM 5A Paee# 11 ATTACHMENT B: Photos of Existing Site 1 . Front of Building Along 16Th Street 9~. t.~ . . y ` ~ ~R•~ ~Rk Rear of Building (alonLy allev) M~ Nis 5 North Side of Building along Euclid Avenue AGENDA ITEM 5AAGENDA ITEM 5A Pa2e# 1212 ATTACHMENT C: Site Review Criteria No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that: v (A) The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds that the proposed project is consistent with BVCP policies. Two of the policies in particular, 6.10 and 6.11 are related to managing the parking supply and encouraging development along multi modal corridors. The policies include recommendations for the city to encourage parking reductions for higher density development along multi modal corridors, as well as for the city to manage the supply of parking in the most efficient means possible - using the least number of new parking spaces. 2.42 Enhanced Design for the Built Environment. Through its policies and programs, the city will encourage or require quality architecture and urban design in private sector development that encourages alternative modes of transportation, provides a livable environment and addresses the elements listed below. a) The context. Projects should become a coherent part of the neighborhood in which they are placed. They should be preserved and enhanced where the surroundings have a distinctive character. Where there is a desire to improve the character of the surroundings, a new character and positive identity as established through area planning or a community involvement process should be created for the area. Special attention will be given to protecting and enhancing the quality of established residential areas that are adjacent to business areas. The subject property has been a high density residential building for approximately forty eight years, in a high density context surrounded by low to medium density west of the site. The occupancy on the site for the past 48 years has remained essentially the same at 42 persons, although in 1971, records indicate it was as high as 45 persons. The proposed project would upgrade the appearance of this high density residential building while reducing the number of occupants to 37 persons within 11 apartments. b) The public realm. Projects should relate positively to public streets, plazas, sidewalks and paths. Buildings and landscaped areas-not parking lots-should present a well-designed face to the public realm, should not block access to sunlight, and should be sensitive to important public view corridors. The parking lot proposed to remain at the rear of the site along the alley, as has been the case since the site was first developed. The building facing 16th and Euclid as well as Broadway will be enhanced and greatly improved from the existing condition. c) Human scale. Projects should provide pedestrian interest along streets, paths and public spaces. The proposed project includes plans to provide an enhanced streetscape through modification of the existing large wall surrounding the front of the property into two lower walls, and planting the terrace. In addition, the proposed project would reconfigure the front courtyard entry centered on the terrace. The effect will be to establish the building's fagade as more human-scale and less fortress-like. d) Permeability. Projects should provide multiple opportunities to walk from the street into projects, thus presenting a street face that is permeable. Where appropriate, they should provide opportunities for visual permeability into a site to create pedestrian interest. The subject property will change the currently impermeable building fagade to one that provides a broad opening from the street, to a courtyard, through to another opening at the alley. While the property is intended to be a public space, the building is articulated such that visual permeability will be achieved. AGENDA ITEM 5A Paee# 13 e) On-site open spaces. Projects should incorporate well designed functional open spaces with quality landscaping, access to sunlight and places to sit comfortably. Where public parks or open spaces are not within close proximity, shared open spaces for a variety of activities should also be provided within developments. The existing open plaza space will have greater numbers of plant materials and amenities such as seat-wall height planter walls that have a visual link to the street. Additionally, the existing lawn area will be retained on the site. f) Buildings. Buildings should be designed with a cohesive design that is comfortable to the pedestrian, with inviting entries that are visible from public rights of way." The proposed redesign of the building will improve the character of the front entry to the site, by lowering and terracing the retaining wall(s) along 16"' Street. v (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: 4_(i) The density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, The proposed density of 11 dwelling units is consistent with the High Density Residential category within the Comprehensive Plan that permits 27.2 dwelling units per acre, which for the 18,816 square foot site is equivalent to 11.66 dwelling units. or, ti (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. The density of the project is less than the maximum density allowed for the RH-5 zoning district which is 27 units per acre. The site is 18,837 or 0.43 acre x 27= 11.6 dwelling units. The RH-5 zoning district also requires 600 square feet of open space per dwelling unit or 6,600 square feet. The site currently has 6,750 square feet of open space. Therefore, no requirements would be waived. (C) The proposed development's success in meeting the broad range of BVCP policies considers the economic feasibility of implementation techniques required to meet other site review criteria. The applicant has indicated their ability to feasibly implement the BVCP policies. (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: ti (A) Open Space: Open space, including, without limitation, parks, recreation areas, and playgrounds: (i) Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional; The useable open space includes courtyard spaces along with some open lawn area appropriate for a high density residential project. AGENDA ITEM 5A Paee# 14 n/a (ii) Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit; (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 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 area no known species of special concern or natural features impacted by the proposed project. The applicant was asked to maintain a healthy long lived pine tree originally proposed for removal and is complying with this request. (iv) The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project and from surrounding development; The landscape plan provides green space as well as functional courtyard space that contributes to the varied character of the context and meets the open space requirements for an RH-5 zoned site. (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 proximity to the uses to which it is meant to serve; The open lawn area can provide opportunity for activities such as Frisbee, hackie sack, or other lawn sports. (vi) The open space provides a buffer to protect sensitive environmental features and natural areas; There are no known sensitive environmental features or natural areas within the subject site. and vii) If possible, open space is linked to an area- or city-wide system. The site is part of the grid pattern of streets established within the urban context of Boulder for decades. As such, walkways fronting the site connect to other areas of the city including the CU campus and the multi-use paths along the east side of Broadway. n/a (B) Open Space in Mixed Use Developments (Developments that contain a mix of residential and non-residential uses) n/a (i) The open space provides for 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; Not a mixed use development. and n/a ii) 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. Not a mixed use development. q (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 AGENDA ITEM 5A Paee# 15 contrasts and the preservation or use of local native vegetation where appropriate; The landscape plan provides an attractive revitalization of the existing landscape. Hardscape and softscape variation is proposed, and long lived mature trees are preserved where appropriate. V (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 applicant has proposed preservation of long lived, mature trees on the site. -V (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; The applicant has proposed a landscape plan that will assist in screening the parking area in the alley from Euclid Avenue and also utilizes plant material that are sized in excess of the requirements, and ~ (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. The revitalization of the site includes a revitalized landscape. Because there are existing elements that should be retained, the landscape plan builds off of existing features such as the grade transition at the front, and the existing trees, while providing new plant materials that will enhance the quality of the site. (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 narrowness of the alley encourages slower speeds and there proposed plant material screens for the alley that would also help to meet this criterion. (ii) Potential conflicts with vehicles are minimized; The subject property re-orients the existing 60 degree parking to meet the two-way direction of the alley. In addition, staff has required provision of three feet additional feet of alley width within the subject property. 41 (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, bikeways, pedestrianways and trails; The subject property is part of the existing urban fabric of University Hill. As such, existing streets and walkways of 16th Street and Euclid Avenue and the existing alley will be utilized by the proposed project, with improvements planned for the alley as a part of the proposed project. ~(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 proposal for a high density apartment building across the street from the university and 100 yards to a local/regional bus stop, with bicycle parking proposed on-site both as bicycle racks as AGENDA ITEM 5A Paee# 16 well as with a proposed enclosed, locked bicycle storage room meets this criterion. ~ (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 proposed high density apartment project fits appropriately within the transportation context of existing central Boulder, with close proximity to the university's main campus, a major local/regional bus stop, and walking/biking distance to University Hill and Downtown retail shops and services. With Broadway being a major north/south multi-modal corridor, in keeping with this policy, the project is proposing a parking reduction with reasonable mitigations. The proximity of the site to the university, the bus stop, and University Hill retail and services establishes an inherent opportunity for a shift away from single-occupant vehicle use. To enhance that shift, the applicant is proposing bike racks along with internal, locked bicycle storage. ~ (vi) On-site facilities for external linkage are provided with other modes of transportation, where applicable; The site is part of the grid pattern of streets established within the urban context of Boulder for decades. As such, walkways fronting the site connect to other areas of the city including the CU campus nearby, and the multi-use paths along the east side of Broadway. ~ (vii) The amount of land devoted to the street system is minimized; Provision of the tandem parking spaces adds to the land devoted to a street, however, if the applicant were to provide all of the required parking on the site, there would be a much greater area and impact of land devoted to the street system. and (viii) The 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. Parking is provided for automobiles, albeit with a parking reduction; parking for bicycles is also provided in a separate locked storage facility within the building, but with bike racks for visitors. (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 area is provided adjacent to the alley, in a context that anticipates auto vehicular movement. ti (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; Because of the parking reduction request, there is an efficiency in the design of the parking with use of the minimum amount of land necessary to meet parking needs of a student rental project. v (iii) Parking areas and lighting are designed to reduce the visual impact on the project, adjacent properties, and adjacent streets; The parking area is screened with landscaping on both the north and south ends of the parking. and AGENDA ITEM 5A Paee# 17 (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. 1981. Screening of the parking is proposed using taller, columnar-shaped shrubs. An alley tree is also proposed on the north end of the parking and preservation of an existing mature Honeylocust tree will provide shading on the south end of the parking area. (F) 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; The building is proposed to maintain most of the existing massing. The exception is that a portion of the rear of the building will be removed with an approximately 2,100 square foot third story addition. The changes to the building will be in keeping with the character and development scale of the area. 41 (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 Chi Omega sorority house located immediately across Euclid Ave. is three stories, consistent with the proposed three story addition on the north end of the building, and the University Hill Elementary School immediately across 16th Street is two stories, but approximately 30-feet in height. I (iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent properties; The site is surrounded by the alley, Euclid Ave. and 16th St. on the three sides that would be have shadowing. Impacts to any buildings would not occur from the proposed project. (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; The character of the area is eclectic. The renovation of the existing building will enhance the existing context. v (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 existing building is proposed to be renovated with substantial landscape and architectural improvements that will fit well within the existing context and provide an attractive, positive visual change for the corner of 16th St. and Euclid Ave. In addition, the proposed project will create a more positive relationship to the street, by opening up the existing staircase and retaining wall to a present the building's entrance. (vi) To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned public facilities; The proposed project will enhance the landscaping and architecture of the existing site in a location within the existing urban fabric of University Hill. As such, the improvements will enhance the public realm in the streetscape of Euclid Ave. and 16th Street. (vii) For residential projects, the project assists the community in producing a variety of AGENDA ITEM 5A Paee# 18 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 proposed project would provide eleven student rental apartments varied between three- and four-bedroom units. viii) For residential projects, noise is minimized between units, between buildings, and from either on-site or off-site external sources through spacing, landscaping, and building materials; The proposed building has three small balconies that face the rear (alley side) of the building, and no balconies that face the adjacent residential building to the south. Because noise is often generated from private outdoor spaces, staff notes that the noise would be limited from provision of just the three balcony spaces. ~ (ix) A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation, safety, and aesthetics; A lighting plan consistent with the city's building code will be required for building permit approval. g1 (x) The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids, minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems; Several large mature trees will be preserved on the site. (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. There is no significant cut or fill proposed on the site. The Proposed project conforms to the existing grade change from the finished floor elevation down to 16" St. and would lower the height of the existing landscape retaining wall along 16th St. for better streetscape appearance. (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 east-facing open space on the site will remain and be augmented with additional plant materials that will enhance the setting without shading the two- to three- story building. 41 (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. The building will essentially remain in the same configuration as the existing building, with the proposed project. Solar potential will remain with the proposed project. ~(iii) Building Form: The shapes of buildings are designed to maximize utilization of solar energy. Buildings shall meet the solar access protection and solar siting requirements of AGENDA ITEM 5A Paee# 19 section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981. The building meets the solar protection and siting requirements. (iv) Landscaping: The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent buildings are minimized. There are no adjacent buildings that would be affected by the shade produced by the proposed project, as the building is surrounded on the east, north and west by roadways. n/a H) Additional Criteria for Poles Above the Permitted Height n/a (1) Land Use Intensity Modifications n/a (J) Additional Criteria for Floor Area Ratio Increase for Buildings in the BR-1 District 4 (K) Additional Criteria for Parking 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: Additional information is needed to meet this criteria. (i) Process: 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. (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; Because of the nature of occupancy being student renters, there is a known need for long term storage of vehicles owned by student renters rather than a need for daily-use parking. The applicant is proposing the use of tandem parking spaces along with use of student permit parking within the campus system via a lease agreement with the student renters, the site's proximity to bus transit, and the provision of bike racks and secured bike storage would help to mitigate the requested parking reduction. These measures would meet the needs of the proposed occupants while also addressing a number of comprehensive plan policies such as provision on higher density residential along transit corridors, ensuring a commitment to a walkable city, and managing the parking supply. (b) The parking needs of any non-residential uses will be adequately accommodated through on-street parking or off-street parking; not applicable (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; not applicable (d) If joint use of common parking areas is proposed, varying time periods of use will accommodate proposed parking needs; not applicable and AGENDA ITEM 5A Paee# 20 (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. As indicated by the applicant, the intended occupants of the building are students. The applicant acknowledged that the close proximity across Broadway from the university campus and the design and layout of the units themselves is geared toward meeting housing needs of students. The nature of occupancy - that is - the characteristics typically associated with the student occupants of a building (as it relates to parking) has been confirmed as having a need for auto storage. Common knowledge of the campus lifestyle of walking and biking to classes, particularly when in close proximity to campus, is supported by findings of a survey presented by the applicant and found in Attachment E. A similar survey was prepared by the University of Colorado Transportation and Parking Services Department and is summarized below. From page 24 of the survey below, it is evident that while 68 percent of students surveyed that while they have a car available to commute to school, pages 7 and 8 indicate that 74 to 96 percent of students walked, biked or rode the bus to school. The survey points to the need for auto storage rather than daily use parking for students. CU Student Transportation Survev Marc 25. School Commute to c- of The naui p•: cposes o` The CL Sr.:dsut iransportar.or. a-is to deteuz iie lie "modal split" of Lps made to and froin tae CU E-cruder Campers b- saideo-s: 1a- the proportion of sclio-ol conannte taps nude 6a each nxerhod o= Uaispoi taton. Sereral questions on tLe siurer romp:ered hr sr.-.dents sere raked to allar• etwn.ation of tae school cornmiire ruodal sp=it. Chic- q.-.esoor. asked l:v7: ma.)- dar err D ass modes o[ traiisporutioi rrece use[l for tae coinmus to school &I'L-ng a r-p:ca7 wc-ek ;T•alk:ng •:2-` was cased for lie nxost taps. foloe-ed br r.dui. a h.;s or bimes ; 26' y; aid b1x.g (21" a . Carpo-olr 2 was ussd lie 'east oice:Y D of nips r.-ere seporred as CL,n'ag Vath at least Die osier person. During a typical week, how many days do you commute to school in each of the ways listed below? 'A'a k 27% rs.lde 17J51,e5} 20f - - -(74 % Walk/Bike/Bus) ?fi Dneae a ore Muti-made fe. Bike rIN16 g.. ca•ther Cris, tik_ ir°_n bus, e-.--. drive ai-h a- lea s- ore otner parson V,'ork at home Other - N D% 25% 5D% 7f% iC-0% Percent o= Days AGENDA ITEM 5A Page# 21 CU Student Trat.spenatien Survey I'rlara^ try: in aclditian to about r}sea• tiarel beba:;o,_ d,.u1_g a `r iri st :d=-nts ^•ei= NsL,-3 1 1 r :gad az~red at camg~.u o:~ r?xe dar tl:t r co:: :eted tl:e s; e . The- wese aDo-v-ed to iadi:aie al riades 1, : r.eze nsc-d_ As }?'itlt the t. pic wee' lie most -cj=ccL niodes -epo ted 7,-eze &ig a b':s `u6::'- :'1d ,z-` C). How diet you get to school today? f Rcde a ous or b ises :35N', 'Narked 34?i, (98% Walk/Bike/Bus) Biked 39k~ f Grwe r,lcrr 12,16 Drove rats, at least one othe, oerson Norkea a- Here 2% Ok4 iC'°i 201; 20'-) 4Y= :534= 4C4_ 7-4'6 KC 6 C-Cj '07= Pe-car: of R-2spondE--its' •Percenrs add't nU'(c '8 199r'.{ •351 tw ndf+^ S soul Ove.Rlo.,s rian {,fie arizorw- in • side= ro e3unme nodal spLr tL-e parce_ r- acrd rc NC6 a caregcss n•as rieared _oL muLn- atade fai those iespar_d--iits who __idici-eel maze &ar- oiis careg:zr. Rest.-]-s r-eze sunjat ro -lose absent ed fos die :cal ~ k Tl mast rauifucMi pr~uarti ❑iade r. s Ldii a h: s ~:`~6 e i, ' .]_ar: l Alas: r one iu 1C, of 6lose xrualerrg the 571[-le7 ieP-I.L-[P3 alt: r_ rlaiie D: get to sc'aaal. ar3 a-eu Fewei f i°' al car algid. Primary Mode of Transportation fail, tw-mc+ E~ikec 1F5ro 2t Drove alo-ie 12% rpocl G N ',n1 a! ked _ W2 49E - - arkad a- harm i% .I i Rode a 2% U r ous:esl 5 ij a Report of Results ' P AGENDA ITEM 5A Page# 22 ICU Student Transportation SturweY Available Transportation Options r~ Q- t~astic:pauts * e1e :s:}:ed to nli: ats :f L;e ]col a cap 'ar ctlz=r r t e1ti, :e or biti c1= a m:a6le cc diem fai -c aulunuig to schu.Dl WvLg 1v -.-c-clods iepwted iLm--ag a cm a. ache= azatai veLde -`63° ac a b.crde `633`o. see nent pxg-s a7, Aable .o t1:Lii1 fo= Ehe coiiaai ite to school. Tli se rears ig'_~ar. a car o- oC]ec iiaota`_ .•eh:cle a:.uhblf to thew ud nor slur- a -1L-uige fL-OLU 21301, e: Rico. Tluc~ sepo:rr~ a tic-ole :.rarsased-. i 1305 ro inaj:ed to 2031 ; 5" z., see the, u=rt Page . Is a car or tither mater vehicle usually available to you for commuting to school? ` No 22% 54 I ''es I Availability of Car for the Schcsol Commute 2305 F~z ~h iDC' r .f~ 23CO R:3i 'r T. Percent 4- Resp•oncen:s Repot-ia Gar Avz-ilaL e i i; Report of Results Dane AGENDA ITEM 5A Page# 23 ATTACHMENT D: Correspondence Received CALL-UP REQUEST Fred Rubin 1324 CEDAR AVENUE BOULDER,CO 80304 (303)-442-0227 July 10, 2009 Elaine McLaughlin Senior Planner Planning and Development Services City of Boulder 1739 Broadway, 3`d Mr. Boulder, CO 80306-4791 RE: 985 16t1i St. Dear Ms. McLaughlin, As I indicated in my email to you of July 9, 2009, I would like to request that the above referenced project be called up by the Planning Board so I may offer testimony as to why I do not believe the project should be approved. Please let me know dates and times when the inatter is set for call-,up. Sincerely, AGENDA ITEM 5A Paee# 24 4120/09 UHNA Meeting Attendees: Applicant - David Garabed, Phil Shull, Jim Bray UHNA - Ronald Mitchell, Donna Sichko, Callie Holleman, Jane Stoyva, The project's design and City review process was explained to the UHNA members. The bike storage, tandem parking spaces, off-site parking with bus access at CU lots, changes to the alley, balconies, entries, and courtyard were discussed. The following questions and comments were expressed by the UHNA members: Ron: • Likes the project and endorses the change of use • Suggested contacting Xcel about putting street lights on utility poles in the alley for enhanced safety • Thinks that management of tenants is important • Suggested secured trash enclosure to keep rats and raccoons out of the trash • Thinks a commitment to recycling is important - especially cardboard boxes • Wants to form a sanitation district on the Hill • Likes the changes to the alley direction, width, and tandem spaces • Agrees that student renters primarily store their cars during the week • Owns many rental properties on the Hill Donna: • Questioned where visitors would park. Asked if the neighborhood had parking permits like other parts of the Hill. • Likes the security and landscaping aspects of the project along with the courtyard entry orientation • Is concerned with the amount of traffic on Euclid. Doesn't want our project to add to that. • Thinks balconies are often a problem. Is pleased that we have air conditioning so that windows and doors will be kept closed Jane: • Is concerned about noise on the Hill. Offered memos on nuisance abatement and UHNA news letter • Suggested that we talk to the Principal of University Hill Elementary • Suggested that we talk to the Boulder Police - Cooper Grimes • Likes the project and the aesthetic improvements. Hopes that a better building gets better renters Callie: • Wants to know other properties managed by the building owners. Is interested in learning their experience and history • Asked if there would be concurrent construction at University Hill Elementary (bond-financed improvements) • Generally liked the project. Thinks a strong lease and management plan is necessary for a successful student rental property. The UHNA members stated that they liked the proposed changes to the property and our effort to seek their input. They couldn't, of course, officially speak for the entire UHNA membership. At their regular meeting on May 7t1i, they will discuss the project and refer questions to Elaine McLaughlin., Planning Case Manager. AGENDA ITEM 5A Paee# 25 From: Fr. Kevin Augustyn Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 221 PM To: McLaughlin, Elaine Subject: 985 16th Street Apartment Proposal Elaine McLaughlin City of Boulder Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway, Third Floor Boulder, CO. 80306 Re: 985 16th St. Apartments Mrs. McLaughlin, I have received your Notice regarding the conversion of the Fraternity House at 98516th St. to a new Apartment building. I would like to express my unequivocal support for the conversion. The present building is an eyesore and a blight on the University Hill neighborhood. A new contemporary building with additional facilities for students can only be an improvement. I look forward to a new type of building on the site. I believe that the "fraternity/sorority rooming house" type of student housing is outdated and contributes and encourages irresponsible and potentially dangerous student behavior. Please review the problems (fires, deaths, alcohol abuse and rapes) at various fraternities and sororities in Colorado and around the country in the past few years. It is my understanding that because of these problems Insurance Companies are increasing refusing to insure fraternity/sorority rooming house type of student housing. That fact alone seems to speak volumes for the conversion of these types of properties into a different student housing model. As the Pastor of the Catholic Student Center directly adjacent to the proposed building I can speak first hand to these issues and sincerely hope a new type of student housing on the site will create a more responsible and safer student housing environment. Please do not hesitate to email or call at the number below if you would like to discuss the matter further. With best wishes, Father Kevin R. Augustyn Pastor/Director of Campus Ministry St_ Thomas Aquinas Catholic Center Serving the University of Colorado-Boulder 904 14th Street; Boulder CO 80302 303.443.8383 www.thomascenter.org AGENDA ITEM 5A Paee# 26 From: Scott Sanders Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 1:02 PM To: McLaughlin, Elaine Subject: 985 16th St. Planner McLaughlin, My name is Scott Sanders. I am a rental property owner in Boulder, Louisville and Longmont. I rent to CU Students. I am writing you to express my support for the proposed redevelopment project at 985 16th St. I believe that the redevelopment of student housing properties on "the Hill" is long over due and badly needed. I encourage and support any owner that is willing undergo the City of Boulder's development/redevelopment process and to take the significant risk involved in creating a better rental housing alternative for students on "the Hill" There so much run down and dilapidated student housing on "the Hill" one wonders why the City does not condemn the entire area, introduce realistic and appropriate building, parking and zoning regulations to "the Hill" and encourage redevelopment instead of allowing the status quo to continue. The students need and desire high density, safe, efficient and affordable rental housing. They have rejected the Fraternity/ Sorority/ Boarding House model of communal living and desire individual personal living units with their own space. In my experience most of them want quality living space within a short walking distance to campus. They do not want to have to drive to school or bear the expense of an automobile during their time at school. Most use public transportation and ride their bikes to get around town. As taxpayers in Boulder we spend millions of dollars to create and maintain our extensive system of bike and walking paths. The students use these facilities to get from point A to B in Boulder. We should be doing everything possible to encourage and expand the use of these facilities by the students and the rest of the community. We do not need to build more "parking garage behemoths" (which encourage automobile use) either downtown and certainly not on "the Hill". I am familiar with the development/redevelopment process in the City of Boulder and feel that the City Council (and by dictate from the City Council, the Planning Department) fails to recognize the diversity of our community. The process it dictates and applies universally across the board throughout the City and has no mechanism that allows the Planners adequate flexibility to address the special nature and needs of the different parts of the City. The Site Review and Use Review process are way too time consuming, complicated, contradictory and expensive. The process is overly cumbersome and expensive. The process and expense deters landlords from providing a better rental housing product for our citizens and the CU students. Lastly, I believe the City Council (and by dictate from the City Council, the Planning Department) is totally out of touch with the needs of the University and the University students. The University and the students need to be treated with courtesy and respect for all of the wonderful things they bring to our community. The City Council and the Planning Department appear clueless about the value of the University and the students to the City of Boulder. It is my belief that the City needs to pay more attention to the needs of University and the student population. They need to realize the importance of the University and the students to our community. This should include encouraging the redevelopment of the University Hill by enlightened Landlords such as are proposing the redevelopment of 985 16th St. I think that the renovation of the 985 16th St. property would be a good beginning to the revitalization of the University Hill area and an immense improvement over what is presently on the site. I therefore voice my support for of the property. Scott Sanders 303-931-8301 AGENDA ITEM 5A Paee# 27 Please see comments below. Fred Rubin From: McLaughlinE@bouldercolorado.gov To: sail4sun@msn.com Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 11:25:55 -0600 Subject: FW: 985 16th Hello Fred- Thanks for the email. City staff works diligently to represent the public interest in our use of the land use code to review projects, so please don't misconstrue my suggestion to talk with the applicant. A discussion with the applicant is what we always suggest to neighbors as it helps clarify issues, and is therefore why we recommend a good neighbor meeting. We do respect your individual concerns. However, if you don't believe UNHA represents you and you're not in favor of meeting with the applicant then it would be challenging to find a means discuss and resolve issues, which is always our goal. UNHA does not in fact represent me, so my belief as to whether they do or not is not at issue. My concern over these issues is both one as a near-by property owner, and as a citizen of Boulder who has a right to expect the laws of Boulder to be enforced without any effort on my part. Where is your property located, so I can best understand how the project may impact your property? My property is at 925 16th and I manage the property myself so I see first hand how difficult the parking is up there. Please note that there is no member of the Planning Board associated with the project. Phil Shull, whose company Denueve Construction is proposed to be the builder, did serve for several years on the Planning Board but his term ended in March of this year. Sorry, but my sense of "I scratch your back and you scratch mine" does not necessarily extinguish when a Board member leaves. Then, the parking reduction is a non-conforming condition that has been established on the site for decades as the building had been a fraternity house as well as a rooming house for approximately 45 years. The code provides for parking reductions if certain conditions are met. One of the considerations is use of off-site parking. There is no useful off-site parking and please tell me where in the code that is listed as a possible remedy to not providing required on-site parking. The applicant is also proposing off-site storage of vehicles through a lease agreement. I thought the staff's response was that the off-site parking had to be within 300 feet. The applicant is also proposing an addition of tandem parking paces on the site that would increase the number of parking spaces on-site from 13 to 21. Tandem parking is not allowed as parking places. The code also requires looking at the proposed occupancy of a site for parking reductions. With the building located across Broadway from the university, the apartment is proposed as student rentals. In that proximity to campus, it is unlikely that students would use their cars on a daily basis but rather need a place to "store" their vehicles for weekend use. That sounds like an argument that the applicant should be making--not a staff member. And as such, it is the responsibility to show how that would be strictly regulated and what consequences AGENDA ITEM 5A Paee# 28 would occur if it was not strictly adhered to. And as for the assumption, they need to prove that. My experience at my rental property is anything but that. My renters are students and they are in and out all day. It is simply ludicrous to make these assumptions. Do you have any hard evidence that their representations are true? It should be up to the applicant to provide this information but from what I have seen as long as the information is politically correct, ("Oh our renters will walk and bicycle everywhere, they really don't need any parking spaces, and all of their cars will be hybrids anyway") the City is more than willing to go along with it. As a note--I was very involved with the Washington School proposal and everyone was telling us that the parking requirements for that zone were not realistic (oh course it was the City that created the zoning for that location--not us) and that it was only appropriate for those areas where there were a lot of students each of whom likely had a car. Well that argument is coming home to roost, wouldn't you agree. If the staff can support any reduction in required parking what is the purpose of having the requirements in the first place? I apologize to you Elaine in the sense that I have no idea who you are or how much you are aware of the history of development in Boulder. You may be the finest employee that has every worked for the City and believe that the City always follows through on their promises, but that is simply not the fact. I can offer you examples of lots of promises made and promises broken from the City of Boulder. To me the City is not to be trusted so I no longer want to see any deals made on the basis of such promises of enforcement, etc., because I know it will never be done. Really, how would you expect to insure that these renters "stored" their cars per some agreement or not? It simply cannot and will not be done. There was once a time in Boulder that an applicant had to submit a "use-by-right" solution to a development and only then could they try to horse trade some things for other things. Maybe that should be the starting point for any development? AGENDA ITEM 5A Paee# 29 From: Fred Rubin Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 2:59 PM To: McLaughlin, Elaine Subject: RE: 985 16th Elaine, Thanks for getting back to me. 1. Yes, I am concerned about ANY parking reduction. This zoning district has requirements for a specific amount of parking and there is NO reason that it should be allowed any less. This area has some of the worst parking conditions in Boulder and if any area should be denied a reduction, this is it. And what is this discussion about allowing off-site parking to count as required parking? 2. 1 would like to know what the comment was about changing the direction of the alley in the UHNA comments. 3. The UHNA does not represent me or any other property owner who is not a member of that group. As such I do not extend my proxy to them. If presentations are made, I expect to be notified in advance of those meetings. It may make it easier for the applicant and the City to assume that the UHNA is a democratically elected representative group, but it is not. Do not make the assumption that they speak for me. 4. 1 am concerned that once again a member of the Planning Board is associated with a project that will be reviewed by the Planning Board. This is getting absurd, and I believe it has presented too many conflicts of interest on other projects. "I scratch your back, you scratch mine," comes to mind. 5. 1 understand that the large request for a parking reduction requires Planning Board review. If for some reason the applicants reduce their request and thus it does not require Planning Board approval, I will want to know that. I will likely ask for a call-up to Council if that is the case. 6. 1 don't particularly want to talk to the applicants. The City is supposed to represent the Publics', not the applicants' interests. Fred Rubin From: Judi Duncan Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 10:18 AM To: McLaughlin, Elaine Subject: 985 16th St Apartments Case Manager; I think it is absolutely ridiculous that the planning Board consider this change of a rooming house to apartments without providing adequate parking. That area is well known for its lack of resident parking lots, spaces and especially street parking. Not only is that entire area jammed with C.U. students, staff and employees trying to park within walking distance of the campus but 16th Street is also extremely busy due to the elementary school there and all the parents of open enrolled bilingual students. This is already a dangerous street to drive down because of the extremely crowded situation, the nearby children from the school and all of the people double parking in the middle of the street "just for a minute" because they can't find a place to park while they unload their groceries. I give this an unequivocal and resounding "NO"M I am quite frankly appalled that the City would even consider this proposal. And do we really need more student housing when CU has a huge vacancy rate at that monstrosity off of Highway 36? Due to the proximity to campus and the general population of that neighborhood it is extremely doubtful that anyone other than students would want to live there. Many students consider owning a car a basic human right even if they can walk, ride a bike or take a bus to work, classes and nightlife. A 45% parking reduction for 11 3 & 4 bedroom apartments could result in 43 more automobiles that need a permanent parking space. Sincerely, Judi Duncan AGENDA ITEM 5A Paee# 30 From: Cliff Mills Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:58 AM To: McLaughlin, Elaine Subject: RE: 985 16th St. Dear Ms. McLaughlin, My name is Cliff Mills. I am the Facilities Manager for the Centers for Christian Study, International. I am responsible for all of the day to day operations of the properties that we occupy. We currently occupy four large properties on "the Hill". 985 16'h St. is one of the properties that we occupy and that I am responsible for. We have leased 985 16'h St. since March 1, 2007. The property is centrally located and very convenient for our student body. We have between 50 and 65 people using the facility on a daily basis. We have 15 assigned (non- conforming) parking spaces which have been adequate for our use. We have no parking issues. We have never received any complaints from our neighbors or the City regarding parking or any other matters. The property has suited our needs and met our requirements. We believe that the renovation and rehabilitation of the building into a modern, energy efficient apartment building would be the highest and best use for the 985 16th St. property. In addition, we feel that it would significantly enhance character of the entire University Hill neighborhood to have the type of building envisioned at a prominent "Gateway" to the University Hill neighborhood. We fully support the renovation and rehabilitation of the building at 985 10h St. Respectfully Yours, Cliff Mills Facilities Manager Centers for Christian Study, International 303-443-3461 AGENDA ITEM 5A Paee# 31 ATTACHMENT E: Applicant's Written Statement and Submittal Materials NORTH.;- B6LJL1.5E'R STU17.10S 1 3QV-[ Ycll- Pine A_- 0'60lder,co 90304' p303••+94,15-~8April 6th, 2009 Charles Ferro, AICP City of Boulder Planning Department PO Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306 RE: Site Review submittal for the renovation of the existing property at 4$5 16"' Street, Boulder, Colorado. INTRODUCTION Enclosed, please find our submittal for the improvements planned for the existing former fraternity house, The owners are eager to enhance the property, which is overdue for improvements from its original construction in the 60's. Their goal is to meet an under-served demand for high-quality student housing on the Hill. To accomplish this, we have designed a project which offers an attractive exterior, the latest energy efficiency and sustainability measures, a safe and attractive site plan, and a high-quality design with generous living spaces, private outdoor space, ample parking, and private bathrooms for all bedrooms plus an extra bathroom for guests. The existing building will be converted to eleven apartments with a mix of 3 and 4 bedrooms. The plan will keep the majority of the existing footprint wNle re-building the northern section, increasing the second floor square footage, and adding a new partial third floor. The currently uninsulated building will be brought up to the latest efficiency standards. The program for this project fills a market demand with updated student housing in a prime University Hill location and provides the neighborhood with a more attractive use than the previous 'frat house'. This submittal is intended to gain approval for a 45% parking reduction and a variance of setbacks to re- build walls that are already beyond the current zoning requirements. As part of this Site Review, we are also asking far a 15% increase in building size. The reason for the 15% request, as opposed to the 10% available in the non-conforming Use Review, is that our external circulation corridors cunnecting the stairs push us over 10% because of the way the City counts square footage. A Use Review is also being submitted in parallel for the expansion of the non-conforming use. An additional request is also made for an expedited process of approval for development to be able to meet an opening schedule of Summer of 2010. Intensity The proposed program of 11 units is less intense than the previous 14 units of the fratemny house. In addition, this proposed project has only 35 bedrooms. The existing building is licensed for 42 sleeping roams. In equivalent dwelling units, that equals 14 units. Also the nature of the apartment use is less intense than the fraternity use that was prone to larger gatherings, frequent guests, and a bohemian social culture- The most current user, a faith-based group, has a high number of residents, albeit a more passive group. AGENDA ITEM 5A Pa2e# 32 Parking The proposed site plan brings the alley into compliance by increasing the alley width for the length of the project western boundary and orienting the diagonal parking to flow with the direction of the alley travel. The site yields 13 conforming (including 1 HC van-accessible) and 7 tandem parking stalls and thus requires a parking reduction of 45%% to provide a compliant ratio of 2 spaces per 3 bedroom unit and 3 spaces per 4 bedroom unit. This requested reduction is offset by the following; • The project is situated less than one block from one of Boulder's nexus RTD stations along Broadway and the project is intended to house CU students who are provided with Eco Passes. • The project is across the street from the Buff Bus stop at Euclid and Broadway. The Buff Bus loops around the CU campus and provides access to Williams Village. The project is located across the street from the CU campus and is within easy walking or biking distance from all buildings on the CU main campus. The project is intended to house CU students whose primary destination and daily activities are on the campus.. • The project is within easy walking distance of shopping, dining, recreation, and entertainment on University Hill. • The project is providing ample enclosed bike parking that provides storage for the primary mode of student travel. • The project is providing a bike station area and guest bike parking; all in excess of the requirement in table 9-1. C ri-site vehicle storage consisting of 7 tandem parking spaces is being provided. Car storage is important for the college student because cars are typically used for infrequent destination trips rather than everyday use. Off-site vehicular storage will also be provided through the residents' leases, The leases will require the students to buy one parking pass per apartment through CU Parking and Transportation Services at one of the main campus or Williams Village lots. Students can ride the Buff Bus from the Broadway and Euclid stop to these lots to retrieve their stored vehicles. The owner/landlord will reimburse students for the purchase of these parking passes when they successfully complete their lease. The table below illustrates how, through the use of tandem car storage spaces and off-site parking, the project is able to meet all parking needs for the project Will 1A Undi 18 Un It IC LIM 1E Une 2A U.11 28 U.14 2C Unq 20 UnR 2E UnA 2F Unit 3A Oo-5Ae Cmfolmin Parkin Pronded t 1 1 t t t 7 1 2 7 1 On &Le Tsnc'an Car 5[ve a PrMded 1 1 t 9 7 1 1 5r, Car Store pa P1*M*d 7 1 ! POO"NCedS5awadPVUna 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 33 3 3 P.Aft Requlmd Par Unit 2 2 2 2~ 2 2 3 2 2 Petar9 Need9 SENSMd 15 Excess Of R849rc Mt I The following TDM plan yields a score of 28 - more than twice the most effective rating of 10- 2 AGENDA ITEM 5A Paee# 33 16th and Euclid Apartments TDM Plan Program oescri Ion Points Mena amen Stmt Ies: Parking spaces are limited and bruit in a single duster, providing more space for paths and t. Clustered Parking pedestrians. 4 Due to the silo's proximity to the bus lmnsn station the slo design has balanced the amount of total parking on site to the relative ovabbNity of transit and other services. Appric;+nts with no cars will be favored. Thu duveloper has iecluasled a 45 percent 2. Parkin Management reduction In parkin Purkin9 slraces will also he asslr nod. $ Subtotal: 12 °Py+~ys c;'Y,frridfirl.nrnrrMviihpc,~ri:i3~4✓♦i r,,dtf n vh.t_f. ,.ny_zi.c oil" ? r~ d t7;.;Adln ❑:ilt cksa IriF't+ a ,ni~~n a ~luu:orunai© ry,a ]1 Ih~i- ~ ~ t f n Wpb v r .oi} It iki' Ca r k.. tll' 1 c ,vu's m r -.i: tl ii ~„vi `r Urti;n7 tF'r=c-t'r lv ';[fir r it o:ti_i[ v.Jw~. seM1 +fi,rLf.,, i; f al.;' - 216 fcY.cro.SG'-tier;.. Kt: L:/ti!uitr n;ik:Lr ur .;•ir} trtrti"ur.s ` ~ i ~ t Jdticli i la _ l c. fall I r y s ts. =IL!ddl t~llr.tlit n r' ~ ~x,~ dr It+`L7, atk,. n: 3 Qnsite nmenh.-e _ f .c ti- ~5•",ry _ _ _ _ $ftbtdt3l 'f2 key 1 or 1 mast effective Architecture The University Hill area is a successful mix of eclectic architectural styles that reflect the natural evolution of the area over the last 50 years. The existing building has not contributed to the surrounding architecture with its simple, utilitarian 1960s style that has had several rambling additions. The surrounding area fortunately has many other more elegant examples of architecture of this era. The proposed architectural improvements reflect the new program and define the prominent north / west corner of the property with an added third story portion of the project. Strong horizontal elements are used providing better unification to the project. In addition to aesthetical improvements, the new Green Points and HERS rating systems which this project will meet represent a vast improvement over the existing un- insulated building with single pane windows. The Owners have also expressed interest in other sustainable building programs for the renovation as part of their commitment to the larger community. SITE REVIEW GENERAL CRITERIA 1. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan; (A) 3 AGENDA ITEM 5A Page# 34 How is the proposed site plan consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan? The site is already established as a similar use and the improvements fulfill a need for high-quality student housing while providing aesthetical and efficiency improvements to a prominent site. The project relates well to the community, exemplifies quality design and material utilization, and will meet a high standard for student apartment construction in Boulder. The student apartments in this location serve to reduce traffic by placing living space in close proximity to the University, dining, shopping, and recreation opportunities. The project will be very much pedestrian-oriented in keeping with the BVCP's goal of walkable neighborhoods. Most of CU's and the Hill's amenities are within walking distance of the project. (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 300 foot area surrounding the site is at or exceed 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, (ii) The maximum number of units that could be placed on the site without waiving or varying any of the requirements of Chapter 9-7, `Bulk and Density Standards," B.R.C. 1981. The maximum number of units is consistent with 8-1. The existing building is beyond the current setbacks, but the density conforms with the maximum allowable site coverage within the approvable setbacks How is the proposed site plan consistent with the above density criteria? The current setbacks and density are not being modified and the existing building fits 1 aligns with the surrounding buildings. II. 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 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: A. Open Space, including without limitation, parks, recreation areas, and playgrounds: 1. How is useable open space arranged to be accessible and functional? The prime use of open space is within the sets backs of this small lot where landscaping will allow for a transition from the streetscape to the building. Additional open space is provided for the residents with individual balconies and a shared courtyard. This courtyard will provide an amenity for the building as functional space for social gathering, access, and circulation, It serves to break up the building massing and provides a defined point of entry to the project. It also maximizes daylighling and views for many of the apartments. The private balconies are in excess of the requirements of table 8-1, which does not require any for this intensity district (19). 2. How is private open space provided for each detached residential unit? Not applicable. There are no detached residential units. 4 AGENDA ITEM 5A Page# 35 3. How does the project provide for the preservation of natural features, inclcrding, without limitation, healthy long-lived trees, terrain, significant plant communities, threatened and endangered species and habitat, ground and surface water, wetlands, riparian areas, and drainage areas? No natural features exist on this site as it has been developed for more than the fast 40 years. There are two mature weed ash trees that will have to be removed based on proximity to the building and parking- Additionally, there is a mature scotch pine at the north t east comer that is not an appropriate tree for the location. We will replace this tree in kind with a more appropriate species. We will enhance the landscaping with the addition of street frees. Ground and surface water will not be impacted since the footprint of the bullding is not being significantly altered. 4. How does the open space provide a relief to the density, both within the project and from surrounding development?; and The perimeter open space provides both privacy for the terrace level units while providing appropriate transition from the street to the building. The interior courtyard provides added daylighting for the units and relief to the mass of the building and creates a common area for the occupants to congregate. 5, How does the open space provide a buffer to protect sensitive environmental features and natural areas? There are no natural areas or sensitive environmental features in proximity to this project. 6. If possible, how is open space linked to an area-or a city-wide system? The perimeter open space is consistent with the surrounding areas unifying the neighborhood streetscape. There is good sidewalk and bus access to many open space areas from the project. Most of the units have easy visual access to the open space of the schoolyard at University Hill and the CU Student Union. B. Ooen Space in Mixed Use Developments: Developments that contain a mix of residential and non-residential uses: Not applicable. G. Landscaping! 1. Haw does the project provide for aesthetic enhancement and a variety of plan and hard surface materials, and how does the selection of materials provide for a variety of coiors and contrast and how does it incorporate the preservation and use of local native vegetations where appropriate? Very little new hardscape areas are being developed for sidewalk circulation and the interior courtyard hardscape will be punctuated with additional landscape area. The existing Landscaping beds comprised of non-native species and will be replaced with more drought tolerant species that provide interest and color through-out the year. 2. How does the landscape and design attempt 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 doesn't have any truly "natural" conditions, but we will be eliminating material that is found to be noxious or that is not adaptive to our climate, 3. How does the project provide significant amounts of plant, material sized in excess of the landscaping requirements of Sections 9-9-12 and 9-9-13, "Landscaping and Screening Requirements, " and "Streetscape Design Standards, ° B.R.C 1981; and. New landscape areas are planned to be at or above these the requirements to enhance the perimeter and increase the pedestrian experience along the building facades and sidewalks. 5 AGENDA ITEM 5A Paee# 36 4. How are the setbacks, yards, and useable open space along public rights-of-way landscaped to provide attractive site plan? Additional street trees are being added to the ROW and landscaping is being provided at the perimeter of the building to soften it's transition. Q. Circulation. including, without limitation, the transportation system that serves the property, whether public or private and whether constructed by the developer of not; The overall existing circulation for the site will be enhancers with a strong east west pedestrian circulator which also provides for a formal project entrance on 15 W Street. The parking at the alley will be modified to conform to the direction of traffic. The new parking field will allow widening of the alley, safer parking access, and pedestrian access lhru and around the building. 1. How are high speeds discouraged or a physical separation between streets and the project provided? As part of bringing the parking into conformance the project is offering three additional feet to the alley to increase the current congested alley. 2. Note are potential conflicts with vehicles minimized? The project will be orienting the parking to south to better the flow of two way traffic. 3. How are safe and convenient connections accessible to the public within the project and between the project and existing and proposers transportation systems provided, including without limitation streets, bikeways, pedestrian ways and traits? The basic connections for the corner site are already in place with sidewalks along Euclid and 151~, street. We have enhanced east west circulation with new steps down to 16'h street and a pedestrian breezeway out to the alley. 4. How ate alternatives to the automobile promoted by incorporating site design techniques, iand use patterns, and supporting infrastructure that supports and encourages walking, biking, and other alternatives to the single occupant vehicle? Bike parking and pedestrian access to the area are already very popular based largely on the location of the project and the established connectors. The project also has a unique location within a block of RTD's prime stop on Broadway where students are just stops away from connections at the Walnut and Table Mesa stations. We also have featured convenient bike lockers on the first floor reducing the amount of clutter bikes throughout the site and to provide added security. Additionally, we have tandem parking and off-site parking permits which encourage car storage versus usage. 5_ Where practical and beneficial, how is a significant shift away from single- occupant vehicle use to alternate modes promoted through the use of travel demand management. The existing building currently experiences a high use of alternative modes. With the additional pedestrian and bike amenities proposed, alternative mode use is expected to increase. The resident leases will mandate significant off-site storage, which will induce more pedestrian activity. 6. VW7at on-site facilities for external linkage with other modes of transportation are provided, where applicable? In addition to the on-site car storage, off-site car storage will be part of the leases for all units. Bike storage areas will allow the student residents to extend the distance they can travel without the use of automobiles. 7. How is the amount of land devoted to the street system minimized? Not applicable. There is no street system being constructed- 8. How is the project designed for the types of traffic expected, including, without limitation, automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians, and how does it provide 6 AGENDA ITEM 5A Page# 37 safety, separation from living areas, and control of noise and exhaust?; and The project orients away from the alley parking with all entrances either off the common area or private terraces. Parking is also partially tucked under the second floor further reducing its impact on the site. The private bike parking will be concealed in the building envelope to reduce the 'bike clutter' of bikes attached to balconies, railings etc. 9. How will city construction standards be met, and how will emergency vehicle use be facilitated? All improvements to the site will adhere to city construction standards. The widening of the rear alley will facilitate emergency vehicle use. Emergency vehicles will have direct access to three sides of the building E. Parkina: 1. How does the project incorporate into the design of parking areas, measures to provide safety, convenience, and separation of pedestrian movements from vehicular movements? Street parking is already well separated with the sidewalk and green ROW while the alley parking is in the rear with direct access to the building. Alley improvements and a safer auto access to the parking field will enhance pedestrian safety in the alley. 2. How does the design of parking areas make efficient use of the land and use the minimum amount of laird necessary to meet the parking needs of the project? Parking is partially tucked under the second floor reducing its impact on the site and the parking reduction is also primary in reducing the amount of on-site parking required in this University setting, 3. How are parking areas and lighting designed to reduce the visual impact on the project, adjacent properties, and adjacent streets?; The covered parking will allow for direct tow level lighting for the parking area while the rest of the lighting will follow current codes. 4. How do parking areas utilize landscaping materials to provide shade in excess of the requirements in Section 9-9-14, "Parking Lot Landscaping Standards," B.R,C. 1981. Not applicable for parking < 15 spaces F. Building Design, Livability, and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed, Surrounding Area: 1. How are the building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration compatible with the area or the character established by an adopted plan for the area? This area is populated with a mix of two and three story buildings which transitions to smaller one and two story residential to the west. The proposed massing of two story with a corner three story portion relates directly to the three story existing structures to the east and north of the site and is also of similar scale to the apartments due south of the project- The project currently conforms to the existing grid while improving the orientation of the project with the main entrance on the east and three-story portion to the northleast. 2. How is the height of the building in general proportion to the height of existing buildings and the proposed or projected heriVhts of approved buildings or approved plans for the immediate area? 16 Street is a mix of two to three story buildings with more single family one to two story structures to the west. We have proposed only the corner portion of the building as three stories to relate the larger University Hill School and the neighboring sorority house, 7 AGENDA ITEM 5A Pa2e# 38 3. How does the orientation of buildings minimize shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent properties? The majority of the building's shadows are cast onto Euclid rather than private property and no adjacent residences will lose mountain view as the property to the east is the school with a much larger set back. 4. If the character of the area is identifiable, how is the project made compatible by the appropriate use of color, materials, landscaping, signs, and lighting? In this area, there is an assemblage of eclectic architecture, but the project provides a unifying aesthetic to the previous rambling set of additions to the previous building, greatly enhancing the site. The existing landscape is limited to a few bushes and mostly turf which will be greatly improved with a mix of ground cover, added trees and greenery within the courtyard. 5. How do buildings present an attractive streelscape, incorporate architectural and site design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale, and provide for the safety and convenience of pedestrians? The site utilizes the ROW landscaping as well as terraced landscaping to transition from the building form down to the pedestrian sidewalk. We have also redesigned the east and west entrances to the site to facilitate safer direct circulation. 6. To the extent practical, how does the project provide public amenities and planned public facilities? The facility will be private, but the enhanced landscaping, alley and architectural improvements will provide perceived and functional benefit for the area. The new east entrance to the courtyard and new landscaping adds street presence that is currently missing. 7. For residential projects, how does the project assist the community in producing a variety of housing types, such as multifamily, townhouses, and detached single family units as well as mixed lot sizes, number of bedrooms, and sizes of units? The demand for apartments is high for the University area and this portion of the Hill lacks updated individual apartments. 8. For residential projects, how is noise minimized between units, between buildings, and from either on-site or off-site external sources through spacing, landscaping, and building materials? Double wall construction and concrete floor systems will be utilized to minimize sound transference between units. 9. If a lighting plan is provided, how does it augment security, energy conservation, safety, and aesthetics? Security is a priority for the project and will be addressed with low level lighting at the access points of the project and at the private courtyards on grade there will be gated, fences, enclosures 10. How does the project incorporate the natural environment into the design and avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to natural systems? As the site is fully developed we will not be burdening the area with new impact and will be increasing the amount of landscaping to the site. 11. How are cut and fill minimized on the site, and how does the design of buildings conform to the natural contours of the land, and how does the site design minimize erosion, slope instability, Landslide, mudflow or subsidence, and minimize the potential threat to property caused by geological hazard? As we are renovating the existing structure there will be a minimum of any site disturbance. G. Solar Siting and Construction., For the purpose of insuring the maximum potential for utilization of solar energy in the city, all applicants for residential site reviews shall place 8 AGENDA ITEM 5A Paee# 39 streets, lots, open spaces, and building so as to maximize the potential for the use of solar energy in accordance with the following solar siting criteria 1. 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 naturaf features and constraints may justify deviations from this criterion. How is this criterion met? Only a small portion of the buildings shadow is beyond the ROW of Euclid. 2. Lot Layout and Budding 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 contrvf of shading. How is this criterion met? The building is a classic U shape that maximizes the solar exposure to the south east while the building is pushed to north already beyond the allowable set back. The building's roof plane lends itself well to future solar arrays. 3. Building Farm. The shapes of buildings are designed to maximize utilization of solar energy. Buildings shall meet the solar access protection and solar siting requirements of Chapter 9-9-17; "Solar Access,' B. R. C_ 1981 How is the criterion met? The U shape of the building provides solar access for more perimeter of the building while the solar analysis illustrates that most of the building shadow is outside of adjoining properties with a small portion already shaded by established landscaping. 4. Landscaping. The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent buildings are minimized. How is the criterion met? Not applicable H. Additional Criteria for Poles Above the Permitted Height. NO site review application for pole above the permitted height will be approved unless the approving agency ifnds all of the following: Not applicable - height will be below the allowable 35' We look forward to the opportunity to enhance our community's asset with the proposed developments and value your feedback. Please feel free to contact us with any questions or clarifications. Sincerely, NOBS Jim Bray AIA, LEER Ap 9 AGENDA ITEM 5A Page# 40 ATTACHMENT E (CONT.) - Submitted as Part of Applicant's Written Statement CITY OF BOULDER MANDATED OFF SITE PARKING LEASE ADDENDUM As mandated by the City of Boulder; Article I. As a requirement for Leasing a dwelling unit at 986 16 tn St., the Lessees of each dwelling unit at 985 16th St. are required to purchase ONE (1) Academic Year Student Resident Parking Permit - Remote Lot per leased dwelling unit for each Academic Year. Article H. The fee for the Academic Year Student Resident Parking Permit - Remote Lot is set by the University of Colorado annually and is subject to change. The current fee is $ for each Academic Year. Article Ill. A copy of the Academic Year Student Resident Parking Permit- Remote Lot will be provided to the building management prior to the Lessees possession of the leased dwelling unit. Article IV. Upon successful completion of the terms of the Lease Agreement, the building management shall reimburse the Lessees the amount of the Academic Year Student Resident Parking Permit - Remote Lot fee. The reimbursement shall be made as part of the Security Deposit reconciliation at the end of the Lease Term per the terms of the Lease Agreement. Receipt and acceptance; Lessee Date Lessee Date Lessee Date Lessee Date AGENDA ITEM 5A Page# 41 ATTACHMENT E (CONT.) - Submitted as Part of Applicant's Written Statement Boulder Valley Transportation Survey: Comparison of Survey Results Boulder Valley Employees Downtown Boulder Employees University of Colorado Boulder Campus Faculty and Staff University of Colorado Boulder Campus Students April 2006 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER Inc. National Research Center, Inc. • 3005 30th 5t. • Boulder, 0080301 • (303) 444-7863. www.n-r-t.com AGENDA ITEM 5A Page# 42 Boulder Valley Transportation Survey. Comparisons Across Surveyed Groups - - ApiR 2006 Survey Results by Surveyed Group Primary Mode of Transportation on Survey Day (All) Boulder Downtown ` valley Boulder CU How did you get to work today? Employees Employees Faculty/Staff CU Students Drove alone 69% 36% 39% 10% Drove with at least one other person I 8% _ 9% 10% I 2% Walked 3% L B% _ 3% 24%- Biked 3% ! 6% 11% I 18% Rode a bus or buses 9% 34% li 25% 26% Multi-mode 2% 6% 9% ; 15% . Worked at home - 4% ~ 0% 1~6 Z% Other 1% 1% 1% 2% TOTAL 100?5 100% j 100% , 100% Typical Mode of Transportation Used for Work Commute Average Percent of Trips During a typical week, how many (All) Boulder Downtown days do you commute to work in Valley Boulder CU each of the ways listed below? Employees ! Employees Faculty/Staff j CU Students Drive alone 68% j 36% 38% 11% Drive with at least one other person 9% 10% 10% 3% Multi-mode (e.g., car then bus, bike then bus, etc.) 9% 7% 7% Walk 3% 8% 5% 27% Bike --T 4% 8% j 4% _ 21% Ride a bus(es) i 8% j 28% i 13% 26% Work at home5% 1% ! 21% 2% Other ! 0% _LLW 1% 2% Teleworking Downtown s (All) Boulder Boulder Do you ever telework? Valley Employees Employees CU Faculty/Staff Yes 18% 16% ! 31% No 82% 84% ' 69% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Page 3 of 9 AGENDA ITEM 5A Paee# 43 Boulder Valley Transportation Survey: Comparisons Across Surveyed Groups Apri! 2Q06 Distance of Commute in Miles (All) Boulder i Downtown ' About how far is your home from valley Boulder CU work? i Employees i Employees I Faculty/Staff CU Students 0 to 2 miles 18% 31% j 12% 56% 3 to 5 miles 22% 26% 11% i 17% b to 10 miles 17% 18% 17% 5% 11 to 20 miles 30%15% I 37% 18% aver 20 miles 13% ~9% 22% S% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% Average Distance of Commute in miles 11.2 miles 7.9 miles 14.9 miles 5.8 miles Median Distance of Commute in Miles got XX xx I xx Duration of Work/School Commute in Minutes (All) Boulder I Downtown About how many minutes did it Valley Boulder CU take? Employees I Employees Faculty/Staff CU Students Average Length of Time I 22.9 minutes 25.1 minutes ; 28.1 minutes 16.9 minutes Median Length of Time 20 minutes 20 minutes . 25 minutes 15 minutes Page 4 of 9 AGENDA ITEM 5A Page# 44 6oume3r Valley Transportation Survey: Comparisons Across Surveyed Groups Apri12006 Made Stops on Commute to Work/School j (All) Boulder i Downtown ' Did you come straight to Valley Boulder I CU 1 work/schoot from home today? j Employees j Employees I Faculty/Staff i CU Students Yes 79% i' 85% 1 80% No 21% I - 159 20% - - S% TOTAL I 100% I 100% 100% I --100% Number of Stops Made on the Way to Work/School (All) Boulder Downtown How many stops did you make on Valley Boulder CU your way to work/school? Employees Employees Faculty/Staff CU Students No stops 80% 85% i 82% i 94% 1 stop 45% 10%-13% 4% 2 stops - - 4% - 3% 4% ~ 1 % 3 or more stops 1% 1% 1% j 1% TOTAL i 100%~ 100% 1 100% 100% Average Number of Stops by All I Respondents 0.3 stops 0.2 stops 0.2 stops 0.1 stops Average Number of Stops by Those That Made Stops 1.4 stops 1.5 stops 1.4 stops 1-6 stops Number of Stops Made on Commute Home Yesterday, or on the last day you (All) Boulder j Downtown Boulder [t~ worked, haw many slaps did you Val ley make on your way home? ! Employees j Employees Faculty/Staff CU Students Average Number of Stops by ALL I Respondents 0.8 1.1 0.9 0.9 Average Number of Stops by Those That Made Stops 1.7 2.1 1.9 ; 2.3 Page 5 of 9 AGENDA ITEM 5A Paee# 45 Boulder Valley Transportation Survey: Comparisons Across Surveyed Groups April 2008 Work Day Trips Did you make any trips during your workday yesterday (or on the last day (All) Boulder I Downtown you worked), not including your work I Valley ' Boulder commute? Employees Employees CU Faculty/Staff No 42% - 48% 53% Yes I 58% 52% 47% TOTAL 100% 100% 140% Number of Work Day Trips How many one-way trips did you make during your or terday (or on (All) Boulder Downtown the last day you worked), not including Valley Boulder your work commute? ' Employees Employees CU Faculty/Staff Average number of trips made during the previous workday of ALL respondents 1.6 1.5 1.0 Average number of trips made during the i previous workday of those that made trips 2.7 2.9 I 2.1 Work nay Errands Does your job require you to run (Alt) Boulder Downtown errands or attend meetings away from Valley Boulder the work site Employees Employees CU Faculty/Staff Yes 54% 36% 1 57% No 46% i 64% 43% TOTAL 100% I 100% j 100% Vehicle Availability for Work Day Errands If you run errands or attend meetings for your job, is there a work vehicle (All) Boulder Downtown available to you or must you provide Valley Boulder CU your own transportation? Employees' Employees' Faculty/Staff' I must use my own vehicle or other means of transportation , 88% 88% 78% I use an employer-provided vehicle 13% 14% ! 15% I use an employer-provided bicycle 1% 1% ' 3% Other 3% 8% 15% 'Percents may odd to more than 100% as respondents could give more then one answer. Page 6 of 9 AGENDA ITEM 5A Page# 46 Boulder Valley Transportation Survey: Comparisons Across Surveyed Groups ApW 2006 Employee Parking Generally, who pays for employee parking at your (All) Boulder Valley Downtown Boulder organization? j Employees ! Employees Free parking is provided by employer or landlord 86% i 27% Employees pay for their own parking I 8% j 54% Employer pays for employee parking reimbursement or permit) 5% 17% Employee and employer share the cost of parking (e.g„ employer pays part of permit, etc.) 1% 1% TOTAL 100% 100% Distance to Nearest Bus Stop How far from your home is the (All) Boulder Downtown nearest bus stop that you would Valley Boulder CU use to ride to work? Employees Employees Faculty/Staff CU Students Less than 2 blocks 26% 32% 24% 55% 2.5 blocks - 30% 31% 32% 25% 6-10 blocks 11% 15% - - -10% I-- _ 5% 11-15 blocks - I 4% i_ - 2% 6% 2% More than 15 blocks 14%-~ 23% 6% Don't know 15% ~I 4% 6% TOTAL 100% 100% ; 100% 100% Page 7 of 9 AGENDA ITEM 5A Page# 47 Boulder Valley Transportation Survey: Comparisons Across Surveyed Groups AFrif. 20€6 ECO-Pass Status f (All) Boulder Downtown Do you have an ECO-Pass or a Valley Boulder CU sticker on your BuffOne Card? Employees Employees j Faculty/Staff : CU Students Yes, have an ECO-Pass or sticker 27% i 82% , 99% 94% No, do not have an ECO-Pass or 3 i sticker 73% 1B% 1% ' 6% TOTAL 100% f 100% I 100% 100% Transit Use for Work Commute (All) Boulder Downtown Do you ever ride a bus to Valley Boulder I CU work school? Employees Employees 4 Faculty/Staff i CU Students Yes 24% ! 71% 70% 1 78% No 76% 29% ' 30% : 22% TOTAL 100% t -..100% - - 100% 100% Transit Use for Nan-work trips During a typical week do you ever f use the RTD bus or Light Rail system for trips that are not for (All) Boulder Downtown commuting, but are for pleasure or Valley Boulder CU personal business? Employees ! Employees Faculty/Staff CU Students No 80% 49Y 63% ~ 38% Yes 20% 51% 37% 62% TOTAL 1 a0% 100% 100% 100% Transit Use for Non-work trips During a typical week, how many 4 one-way trips do you make on an RTD bus or Light Rail that are not ! (All) Boulder I Downtown for commuting to work but are for I Valley I Boulder CU pleasure or personal business? Employees Employees FacuitylStaff CU Students Average Number of Trips by ALL Respondents j O.8 2.2 1.2 I 2.1 - - Average Number of Trips by Those That Made Trips 4.0 ; 4.4 f 3.3 3.5 Page 8 of 9 AGENDA ITEM 5A Paee# 48 Boulder Valley Transportation Survey: Comparisons Across Surveyed Groups April 2006 Motor Vehicle Availability Is a car or other motor vehicle (All) Boulder Downtown ' usually available to you for Valley Boulder CU I commuting to work? Employees Employees Faculty/Staff CU Students Yes 87% 78% 89% 68% No - - ----13% 22%' - - 11% 32% TOTAL 100% ! 100% 100% 100% Bicycle Availability (All) Boulder Downtown I Is a bicycle usually available to you Valley Boulder CU for commuting to work? Employees Employees Faculty/Staff I CU Students Yes 53% ' 57% 61% 63% No 47% ' 43% 39% 37% TOTAL 100% I 100% 100% 100% Respondent's Place of Residence (All) Boulder Downtown Valley j Boulder CU Where do you live? Employees i Employees Faculty/Staff CU Students Boulder (within the city limits) j 31% ~i 55% 36%~ 82% Unincorporated Boulder County 10% 5% 9% I 2% Ward/Nederland/Jamestown 1% 1% 0% Lyons 1-I- -0%1 1% Superior 2% 2% ' 2% Lafayette 1% 4% 7% 2% Louisville 5% 3% 6% 2% Longmont 14% 10% 9% 0% Erie 2% 2% 2% Broomfield 3% - 4% I-^- - 4% 2% Westminster _ 6% A _ 3% 4% 1% Arvada -1% 3% Denver or other metro-area suburb 5% _ % 7%~ 0% Berthoud/Loveland/Fort Collins 1% I 0% i 2% 1 0% Weld County 1 1% 1% ` 3% 3% Other ~5% 3% 3% 1 0% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% Page 9 of 9 AGENDA ITEM 5A Paae# 49 ATTACHMENT F 130ad Y<INw %ne Are. p:303-1~41A9 985 6th Street pa4ev cD ao3a Site Review Corrections June 24, 2009 OPEN SPACE AREA VICINITY MAP PROJECT STATISTICS PROJECT DIRECTORY EUCLID AVE - ` j,.., udr 'r"d S W SITE PROPOSED PARKING OWNER Putnam Richard A& Putnam Partners LP PROJELTOPEN SPACE 49176P LOT AREA 18.816 STANDARD 9 4450 fvapatwa BauNer, CO 60303 ~UNttOPRi SPACE (PARTNLSHOwN)11905F AGE 4 C. PREAWITH IN SETBACKS 9,051 COMPACT 4 (303)6153508 BUILDING COVERAGE 9.070 TOTAL 13 C-WdeBabBI- r S:~ ~ r ~ ~ I ~°Ye", Stl nw csF s tVelS~f~' 2~ a o-maa ~reeaOeenhsnb.nl o~Q----- gPENSPACE 1917 REOUIRFD 26 CONTRACTOR Deneuve Construed n ' , - UNROPEN SPACE 1,190 REDUCfTO RON 50°.6 2344 Spruce SbeeL SVIle8 ' 1 tIUMCAaW>rNIT A R.O.W. 10% BONUS TOTAL OPEN SPACE &6931 13031444E333 y C-I-t DaMGerebEd ^ c- Wka~' I • BIKE PARKING R dA@dntwemnswcuonmm wi C ROD, OPEN SPACE SAW I3V PfQ~QCt ATe~ D1 UNITS x600 S.F. GUEST 12 ARCHITECT North Boulder Studios • RESIDENTIAL $4 130DCYellowPk.A- BoLOer CO 60304 k 9[ E OVERAGE 1A% TOTAL 46 (309)444.1696 4J 0 Coded: JH1B / , .1,. °"wa G4 I YI/w01d 4~ REQUIRED 3 ,-k Ib.y@.bsdelgm ~ O f5 v s BUILDING AREA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Nature's Design Associates, LLC , 7 / 15674 Idlana GNdl Rd U orasTlNG PROPOSED PROJECT UNIT BREAKDOWN daRresw~m. c0 BUSS IM FLOOR 8,776 6,861 (3D3) 45 4J .y FLOOR 8,474 8,956 3BEDROOM UNTM 7 W t: Badry Martlnk 1 C w 4BEOROOM UNITS 4 I: maNnak@hugbes,nal 3rdFLOOR NA 23112 1 IS TOTALS 11750 17.709 TOTALUHRS 11 CIVIL ENGINEER JVA, Inc. St- C r , 13 CO807 BEDROOMS uI 02 y I A a k ! .m L CalndeA" ADDED FLOOR AREA 9DA% / 'i I IaFLOOR 13 0444-1951 i r ct Oww Nagar , 2W FLOOR i6 t s i II I; 3rd FLOOR 6 artalE c3a0erQhnlvamm .u+7 .•,,.v, .a...,v & w.d^1xiti~ ` i I ' E TOTAL 37 t. M 0 BMaA' ( rl ON EGRESS PLANS PROJECT DATA PROJECT ADDRESS: 98516th street Boulder, Colorado 86342 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Renovation of an existing boarding house ~E.~._ '~T r•---Tj~a_..-.._......~_~..f_.~-__-_ MOINttU'E-_....-_ N0 Into 11 for lease apartments. ZONING: RH-5 I I I I I ~I BUILDING TYPE: V-B, Fully Sprinkled ' UNIT 2-E ' UNIT 2•E ' I UNIT1-C OCCUPANCY: R2 UNIT3•A 3 UNIT 2•F r Euorss UNIT i-b 3. EGRESS I ABOVE f [ I DOWN I E STAAR 2 J EOB4RIERWM1UUNIT s I I UNrf2-D ( SHEET INDEX STAIR II II f SHEET DESCRIPTION I _ t 60.0 Cover Sheet CO Site Survey EGRESS DOWN 41 6TAIR1 I i I C1.0 Preliminary Grading! Drainage Plan Iii I = UNIT2-fiw'm i I C2.0 Preliminary Utility Plan 4-6-~ 1 'p20O96S ,A = I L-1 Landscape Plan 2009-00029 I I I I L-2 Landscape Details 8-03.09 EGRESS DOWN EGRESSFRGR I , EX-1 Exisitng Building Plans s-19-o9 I S1W11 I {Id I UNITS ABOVE I I UNIT 2-A I I I UNIT f•A I 61.0 Architectual Site Plan & UNIT 2-8 L UNTl-B-B Parking Layout A2.1 First Floor Plan COVER SHEET A2.2 Second & Third Floor Plans 1 I I , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -paanmYU¢' A3.1 Exterior Elevations av2 eA tx 3rd LEVEL 2nd LEVEL 18tLEVEL A3.2 Exterior Elevations t1lJ Aft 0 A4.0 Solar Shadow Analysis ~J SCALE 1-•203 ■ ow-LL Ilk FOUND 45 REBAR a eanrrom ED RYF3NU IN RANG" BOX - _ _ . . - _ - _ IN RAMLS 80% BAgs OF SWINGS 0 ` (H7a R.O.WJ §431 I FWF81 PK VIAL OUT 1 E0i M we WASH EA F 2 LOT 43 D d l8 9853 ®'--^^W-W-W-W-W-W-^~W-B LOT 3 LC 42 ,ipE FNWO PK MAIL' AND WASHER LOT 4 LOT Al IB 965S LOT 5 OUT 40 q I FWNO #5 REHAR VAIN CAP ND }4 REM . CONCRETE SIDEWALK, HANDICAP IS 9655 LOT 39 (507.51'47'E, P.83} RAMP (S46R3'480.2.7) OUT 7 OUT 33 1 CCNgIFIIi CONCRETE 0.7 LOT a LOT 37 UPIVE PJJIP WALL OUT a LHTr 36 ti RE E W m to OUT 3s CURB `11, IT 15' rA13T LOT 11 LOT 34 ~F FROM WLONG 5b5369' I~ LOT 52 W LOT 33 h : 6Scale 1" = 10 y -a LOT -12 i HANDICAP OUT 14 LOT 31 FOuN. P K flANROW 71E 1YAll N 901W OU L. 124.62 RAMP 0 5' ' 10 SOLLARD 20 i % NkLNL AND WAy pt FxD ELEK•5N0.16' -LOT 15 LOT JO g SEE NOTE 51 L' r] --T;T _ LOT 29 BRICK 8 A LOT 17 OUT A N o CWCREIE CURB PLANTER M m I e 4a8' v.Y GAS OUT 19 LOT 9 o00R % y. DOM E7E 3' SINGLE Mum WALL STEPS TF-3204- X 1.5 BRA ~A I LOT 19 wi 26 Ai . ORNN WALL q ,7^" LOT ED iD7 25 38,2 LOT I 0 BAILS LOT K OUT 21 LOT 24 CONCRETE LOi LOi 23 111E S. \ STEPS P e ° ~ ( R(/RL{fR RVENUE \ 0 \ n XS; NB936'SYE 3K.32' REPAIR A"- % 4.0,9 X 3' FOUND (i FWNO EO REBAi W X 0X RANGE BOX SASE DOOR W FLANGE BO ASPHALT 219' 41.3 BRICK CON B E~01_ DIAGRAM (2.3SE, 5.987 rFr BRICK - - _ - Y - F MnttR SCALE: t' = 100' { \ BETE PLANTER ` LT I : G. It I \ i z K368 A 7DT 2 LOT 43 7^' 1; 1 ''~W? \ BANILDING U C I ~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION LEGEND BRICK BOLDING CONCRETE n , ASPHALT 51Ep5 I LOTS 30. b, 41, 47, 43, AND 44.. BLOCK 16, r BRICK CNIYERStt PLACE, Ott OF BOULDER, COUNTY O PLANTER BTA LM. STATE OF COLORADO, EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE .L NO EASFMeNT FOR % 40.9 SURVEY NOTES F \ / 011W SHOW? ON PUT I C //DITCH UNOER imTemmmOF tAy, I I. ME BASS OF BEARINGS 19 THE RECORD BFARNB DF THE LENTERUME OF THE EUtl1D EXISTING RIME TREE • gR2H BUILDING. UNDE9 SEE SHE NOTE AM1 a 40.9 AVENUE BETWEEN THE FOUND MONUMENTS .11. HEREON .NO SEARS EXISTING CONTOUR r. r CC 3 LOT 42 ~ a 2 THE SIZE AND TYPE OF MONUMENTS FOND ARE SHOWN HEREON. k 4Bf~A a EXISTING SWALE APPROXIMATE EDGE OF 3, THE SURVEY FIELD WOW ON THIS SITE WAS COMPLETED W JJNE 14, 2006. 6, Baa ' i • r DITCH CONCRETE '1;;. 4, SMwNO MEASUREMENTS ARE AT GROUND LEVEL. SET p5 STAMPED REBAR SCOTT, WITH COX & RED ASSOC. PLASnC CAP saRS . 5. ORIGIN BENCH MARK: (CITY OF BOULDER N-S-R-3) CHSEi B) BOX ON CATCH BASIN AT PLS 24302. UNLESS NOTED. E. B DOUBLE DOOR % BRICK EDGE O CONCRETE SLAB LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST COWER OF EUCUD AVENUE AND FF+43.31 WALL 15TH STREET. ELEVAMON-5441.87 CTY O BOULDER DATUM O FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED r ' • w PROJECT BENCH M RN FOUND PK "L AND WASHER LS 9655 AT NE CORNER LOT T AS I \ - „ 1r~~{yF SHOWN HEREON EIEVATMM-SM016 CITY OF BOULDER DATUM e EXISTING WATER VALVE k; q i \ STTRIE }Yd It 6, NOTICE ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW. YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEON. ACTION BASED ll V M¢'Y - CD 'IE, ~ EEEYAii..d ON ANY DEFECT SI THIS STONEY WTHI THREE YEARS AFTER YOU 11.111111. om EXISTING WATER METER Vqv ~A SUM DEFECT IN NO EVENT, MAY MY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY GM X 42.8.540 BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN PARS FROM THE DATE OF THE CERTIHCKITON SHOWN O EXISTING GAS METER 11 1 iB 427 HEREON. CRS-I3-80-105 (3)(0) 8' DWOLE DOOR X FIp a EXISTRNG POWER POLE Ff•{J.JI 1 (E N1 7. THE LOCATION OF THE ABOVE GROUND UTILITIES S SNOW! HEREON ARE BASM ON THE FIELD LC,4 ~ AND BRICK BAIIMIDING \ BARP0.E SURVEY BY SCOTT. COX a ASSOCIATES NO. THE LOCATIONS OF THE UNDERGROUND # EXISTING LIGHT POLE 986 iSIN STREET UTIUMES SWAN HEREON ARE BASED ON STUD SURVEY AND INFORMATION PROVIDED BY OUT 4l DTHERB (WHICH MAY INCWDE THE UTUTY ORNER OR upUTY LOCATING QRVICES). SCOTT, p EXISTING SIGN j \ COX & ASSOCIATES INC. is NOT RESPONSOE FOR UTILITY NFCRMATIW PROVIDED BY S~,* CRUM SCOTT, COX & ASSOCIATES, INC REWUMENDS DRAT THE LOCATION OF THE ,4 EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT UTILITIES BE FIELD VERIFIED PRIOR PIN TO Y OICONG ON, OR xuACENNT To THE SUMCT EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINE 4 T SNGIE ODOR SOLUTIONS, (OIRH LOCATION SEE NOTE 8) R ry'' . I B DITCH LOCATION AS SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY WAS MADE BY UNDERGROUND CONSJLTHC -r---IY- EXISTING WATER W/FIRE HYDRANT \ CIA KEN GOFF (303)-90+-7412 A WIRE WAS FLOATED DO M THE COON AND FF•H.83 A \ N,77 LOCALES ( MERE OBTAINED FROM THIS CURE, WHICH WAS lEff W THE DITCH. FROM R) RECORD MEASUREMENT DI SED ACCESS POINTS AT THE MY AND SE OF THE STE IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE '29'W qTO. IS A SQUARE aANrREFE CULVERT UNDER THE sTE AND BUILDING. aTGXi FLOWS (S54'08 Q.OS') RECORD OR CALCULATED POSITION q'•\ NEST TO EAST. TO FOUND MONUMENT 9. NO MILE COI WAS PROVIDED FOR THIS SURVEY. No TITLE SEARCH WAS LOT S \,0 OUT 40 \ I PBRf(1RYED 1. RECORDED EASDERTS, RIGHT-OF-WAY WDINS AND ENCUMBRANCES. 0 CRETE RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND EASENRNB, IF ANY, ARE SHOWN PER RECORDED SUBDIVISION PLAT. 10. LALAND SURVEY ND SURVEY MT, SIGN MAY 4. 20M, PAD,ECT I No. "70s. AL Ls-04-to12 NC. INC IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT LOTS 39-44, BLOCK 16 1.. UNIVERSITY PLACE LOTS APPROXIMATE LOT 39 ` y CURS ANDW~ LOCATED IN OVERHANG KGw PDWT ON S4 BNLONG ROOF ..A { (TYP.) 1/4 OF SECTION 31 1111.1111,11; •s463.7 ~ CERTIFICATION SW ~ j GROUND •5445.J0 Fey 24,8' I. A. JOAN BURL A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE O T1N, R7OW1 6TH P.E. 15.1' b SET 2' ALUM. CAP COLORADO, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE SURVEY REPRESENTED BY THIS PLAT WAS MADE WITN 7' CORNER WO. PLS 24307 ..9fETEDA` . A44~ , UNDER NY SUPERVISION AND THE MONUMENTS SHOW THERE ON ACTUALLY EMT AND THIS CITY AND COUNTY OF BOULDER OAR .505 - IN - . n piICK F µ RfBAR MT ACCURATELY REPRESENTS SAID SURVEY, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND STATE OF COLORADO a WALL I 124.63' 98516TH STREET a '.NMj.' 447 CCPiCAE1E St1EWAL _ FS+NgUA1 FOUND 05 RWAR VAIN CAP Ls 8635 X .6 '`TWY4 . I . 4Hy'SY440''L y STEPS D E E X s.D4s° as 213Q2 i~ 9WTT, COX & ASSOCIATE, INC. y 3 ,y i p $ consulting engineers . surveyors Q~ Q AZ ~,p U y b. 1570 SSU, SkwL . 6aWtlr. Cd b 60]OS j h 5*' 1/7y\r' .4ba o 0.4 ~J +,...wr. Rp F' (Y4.) 4M -3641 LDT 7 VDT 30 rm6 3.5• A ,C METAL COVERED Dmir*' by AJB ~La Scala Dro,rvlq n0. co ' ACCE58'margl 3y sWAl by JAS 6/29/05 1--io, 05378 2 OF PROPERTY. 0. JOIN Al9U. PLS 24301 Gram b Q FL .38:3 DITCH Fl.OWUNE FFMi AND ON -Al O RMMNI n.-I HRm Dab Pro1EC1 ro. C FAST SIDE OF 76M ` SCOTT. D)7L & AsSCgA$S INC. (WP9Le6 b AJB QRS+ Z-6-0 05378 4.4. FL •382 Y 2 SET PINS 7-7-05 -P* NORTH 101 BOULDER STUDIOS _...._..f.. . 3 I ' I300•C Ydbr Pl- Are. mina.,, CO 00301 p:103d44-1590 ,EUCLID AVENUE.., - , ~ . A ; ; " TREE A Q, MIR) K it .,~'~4✓ LANDSCAPE. { t WLD`~d 1 OENO #'6Nk WAti: / _ RETAINING WAIL PATIO ` B " j G SAW CUT CONIC Taw +T so ca c WALK (RED zN`lYp) -a T. I \ DRGIGET ~.W 710 j ,AN CFARC - IkG , Sze At I 37 r , SAWWT1` ~I 37,60 37.60 I GtiNC :r SAS1WfW Ali . i . e Ky. 7 T JR Y0 T,O1376 orb 1 r s t YJ✓ - 5 DEAD WALK I' AFNALI: Q j ~f (SEE SHEET 020 f: t x- 4 f i §A PL:WWTERS V DFAIO PORTIONS BUG 37.0 3T d [r ARCH) 1 719 • ° R I. L •sAnalr ..2 t' } CGNC ~ iII m - SCRGNR n< ihL W PARKING ;`v I Q ? I: EXIST BLDG T IDe PC RnuNING 0 7 1 20F 0203 WAL t Q 1 i ~T4 BE RENOYAiE4)" EXIST WAD ;I U a v aFF VAgES (RE: ARCH) W42' INUNE I TO RENAN V AREA DR1DN DA VCNrsm a L SANA7IT ALT 1 GT 5441,50 THROUGH WAIl?;i <D N a4 s - ~i ,SAS w ASi0l RR { u:. ti~• . . NV 547970 L Q t +.a a 2so I L PLANTER BLOCK I. h i Gquw4e a~sEW 3AT llL roll I'nv4u +2 (AC£ ,f nrw 1 T~ DITTO ASPHALT B: CCNC d i 171 - Iyi ^x V . r,: 40 1 TIME STOP q :,I iD 42 A$ Q3s4~ `f b ) P~~ u ,ANC STEPS k r 1 (17 fi RSERS} LEGEND W Q r( ASPHALT CGLC WALK t4z7p j ' a SG45 . S7C0~ ),d,~ 1 'cK.°1 ! I.'•, PAWNS W BNC A;i(IVF 5 d~ - •P -------•w------- SANITARY SEWER tom) . .0030E ...21+5. ,s l +245 39+0 -W- WATER & 1.0 I'i ) 0 T MI ri 4$60 +5 Q ) WHC wuNIC. aECT%C RAISLD PLANTER/ f A:- 1 ! ,.t.~` SEATWAIL ON CRP➢E i BryC~Y,GE RACK : 060 00TMSTMRIT 4 P - F (RE AF") 4 &NDNG ACCESS .a ONO TREE "era. x - , T 13.50 4280 `44.90 1 : 1 SEGMENTAL .:y . - - G#.. UNITS OF SAW„ 7T a: v r~, i26O WAAUIlNN I ; P• 6L0C ACCESS F;+ WALL PROPERTY UNE / ROW r \ s (TYP) PROPOSED BUILDING 1 r[I f 1 ~ _ 1 _.,..1 EXIST WLDING t f 0 CONCRETE PAVING :I:i ' , a ❑ • . 4y66 , # ASPHALT PAYING : . t,4S• . 44.35 \4280 : CURB & GUTTER \ RECYCLE FINS ' 71Us91 WRP57ER \ SHRUBS . . s. -i....... I°, (FE,)LSCAPE) PROPOSED INDEX C(NIiWR o - N`; DOMWSPdIt ' i /~?A~~ PROPOSED INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR itYP) i~b 4266 ~'&I„ „-,i EXIST INDEX CONTOUR K; . S. EMST INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR r HC PARKING y x OOWNSPO016 TO BE j EXIST SM. EDGER +27.30 PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION a •y + a REMOVED/RELOCATED (TIP) E>&51 SPOT MATCH IwWMw~ 6 (RE LSCAPE)L~ . ~D~0 ~i (Try-7) 4~.:..r ONO t CONC CURB TREE Isx nx `s!! . r 3 , Da-o3-os ppaEa a / fd - r .x w JYA 1616c _ 3 TRANSPOSER ~ i , 1 PREIRAINARY i. ' r• GRADING AND , T' DFMAGE PLAN 10 0 10 20 saa mAea SCALE RT FEET ft, x 1 •i NORTH : - BOULDER . . ? . ................y SJUp10S IMo-ereno. emen.<. ft.ld- CO 603. p]n - SURVEY EXST DOWNSTREAM s uas>REaW EUCUO AVENUE : a 55 MH LOCATION: RIM BEY. .k...,, ra .,,.;1......... ..a' .............y 4.ti"_, f.s. PIPE SIZE k INV PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION .mm r _ ..r. u..uw n.. mr<as, DTST 4'P RE SERVICE CITY OF BOULDER CONSTRUC110N NOTES: •Pi"`~'' TO REMAIN 1. ALL NDRN SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE Mm THE 'DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS' i' (VERFY SIZE. LOCATION a : OF THE CITY O BOULDER. AND SNAIL BE COMPLETED 10111E S:ITSFACTON O THE DIRECTOR OF %18UC EVENT DESI NOT REFLECT THE MATTER 3 »..p . ( A r BE MMMEDATELY BROIINTATO THE A7 OF DOES E ENGINEER AND~THE DDIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKSSi I . m RECOMMENDING A SOLUTION OR ALTEPo! 114E SOUTMNS TO r . : ; 1. _;7- THE Ott FOR RENEW AND APPROVAL 2 E ENGINEER SHAH BE RESPONSIBLE FOR APPROVAL OF A CONSTRUCTON PJN DOES NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR OF THE xs S CONNECT _ REVISIM AND/OR CORREC'DOIS 2enc wATEN REVONSIBIL11Y OF 1 7. 114 REuEC REWIRED WLL BE SOLELY THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY, AND AT THOR EXPENSE. ~LUM M~ PER METER CITY AVAULT EAST ss IDS 3 THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTING L1H EOtt OF BOULDER OVLYL F CONFgWANfE WITH THE H] tABD L } ; r _v L a MTE ST VAULT 'DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS,* COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT A[AfEI1FNT CONDITIONS AND FOR GENERAL CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF PUBLIC BIPROVEM COTS AS SHOWN. THE CIIYB RENEW DOES NOT CT O ST h DS ! 2'x8' TAPPING VMiFY OR ENSURE THE LLA DUSTING I SHOWN TS ONES, COORDINATES. OR UTILITIES OR NO SHoW N a ? n I i TEE W1 WI 2" Il . \ . . ( .I. _ _ 4. UTIUIY LOCATIONS SHOWN REFLECT AVAILABLE RECORD DATA THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ;,:~r: w .k ............y..,......... L -1 CORP GRADES SHOWN, PRECAUTIONARY WCUUDIING MEASURES ALL J., DOO- &E.CN' OUT PROTECT ALL UTLN LINES SHOWN AND OTHERWISE LOCATED. THE p Il NYITW N WATER CONTRACTOR 5HAU. CONTACT THE 'UTILITY NOTINCATMN CENTER OF COLORADO" AT 1-BUD-822-1962 FOR I( NEON) i G DUST CE UTOTY LOCATES 24 HOURS PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. .....SPGIRttk1T.aS a Lt +F.,.. , AT WAIN THE CONTRACTOR w A PERMIT TO WORK PER 1- & BEFORE WORK BEGINS SHALL 06u N THE RfGNT-OF-WAY 1 Y a I FROM THE CITY AND MUST NOTIFY THE CITY RIGHT-Of-WAY INSPECTION STAFF AT LEAST 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION ACTINTES ..„..d.....,..-....... W........ 28 U 8" SC}7 40 PVC I & THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN A COMPLETE AND APPROVED SET O CONSTRUCTION ( REYDVC A REPLACE PLANS. THE DRAINAGE, AND ANY REQUIRED PLTdEIA, SMALL BE AVWUIME AT THE PROECT SITE AT S5jtYIDE 01Ai WIN - t •ru? 1~ y I'EREDFOS _ ALL TIMES AND WALL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO CITY STAFF UPON REOUESE. IF CONSTRUCTION PUNS ARE (COORD'FINAL AUGNMENT E' I 1 41 LF T COP NOT READILY AVAILABLE AT THE PROECi SITE, THE DIRECTOR O NBUC WORKS MAY ISSUE A STOP > O? T14 ETC W WECH i • q• „ y a DGIESTIC9 IRAICATION IAff WORK ORDER AND HALT All OONSIRU'CTIDN ACTM6 PENDING COMPLIANCE BY THE CONTRACTOR, # PRIOR CO CONSTRUCTION) 45' WINMPTH Alr I t 7. THE CONTRACTOR AGREES TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE TRAPNC CONTROL PUN AND THE S.A -MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIX CONTROL DEVICES; PART N, FOR CONSTRUCTION SICNAGE AND TRAFFIC O a.: N CONTROL , r EXIST BU)G . I--' ALL SURPLUS MATERIALS. TOOLS, AND TEMPORARY STRUCTURES, FURNISHED BY THE CONTRACTOR, V) 4 _ . Lr1 i S I (J7 E SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE PROJECT SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR ALL DEBRIS AND RUBBISH CAUSED BY Y STA BE RENOVATED) I THE OPERAnONS OF THE CONTRACTOR SHALE BE REMO AND THE AREA OCCUPIED DURING Q VARIES (RE ARCH) d CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SMALL BE RESTORED ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION, WITHIN 48 HOURS O PROTECT ! I x COMPLETION, UNLESS OTHU MSE DIRECTED BY THE DIRECTOR O PUBUC WORKS S N -,N A - - d a { ~ 9 THE CONTRACTOR SNAIL PROVIDE TREE AND LANDSCAPE PROTECTION AS SET FORM N CHAPTER 8-6, :y 'PROTECTION O TREES AND PLANTS.' BOULDER REVISED CEDE (B.RD) 1981 AND THE CITY OF BORDER e g l - DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS DCS ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE PROVIDED AND MANTANED IN ( y } Y V , \ • q 1 A r a r ~ COMPUANCE WITH THE APPROVED LANDSCAPING PLAN, BRC ANT) DCS - fi E • ` C j P A _ , ' Ary A iT I tt A., 1D. THE CONTRACTOR IS REWIRED TO PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTRO MEASURES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND ROM CONTROL DISTRICT 'URBAN STORK w..y f ! t ! r•I k DRAINAGE CIRTERIA MANUAL VOLUME J', THE M STANDARD PLANS OF THE COOAA00 0EPAR1NENT O ti Y A TRANSPORTATION. AND THE APPROVED EROSION CONTROL PLAN THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MAY _ N REQUIRE THE CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE AWITONAl EROSION CONTROL MEASURES DUE 70 UNFORESEEN I a f _ I I EROSION PROBLEMS OR IF THE PLANS DD NOT FUNCTION AS INTENDED. O g3 rv,'. I m k 1DINCE 11. THE CITY OF BCUWO2 REWIRES THAT SIDEWALKS CONSTRUCTED HAVE A CROSS SLOPE OF LESS ExiST 5 co f~ flF1D LOCATE § CAP a U,,, N r V el,' THAN 2X SIDEWALKS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED Wm CROSS SLOPES SUFFICIENTLY 165 co PER CITY $TANOARC6 ? PROVIDED TO HELPRENSURE THE PUBLIC IMPPO%UENi5 ARE DESGGNED AIM CONSTRUCTED IN GUIDANCE IS v , COMPLANCE WITH THE FEDERAL AMERICANS MITI DISARUTES ACT AS REWRED BY SECTION 2W OF THE DESIGN AND CONSIRUCTILW STANDARDS. 1 r . e y. p: { 1 I . s:fa:~.'" I ! 7 3 1 i ' •n 4 Ff``F ALTERNATE' ALTERNATE' J T ° ' n LEGEN EAST OVERHEAD NEC LINE TO BE BUPoEOl ((DOM1 W/ UTIf, DINNER) FYI SANITARY SEWER WATER: TER L • \ - . y, ELECTRIC DS. DOWNSPOUT BUILDING ACCESS j LIMITS DE SSWxiT : E L PROPERTY LINE ROW I PROPOSED BUILDING itt L ,,...i DOST BUILDING T F (,.J DOLLARD CONCRETE PAVING ' [ I 1RAIVSFCRMER T N > + ASPHALT PAVING F I t i (RE MECN, W➢Rl ~•v S.. a CI1R8 OLTIER~ :t u a. L 's• W/ uTk OINFR) A :,A F ° JYA 1616, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - s r 57c L s a me PRELIMINARY' `i UTILITY PLAN ' 2 4 r ; 10 O t0 20 alma s: SCALE IN FEET r~ ...-.i , , ' _ _ _ i e 1 1 5;9- pap# 6-:Z i LANDSCAPE PLAN PLAN LIST NATIH S➢ffiCEN I DJ /C C / / E U C L I DJ A V E N U E I Wt No NEY 7301'AMC NAME COMMfYCNAME S,ZE H2o ' ASSCCTA78S tl.C / f @7,91µ3'8'G1. \ 1 3mRIONnRW W455R. ` SA3 f1$ r ' SLWRRWMTO \ H2o indlrates water needsaf plat ooRe A5° Oaxel 303- / LAS NaIYE Fk116M W Hgh water (1820 gallons pers.(per seas n) / IP4ee C.`~ M Moderate water 19 gallon - - >nNnaeLaw persf per asonl Low water(D3gallon per f. per season) i ET08RNG4C/L V W additional ialgahon wakr needed '78, ` after esla6l shment ~1 \ AIRTAWRWAETO N h°rdYe 7R~ 6. ~ti . . 4JIR AC }A . Y M i RDSlfSEf' A®SUbD MAPLE \ . SN'•' S=G CRAThECiT15CRSAALL1168A718 CRLS.4Cfft ......THORILE,$ 000NSPLRIWWrHORN1 75'LIM ~i 1.(3T d ER81RTR0.CAMIDSIt9iM55hWCBdA5TH2-SFWEEMASTHRFDPEYLSIST 3 2 M - . . t MR MALTS RAMAM AP RACTAENT CRA[EAPPLE 15 L!M . . . . . TOTAL TR. \ B ar ...BCC.'.'.'..\.' s SPECIMBNSHtl88 - r\ _ I_ 2POtl R'NSt)GAC&USOPL►IR~LUS'dA9LO PUFLELWNNMW B LION!. I 'J ( \ ~ . 4 PAM PICEAPUMEM OMG MEW MdNFSCMHWSPR.CE tFV LflA CIO „ I I I s~ SFp.65. 2AGC 'ACHRdMWLA'CCMPACTA' GWAffAMIRMAPLE_ - 45 LION coo tAGC 6AMI AKINAMELANOCAR1AIROQUOI5BFAUfY _IKJl1 ~AUfY[NJAEFBLACKCtgl f ^AV" UM ` 0 I I Bub 1 ~yJ 6BT I STHI,~ATld7ttf8URSA F®WSERRY 'k6 LAM; \ ,AH 25 JFH JINFQy.S HORZaryTAL15'BLIECHP- SLLE CHIP JUINI L C* (I REGTSq ~F. I mY'mh dex6nAMA6Bh si- `PR NUS CISTB'1A _PLiBLEIEAF PLUM 45 i LIM 1. ~ ta5' 6WC HaMNS FRANCARA'CCI.IMMARS TALLFBIGE BUCKTHORN 96 UAN I MVODMULCN BP AG RB6ALRNIM'GREEMMOLMT SF~'1 MOUKDCLRAAM MS L. S 1 S VL VIBLIPINU E L.ANTAN4'MDHCAN., ..MOHCANVIBIRJ.M 96 Li owsaum 6s TOTAL SFfdg9_ / - rUv ,PHI - WOOD / I I Id4AL5 L VCR ;vax3r2cACl vsRTA~L ~SINWr dNAIF 004EL,.ECOPATPS)B R 6Rd 39ALO.WkI s #t Lh1 m 33saawwP,~xELL W, LnR; 6TPA TH'fMlIS PRAWO)(ARCTICt15 MOTESIOFTHYME 7N LRA o I o B _ I { WE. \ 166T..WALL ILJ K NDV1pFNRS I I WBCOMR161 80.760.WALL 1. THE OuLOMUC SPEOFICATIGH5 ARE MEANT 10 MEET CA IXCEE RE C7Y OF BORDER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SUNORDS. -j o J I I 0 WERE OISaIFPAHafS OCCUR, THE CITY STANDARDS SNALL PAYE PRECEDENCE ._J arc L708RXOSCAL 7. 4 EMSTRG REES ME TO BE REMOVED, SET PAN FOR LOCATIONS SIZES, AND NARSTES CONTACT CITY FORESTER BEFORE I „ \l ~E1lUxMAPLE10 REMOVIGWEEINR,W A Q 3. 4 FASTING IRIDES APE 70 ROM- 91 PLAN FOR LOC•A70W, WES, AND YMERES. WORE ANY DEMOURON AND/ON wU 5."~ I { WOOD MV-CH ASK lCN J• Mr CONSTRUCTION BEGINS, PROTECT THESE TREES FROM CONSWUCPLN TRAFFIC, 0.WAN. AND STORAGE ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 3.05 R a.. \ THE CIIY 6 BIXAOEF'S CURRENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS a7 I I - - 4. AFTER EXTERIOR DEMOLIPON/CONSWUCTON OF ne SIR AND aNILOINn IS COMPLETE, EXISIPIG TDRR AREAS SHALL W STOPPED TH A 500 LsnTIR. ALL AREAS 10 BE SODDED GIALL RECEIVE 6 CU. IDS CE COMPOST PER 1000 4 LLtD 10 A OW1X CE 4-6. I I I ' - \ ALL AREAS SHALE THEN B GRADE O 10 A Nlrary r SMOOTH D Q 0 0 0. gCyB S. 600 COLL BE A BLEND OF TURF Tiff FESCUE CRASS ALL NEW GEES AND SHRUBS SUAL BE BACKF%LED WASH A UNIFORM MIXTURE OF 75%EXCAPATED SOL ART 25% ORGANIC ~Ap i !T'''- I 0 0(D Q BETE IXI COUPOrT BTPA k 1 7 ALL NEW MXI DOTS REES SHALL. HE S1AXED PATH WD E' T-POSTS, ALL NEW EVERGREEN TREES 41AUL BE S10ED WASH THREE hM``~~ I ( I riDD90MULCH © I I Li P 1-POSTS ALL POSTS SHALL BE CNID 10 THE TREE mW 12 CA ARE ENCASED W RUBBER HOSE U. SHFIR BEDS AS SHDNN ON THE PUN S L RECEIVE A 5 LAYER OF NATURAL COLOR SHREDDED CEDAR MI ONCE LAMMUPE I I \ I rQRIC. REAL NDAL AREAS S ALL RECEIVE NO FAR C LM ERLAY, I 1 A EDGWO SHALL BE INSTALLED BETAECN AL 9RUB BEDS AAE SW AREAS EDGING SHALL BE 1 YEN 91H ROLL W. 1 19. THE PROPERTY CAPER ST- MAINTAIN THE UNDSCIPPIG RAN AS nC NALLY APPROVED AND PROVIDE FOR RaHAaSENI OF limb 12 { I I i I n FLAW NATEIILLLS THAT N1VE D® OR HAVE DREAWff BEFIT DAMAGE DA RENOvED, AND MAINTENANCE OF .UL MG{-Nf a N 5 V / UNDSCARNL MATERIALS W(LKK1Y PUT NOT LW1F11 TO. EENON4 PANNG, ANSI RETNNPfG MA LTS, FOR A PERIOD OF RASE YEARS I r {ANN THL 1191ANLE OF A OFFITHFAR OF OCCUR- ON NIRTFCA DF CAN RIItr! V M I n. A-,S THAT IDENTIFY THE BOTANICAL OR C06N1N NAME Or TIE RANT MA-TERIAt !NAIL BE ON ALL PEES AT THE WE N FINAL-DID N. I I N B. NO TRUE STALL BE FLANIE9 MTHIH 16 OF A WATER OR EMTR NNE NO SHRUBS OR TREES STALL BE PLANTED "THIN A IV ,,,~2 2W STORY r-~ 0 I I 31PA \ AANUS ARC:MO FIRE Hrava1S. To'1 "V A88LRCNNLBWB ~,I l { I I OOOa- ,waIOULCH J L Q.~ Q , I. A COMPUTELY ANIDWRO IRRIGATION MRN EXISTS AND SMALL BE MODIFIED TO COVER ALL. xEW AND EwSING PLANT BOOS AND SOID AREAS. ,AR 7 NOSNRE 4N9NG DEVICE(S) SMALL BE INSTALLED IN THE IMF AREA 10 OVERRIDE MI)/GP MANAGE THE IRRIGATED SYSTEM. 3COS ION SYSTEM F4 I THE M SHRUSS AND SHALL THAI \ L PEROW \ ( A IMIGATONTDESIGN SLML BE S M)= 0 THEU TY OFNBIADER WWTH THE A EDW6 ERN~P LIC BE SEPARATE VALVES 3 '0, CITY OF BOULDER REQUIREMENTS 3U MAILL go . I ,POD Bµ .:A- ) -'J P-OTDATA ILL OTAI LOT 611E 1 %B,6 Si EXOM 23 VCR PGV&Wmw 4 I ~RECYCIE WOMMULLCH BJIB mu PAxrcwc L9S OAVES 5RE 2600 SF. io0 ewe ,RAC o oTALnREA '1F(••,, \YP~MWx1 .O'WALL BYTBULGwc° O.WUL 0R PAArcwG 01 TVA, ST REQUIRED PROVIDED ,Ark ITREE/5 SHRUBS PER 5 TREES 6MM I' . .1 ^ 159 S.F. 25 SHRUBS Rm mmw 865 \ WOOD MUtOH TOTTAA URGUNDER SF 26 CIS L/Z 0 II .'.i I' WED.'.'.' TOTAL INTERIOR LOT "A'WP \ IL- B~ i LANOISTAPED AREA I N/A N/A 4V'' QOBTW'ypGL TOTAL INTERIOR LARKING LOT 119FatYE000BTN , . ,1, 1 P (~31AT7 BE708TIN3 AREA Plan Date: 0 BHRUB810 I .L. . 1M TOTALPPAArcING LOT AREA N/A NIA y\ R6MM 1 TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES IN INTERIOR PARIINC Lot u/A x/A 05/15/09 LAND- .AREA \ 1 TOTAL NPERmFTER PARKIN 'J rM." ap .a4 .'1' I IAINDSCAPEO AREA 37 L.F. 37 L.F. TOTAL NUMBER OF qya Y Revisions: 4 _ _ / STREET TREES 6 ~Iwn6 TOTAL NUMBM OF -0 06/18/09 NEWGROLM \ ALLEY TREES A ° 06/24/09 TOTAL 6UZTIY Of mulr 4 TAAWFO ]REFS 17 B ADJACENT PROPERTY ZONING: RH-s ROTE: 1 4 1mnL 9UANntt cs N• MOUNTED 115E: APARTMENTS REFER 101ANDS-MMANI SCIS M, t SHRU95 24 Ae PROPOSED.ANDIREMOTED LOCA71M ~ TALLY OF USABLE ' ✓ OPENSiACE 6,600 S.F. 5,693 S.F. Sheet Number I NORTH L - SCALE 111 = 10V LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE STAMP km pap # TREE PRESERVATION MAP HYDROZONE MAP 41 / f /f ! a\ / I ! 11 15 ABSOdl789I76 / J / I \ / / / I / 1 i5fi77 Indun Ae EUCLID AVENUE EUCLID AVENUE \ AmNmmcgs ph- 301-159-.3333 = 30y15y-CNA 1m9A: m9nYeAaN9NA=°N ♦ rrr ~ \ \ ! MIi~O use~\ M H use ♦ \ J \ ♦ \ / \ - \ use _U - L 1y W I f ~ ~ I I 1 J 1 i I J ? 1 I ❑ _ @b 4 J I ti g uv ♦ I ` O a • 331 ~ r > I ° Q I \ ~ ura w ¢ II ` m ~ A 07~ > J __.*1_I I ---F1 I I Inxo.N . r J I 1 l 7 w • J 1111 W ~ ` I JI \ a ~ ~ I JI 1 ~ ' I .l I ul I -I I u9 E~ ` I ~ I E I J J f~ \ I ~ I I F Y~ I ..II 1~ ♦ ~ iIl ~L 11~ 1~ ~~I c -t NO use g \ \ ~ V 1 V If LEGEND REEPROTEC INFENCIGIxELAA+DSCAPENOTESFOROnAUt H, M, L, AND VL CORRESPOND TO CHART ON PLANT LIST 0 CON5191CTCN PAM vl /r, U M NORTH NORTH N y NO SCALE NO SCALE M I pa ~ Nvwa Ne~ , TREE MES N9W 1PF(B fF taP GP AA9 NP PE WIT. EVERGREEN WEE OEGIOUOUs FREE STAKING RAN BE A NCN9G E A YINIWY W OPPOSITE .9E SAYE OPPOSITE SEE SwIF PA nTU [N[ DPY GRIP UN[ w'"Es NNNIEEO OCA x[RIN6 1. WARP TRUNK yniN i' TREE WUNK PWME AND VIRAP PER SPE FICAI NS ST GA-D p pPo r STRA-1 F + 2 SEE SPECS FOR """`U OF A Txo,xO w0! I PINES TEE PoSr3 MIH O GROUND CORERS. Or WRARII NETN wwuG coxnNGCTwN 6 GREEN 51EFE a " M ] iAR IS FYPICAE IN NEENT DNLY T d FO.MALEx1 BLADE ON TREE I'T Nl[A ..0E AND RUNT 00161E S' RAND 13 GAUGi IE ENR i I NOU R, GNDNYER IN 9' ,,I,1 .7 •:C~,k 1~'. _ YOLCNEO, rtOx SWA➢. RUN ARE TO A(~-'~ i90-TEF 4111 POSf u10 M51 FGR SLIGHT f we aar :m:: nr., -,E f Tw.NEEZrD AREA L BASE AROUxG TENSION Plon Dote: :ARCH GP Ihi-AG1.N rZI A.R. REFS PER am9 NOT INVgD oAlo In'E NYffO A00T AIEA L J SP£CUICAVWS OAVAGED ROOT AREA I xegC wup/s. EvERLAEEx 05/15/09 SECTION Puxr PI I Fca an. TUNNELING MO YES BACKFlLL LARDER MAU BALL FNISX GRADE R:M RNG[ EaA1wx Al ACFAPIED IYACIa pppTE~BAU lO~BE .0', SOD OR NUtCH. Revisions: DRIP UNE F. t.' xnEr. Avm ryEMK.E F poss.N. IF uNANO.Aaz -F OEAU SWA M, T' ABOVE SEE PLAN UN sEE secnoN AANimI w ixao GRADEE CALL 06.18.09 WEE a d J/KY 1 {990 B/1L RANT "PIT Rn CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO .v,m DG9, o, 99m nro 11u[5 MAN R LL ROOT LOSS W.~x URGER DIAMETER, a FROM TUNNELING 3.13 ROOT RI" TO BE RA RACNFAL UNDISTURBED S19GAADE ABOVE FINISHED RLI.ICIA All FOREIGN 6AFEAIALS FROM TRUNK AND RkA GRADE PLAN Fan RAd TOP HALT OF UNTREATED BLELAA Sheet Number: AvI CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO "O .uu 2155. PROTECTED ROOT zw CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO ° NLY 1. ,99. ZONE AND TREES AND SHRUBS - 2 3.12 _ DRIP LINE $,~a~ PLANTING DETAIL 3.02 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE STAMP *nda km gy 59 NORTH $7UDt0$ S 1999C Yelb a ne A.~ BoulE V. GO B91p~ p:fpliW-1598 - ~wvwan u a mwessv a sswwae u w aaaa a m wn<me w a mmuu m a ww.o m = uwmx a w amm~ a y, avr=.'a = = wrww= w a .awu:u w w .mme . v .nv.= = a ..n.e = =....n... a x....w. _ _ +a..g a = m . maaxa a a •axva a w wave a va . rarw . a mmp a u uuwre' a m wwaw = = mwmu m = m»wn a w »rxmwu a u aavrvw w w xnrwx' xxxarm a w wuw. = m wirvv m w =+-++y @ [ F p F i p r-------------- ox I Y II i€ p F ~ ~ p F ~ W a1TICR { €E F I I 9 F € riDIM01t 1100E ~ g DN t I 'I 4 I II k ! ~.am. w:xv w....w»n,m.re m.nwn.--..-. ,au u ,w.mv-v o wwrmv. ! ENTRY t [ [ 0 j ' p I k d F i {@ j# DN ARr DODr a I q 9 j UN ' 1 DDRM 110011 a ~ 4 > ~ 6 0 { GORY ROM q ~ 00101 ROM i - E3E3E3p I a 1 OH t e 9 U7 p td CLASMOM i BATHROOM 4-J 0 k i D►r1MDDY AMI RDOY r DDIDI ROOM M ' p F P Y V F ~1 9 0 # i I pp RarMAY \'R. R 9 x r g D1~ F p a 1 F DORM Boor a p DOW FAW to 6 F S e I i DOM RWM U F E 9 00 0 e [ COURTYARD a` s M -7 777 FALL 0111- lil DORY RAY $ p DO ROM Z4 C°C F £4 DDRM R00M A t i ° S EEEE 1 I SETBACK € SETBACK a i i F 9 p DOAM RDOM 4 ~ p p , i x F 00111[ ROOM 22 3 DORM Raar x MCK a F { 0 ° p DOMI ROOM f1 jfx F p 9 k ~ 0 d p F F Dow RDOY D F DOW RAY 22 p g s a p a gng OORO AODY 76 Mi1R00M ON CWMAY 1 !t 00RM RDOY lO 2 P r F H 1DfCw IrquOR F x p 9 °.wv.,x.xw. v..w,. v.-.MV~, wra. xrR ..w:,.v-v. .,:..v,..< F I zxw w.ro mmmmmmwmmw~ p 9 p ' ®A pAiE: 9 4-6-04 F N a p UP _ ■A g wnxn xa g 2nnans 8 DORY ROOM Is D0101 ROM le WIY RAr 19 fialGOR DORM no= a ¢V¢ ~ 2009-00029 yg; DORY ROOT it F _ - ro W i Rtsor¢ 5-15-09 S98R TRW p 9 F EXISTING FLOOR m.-._.W.w._.._...-a.......a.,.w»aa- -a---aa-........a-_.:».a--.a.» -maa»-.a.aa - ~..~«K-...a..:--- PLANS cwt>.~ , . sum x~ NORTH EX-1 s EXISTING SECOND LEVEL PLAN .,1 EXISTING FIRST LEVEL PLAN Y ~'1 7t8=fi-0' 6474S.F. ~•1 118tiT-0' 8276S.F. . I ~ pap NORTH 60ULDER 5 STUD10S 13-C -1- pin, A- I 8eulder, CO 60101 1 pADHN•i548 EUCLID; AVENUE 01 - - - 'i... YE r _ A NEWUNB I \ \ PATO 1 ORIG -WT-0ASH LINE \ ` G J ~ - \ FON. - \ E701C EXTENTOF f RETAINWTi~ E%ISI1NGflOOR PLAN I I" N sTGNEGAr I \ _ - 1 I \ -WITH l COW / 0 ept l f I gL ) i, ~'Ty Tf17A1AREAWITHIN&ISTBIG xx sEa4cKS eoslsP P~'ONR 1 Llti Lid'' ~D l vv ? ij• ' LOW Xf = EXISTING LANDSWE IB.GARON WALL 1 O '06. \ ORCB O yRj'1 L 1 I ! P RAISED ly G1 \ / W f \ 1 I K T 0 39.4 T.O. WALL J z DASREO NE I 369B.A.WALL \ Vl vv I ~ ~ ~ ~ I I J ~I~mrahsfxrsvro~l I \ Q &OAAO pN I z s~ = I \ o'~~s ) `~,~d'" V 61G S s \v A V t5 A J \ I I I SRAISFi1H/11EFW I nu: 4$•6,0 WALL #~•A n / 397 8.0, WALL a ' I I - .r BEATWAllON G1ADE I n TM 3 I _ T1 ENaEl9PE ~ i / ~ am•~ z I z'~ t~$!~ v \ m / j -Ito I covE~o~I~ j I YP. s.1 12 L 9NSTORtAODmON \ rl J a / STORAGE W M O SEnREsm PB W WE w` \ u I i~ "Z xv. Ano T ^ p Im 1 I ~/r/ ~pRB ew ra I +Ba' P l O$WP o r Q; m BIKE RAC BIKE 011. \ I I t4 -I IP1ARKIc li § `II :SPACES)l..r;~y, t 1 r. amsroRr - 1 V l momoNAEOV _j L \ U \ la B RACKS BREEZEWAY DECAAASNE BIKE PACI(S / .4y . I PAVERS . 12 BIKE PARKING O , '1 f SPACES) GPO flAISm PtANr~l I 39AT.OWALL F. ~ I , GEANiALdlG 1 ~,I 36sBO.wau .:ar Fa UNOFRGROUNO . 4 ERISRNG 1 Y • / POWERF PHONE x SERVICE a~. I . I BWS~ = 42B 45.6 T.O. WALL ~ar'y- = °S~ ; = -387&O WALL 000 -c i TRASH ENCLOSURE PA711 R 1 \\\\V\', ATC 'NOPARIUNW BW ' T \ I NWEA'f L} ll fig. \ 1 ~WN(FiSTAlLB'' ~ 1r4 i l 11 ~ G 4~ 11I I, I ~ z I 1 i rff a aw, ' 1 ` I sac a -6-09 2009-D0CM 6-03-CM 1_- - ` f-18-09 NFOUND 1 MOUNTED b. TRANSFORMER/' ~ slm mle NOTE: 4'•\\ REFERTOLANDSC7ffPLANFOA£USTNG, PROPOSED, NgREMOVED TREE LOCATIONS 3 SITE PLAN PR[1 pLO6En: NORTH / x EXAMPLE PARKING LAYOUT /J1 SITE PLAN A1.0 Au Ve = To Aw rear Item# Page# 58' EUCLID AVENUE NORTH :IOS~:..; STUD u0- ram. Pm. A- -11-CO BA39r p]p1M£.f99H s3•u 3aa• es 3x T « • .»m„» • • INDWPTEBEXiFMDP • « - _ R••••• - « E)asTING FLOOR PLAN ~ r' "t PA1At ~ I ~a 1 k \ ~ o-EOn wlnro ~ I U BhA - BA1 UNIT I -G _ 1,432S.F. BwED.4 - wlipi, t kl% I iy E Z BA9 I I %BDN. I 0E02 83.2 I V'V p r ; ~ - wroND ~ , I ~ dWG I 1 X UNIT 1-D ! v @ Al 0 1i1 .0 GAS I METERS✓ M4 1.394 S.F. FF E W Lk w DN a - a 6 BAZ ~ 6 ~ ~ ~Oy _ 8yt w•~pe t V I 0 LJ wuw C Up £ %D rtrt~~~ e W tO4ERRWGOF ' V SEOONDLr OF 2•D 1-D ELEC ABOVE 2E ®3 [ ➢ I ` ~FyI~Q OVERNANGOF ❑ W $ \ VNDLEYEL AB O «.I ~/B/ u a m w 2-S ac clll~ 2f r Y '..I % CDT~ARb % ^ m 2•A t-c r :r I 12 FIRE ^I a I-a ......I . -J L_- LIPR~MIBNERAWER$ - ! asNlaroRwe@slaES up I I _ L_~ _ I E@p BA.1 BEDi1 j ml.ea, . SL ~J . Bell \ ' i OIIY L-.- a - i Q ®4 UNIT 1•A ® I DNWG 7,301 S.F. 1 a Tpp B lWB wa'G PAM I d D \ \ I f UNIT1-13 ---A- [ a 1,36iS.F. \ I IL...LL~~88..66.d_JJ TypoBUrtN y/3-~-~~ ® ¢ m, ~EN L - .iV_-vh E) IF a-e-as W 11 dNNC - - PAVLf IIP. 900903 a BED.3 BEAD R 9009-00029 x BEaa B1.3 &82 awmas. 6-03-09 3 £ qgP 9SLi 11AL` [ FIRST LEVEL \ 2 HDRTH FLOat P4AN raa• j FIRST LEVEL PLAN A21~T~ ....«„w a w «..«Mn n « > » - » « »PROPER3YUNE~ A2.1 ■ > jWMj. _NORTH BOULDER sTUOJOS . fiT•T erE' 1 YJbw eM Avf. 7d" SS AvE' 18-0' 4'E' Ta' 65-0' t8E' 8•T e.30Id-44 -1518 o4 PaaJ~t44ISae PAOPFAttI1elE - _ - - w > PAOPEAtt I1NE - _ _.r. _ - - _ m.>.. > . > « + I i i 1 1 i I u. # iF E E 1 1 1 ((E ! i g Dm.4 EE Bn2 Ou4N I A o I f ~ Mw ~ ~w• ~ hGHEN i smiiu E VV" W I 1 X2.'L OECX + 1 I I g y UNIT 2-E~ mu. { > > I I DECK I 1€ 3RD FLOOR Rk> } I 1 IB%' 5 SF. DNIW E 3 5 WW N i (D O aas~ UNIT 3-A y ~n u F DAA UNITSVF L ; Gk3 i NIICD F 3 845 ; 1 i{ I I C Nif o D >yEDJ o F 3 I E P I I If~ll _ j~ f[€ f3s ` _ UNIT 2•E mNa~ i NlralEU $ i F S DWh 1,Q51 S.F. vv--vv E (1,b2$SF. - o bt.: I Y LtfINH NN.aN DECK ' TOTAL) D42 uu. ID I 0 I - 5 E t oe 71 O µo.1 wW;..,~ a - I i w I" (i t BW.I Lz:lj BED.d y I i a ; I ~ Bm.3u N.tN 80.1 ~ _f ~ ~ ~ w I f I B0.1 i rn t L E i (D i t 1 ---J F e _ 84] DN UP ~ e t O I i N I UNIT2•D iii I I 1,431 SF. EII 1 1 I p I # 1 ~ LL Al I BW.2 ly BFb~I \\-DOT-0ASNNNE u I I _ MxiM BIDICATE6 EKR94TDF ~ 3 8E• ID'•15' 10'•T YY-0' 4'-0' t r EXISTING FLOOR PLAN 4J 3 1 f i B42 Blt I firr I ~ I ~ 9~ I S. I I A' 3 ~ i I E 6 F: ~ ~ W I I # ~ I I I# pF - I I W BE D.w - BFA1 7 L t + I I I 1 m + ap i O I I I i ; I I u~ , Doi I E ~ 1 i ~ I J ~ E 01,14 I oEa UNIT 2-C mu, ~w I 1.421 &F. f I s C a DN I I E I I qq &.4 II V F pp I F I i I BFAD - 843 ul I I I j v IWIaNNpN //Yy~-~~-{~~ ]$y If UNIT 2.9 UNIT DECK en 7,J616FSF. mu. # E i 1 I 1,35DS.F. 1°'le Q +N.vf IM d I I ° LNMG I I I w A NBGIEx ® # 0A]a v&1.2 1 ❑IA ®AAA --M.I D J 0 84 li I I C e f i ~ i I K > I I ! # t ~ 4 ~ir 6W.¢1 ! BEAT BNWR I ~ Nan (f I Bm.i I i i t IeW.~OA i I i ; , I ~ + I N~3 847 [L~{ul 1 I I I I 6AC wrt. 4-6-09 7009D3 t 1 f #Ut ~ rtlwoxs 2009-00029 > ....e.. > > , « > » « r>.... » ...ma - > > - >P60PER7YIklE~ i>-- « « PROPS T,,E 6-03-114 - » 6-33-09 T4' vaE aan mle BY'E' SECOND &THIRD LEVEL FLOOR PLANS NORTH z THIRD LEVEL PLAN _ n SECOND LEVEL PLAN , A2.2 . fM# - PaP BALCONIES ■ -METAL TOP RAIL AND ACCENT MATERIALFOR SIDE WALLS NORTH• PRE-FINISHED METAL FASCIA 9QUL0ER`. c. OPERABLE -STUp10$ BRICK TO MATCH WINDOWS STREETTREES IN FOREFGOUND, EX1671NGADJACENT SHOWN DASHED LANDSCAPE WALLIN FRONT OF BRICK WALL ❑a CY.m.rm.A- a..ia...co 193w STUCCO 33_NDGHTUMrt 5A6R.9' TOPOF~OFf p:3W4H-I39P To, OF! EXISTING PINE FEE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F u w:-' - EYO D = BALCONY B I, - - - ~ w , a _ 3RD F. F. r 4 r i •a.: _545]% , q a o i S NITS #x ~ "oil 4ps`;.t _ £~'4t - - _5N.41) 4F78FJ-NfI.R-THU.- ISTFF- I xua~ +r 5,4428' F - - - - - -s497 r.3^ r S V t 4` ' a. } mum t~¢.~a,f- kxY 5'A CC! s at > x ~ +v. LOR'TSTE1fVAN519E~ 5.4339 APPROXIMATESMEWALK ENTRY CANOPY E11IS7WG13MCKSITEWALL EAST ELEVATION INFOREGR°DND NEW BRICK PATIO WALL TO MATCH EXISTING, ADJACENT SEE ELEVATION 11• FOR TYPICAL NOTES BALCONIES SEE LANDSCAPING FOR PLANTINGI METAL 70P RAILANDACCENT NORTH•EASTBUIWING O GROUND-COVER INFO. MATERIAL FOR SIDE WALLS SECTION BEYOND A' MAXIMUM PROJECTION i CANTILEVER SECTION BEYOND 1 i5'HB(4T 5,468.9' TOPOFROOFf L. NORTHUNR$ 5,4633' O x $ TOPOFAIIO~FQ- j 3~FF UNR52.E2•F ~~B/F~~A F■■ % b a4 NP S m 4 J ~ a $ n a tyx~yrx~ ?"3T x~ 9 rsk ~S t~ fi" W^``.h~,r~'. .g q y x v `1 $A. ~[F'~r`7 -ZUB.Fi6..~ lSn 3i #ik~ k h t~F{L 9 P~'~ R"£ A "F sx,n k}, Y1.` °'1 Y+` C sasze _ ~ I I fi ~ k Y.7 ' t woPF~uopTHUNm ALLEY 0 IF 54978' R t - n ate. ~'*E~eS. "4 9w $ 4 ,zrrg ` s s sE x L YF'X 5A42a' y~y, Ln yg _ 15TFFJNOBIIl UNUS O Rw. ~rti'k<' 5-.-54378 R I y~x` 9 r~_ SAME' W 9 ENTRY CANOPY BEYOND NORTH ELEVATION 3 SOUTH ELEVATION I SEE ELEVATION 1h FOR TYPICAL NOTE5 Tlr'On SEE ELEVATION 1h FOR TYPICAL NOTE$ ~~~=~~"0~ ORSHUN~-ft5~ 546&3' „k 5 tt1POFROO~ v _ , ® 0 J ~A $ f 3ROFL41NB9D(Zf x4 MR T4R , ' -5,497.8 ::A IF 9, 91B ? a wOFJJNORNUNRs -~u cart o9a: : ~ 15TEE- 4-0609 e SA42.8' Va41fft N0: Q wx 2009-00029 a o ~ iSFF.F,RA7R_TNUNDS aortl~m 51509 WIN m IW76~ElEV_ONSIIF~ 5,433.9' . sHm m9e: ERIOR WEST ELEVATION ELEVATIONS SEE ELEVATION IA FOR TYPICAL NOTES 3/S"=•I'•O" yam, A 3.9 I~m# 671- pap # ::NORTH;. %BOUI~D~R -S.T,UDI;OS I3G2{ Y01- Fl- A- I PRE•FINISHED METAL FASCIA Rwu.rco GRIM z OPERABLE y ~7a7-r«.isn WINDOWS BALCONIES Z a .MCTALTOPRAILANDACCENT al STUCCO MATERIAL FOR SIDE WALLS a 35'HWMUMR 5,119.9' TOP OF ROOFI I _ - - NOAMUN7I5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - V _ TOG i _ _ _ _ BRICK TO MATCH EXSTINOADJACENT I FP I I - APARTMENT 3RDP6LN752-L2.F s„ RAISED PUNTER t-_._.___._._..._. SAS7E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SEE= 5,457E NITS 15b' 1NOFFfNOMXU_ to. SA919 STORAGE ` F 191" ALLEY I TSTFa. - ~ r 5,-0920 i19 lh 6t All, l I°4T';1~ a s3Au ~kT~ wria9vI`htiwzlitiiN4Et~TI' +nlyt~ I _ _ rsGFTDAnUNrs hE rh'r, miyf G II SIT i yA4 k ~,y 'va~'ig,. AN 17f +'1 "?i V m- P 7s-ir e i~ir 1' Ky~4 (~9 t;' ISM J4 ~x~8 ~a,.3 ; Is Al i i ~r ~t ,y ~k t Y ~S wri .t SA37% }sgr!rt"'~i,>Ct+ V 1 ~Rt S 2„ ~'~,I e^n} ~txl, X15 r p,~ IzTm Y.,.e"L d N r f~"t~, S I ,14 }h a U { r t,YY.w F""'7 IOWEST ELfY ON 511E s4337 ~~h 4~ i ~ rT~ ~ 3 m NEW STAIRSiPEDESTRAN ENTRY CANOPY ENTRY OFF OF STREET NORTH (COURTYARD) ELEVATION ~ SEE ELEVATION It- FOR TYPICAL NOTES I I I I I zl it I ~I a TOP OF MOF/ 7SXECMIIMR SA6A9' - _ NORTHUNN I 5,4E83' I - _ _.-.-.-..,.----I.-._._._ _ j~_TJi OF ROOGn. "I SKa3' V f I I I E 3ADRF UNRS l{li APARTMEM -SpS7E b F i .'v-o i § 5/328' IqR 7N0 FF1NUXHI UNITS N51 _ STORAGE -San7.g 4 I 1STFF. 1 T 9 xF n i4 *i a - ~ deais-"~ T1.' tim; IAFFINOAIH UNRS 5 437S' TELEVON SRE~ A .4 WWES 5,433.7 O SOUTH (COURTYARD) ELEVATION SEE ELEVATION 51• FOR TYPICAL NOTES 1/8"=V-0" ssx M¢ 4-0609 ArgACr Ro noon; wA 1009-00029 A~5 S-IS-09 SMLT TAIL EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS s.w- A 3.2 pap# ~2~ . rx ` nuLDER -slag+oS 1]00-CY0-floc Mp. Bpuldee, CO 803W p:10I.1141A9A u I PERIMETER O 8161DIo 3N406w a 't x x P68{3A61C9LOF~`I ~7' ,r.,:~SNP 7~,' - / ~ ~ 0 >3~ / ~l 0 tt l I ti0 \ 1 00 vv m \ \ 0111, I I \ h i ! r ~x ( Solar Shadow Ana€lIsisTable Zonall j \ \ m r' \ r_ a/ Rrof HBL~O Shaoartan)nn valor Ba.~'oaEM qungel9 Ele1e6a0 PeheoHa, V Ra+aed Shadow . \ Eibh61 4LOb 61w L.Wh G1eAle 70 abal 2 10 Hroh 2 17 It 2 10 R. 2 10 NO 2 A 212 52.1 '42.4 56A 49.1 423 428 37.A -02 0.4 5.7 21,0 11,6 26.8 559 48,0 7E2 / i ly _ c05'2\ 1 i 21B ,5 5991 460 6d9 428 40,1 376 353 27 51 75 24.2 267 29.0 64.0 53,l 787 7;^ \ i C 255 87,5 51.0 57.5 42.8 42,1 394 35.8 OF 39 8.8 X2 26.B 32A 69.3 57.B 85.7 D 244 64.6 48.8 64.5 399 37.0 35.8 33.6 20 3.2 5.0 26,4 77,6 291 69.9 552 T89 \ 66.7' _ 501 E 292 77.3 SB,4 77.3 39,1 97.0 $5.4 328 2.1 37 5.3 31.3 329 35.5 828 65.8 939 i F 325 B6.4 850 890 75.8 355 330 294 63 2,8 6.4 32.8 35.3 38.9 868 706 1829 G 32,6 685 65.G »6 35.5 35.9 33.8 no -0.4 I L9 4.6 324 71.7 37,3 85,7 89,4 98.7 ~b I \ H 320 847 € 64.0 847 79.5 389 340 322 8.3 2.3 4.1 73.3 31.3 38.1 85.5 58.6 95.5 i 1 28.7 7C8 53,4 798 4i6 373 361 35.0 13 55 68 31.0 31.2 333 82.0 64.4 861 li J 161 BB' 522 697 422 367 316 392 55 4e 6k 31.8 ~7 34.1 836 61.4 902 i, i K 222 567 444 557 421 37.2 380 386 46 41 5.5 27.7 267 177 71.7 526 713 .3' , you k i L S36 52,1 4 98.8 S24 41.5 40.0 43y 47 15 2 1.8 213 290_ 216 50.4 12.0 572 ` \ I f W.. . M 561 474 .85P 479484 -414 149 132 78. 21. T 3.0 16.8- 267 21r 527 i08 558\ i Fas^.A Nek~p SlreeowleMa m L9a91m End Oha095lnEkahaA FLaed Ha A 6e1ee69 dr \ \ ER9na11 Ptaz Slat 795>JYS\_.M1 mup>wrc d_6 09 rtuu-_ 2 10 Non a,I 1a nan_ z _1o Nxn_a 647 "6 ~bb96a ot; 1 25.0 662 !50.0 662 39.8 42.8 37.9 ^.6.5 -L9 20 3.4 7a.? 27.0 18.4 58.5 54.9 75.] t i.:. r.4 ~,r i ~0p9-06629 I - - ~emac 2 25.0 m2 ~9 b32 31.6 37.1 311 371 0.5 2b 3.6 255 27.5 285 fi75 55.0 7,1, 3 25.0 a3.1 :a.9 682 ~.8 38.9 31.1 38.1 1.5 25 35 ~,5 27.5 26.5 'N,t 55.0 75.4 l1 \1 _ 5-15-69 f 4 250 662 500 %2 468 441 u2 427 26 27 42 B 271 `62 736 654 T.3 - 1 '91E Amg.ad?plarausaret-540tl 1 ..._...~......w.w... SOLAR SHADOW ANALYSIS AIR9 M4~T NORTH SOLAR SHADOW ANALYSIS ~p A4p0 App* bm 5/-T ap# 3