5A - Site Review LUR2008-00040 for Flatirons Village located at 900 28th St.
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: December 3, 2009
AGENDA TITLE
Public hearing and consideration of Site Review #LUR2008-00040 for Flatirons Village,
located at 900 28th Street, to add 59 dwelling units with underground parking. The request
requires the following modifications as allowed in the Residential High Density Three (RH-
3): height modification and a solar exception. The site is comprised of 2.57 acres zoned
Residential High Density Three (RH-3).
Owner / Applicant: Flatirons Village, LLC
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT
David Driskell, Executive Director of Community Planning and Sustainability
Charles Ferro, Acting Land Use Review Manager
OBJECTIVE
Define the steps for Planning Board consideration of this request:
1. Hear Applicant and Staff presentations
2. Hold Public Hearing
3. Discuss key issue questions
4. Take action to approve, approve with conditions, or deny
SUMMARY
Proposal: Site Review to add 59 residential units (in three connected
buildings) with underground parking. The existing office building
(known as the Lotus building) will be preserved and has been
renovated under a separate administrative Site Review application.
It will continue to be used as a mixed use office building with
neighborhood retail uses as well as seven dwelling units. Net
density of the proposal is approximately 22 dwelling units per acre.
Requested modifications to the land use regulations include:
1) Section 9-7-1 B.R.C., 1981: Height modification to allow a
building height of 53 feet.
2) Section 9-9-17 B.R.C., 1981: Solar exception to allow minor
encroachment of the 25-foot solar fence east and north of site.
Agenda ItetnWage 1
Project Name: Flatirons Village
Location: 900 28"' Street
Size of Tract: 2.57 acres (112,023 square feet)
Zoning: Residential High Density Three (RH-3)
BVCP Land Use: High Density Residential (HR)
KEY ISSUES
1) Is the proposed application consistent with the Site Review criteria found in Section
9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981?
2) Are the requested land use code modifications appropriate for the site?
BACKGROUND
Process
Per Section 9-2-14, B.R.C., 1981, properties in the RH-3 zone district over two acres in
size or proposals involving 20 potential dwelling units or more are required to complete
Concept Plan Review and Comment as well as the Site Review process. The Concept
Plan review process was completed by the applicant in October 2007.
Per Section 9-2-14(g)(3), B.R.C., 1981 Planning Board approval is required for Site
Review applications requesting additional building height beyond what is permitted by
the zone district.
Concept Plan Review
The Planning Board had an extensive discussion regarding the redevelopment of the site
at the Concept Plan phase in October 2007. Specifically, the board discussed the
following topics in detail:
1) Massing
2) Architectural Character
3) Height
4) Setbacks
5) Access / Parking
6) Streetscape
7) Landmarking / Process
The original concept reviewed by Plaiming Board contemplated 59 units with
development along 28th Street. Overall, the board acknowledged that this would be a very
difficult site to program for additional development based on the unique Usonian
architecture and strong horizontal building form and mature landscaping associated with
the Lotus building. The board also agreed that the eastern portion of the site is more
suitable for additional development and that the western portion of the site should be
preserved as it strongly integrates the natural grade, mature landscaping and surrounding
park-like open space into the original building design. There was also a consensus that
the Lotus building and its surrounding landscape should serve as the focal point on the
Agenda Item Page 2
property and that any new development should serve as background buildings, allowing
the Lotus building to remain the most prominent and visible element on the site.
The minutes and summary from the Concept Plan hearing on October 4, 2007 can be
found hi Attachment A and the original site plan and building elevations submitted at
Concept Plan can be found in Attachment B.
Recognizing that this is a difficult site for additional development, staff has worked
closely with the applicant through several iterations to refine as many design issues on
the site as possible. Based on improvements from the originally proposed site plan and
architectural design as well as the preservation and landmarking of the Lotus building,
staff finds that, on balance, the proposal is compliant with the site review criteria. Staff's
detailed analysis of the Site Review criteria can be found in the Analysis portion of this
memorandum.
Existing Site / Site Context / Site Constraints
The site is located at the northeast corner of the 28th Street frontage road and Aurora
Avenue, and is the current location of the Green Shield Office Building (conunonly
referred to as the Lotus Building). The lot shape at the northwest corner of the site is
somewhat irregular due to a previous subdivision of the property in 1969 to permit the
construction of an office building directly to the north at 910 28th Street (under separate
ownership and to be redeveloped separately). Access to 910 28th Street is provided via
an access easement on the northwest corner of the subject property.
28'11 Street is an important and highly visible gateway into the city. The entire 28th Street
frontage between College and Aurora Avenues was rezoned from commercial to RH-3,
the city's highest density zone district, in 2004. Recently, several other high density, 55-
foot tall residential projects have developed or been approved along 28th Street, including
the Golden West Manor addition (immediately north of the site) and Landmark Lofts I
and II (970 and 1000 28th St.). Additionally, the 34-unit apartment building directly south
of the site at 2800 Aurora was approved with a height of 46 feet in 2003. Several other
adjacent buildings in the area also maintain heights over 55 feet, including Spanish
Towers at 805 29`' Street and the Golden West Towers at 1055 Adams Circle.
The adjacent residential area is generally characterized by high and medium density
multifamily student housing of various heights, and office uses. Immediately to the north
is a two-story office building and the recently approved 55-foot addition to the Golden
West Manor property; immediately to the south is a three-story multifamily residential
building; immediately to the east is a one-story office building; and immediately to the
west is the 28th Street Frontage Road and a portion of the deceleration ramp from the
Boulder Turnpike. A pedestrian underpass to the University of Colorado campus is also
located on the west side of 28th Street Frontage Road directly adjacent to the site.
Acenda Iten& Pate 3
1,0
pp , ~ t+ r• f~
-OWN
Owl
-7, A
i
i;, rrr ,yam-~t.- h
_ ! i :1111, _ Cl.•`!~ ~.1 / g 1 /x ~ . -
.L it ~1
Aerial Photograph of Site Area Context
A moderate grade exists on the property and the site is slightly lower than the 28t1i Street
frontage as well as Aurora Avenue. Several mature trees exist on the property as well as
extremely high-quality, park-like open space along the west side of the property. Flatiron
and foothills views to the west, southwest and northwest are prominent.
In 2006, the applicant received approvals for interior improvements as well as
landscaping and parking lot improvements to the existing site that have recently been
completed.
The Green Shield Office Building was constructed in 1959 after designs by noted
Boulder architect, Hobart Wagener. The building is defined by its single story design,
strong horizontal form and pagoda roof form. Existing building height is approximately
34 feet. The site itself is relatively open and strongly integrates the natural grade and
surrounding open space into the overall building design. The building's unique
architecture and it's associated mature landscape and gardens combined with the 25-
foot utility easement on the southern and eastern portions of the site (containing a 30-
inch sewer main) make site programming for additional buildings with underground
parking a challenge.
Agenda Iten& Page 4
I.~ i. II ev I ~ I I per. t ~
LM.•M1t ,r. Y,F - - Y, f • ~ i,'~, S ~ t~,
)::',f'1 1. (((n f' _ 1 •~T`~[' - 1 l .~1 C ly ~ rC 1`.7 A tl ,•i
„up, r
~ ~e C ■ t t i t~ii' 1 "~~t - , t.1 i 1 id4 ~'!'6` t11~, aY`{~ 1 - 41 :a
fit 1l' - r•_f~ _ - ~
R1y M1~tiLJ'~TS~=L~ III 'll ~ I I i -J~ ~'y~ _ '1 L
]I, ,,ems _ ~r 1
I:' si
Imo? - ~ I ~ ~ : i,
-i r Y_'if rr[
~•7J tl~ f 1:. CX)
- e1I tip"~ ~ r ~r~ 11. ~ ! _ P k9 i1`
- A. '~r-Y ~ - 6L.Zr2_ I~+ R T~~`'~_-i~~~~•. rly~ ~ I~ 111 Y.~ti
alt 1 d ~~I -~.•I Tc,.
mr,
F, El a ~=E
'r J Y -
gat
pop
URGn 1f.'1 $ (`~1
f ~ II - fr'r t~'j I~. 5~ ~~.s •.e G % n1 - 1 ~ _ ~ } N"1
IM z bra E- ~1~7 11,
1~ 1 -~~r~• j°7s'►;.i.. ~ I ~jf~}3~ • ,y •t'i III = 1
Existing Buildings over 40' or Approved fiat, Height -Modifiaition above 40'.
Agenda Iterr;>,2 Page 5
y~L ~ih f
~ 4 1
k y
o ?l A
Recent photo of the Lotus Building.
'k 1S} 2 .l~• tt. - ~ ~ r4~'. i ~ i
1 Sy 9 1:' Zia` Y "J 1`; 1 .4_"
1 lL ~
3 eGs ? y'•
1 4P s s:
o s
t
774
f
. q- ~•.•4 { -mil 1 r - e
L'xistin pen space on the west side of the site.
Aenda IteniQ Pate 6Item Pate 6
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Designation
The BVCP land use designation on the property was changed from Transitional Business
(TB) to High Density Residential (HR) in 2003. In areas designated HR, densities over
14 dwelling units per acre are possible if proposed development is compatible with the
surrounding area and compliant with zoning regulations and relevant BVCP policies.
Accordingly, the zoning on the site was changed to Residential High Density-3 (RH-3) in
2004 to reflect the BVCP land use designation amendment to HR from TB, with the goal
of increasing residential densities near the University of Colorado and multi-modal
corridors, as well as increasing affordable housing opportunities within the City.
N
00
m j High Density Residential r~--
E .11
o
Public
90:'2THST
=f
r T-
L J -
E Aurora Av j
Transitional Business
7 I
Area BVCP Land Use Designation Context
Zoning
The RE-3 zone district was created in 2004 to implement strategies from Resolution 922
adopted by City Council at the culmination of the Jobs/Population study, which
considered the potential for higher housing densities on parcels adjoining the University
of Colorado. In addition, RH-3 was established to meet the city goal of providing more
affordable housing in the community. As indicated on the map on the next page, the site
is primarily surrounded by high density residential to the north and east with zoning on
the south side transitioning to Transitional Business.
Agenda ltenOAPage 7
The intent of the RII-3 district is to provide redevelopment opportunities for areas of the
City in the process of changing to high-density residential, with limited, pedestrian-
oriented neighborhood retail uses. The RI-I-3 zone is intended for areas in close proximity
to a primary destination or a transit center to maximize travel by lbot, bicycle, bus or rail.
When the zone district was adopted; a draft transportation connections plan was brought
forward to create pedestrian and vehicular connections in support of the increased
density, consistent with the City's Transportation Mastcr Plan goals. This plan envisions
improved transit service and access from the side streets along 28`11 Street Frontage Road.
The draft plan is expected to come to Planning Board for review in first quarter of 2010.
The RH-3 zoning designation does not specify a maximum density. Instead, density in
the RH-3 zoning district is a function of on-site open space, requiring that 60% of a
property remain open space. The minimum 60% open space requirement may be
modified through Site Review (with Planning Board approval) to a minimum of 30%, per
Section 9-8-3(e), B.R.C., 1981 provided half the required open space is an outdoor
garden or landscaped courtyard designed for the use for the occupants of the building,
with a minimum dimension of at least twenty feet. Seating and other elements
encouraging use and occupation shall be included in its design and it should form an
integral part of the circulation pattern within the project.
r; Q 3
it ~ I I .
,N Ei E3
yy S 9
N
i i
RH-3`;'' -
P
00
e - O B I•
QQQ &TI ST
o y
a
I,!I1~ r
1 I _
' ~ III Ij r -
RH-5 -
ijmra v
BT-1
17Area Loving Context
Ag nda Hen& Page 8
Project Description
The site is located directly east of the University of Colorado campus and units are
expected to be marketed primarily as student housing. The submittal includes 59
residential units (divided among three connected residential buildings ranging in size
from 800 to 1450 square feet). The following represents the distribution of residential
units and bedroom counts:
Building Total 4 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 1 Bedroom
Units Units Units Units Units
A (Lotus) 7 6 0 0 1
B (proposed) 59 46 4 8 1
Total 66 50 4 8 2
The existing on-site building will be preserved, designated historic and improved. It will
continue to be used as office space, neighborhood retail, restaurant uses and residential.
As indicated by Attachment C and shown in the proposed site plan on the. following
page, new buildings are proposed on the eastern / northeastern portions of the property,
with the Lotus building and its adjacent mature landscaping to remain along the 28'h
Street Frontage Road side of the property.
Subgrade parking is proposed under Building B and will be accessed from Aurora
Avenue. Parking as proposed exceeds the required amount of parking for the zoning
district as noted in Attachment C. On-street parking is also be available along Aurora
Avenue. Access to the trash enclosure located on the north side of Building B would be
shared with the access to the office building to the north located at 910 28"' Street.
On-site open space consists of several at-grade hardscaped courtyard areas situated
between buildings, setback areas, as well as individual unit balconies. Of the 59 units
proposed, 11.6 permanently affordable units are required. The applicant has proposed to
provide 7 on-site permanently affordable units and provide cash-in-lieu for 4.8 of the
required units.
The maximum by-right building height in the RH-3 zone district is limited to 40 feet.
New building heights measured to the top of the buildings parapets from the lowest
point within 25 feet of the highest side of the building will be 53 feet and require
modification through the Site Review process, as well as the approval of Planning
Board. The perceived height of the buildings from grade will be approximately 44 feet.
All required modifications to the land use code are discussed in detail in the Analysis
section of this memorandum.
Agenda ltenl'i Pane 9
I~~ 1111111 III III
loll I11111II 1 11 11 1 I "
I r
' -
• 1 =`_-'-{r Il l I I - - - _ _ 1 l
I l
` I,.'w 11111 UIII111 1,111, ~.n:- 1'I r,~~i , I,I IIII,.
lit.
l
_ W ~ 1 I t - ~ s1.
1 I ult nl ~ '
I I I. 1111' Fl.. 4.1 1111 1. ,r111 I:. I I +■~e 1
- ~ I ~ ~ ~ - 1.1..1 L N _
~ ' 1 • f.:.1)11: ~ -iLn, til ~ ~ 111 111 Idll , _
S;y
Li u
- - - - - - - - - - - -
66 ll l i11w,
L: - = C 11 •,~'ert' iTt_i,'N':` - - ' 1. 1 J..-. „111.
1 M'~ 11 IIII 'ii 1 I
1 I . u ~ a i1 , , , I 11..1 i I 1 r ~ ~ ' ..1
11~~1 • 1 nu
1 ITE I L--1. 1 I 11 I II I
II - I I "11'
Proposed Site Plan
Agenda Items' Page 10
ANALYSIS:
1) Is the proposed application consistent with the Site Review criteria found in Section
9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981?
Based on improvements from the originally proposed site plan and architectural
design as well as the preservation of mature landscaping and landmarking of the
Lotus building, staff finds that, on balance, the proposal meets the intent of the Site
Review criteria. Refer to Attachment D for staff's detailed analysis of the Site
Review criteria.
2) Are the requested land use code modifications appropriate for the site?
a) Section 9-7-1 B.R.C., 1981: Height exception to allow building heights to 55 feet.
The area along the 28'1' Street Frontage Road is considered in-transition from a lower
density commercial area to a higher density mixed use residential area. Recently, high
density residential projects along 28`1' Street such as the Golden West Manor and the
Landmark Lofts projects have been approved and built with heights up to 55 feet.
Additionally, there are several other buildings adjacent to the site that maintain
similar heights, such as the 34-unit apartment building directly south of the site at
2800 Aurora which was approved with a height of 46 feet in 2003 as well as the
existing Golden West Village towers located at 1055 Adams Circle and the Spanish
Towers located at 805 29`i' Street, both of which are over 60 feet tall.
In addition to being consistent in height with other high density residential
developments in the area, staff finds that the revised site design being proposed by the
applicant will make the new buildings less prominent when viewed from 28th Street,
with enough distance between the Lotus building and the proposed building to allow
the Lotus building to remain the most prominent site feature. This is consistent with
direction provided to the applicant during Concept Plan review. Further, the revised
site design maintains the existing mature landscaping, which will continue to enhance
the 28`h Street gateway to the city.
b) Section 9-9-17 B.R.C., 1981: Solar Access
(A.) Because of basic solar access protection requirements and the land use
regulations:
(i) Reasonable use cannot otherwise be made of the lot for which the
exception is requested;
(ii) The part of the adjoining lot or lots that the proposed structure would
shade is inherently unsuitable as a site for a solar energy system; or
Agenda Item~Wnc I1
(iii)Any shading would not significantly reduce the solar potential of the
protected lot; and
Per Section 9-9-17(c), B.R.C. 1981, properties zoned RH-3 are considered Solar
Access Area II. Solar Access Area II is defined as areas designed to protect solar
access principally for rooftops in areas where, because of planned density,
topography, or lot configuration or orientation, the preponderance of lots therein
currently enjoy such access and where solar access of this nature would not
unduly restrict pennissible development.
Only two very small portions of the proposed building will exceed the 25 foot
solar fence as shown on sheet Al of Attachment C. These two portions will cast
a shadow that will impact a total of approximately 137 square feet on the rooftop
of the single story building located directly to the east of the site, Based on the
"U" shaped building configuration of the affected office building, the building
will retain at least 95% of its remaining south-facing roof top area to
accominodate solar collectors.
Additionally, while there are areas where the proposed building shadows exceed
the 25 foot solar fence on the property to the north, the shadows will not impact
rooftops. (The site immediately to the north is over ten feet higher in elevation
than the subject site and the existing building is 55 feet tall at its highest point,
therefore rooftops are not impacted.)
(iv)Such situations have not been created by the applicant;
The site presents a number of design constraints in developing new buildings in a
manner that will allow the Lotus building to remain prominent with its associated
mature landscaping and garden area. Additionally, since the sewer line that runs
on the southern and eastern sides of the site serves as a regional 30-inch trunk
main, it would be prohibitive to relocate. These constraints create a situation in
which solar impacts are difficult to avoid in their entirety in development of
higher density housing on this site.
(B) Except for actions under subparagraphs (f)(6)(D), (f)(6)(E), and (f)(6)(F) of
this section, the exception would be the minimal action that would afford
relief in an economically feasible manner;
The applicant has taken steps to minimize solar eneroachinents outside of the
solar fence, making the exception the minimal action that would afford relief in an
economically feasible manner.
(C) The exception would cause the least interference possible with basic solar
access protection for other lots;
Agenda Itcn APage 12
The applicant has taken steps to minimize solar encroachments outside of the
solar fence, causing the least interference possible with basic solar access
protection for other lots.
(D) If the proposed structure is located in a historic district designated by the
city council according to section 9-11-2, "City Council May Designate or
Amend Landmarks and Historic Districts," B.R.C. 1981, and if it conformed
with the requirements of this section, its roof design would be incompatible
with the character of the development in the historic district;
Not applicable. While the applicant has proposed to landmark the building, the
site is not located in a historic district.
(E) If part of a proposed roof which is to be reconstructed or added to would be
incompatible with the design of the remaining parts of the existing roof so as
to detract materially from the character of the structure, provided that the
roof otherwise conformed with the requirements of this section;
Not applicable. The proposed building does not exist.
(F) If the proposed interference with basic solar access protection would be due
to a solar energy system to be installed, such system could not be feasibly
located elsewhere on the applicant's lot;
Not applicable. The proposed interference is not due to the installation of a solar
energy system.
(G)If an existing solar system would be shaded as a result of the exception, the
beneficiary of that system would nevertheless still be able to make reasonable
use of it for its intended purpose;
Not applicable. There are no existing solar systems adjacent to the site.
(H)The exception would not cause more than an insubstantial breach of solar
access protected by permit as defined in paragraph (d)(3) of this section; and
Not applicable. There are no adjacent solar permits to be impacted.
(1) All other requirements for the issuance of an exception have been met. The
applicant bears the burden of proof with respect to all issues of fact.
The applicant has provided a detailed solar drawing that staff has verified.
Agenda Item%Page 13
i
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS:
Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property
owners within 600 feet of the subject property and a sign posted on the property for at
least 10 days. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-2, B.R.C. 1981 have been met.
Staff has received one written comment (refer to Attachment E) from an adjacent
property owner expressing concern over proposed building heights.
STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION:
Planning staff finds that the proposed application for Site Review meets the Site Review
criteria found in subsection 9-2-14(h), B.R.C., 1981. Therefore, staff recommends that
Planning Board approve Site Review #LUR2008-00040 incorporating this staff
memorandum and the attached Site Review Criteria Checklist as findings of fact, and
using the following recommended conditions of approval.
1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in
compliance with all approved plans dated October 8, 2009 on file in the City of
Boulder Planning Department, except as may be modified by this approval.
2. The Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions contained in the
Development Agreement recorded February 8, 2008 at Reception No. 2908796,
except as may be modified by this approval.
3. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a Technical
Document Review application for the following items, subject to the approval of
the City Manager:
a. Final architectural plans, including material samples and colors, to insure
compliance with the intent of this approval and compatibility with the
surrounding area. The architectural intent shown on the approved plans dated
October 8, 2009 is acceptable. Planning staff will review plans to assure that
the architectural intent is performed.
b. A final site plan which includes detailed floor plans and section
drawings.
c. A final utility plan meeting the City of Boulder Design and
Construction Standards.
d. A final storm water report and plan meeting the City of Boulder
Design and Construction Standards.
e. Final transportation plans and report in accordance with City of
Boulder Design and Construction Standards for all transportation
improvements, including but not limited to: constriction plans and
pavement design report for the public emergency access lane,
Ay-enda Itenk'%Pat!e 14
construction plans for all public sidewalks and the transit stop
boarding pad, a signage and striping plan in conformance with Manual
of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards, and a
stamped drive ramp analysis for the East Aurora Avenue underground
parking structure ramp.
f. CDOT access permit in accordance with CDOT Access Code
Standards, for all transportation improvements within the CDOT right-
of-way including the 28th Street Frontage Road access
g. A detailed landscape plan, including size, quantity, and type of plants
existing and proposed; type and quality of non-living landscaping
materials; any site grading proposed; and any irrigation system
proposed, to insure compliance with this approval and the City's
landscaping requirements. Removal of trees must receive prior
approval of the Planning Department. Removal of any tree in City
right of way must also receive prior approval of the City Forester.
h. A detailed outdoor lighting plan showing location, size, and intensity
of illumination units, indicating compliance with section 9-9-16,
B.R.C.1981.
i. A detailed shadow analysis to insure compliance with the City's solar
access requirements of section 9-9-17, B.R.C.
4. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall dedicate to the City, at
no cost, the following easements as shown on the approved plans, in accordance
with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, as part of Technical
Document Review applications, the form and final location of which shall be
subject to the approval of the City Manager:
a. A public access easement 1' beyond sidewalk limits of the path along
the northern property line of the site.
b. A public access easement 1' beyond sidewalk limits of the East
Aurora Avenue sidewalk.
c. A public access easement 1' beyond shared driveway limits for the
28` Street Frontage Road access.
d. A 20-foot wide emergency access easement containing the emergency
access lane.
e. A 10' utility easement running from East Aurora Avenue to the property line
shared with 910 28"' Street located west of existing building located at 900
28th Street (Building A).
AL,enda Itein~Page 15
5. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall provide
documentation confirming that the private sewer easement which serves 910 28`h
Street and which crosses underneath the proposed new development has been
extinguished.
6. Prior to building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a financial
guarantee, in a form acceptable to the Director of Public Works, in an amount
equal to the cost of providing eco-passes to the residents of the development for
three years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each dwelling unit
as proposed in the Applicant's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan.
7. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit to the City an
application for Individual Landmark designation of the historic Green Shield
Building located at 900 281h Street, Boulder, CO, with a designation boundary
extending from the existing building to the west, south and north property lines,
and east and northeast a distance of approximately 15 feet from the face of the
existing building.
Approved By:
r\
David Driskel ; Exec tive Director
Department of Community Planning and Sustainability
ATTACHMENTS:
A: October 4, 2007 Planning Board Minutes
B: October 2007 Concept Plan Drawings
C: Applicant's Plans and Written Statement
D: Staff's Analysis of Site Review Criteria
E: Public Input
SA PLANTB-ITEMSIMEMOS1900 28th FINAL.CF.doc
Agenda Itenr,f~ Pa-e 16
Attachment A
API'ROVI l) ON NOZ~1~1IBER 15, 20(;7
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
October 4, 2007
1777 Broadway, Council Chambers
A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years)
are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also
available on the web at: http://www-bouldercolorado.gov
/
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT.
Elise Jones, Chair
Willa Johnson
Phil Shull, Vice-Chair
Adrian Sopher
Richard Sosa
Bill Holicky
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Andrew Shoemaker
STAFF PRESENT:
Michelle Allen, Housing Planner
Jeff Arthur, Engineering Review Manager
Juliet Bonnell, Administrative Specialist
Charles Ferro, Senior Planner
David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney
Karl Guiler, Planner 11
James Hewat, Planner 11 Historic Preservation
Jonathan Koehn, Environmental Affairs Manager
Kirk Moors, Senior Plans Examiner/Assistant Building Official
Cindy Pieropan, Housing Planner .
John Pollock, Director of Housing and Human Services
Maureen Rait, Director of Public Works for Development & Support Services
Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager
Elizabeth Vasatka, Environmental Coordinator
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, E. Jones, declared a quorum at 6:06 p.m. and the following business was
conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by P. Shull, seconded by R. Sosa, the Planning Board approved (5- 0, E.
Jones abstained, A. Shoemaker absent) the August 23, 2007 Planning Board minutes.
On a motion by B. Holicky, seconded by P. Shull, the Planning Board approved (5-0, A.
Sopher abstained, A. Shoemaker absent) the September 6, 2007 Planning Board
minutes.
On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by E. Jones, the Planning Board approved (5-0,
A. Sopher abstained, A. Shoemaker absent) the September 13, 2007 Planning Board
minutes as amended.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
No items were scheduled for discussion.
5. ACTION ITEMS
A. Public hearing and consideration of Concept Plan Review and Comment application
#LUR2007-00055, Boulder Mobile Manor. The proposal is for a redevelopment of an
existing mobile home park at 2637 Valmont Road where 66 mobile home units and a
community building are proposed to be replaced with a variety of fixed-foundation homes
totaling 79 units (100% permanently affordable), a community building, and 3,800 square feet
of commercial space along Valmont. The site is approximately 4.6 acres and is zoned RH-4
(Residential- High 4).
Applicant/Property Owner: Boulder Housing Partners
Case Manager: Karl Guiler
B. Holicky recused for this item.
Applicant/Owner Presentation
Cindy Brown from Boulder Housing Partners presented the item to the board. Coburn
Development Creative Director, Pete Weber, presented the site plan to the board.
A. Sopher asked why twenty four residents requested mobile homes in this location instead of
the project that is being proposed.
C. Brown replied that from her understanding these requests stemmed from residents wanting to
minimize displacement and avoid having to move twice.
E. Jones asked how long people might be displaced during the construction of this project.
C. Brown replied that there would be a construction period of perhaps six months to one year.
The applicant requested feedback on the following topics:
• Connection to the north
• Uses along Valmont
• Street trees and parking balance
A. Sopher inquired whether Boulder Housing Partners have considered subsidy of commercial
leases in regards to affordable commercial tenants.
C. Brown mentioned that they have looked into the possibility of including small businesses that
will be useful to residents such as laundromats.
W. Johnson asked for clarification on deferred parking on the map.
P. Weber replied that their intention is to provide potential spaces that could be turned into
permanent spaces if the need is found.
P. Shull clarified that a community meeting space was on site.
P. Weber mentioned that there would be a common meeting space that would possibly house a
day care center and laundromat, as well as other things that are still to be determined. Some of
the functions might generate off-site use.
R. Sosa asked the applicant to address the potential parking impact i f they provide commercial
use on Valmont.
Ager4a "bw S I Paw # &
P. Weber replied that they have provided for one parking place per 400 square feet. He said that
there is strong potential for shared parking (i.e. commercial parking during the day/residential
parking at night).
A. Sopher inquired if the applicant has discussed connections with the neighbors to the east.
P. Weber said that they haven't spoken with the neighbors directly, but there is a possibility of'
making a connection with the neighboring areas.
John Pollock, Director of Housing and Human Services spoke to the board regarding Boulder
Mobile Manor because it has already been discussed by City Council in relation to their
community sustainability goals- This project should be kept affordable to current residents and
family-friendly. City Council wants to see environmental sustainability and use of green
technologies on this site. There is a strong commitment between staff and Boulder Housing
Partners to make this project meet City Council's goals. He would like to hear clear guidance
from Planning Board about how to move forward with this project efficiently.
Staff Presentation
K. Guiler presented the item to the board.
P. Shull asked about the size of the parcel and where the discrepancy in its size stems from.
K. Guiler replied that the lot is 4. 6 acres and that the discrepancy possibly lies on the front line
of the property along Valmont.
P. Weber confirmed that the discrepancy is along Valmont because when it was appraised that
line was a little fuzzy. He noted that they'll have more definitive details soon.
A. Sopher inquired why internal property lines are being proposed.
K. Guiler replied that each unit will not have internal property lines (from building to building).
Different lots on the property might be distinguished, but they are not exactly sure how things
will be subdivided yet.
P. Weber intends for all the streets to become public right of way. There will not be interior lot
lines. This will be fine-tuned before the site review phase is reached. On each lot there will be
at least four feet of lawn up to twenty feet of lawn before reaching the sidewalk.
A. Sopher asked if the parking analysis shows that there will be enough parking in this location.
K. Guiler replied that the proposed parking areas would provide adequate parking for this
project.
E. Jones noted that it seemed like the current parking needs will be similar to the parking needs
once this project moves forward.
K. Guiler agreed that the parking needs will be similar as existing parking needs and noted that
several spaces have been added allowing for growth and a greater population-
A. Sopher mentioned that the new plan seems like it would accommodate more people than the
current set-up.
P. Weber agreed and noted that this proposed project is two stories, so there would be a greater
population than currently.
C. Brown noted that despite the change in configuration of the units, they don't anticipate a big
change in the number of people who will live there.
W. Johnson asked the applicant to describe what the different colors on the site plan represent.
P. Weber replied that duplexes are purple, big single family homes are orange, small single
family homes are yellow, different size duplexes are gray.
W. Johnson asked how many units could be accommodated if this wasn't a single family unit
design.
K. Guiler replied that any variety of number of units is possible depending on the design of the
unit. Open space might be easier to maintain with a different design- with this design it is a
challenge.
W. Johnson asked about water storage/drainage. _2
rte #-k
K. Guiler mentioned that drainage would happen on the southeastern side where a detention
pond area might have to be added.
R. Sosa was curious why the north entry is blocked off.
K. Guiler replied that as far as he knows, it's a private road that is there for emergency access
only.
Public Hearing
John Jones, 3138 Westwood Court (pooled time with Clyda Stafford)
Clyda Stafford, 3120 Eastwood Court
Joyce Medina Sierra, 2637 Valmont Road #62
Tom Wilberding, 3108 Eastwood Court
Board Discussion
A. Sopher asked for clarification of the pedestrian connections. Ile inquired what the setback
requirement is for Willowbrook.
K. Guiler replied that a twenty foot setback is required, but may have to be thirty feet if the
easement for future east/west pedestrian is put in place. Willowbrook prefers a thirty foot
setback.
A. Sopher inquired how the number of units was decided on.
P. Weber responded that they were trying to balance accommodating families with preserving
open space.
P. Shull asked if individual units will be sprinkled.
P. Weber said that this will be considered.
A. Sopher clarified that if the Fire Marshall requires them to be sprinkled, they will be.
The board discussed the following key items:
Street width, including street trees
A. Sopher thought they must integrate this project into the larger community and that this street
is an appropriate way to begin this connection. Because street width relates to how people use
the street he is concerned about narrowing the street width and would like to see it remain as
wide as it is. He acknowledged that the trade-off of having a narrower street is that it would
slow traffic which would benefit residents.
R. Sosa thought that this street should be narrower in order to slow traffic. He liked the idea of
street trees to provide children with sheltered places to play (this would necessitate making the
streets wider in order to add these trees, though). He supported the idea of connecting this area
with the greater neighborhood-
W. Johnson felt comfortable with the narrower street and liked the idea of trees in bump-outs
near the street.
E. Jones agreed that the applicant should continue their narrow street concept with more trees.
P. Shull thought that the site feels tight- He agreed that trees are good and emphasized the
importance of thinking out the character of this street well because it will be a central
meeting/playing space for this community.
Summary - the Planning Board liked the idea of street trees. In general, having a
narrower street is acceptable to them.
'frees
P. Shull wanted the mature trees to be preserved and placement of new trees to be considered
carefully to create punctuation in the neighborhood and provide respite from cars.
AWM
"~p
A. Sopher was concerned about the potential loss of trees. He agreed that the mature trees
should be preserved and the placement of additional trees is important to off-set the density of
the project.
W. Johnson felt that a balance needs to be found between preserving mature trees and carefully
considering the placement of new trees in this development.
E. Jones suggested saving as many trees as possible (to enhance the family-orientation of this
project) without compromising the design of the project.
R. Sosa suggested prioritizing the importance of the trees by size and health and working from
there.
Summary - the Planning Board agreed that as many trees as possible should be preserved,
and planted, but without compromising the design layout of the project.
Commercial uses on Valmont
A. Sopher supported commercial uses on Valmont. He would like to see a means for affordable
commercial space which would encourage more commercial space here. Having residential
space above commercial space would be acceptable to him. More than 3800 square feet should
be considered.
R. Sosa supported having more than 3800 square feet of commercial space here.
W. Johnson supported commercial space, but didn't consider it essential to the plan.
P. Shull didn't suggest any more than 3800 square feet of commercial space on Valmont.
E. Jones liked the idea of subsidized opportunities for local businesses. 3800 square feet would
be okay in her opinion and having flats above the commercial space might be nice.
Summary - the Planning Board is intrigued by and supportive of the concept of
commercial space here.
North/west connection to Arnett
W. Johnson supported the pedestrian and bike connection here.
P. Shull agreed that this connection could be useful. He also rioted that two exits would be
necessary due to the traffic that will occur in this residence.
F. Jones noted that bike and pedestrian connections are more important than vehicular ones.
She thought the connection shouldn't be a through connection that would encourage people to
use this as a short cut.
A. Sopher clarified that this is a two way connection. He does not consider this a big
connection, but did support it as a multimodal connection.
Summary - the Planning Board supported a pedestrian, bike, and car connection but not
one that encourages lots of new traffic through here.
C_en Space
W. Johnson liked the community center area and courtyard in the back. She was not too
concerned about open space here and liked the rhythm created by the single family homes. An
open space reduction would be workable in her opinion.
E. Jones thought that the plan would be improved by removing some pavement and adding a
park/green open space in this location. She also thought that the "community center" area should
be pushed further internally (more centrally located to all the units). She supported sacrificing a
few units in order to provide more open space.
°4a fib-
R. Sosa suggested increasing the open space by removing the basketball court. Ile suggested
researching the demographics to determine what type of recreational/open space would be most
appropriate here. I le also supported increasing open space by removing some units.
P. Shull didn't think there was enough space between the buildings. He also suggested reducing
the number of units in order to create more open space. The technical aspects of the site, such as
water retention, trash, community facilities, etc. need to be better understood.
A. Sopher agreed with P. Shull that the site needs to be more porous. He thought the courtyard
was not large enough to serve the entire community.
Summary - the Planning Board thought that family centered open space/activity areas
should be increased. More open space between the buildings should be created.
Parking reduction_
A. Sopher would not support Arnett providing overflow parking.
E. Jones agreed with A. Sopher and thought that on-street parking would be viable.
W. Johnson agreed that on-street parking on this site will be used and plentiful.
P. Shull accepted the fact that the applicants understand the residents and their parking needs.
He thought deferred parking was a good option.
R. Sosa was okay with the current parking proposal and was curious to hear more about the
exact numbers of parking spots.
Summary - the Planning Board was okay with the parking proposal as it stands overall,
but are curious to hear more definite numbers, etc.
Entrance-way
E. Jones felt that the hardscape around the community center and basketball court was too much
pavement. She'd like to see more grass/green space instead. She suggested moving the
basketball court more internally. She would like to see this space used more efficiently and
mentioned that this entry-way is not an appropriate location for their proposed daycare facility.
W. Johnson thought this design seemed a little abrupt with wide community space right next to
the narrow street, but thought that it might make more sense as the overall design evolves
further.
R. Sosa recommended rethinking the idea of having a day care center right at the entrance and
instead keeping this area as more open community space.
A. Sopher agreed that this location is inappropriate for a daycare facility. lie liked the scale of
the entryway.
Summary - the Planning Board considered this area to be confusing and requested that it
be clarified.
Setback reductions
A. Sopher doesn't think the setbacks will be adequate especially since they don't know what
will be to the west of this. He is not as concerned about the northern area.
W. Johnson was not too concerned about the setbacks to the east and west.
P. Shull did not support the setbacks on the east and west. Ile supported reduction along
Valmont.
R. Sosa didn't support the six foot setback on the west side. He would give greater flexibility on
the east side.
E. Jones had concerns about the cast and particularly west side.
Summary- the Planning Board members had varying degrees of concern, but there was
unanimous concern about the size of the setbacks on the east and particularly the west side.
Number of units
A. Sopher thought there may be too many units on this site. If other issues work around this
number (open space, etc.) then it may be okay.
P. Shull didn't see the logic in increasing the density on this site. If other issues are fixed then
the appropriate number of units for this space will follow.
E. Jones agreed with P. Shull. She thought the number of units could be reduced in order to
make this a model for redeveloping mobile homes. She felt that 66-79 units would be a
reasonable number for this site.
W. Johnson liked the community benefit here. She would like to be sure that the infrastructure
costs will be absorbed-
R. Sosa noted that analysis on the setback and open space will determine how many units are
appropriate to this site.
Summary - the Planning Board didn't consider the number of units to be much of an issue.
The important thing is to address the other issues that have been discussed and this will
determine the ideal number of units.
Architectural character
P. Shull would like to see some consistency in design rather than a hodgepodge of different
designs.
A. Sopher supported the applicant's efforts to create a substantial neighborhood in this space.
E. Jones encouraged continued work with residents to determine architectural style. She thought
that the mass should be more focused along Valmont.
Motion
No action is required on behal f of the Planning Hoard.
The board recessed at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:40 p.m.
B. Holicky returned from being recused.
B. Public hearing and consideration of Concept Review file #tLUR2007-00042, Flatirons Village,
located at 900 28'h Street to add 59 dwelling units with underground parking. The request would
require the following modifications as allowed in the Residential High Density Three (RH-3):
open space reduction, height modification, and a setback modification. The site is comprised of
2.57 acres zoned Residential High Density Three (Rl 1-3).
Applicant/Owner: Flatirons Village, LLC
Case Manager: Charles Ferro
Applicant/Owner Presentation
Steven Walsh presented the item to the board.
P. Shull inquired whether units would be for sale or for rent.
S. Walsh replied that units would be for rent.
Staff Presentation
C. Ferro presented the item to the board.
A. Sopher clarified that if modifications in height, setbacks, and open space were made to meet
the requirements it would not need to go through site review.
P. Shull inquired what the landmark boundary looks like and how it might affect the rest of the
complex.
J. Hewat replied that the landmark boundary has not been defined yet, but would probably
include some land around the building especially on the western side. This building has been
identified as one of Hobart Wagner's most notable buildings architecturally.
A. Sopher inquired what the process is for defining the landmark boundary.
J. Hewat replied that this project would most likely go to Landmarks Board for Concept Review
following Planning Board where they would talk about the boundary.
C. Ferro explained that part of the applicant's property has a shared 20 foot access easement.
They'd need an additional five foot access easement on the south for a sidewalk. Excavation on
the southern side of the building has been approved under previous staff level site review.
Public Hearing
Tim Plass, 655 Maxwell Ave
Board Discussion
Mass - old vs. new
A. Sopher noted that this is a very difficult project. He didn't think that the designer pulled this
project off in a balanced manner. The building mass/scale is too large and the building A on the
western side of the project isn't necessary and should probably be removed. While the area is
zoned for high density residential, the Lotus building is a constraint. The west side of the site is
integral to the oniginal design of the building. The eastern portion of the site looks okay for
development but the proposed building C looks very large-
R. Sosa agreed with A. Sopher and mentioned that the Lotus building should be viewed as a
temple and the proposed plan does not honor the building. The proposed plan minimizes the
importance of the building. He wanted to see a connection between the open space on the
western side and the original building. The mass/scale of buildings on the western side is
overwhelming. Development for the east side of the site is probably okay.
W. Johnson agreed with previous comments. She mentioned that on the eastern portion of the
site, a courtyard/enclosed space that honors the Lotus building would be a good idea. The
northern portion of the site should also be opened up. She doesn't want to see buildings along
28`h but if there were to be buildings along 28'h, they must be well done and respect the Lotus
building by stepping down toward the comer of 28" and Aurora.
P. Shull agreed that this is a very difficult project, but he felt very negative about the way it has
been proposed. The Lotus building is completely lost in this proposal- it should be the
centerpiece rather than being overwhelmed by its new surroundings. He would like to see a long
strectscape so that they can see the project in relation to what is already in existence in this
space. The reference to the Lotus building is lost to the scale of the proposed buildings. If
something were built along 28`h a better connection to open space is needed. Raving two
separate garage entrances from Aurora on either side of the Lotus building also does little to
honor the building. 28`h should provide a high quality pedestrian streetscape. This corner will be
a gateway. The west buildings are not acceptable and appear too blunt.
B. Holicky thought the eastern side mass wasn't as critical as the western side. He agreed that
the Lotus building needs to be honored more with the space that surrounds it. The northern side
needs more room to breathe. He was undecided about whether 28`h Street is appropriate for
development although the casterri side is appropriate for higher intensity development.
E. Jones agreed that this is a difficult project with the Lotus building as a centerpoint. The
design as presented doesn't work. The plaza currently covers the west side of the building- there
needs to be separation and retention of landscape views. She appreciated the pitched roofs and
understood the reference to the Lotus building but the proposed building scales do not work,
especially along 28`h. The north side of the building needs more separation.
A. Sopher suggested using the Lotus building as a starting point for the scale on-site (but
realizes that won't provide the needed density) or creating a series of larger scale perimeter
structures that respect the Lotus building internally. He would like to see functional open space
between the Lotus building and structures along 28`h Street.
Summary - the Planning Board considered this design to be too much and thought that it
didn't work, particularly along 28`h Street. The board suggested more flexibility on the
eastern side and emphasized the importance of respecting and honoring the Lotus
Building. Additionally, trees over the parking garages should be large substantial trees
requiring tree vaults or a significant amount of plantable soil depth.
Architectural character
W. Johnson wanted to see additional buildings honor the character of the Lotus building by
contrasting nicely with it.
P. Shull wanted the Lotus building to stand out more and be the only building that has its unique
look. The only thing that should look like the Lotus building is the Lotus building.
A. Sopher agreed. He also mentioned the possibility of using many different types of playful
roofs in this space, but not necessarily making the buildings four stories.
E. Jones wouldn't mind seeing a good relationship between the Lotus and new buildings. She
wanted to avoid incongruity, so suggested using some similar materials in the construction of
new buildings.
B. Holieky felt that a similar roof form and architectural character to the Lotus building is
impossible to duplicate. It is too unique. Contemporary architecture of our time is appropriate.
The applicant should look to contrast and offset rather than reference or duplicate. The scale will
be important.
Summary - the majority of the board members suggested making the new buildings look
completely different from the Lotus building, but complement it well (without
overwhelming it).
Height
W. Johnson thought that the height was more appropriate on the eastern side of the project.
A. Sopher didn't think the height was much of an issue. The main issue is massing and
compatibility between the old and new.
L. Jones agreed that compatibility is important, but noted that the height is important because
the Lotus building shouldn't be completely dwarfed by the surrounding buildings- that this is a
component of compatibility and that the east side was more appropriate for higher intensity.
P. Shull thought that height needs to be used carefully in this space. This is a site that can
handle some height, but not right next to the Lotus building. Height, if done correctly can
provide a contrast, however, the height shouldn't be constant.
Summary - the Planning Board considered height to be less of a concern on the eastern
side of the project.
Setbacks
B. Holicky would like to see the landscaping in front of the buildings preserved.
E. Jones agreed with B. Holicky although some setback modification could be considered if an
improved design results.
Access/Parking
W. Johnson recommended exploring access from the north using the existing driveway. She felt
that the Aurora Avenue frontage is important.
A. Sopher noted that western access will be difficult given how close it will be to the Lotus
building and recommended that one of the ramps be removed. Flanking the Lotus building with
garage accesses does little to honor the building.
B. Holicky recommended keeping in mind'how the units relate to the surrounding streets.
Summary - the Planning Board believed that two ramps on the Aurora Frontage would be
problematic. In regards to the underground parking garage, they recommended being
mindful of Aurora as a pedestrian access drive.
Streetscape
W. Johnson inquired if there has been any discussion on having detached sidewalks with
treeline.
C. Ferro replied that this could be a possibility.
B. Ilolicky noted that the proposed units along 28'n or Aurora do not address the street. He
recommended considering a townhouse style unit to create some residential life on the street.
Open Space
A. Sopher did not recommend asking for a reduction in open space. This request shouldn't need
to be made if the other issues the Planning Board has brought up are addressed. He will not
support a reduction in open space on-site. Adequate open space is necessary to address all other
concerns on-site.
R. Sosa noted that in anticipation of open space on the western side, sprinklers should be used to
make this area healthier/more green.
B.Holicky felt he may be able to support a reduction if the western area is preserved.
P. Shull noted that the quality of open space is important and would consider a reduction if other
design issues could be addressed. He suggested an emphasis on quality, not quantity.
Summary - the Planning Board questions whether or not a reduction in open space will be
necessary if the other issues are dealt with. They also emphasized that quality of open
space is more important than quantity. A reduction may be possible if the western area is
preserved.
Process of Landmarks aaid_1'lannim-, Board
P. Shull is concerned about the Planning Board being at odds with the Landmarks Board. He
doesn't want to see tlzis project at site review until Landmarks Board's opinions have been heard
and taken into consideration.
B. Ilolicky advocates sending this project to DDAB as a last step before site review.
R: Sosa thinks the Landmarks Board's opinion is important to get before this project comes back
to Planning Board for a second concept plan.
Summary - the Planning Board recommended the following steps: that this item be heard
by the Landmarks Board, return to Planning Board for 2"d Concept Plan, then move to
DDAB, and return to Planning Board for site review.
Motion
No action is required on behalf of the Planning Board.
The board recessed at 10:27 p.m. and reconvened at 10:30 p.m.
C. Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to the City Council regarding
proposed local amendments to the B.R.C. 1981, Title 10 Structures, as follows:
1) Updating Resource Conservation - Green Points, by adding Chapter 10-7.5 and revising
Chapter] 0-5.5 Residential Code, and
2) Adopting by reference the 2006 International Codes and the 2005 National Electric Code
and revising Chapters: 10-5 Building Code, 10-5.5 Residential Code, 10-6 Electric Code, 10-7
Energy Conservation & Insulation Code, 10-8 Fire Prevention Code, 10-9 Mechanical Code,
10-9.5 Fuel Gas Code and 10-10 Plumbing Code_
Case Managers: Elizabeth Vasatka and Kirk Moors
Staff Presentation
K. Moors presented the code item to the board. E. Vasatka presented the Green Points item to
the board.
B. 11olicky asked about how Green Points would work with multi-family homes and clarified
that every new house would have a HERS rating done to it.
E. Vasatka replied that the analysis that has been done (which was stopped somewhat short) is
on the city's website. Multi-family homes need further analysis.
A. Sopher asked if everything is incorporated into analysis cost.
E. Vasatka answered yes.
W. Johnson asked whether a similar program to Green Points is being considered in commercial
buildings.
E. Vasatka replied that this was discussed in a City Council meeting and is being looked into
further once the residential components are flushed out.
E. Jones noted that there is flexibility in the Green Points program and inquired if this flexibility
would be built into the code of the Build Green Program.
K. Moors replied that the code document would be flexible, but it would take a little work for it
to function on the same level as Green Points.
A. Sopher asked about the impact the requirements have on parts of a structure that aren't being
renovated. He tried to gather specific details regarding renovations and insulation.
E. Vasatka did not have the specific details of how this would work for different examples of
renovations/insulation needs. This would need further research and discussion.
P. Shull asked if there is a list of exemptible properties (e-g. historic structures that are difficult
to make changes to).
E. Vasatka replied that this needs to be considered further. These audits target specific energy
areas. Some exemptions will be necessary and need further discussion.
L. Jones inquired about how the 500 square foot threshold was arrived at.
E. Vasatka replied that historically 500 square feet has been the Green Points threshold.
Building permits that are under 500 square Icet (such as decks, porches, kitchens, baths, etc.)
have boon analyzed and it would be difficult to get enough points within these types of projects.
R. llolicky inquired i 1"a 501 Square foot deck project would be considered green space.
K. Moors replied that typically you'd need a thermal space, so it wouldn't fall under green
space.
P. Shull asked if other systems that don't require a HERS rating to ensure compliance have been
looked into because it costs money to do this analysis.
E. Vasatka isn't familiar with a different way to ensure compliance. With the HERS rating
diagnostics are run at the end of the energy evaluation. HERS is nationally used and currently
the only system that does that sort of testing.
A. Sopher asked if there is a problem with compliance on the Green Points issue.
E. Vasatka replied that some people are going above and beyond what's necessary and some
people are not meeting the requirements.
K. Moors noted that if they had the testing in place there would be a higher compliance rate.
Public Hearing
Lynn Segal, 538 Dewey
Colin Thom, 1600 Bradley Court
Eric Daub, 1887 Orchard Ave
Board Discussion
E. Jones held a time check and asked the board for a consensus on how to move forward.
B. Holicky mentioned that this is a far-reaching topic which requires further discussion. He
suggested that if they were going to discuss Green Points tonight that they focus on the highest
level of importance within the topics that need discussion.
A. Sopher thought this topic needed more discussion, but didn't think it could be accomplished
thoroughly at this meeting.
R. Sosa agreed with A. Sopher that this is a robust topic that needs more discussion.
P. Shull noted that this is a large topic with high level and lower level tiers that need more
discussion. He was not ready to wade through and make a recommendation to City Council at
this meeting.
A. Sopher recommended tabling this item until the October 18, 2007 Planning Board meeting,
even though P. Shull won't be present.
E. Vasatka let the Planning Board know that the reason this item was put on this agenda is
because this item is being considered by City Council on October 16, prior to Planning Board's
next meeting.
Planning Board separated the code items from the Green Points items to make the following
motion:
Motion
On a motion by E. Jones, seconded by P. Shull, the Planning Board recommended (6-0, A.
Shoemaker absent) that City Council adopt the proposed local amendments to Title 10 involving
I l i a adoption of the 2006 International(buildingC{xies. the 2005 National Electric Code.
Planning Board discussed the following Green Points key issues:
F. Jones noted that Boulder needs to lead the way and keep pushing the envelope in
environmentally sustainable building. She wanted to verify that this is possible to do and won't
cost too much.
B. Holicky noted that if Boulder passes this item, it will lead the way for the rest of the country.
Ile recommended considering rateheting the progress (e.g. 201/o the first year, then 30% the
second year, etc.). Boulder would still be leading the way, but would be doing it more
gradually/cautiously. Despite this more cautious suggestion, he felt that they should approve the
item as is.
E. Jones thought that B. Holicky's suggestion of gradual progress was a good one that should be
explored.
W. Johnson agreed with E. Jones - she doesn't need to understand all the technicalities of this
item, she just wanted to confirm that it is feasible and not cost prohibitive. She felt that moving
from 30% up to 50% energy efficiency is an aggressive leap, but she was okay with it.
A. Sopher questioned whether 30% was an accurate baseline of the Green Points program.
E. Vasatka replied that according to the studies that have been done, 30% was the baseline
figure that was arrived at.
B. Holicky noted that in practice, 30% is not necessarily an accurate baseline of what is currently
being done in the Green Points program.
W. Johnson was intrigued by the carbon footprint measurement standard.
E. Jones noted that Green Points covers more than just energy such as air, waste diversion, etc.
P. Shull asked if it was possible to send a message to the City Council saying that the Planning
Board endorses the general thrust of the program, but has some concerns about the nuts and bolts
of it. The Planning Board wanted to convey to City Council that this item needs to be broken
down further to consider the impacts that this will have on its practical applications.
E. Jones inquired what the process would be for figuring out the details of this program, if it is
adopted as is, prior to all of its kinks being worked out.
E. Vasatka replied that the business process behind the scene has been worked on superficially
already and that once it is adopted, the process will be further moved forward with staff and
stakeholder groups.
E. Jones clarified that the Planning Board would be adopting/agreeing with the major goals of
the program and that the specific details would be figured out once it's adopted.
D. Gehr noted that staff is in the process of putting together a Green Points ordinance that is
90% complete. Staff is trying to build some flexibility into the program for equivalency type
variances and variances designed to prevent waste.
D. Gehr noted that City Council will vote on the ordinance of the Green Points program on
November 13, 2007 to replace the current Green Points program. The ordinance will set up
standards of what developers will get Green Points for. The pending ordinance rule will make
the ordinance inactive until Jan 1, 2008. Board members can comment on the ordinance before
its final adoption.
E. Jones was curious to hear staff's opinion on exploring the option of taking Green Points more
gradually as B. Holicky suggested. She suggested sending a resolution to council that Planning
Board is supportive of the concept of this item, but concerned about the details. Planning Board
recommended that staff explore ratcheting this up gradually and more thoroughly discuss what to
do with hardship/difficulty in different scenarios.
A. Sopher noted that guidelines need to be set out so that applicants know what to expect during
the process. fle wanted to hear some clarification of how this would apply to multi-family
residences.
B. Holicky suggested taking some minute details out ofthe ordinance and leaving it in staff's
hands so they'll be able to make adjustments without a vote from the City Council since the
industry and green building change quickly.
A. Sopher wanted to clarify the relationship between Grecn Points and IIF_.RS.
Summary - The Planning Board wanted more time to have a better understanding of this
item. The Planning Board agreed that they supported the general thrust of the Green
Points item, but wanted further conversation and clarification on the following points:
Consideration of ratcheting up the requirements over time.
Understanding of how the mandatory requirements will apply to difficult remodels.
Better understanding of how Green Points will apply to multi-family residences.
Understanding of how Green Points relates to TIERS.
Green Points will be discussed further when it is continued at the October 18 Planning Board
meeting. The Planning Board would like to see City Council consider a 3`d reading for this item
to provide enough time for them to thoroughly incorporate all of Planning Board's thoughts on
this item.
b. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR,
AND CITY ATTORNEY
R. Ray gave the board an update on the Washington School item. City Council will probably
want Planning Board representation at the October 23rd special meeting during which this item is
being discussed.
R. Ray informed the board about the TVAP Zone Testing Open House at the 29"' Street
Community Room from 4:30-6 p.m. on October 25, 2007. He asked the board if they would like
to debrief with Charlie "Zucker regarding TVAP or get an update from R. Mclleyser later in the
evening.
The board requested to debrief for about 20 minutes with Charlie Zucker regarding TVAP
following their walking tour and conversation about Twenty Ninth Street.
D. Gehr advised the board that staff would like recommendations from the Planning Board
about what to focus on in their memo regarding the Crossroads Commons Call-up.
The board members agreed to email their expectations/recommendations directly to R. Ray.
7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK
8. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 12:36 a.m.
APPROVED BY
Board Chair
DATE
ATTACHMENT B
FLATIRONS VILLAGE
900 28th Street
ilk
Boulder,, CO
LIE.
rt
t •'~7vr ~Y a1 r t,
..te_Y
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTEXT MAP I
- CONTEXT MAP :2
WRITTEN STATEMENT
PROJECT DATA
WEST ELEVATION
50UTH ELEVATION
Plan Concept Review LOTUS BUILDING PERSF'EGTIUE
/~~0`? 517E DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
CONTEXT MAP
J__ GEND
~tiLl,~t ~i- IT G'2.»~., R r i I+IYo.,.-1:°w y ~ ~ _ ....1•trA
•3
I'T r•i'~t~ ' - . ° ~;I 11 Llt Y~ li. M.'~.~I 't,r
lk~; Y} I rY S I r a 1 1 I ;
- 1 i - ' it h IIF~ y +i fr 4~
47
■t~ ~ ~ '4`~. , I f S { ,~u ~.~~'iJl ♦ _ ,r .*..-,a; a. a'Y - . 1. - ~p R.. f1
.r
' 1' { Y!n ;j ':r i fir! ~l 4
MIA IL
71
1-11 F a' 9 E'7-7
F•r 4 ~ [fir .1 , i •~f t A ~j T.~. * 1N. ~ ' 9' Y /1~+ i
r_ ~y 3~. iL Y'" !•T•..w.l._'~'~ j _ Main Roads
4 IF
~w :t atr 1 f W aao oT~o Arterial
d e • - - ~ 4: {~py~ /JJf!V Highway
T ~J} _ ~qcr I~I x y Street Genterl{nes
-{I I
j ~C K TT T 4 It } L r1 d a. ~Y:~ TT t f"1° 1 Survey Polygons
~n l~ i .r. i- _ SN. Lakes
L. ~ / . ' ~ ~;l + t11. '1 - ' _ I. _ ~i~~ll~-~. ~4~ r ' _11 f f
Ownership Parcels
i . .1 ~ r *S•aw!]~ ~ t ..k :s7.t r,71'R' *s ~~}R! (~'p
• ~ 9f .4~ \1 i,. Yt u-. . w 1 x t.-_4~ast~ KRriAj•_."' ti Lr~ Ut A W . - _ - ( .
41 - :•'`ns'`~ti n • r'~N'31'iy.`r..~.i'T n . r l.~ wtaI is r City Limits
,n > M1 ~'s ~~'y "
~Rk ° ~,ll tltl" ~ I ? . i .
.1$"'~
elm
1 ark, Ii;.~ 1 t ,a N i I t 1. r 3 .i,,•a1 I °j r s
4M' L , ~ S ~ ~ ' f'~ ; } I i 'fy{.`ter{r ~ I{ ~ - ~ q~i ^~r[ I ~I{ f~ ~
j1 ..°'q i '7t iY~'>•`Iii~y,~r~~ y~• 1~` A,✓!. J + 1 1 ~~,t I.G40U
, fUIRU~r y~ i ~ f5"~ .a ~ 1 4f' ~ ~r~y~' ~n~ Fl.~~ f~ rY ~j'~..~ '~,~I• ~:d
1<a~y 1 -TT .La' 1•:•; ~h Rf Yr ~It.^ .~fA.
r:f!
~I ~ r~ i~~~ ~ ~~~r ,II ~ e. _ ~i~^ 1 ~ 4 ~~~.a!*~~~~~ c+~''~~,e r 1/~~,~'. gn AL.
i F 1 ~ ~~1~r, ~ ' I r ~1!~ .~ti~
, i d@@ddd Maplink
° "'le;
City of Boulder
The information depicted on this m°p is
y~1'i t i9 I Ir {I 1 Idl~{~. r ,
i • V' I J 1 provided as gr3phtee] teprcsentadon only.
The nm of Boulder provides no warranty.
caprccted of implied, as to the accuracy
and/orcompleturess of the information
f ; , 5 7a t W ' 7 j~ y' r . IJ' r~
low, r _ r r f I! r f contained hereon.
1
vt t i Y fi?r? 'ri "1r 7 j{ y~ - i 4s ( ~i:i 7'
1 7'
'TY r - r ( i ~ r•T t f Y7 Hy' r^l + fib ~
,f .•1 '..~„Ffy,.~.~rt{~.! x•'~ a i~~ 1r,~,i ~l .,~~..i r tf+~!~r~r wt~.e f' ~ 1
=r . ~ l~{r :r~w!~e.,-. ~1, 7~{t{rrFa J.~~l.~n ..irl~` r -~.r ~r .~`:=1-~
M, F 77 7.1
Ell -LLT
771
BUILDING $UILC,,ING '6' (EXISTING) E-V LPING
ool
SOUTH ELE\\./ATION ALONE AURORA AVENUE
PAINTED WOOL) BEAMS,
TRELLIS d COLUMNS
LINE OF NE15H80RINi5BUILDING GMIEaMP051TEN51TE
/Jr ON 28TH STREET
5HIN6LE5
ALUMINIUM
STOREFRONT
:r STUGG0
ED,
~UiLDING 'G' ~UIL~ING 'A' /
lNE5-1- ELEVATION ALONE 2aTH STIREET
A'rrACHMEN'r D
STAFF ANALYSIS OF Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C.,1981 - CRITERIA FOR SITE
REVIEW
No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that:
(1) Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan:
x (A) The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed development supports the following applicable BVCPgoals and policies
encouraging high density infill development:
1.21 Jobs: Housing Balance
2.04 Compact Land Use Pattern
2.07 Design of Major Entryways
2.13 Support for Residential Neighborhoods
2.17 Protection of Residential Neighborhoods Adjacent to Non-residential Zones
2.18 Mixture of Complementary Land Uses
2.19 Compatibility ofAdjacent Land Uses
2.20 Design of Newly-Developing Areas
2.21 Mixed U.se
2.22 Incentives for Mixed Use
2.26 Mixed Use and Higher Density Housing
2.31 Commitment to a Walkable City
2.33 Preservation of Historical and Cultural Resources
2.36 Eligible Historic Districts and Landmarks
2.39 Sensitive Inf ll and Redevelopment
2.40 Physical Design for People
2.42 Enhanced Design for the Built Environment
6.10 /Vlultimodal Development
6.13 Neighborhood Streets Connectivity
7.02 Supply of Affordable Ilousing
7.03 Permanently Affordable Housing
7.06 Mixture of Housing types
7.09 Balancing Housing Supply with Employment Base
X (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.
X (i) The density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or,
X (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 proposed development will not exceed the density allowed by the
BVCP and will not require any waivers or modifications to increase density.
X (C) The proposed development's success in meeting the broad range of BVCP
policies considers the economic feasibility of implementation techniques require to meet
other site review criteria.
(2) Site Design: Projects should preserve and enhance the community's unique sense
of place through creative design that respects historic character, relationship to the
natural environment, and its physical setting. Projects should utilize site design
techniques which enhance the quality of the project. In determining whether this
Subsection is met, the approving agency will consider the following factors:
X (A) Open Space: Open space, including, without limitation, parks, recreation areas,
and playgrounds:
X (i) Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional;
Overall, open space is arranged to be accessible to all potential residents
and customers, employees, and patrons of the site. Staff finds the open
spaces to be easily identified, intuitive and furnished with amenities and
outdoor seating options that will draw people into the site.
_2L(ii) Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit;
A minimum of 60 square feet of private open space is proposed for each
unit as required by the land use regulations for RH-3.
X (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;
The western portion of the site contains a proliferation of mature
landscaping and is considered a park like urban oasis. The western portion
of the site will remain undisturbed and will preserve a significant amount of
mature trees and natural open space.
X (iv) The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project
and from surrounding development;
Staff finds that the blend of the natural open space on the western side of
the site combined with the open space on the eastern side of the site
provides a significant relief to the density in the area with a fine balance of
active and passive open spaces.
X (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;
Common open space areas will serve both active and passive recreational
needs with a combination of amenitized hardscaped plaza areas on the
south and east sides of the site as well as landscaped garden areas on the
west side of the site. Open spaces will be safe, functional, intuitive and
convenient for residents and visitors.
NIA (vi) The open space provides a buffer to protect sensitive environmental
features and natural areas; and
Not applicable. The site is located within an urbanized area and contains no
sensitive environmental features and natural areas.
X (vii) If possible, open space is linked to an area- or city-wide system.
The site is not directly linked to a city-wide open space system, however,
the site is well-served by the nearby pedestrian pathways that leads
conveniently to the University of Colorado as well as the Boulder Creek
Path located to the north of the site. The applicant has also proposed a new
sidewalk on the north side of the site to connect with a future trail system
as well as a new direct pedestrain connection from Aurora to the northern
extent of the site.
X (B) Open Space in Mixed Use Developments (Developments that contain a mix
of residential and non-residential uses)
x (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; and
On-site open space will serve a balance of private and common areas in a
hierarchy of open space areas such as private balconies, plazas,
courtyards, outdoor cafe seating and garden areas which directly serve the
commercial and residential components of the property.
x (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.
Open space areas will meet the needs of both residents, visiotrs and
tenants through a series of private open spaces, common residential plaza
areas, plaza space intended to serve commercial uses and landscaped
garden areas.
X (C) Landscaping:
X (i) The project provides for aesthetic enhancement and a variety of plant and
hard surface materials, and the selection of materials provides for a variety of
colors and contrasts and the preservation or use of local native vegetation where
appropriate;
Overall, the proposed landscape provides for aesthetic
enhancement, a variety of plant and hard surface materials including
materials that provide for a variety of colors and contrasts. Limited
existing native vegetation exists on the site, however the design
preserves a significant native pine south of the proposed building as
well as a number of healthy mature trees on the west side of the site.
Trees are placed in raised planters in dense planting beds above the
proposed garage and in the ground elsewhere.
N/A (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;
No threatened species or plant communities exist on-site.
X (iii) The project provides significant amounts of plant material sized in
excess of the landscaping requirements of Section 9-9-10, "Landscaping
and Screening Standards" and Section 9-9-11, "Streetscape Design
Standards," B.R.C. 1981; and
The planting plan has evolved to meet and exceed all landscaping
standards. The streetscape provides large maturing trees to
complement the existing planting to the west and create a strong
streetscape. The courtyard and entrance plantings are climate
appropriate and compliment the overall building and hardscape
design.
X (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 detached sidewalk and planting strip define the project edge,
buffer the on-street parking and relate well to the overall project site
plan incorporating elements of the existing garden space and
proposed courtyards.
X (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:
X (i) High speeds are discouraged or a physical separation between streets
and the project is provided;
A detached sidewalk is provided along 28" Street and a significant
landscape buffer has been provided along a majority of the Aurora frontage
where possible. There are no internal public streets or accesses within the
interior of the development other than the shared service drive for trash
collection /loading on the north side of the site. Some separation between
the proposed sidewalk along the northern boundary of the site and the
access driveway should also be provided.
X (ii) Potential conflicts with vehicles are minimized;
The parking garage access will cross the sidewalk along Aurora and will be
required to meet all required view triangle requirements, however, an 8 foot
detached sidewalk is required along Aurora to reduce conflicts between
vehicles and pedestrians along Aurora. There are no internal public streets
or accesses within the interior of the development other than the shared
service drive for trash collection / loading on the north side of the site.
Some separation between the proposed sidewalk along the northern
boundary of the site and the access driveway should also be provided.
X (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, pedestrian
ways and trails;
Overall, pedestrian connections in the area will be improved with the
installation of a new sidewalk on the northern property line as well as a
new pedestrian "mid block" walkway across the western portion of the site,
however, a clear pedestrian connection between the Aurora and the new
sidewalk to the north should be considered (that connects to the new
sidewalk on the north side of the site. Additionally, an 8 foot detached
sidewalk is required along Aurora to accommodate the high volume of
pedestrian traffic in the area.
X (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;
Overall, the site plan, the proposed pedestrian connections as well as
convenient bike rack locations will improve pedestrian connections in the
area and will promote alternative modes of transportation. Specifically, the
installation of a new sidewalk on the northern property line as well as a
new "mid block" pedestrian walkway across the western portion of the site
are improvements to the area as well as the pedestrian connection between
the Aurora and the new sidewalk to the north.
x (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 Transportation Demand Management Plan submitted demonstrates a
significant shift away from single-occupant vehicle use and must be
revised per staff's comments.
X (vi) On-site facilities for external linkage are provided with other modes of
transportation, where applicable;
Overall, the site plan and proposed pedestrian connections provide for
easy access to bus stops along Aurora and 28"'. The installation of a new
sidewalk on the northern property line as well as a new pedestrian "mid
block" walkway across the western portion of the site and the clear
pedestrian connection between the Aurora and the new sidewalk to the
north improve external linkages.
NIA (vii) The amount of land devoted to the street system is minimized; and
Not applicable. There are no internal streets proposed other than a service
access for the adjacent property at 910 28th St. that currently exists.
X (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.
Overall pedestrian connectivity is improved in the area as described above.
X (E) Parking
x (i) The project incorporates into the design of parking areas measures to
provide safety, convenience, and separation of pedestrian movements from
vehicular movements;
All parking will be contained in underground garages.
x (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;
'All parking will be contained in underground garages.
x (iii) Parking areas and lighting are designed to reduce the visual impact on
the project, adjacent properties, and adjacent streets; and
All parking will be contained in underground garages. Outdoor lighting will
be evaluated at the time of Technical Document Review and must
demonstrate compliance with Section 9-9-16, B.R.C.,1981.
N/A (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.
All parking will be contained in underground garages.
X (F) Building Design, Livability, and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed
Surrounding Area
x (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;
As noted above, the proposed building design, configuration and the site
plan have been significantly improved from concept plan. While there is not
an adopted area plan for the area, several 45-55 foot tall buildings have
recently been approved in the area. Staff finds that the applicant has
reduced the building mass along the southern portion of the site to
respond to the lower massing of the Lotus building and create a street
presence and identifable main entry to the building without overwhelming
the prominence of the Lotus building.
x (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;
While several 45-55 foot tall buildings exist or have recently been approved
in the area, the subject site is unique due to the historically significant
building on-site. As noted by the Planning Board at Concept Plan review,
the strong horizontal building form should be honored with background
buildings which allow the Lotus building to remain prominent on-site.
The applicant has sited the proposed building as far from the Lotus building as
possible to allow the Lotus building to "breath." Additionally, the site plan
surrounds the existing Lotus building with open space.
_ x (iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of
views from adjacent properties;
The orientation of the subject buildings will inevitably create some
shadows which impact adjacent open space areas, most notably the patio
on the south side of the new addition to the Golden West Manor
development located immediately to the north. The applicant has sited the
buildings with casting edges that impact the site to the north as far south
as possible without crowding or towering over the Lotus building.
The Solar Shadow Study shown in Attachment C indicates that the longest
shadows of the year (November through January) never shade more than
20% of the patio at the Golden West Manor at any time.
x (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 area contains a variety of architectural styles. While the Lotus building
is a very distinct usonian structure with a strongly horizontal form,
Planning Board agreed that it should not be directly architecturally
referenced or duplicated. Instead, the applicant has proposed basic,
background building forms with stone references that will allow the Lotus
building to remain prominent on the site. Additionally, the proposed
buildings are internally focused on the site and will not be very visible from
surrounding properties or major right-of-ways with the exeption of Aurora.
The main building entry along Aurora steps down in height and massing t
allow views into the site from westbound Aurora and creates a well defined
main entry.
X (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 RH-3 zone district requires main building entries to face the street. The
revised drawings reflect a well defined and pronounced entryway that
engages the Aurora frontage.
X (vi) To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned
public facilities;
An 8 foot wide detached sidewalk will be provided along Aurora as well as
a north south connection through the site that connect with the proposed
sidewalk on the north side of the site.
X (vii) For residential projects, the project assists the community in producing a
variety of housing types, such as multi-family, townhouses, and detached single-
family units as well as mixed lot sizes, number of bedrooms, and sizes of units;
The proposed development will contribute to the diversity of housing in the
community by providing additional multifamily housing units with Z 3, and
4 bedroom options.
x (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 development will be required to meet minimum Sound Transmission
ratings at the time of building permit. Buildings are well spaced, however,
exterior private balconies are located directly adjacent to one another,
reducing the amount of privacy and potentially resulting in audible noise
between units and balconies.
x (ix) A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation,
safety, and aesthetics;
At the time of Technical Document Review, the applicant must demonstrate
compliance with the outdoor lighting regulations found in Section 9-9-16,
B.R.C.,1981.
X The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids,
minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems;
The applicant proposed to preserve the most sensitive area with mature
landscaping along the western portion of the site.
_X__(xi) Cut and fill are minimized on the site, the design of buildings conforms to
the natural contours of the land, and the site design minimizes erosion, slope
instability, landslide, mudflow or subsidence, and minimizes the potential threat
to property caused by geological hazards.
The site will be cut as needed to install the three levels of subgrade
parking. The building design will respond the contours of the site and the
existing building. Section drawing of the site will help staff to evaluate the
relationship between the building design and the natural contours of the
property.
x (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-
X (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-
Open space areas are south facing, unobstructed by buildings and will
maintain natural sunlight year round.
? (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.
Lots are already subdivided, however, proposed buildings have been
oriented north / south and will have excellent solar potential. Revised solar
drawings will be required to determine impacts on adjacent structures.
X (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 Section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981.
The proposed building shapes are conducive to the utilization and
collection of solar energy although building height may impact sites to the
north and east.
_x_(iv) Landscaping: The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent
buildings are minimized.
It does not appear that landscaping will impact solar potential of adjacent
buildings.
N/A (H) Additional Criteria for Poles Above the Permitted Height: No site review
application for a pole above the permitted height will be approved unless the approving
agency finds all of the following:
Not applicable.
N/A (1) Land Use Intensity Modifications
Not applicable.
NIA (J) Additional Criteria for Floor Area Ratio Increase for Buildings in the BR-1
District
Not applicable.
l
N/A (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:
Not applicable.
N/A (L) Additional Criteria for Off-Site Parking: The parking required under Section
9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be located on a separate lot if the
following conditions are met:
Not applicable.
SA., DIu
ATTACHMENT
WEST ATATTACHMENT L
G (~D EI~! 1/VEST
Y - r-
l f~ Senior Lwing irk Hoi&l r
City of Boulder
Planning and Development Services Center
Attention: Charles Ferro
RE: LUR 2008-00040
Flatirons Village LLC
900 28`" Street
Boulder, CO 80303
Dear Charles:
I am writing to express some concerns regarding this proposed development. I have met with a
representative of Flatirons Village, Steven Walsh, along with our representative architect, Paul
Trementozzi, OZ Architecture, to discuss the following issues:
Shadowing Effect: The proposed building as designed creates a shadowing effect on the existing
Golden West property which exceeds limits of the 25' imaginary fence defined in the zoning code. We
are concerned about this from the standpoint that our south garden is major open space for the
residents of the entire Golden West resident community and it really needs to be sunny and inviting. At
the time that we submitted our plans for the construction of our new building, Flatirons Terrace at
Golden West several years ago, there was great emphasis placed on the functionality of this space as
usable and accessible for our residents. This area is indeed highly utilized by residents for walking,
sitting, and gardening because of its proximity to the buildings and because it is accessible for residents
with walkers and wheelchairs. We believe that the extent of the shadowing will negatively affect this
area not only in the winter but also in the spring and fall. Furthermore, some of the shadowing extends
to the windows in several apartments facing south in our new building. I am including the shadowing
analysis that we completed.
Building Mass: We are very concerned that the design of the building on the north side is 4 stories high,
stacking straight up. The appearance is very stark and boxy. We believe that a step back at the O' level
would really help to soften this especially since we are residential and have tenants who will be looking
at this. The proposed building is also directly adjacent to the proposed pedestrian walkway that will
eventually run east to west between the proposed new building and Golden West. We ask that you
take this into consideration when this project comes up for review and require some adjustments to the
plan that will soften the stark appearance.
Re pe fully Yo
o n A. Torres
Executive Director
(303) 939-0897
Ag~rres@gwboulder.org
cc David Driskell, Planning Board Staff Liaison
~Y
-j; K S f
iv
f
JY
Ln
44
1
` i~i~~ - w J [ 44y '.cY~tF~`,Gxb~`t Ya,-~.~h~C. 'ak v~~"'' s tT t'f 'r ~ ! r ~,5~` 'Y
? ; ,ice ~iti.'• x'
~►~..:;,..Y uFr +ri~s.+. - h .
+ 4 r - ~y + r,~ ; Yi ~ ~ yyyiii---... .~.p``~ ~`+~~'•J, ~ ti pmt X~`r~ ~^l l~t }
- ' - ~ »r.--~-~R F~"~+~`.+ .~..:unat,+v~rr•.:.:,+-r.+}.+.wt...'aa+"e~r~j'.;",4`t -•a"~' - .itii7 s!'..".i, ~s_'~~ ~ f F ~4~ ;
r 1
:fir ~1•'r-1, ':.?s?`s.~` j'~ , yYi y."GlGT,!`~ 'Slj2a4ee~~y, J.. \ C r t s. ti s
R. ` 4 t ' _
ral ; +,1 M :tt 4'r Cs i, z l ~ 1.y r s~;F .
1 , 1 ~
~1 ~ 4t t~~~ r _ §Nt ~,~h .tA 1. ;,~+x ; x_14 p*rf J4 fCk -,f,M N ~ ~ 1 1~~ y_.
s -:,i, a . ~ 1 •k_ y
r i
-r n' -
4y, - 1
Y.
Yr ~J
~ ~ tom. _y t*ri ~ ~ ~ i
'i~. i v ` ^i t S-ti _ - _ { to - ~ ~ -
' _ ~'~`'r `r r i r 'kr _
1
v
' _ ' Ct 1 XI 1 ' ~ ~ ~ 1
~f _
5 }x~- Vyr s _ + Z Yr' i Q - r ~rt. 7: t _
- ~y~~ ~y yJ.-al ~tF ~G,~'~tf 21k l~N k. } ys?`V~{t ~`>}1,r~~?~.,i~.ce 1"1,t~w ..~i'Ud,~`v: ~ 1:'~y'..`:'~'jty 1 r1.. ~'..s l1 +j
r <':.n ~y"kti..j:~•~: _ r. .r• 'w.~t.'+'s}I- ~LYurEy~~.'r ~"~f.,k'L~'.~►•_' f{ry 1 ~`1= ~!y h.. \ F r.~ 1 M - ~a'~. .s ~~!'r
,Y."r. •~,~`l.`~. - _ r jt '~2+'.?~' .s~ _i, ~"F`1=- .c:.,c. ti'a'!` ~;~•id ,4"~~,~ ~'5 ~ { ,y; _
r
1+ ~v~. " .f.-. ~ ~ 1.."-• a -,.i r'h L+~ ~--~~~t~4-z y .~h~`-..~'y G~.r t'r,;s 7: ~1 ..L~~-, 1. ~~*~'.::~.~i!•% 41~. ?~..,f,.a .y~,..,s S r~z•i-~` ~
~ ~ ~1 _
La:'..., . ty } ~p. ..,,X~ ~er~~ a,t» ^E y,;; y *`s4' , ti d7 .-a: . :r?' ~:s •t -;~1, e; ~ e r I ti ' ; `4i ~ 1 r:
'..5~ fT' ~r 'Yti1 -F.' yxi~P"f. a-14'7:;+} y`Cs,'fN~f~~~- : U : s ~~~'.ytilr.-, ,1}„~_ yCl.-.. i ~;P..,T. 5.,.~. trl ° '_~d ? a.\ y ,.r ♦ ~~~r:
ti.'~y '.r y *4hi:+~r't4 ~,.vf~1'1~ -~r ~ ~ ,r.•3r y-~. ~w4v~~ .v~~ 1 Ct✓ti _,~~W
_ _ 'r ni7'. ^~4 ~x~ri~ 1 e~'t.,~~ ..k .r ~ti. `4 t~,~, :r,i ~'F4rsi ~ r.i~-'' !"~ti:'~- ~j~ r: ,t :,''~.a ~ ~~~'4~ ~ i exlc~?~~
5 ,r l _
• ' y}: ~ffqq' ;yam. s'' °r^ 444~;{~k ~'~'-4'~ r-~~ ~i,2 xr(.y ~~y ';~~-r 'S`: t.; :yA~3w' s,~i!`,l r.. • +.a~4 J;~ < k. ~..1.:v t ~v ',i~ r~t-,
1If ; ' ~'-_.,Tr{ - ~'n~`',-•.~t} * ~n.~~~y, . ,.`i,' ~,jj '[~~.t'~,~~1i~1` }tip'' ~:'y1: '•'?ti,~, .;,Z 4. r
'.-~i', r4 r, ~"i:`v ~~'-:~+,.,5_ ;~',.Sr~' ~f~`,t'. l~ti 3 ~ {w '+~~'t .r.i+""`..~'~ `t~;'s-s` ~ i ~ 1 4.
1S ! q Ei2f9 'trfi3. py., r~l' 7~, .1. _ J 4i'~^ - f -
!ti T' N.k ~ .~~y ~a~~ 1
it t+`- • t 'w`'"x~ ~~,:,_+j.~
V" A
7 Yes r r, '.2. 7 - In K ~E^ts-b•• L' =•d=.'
-ago
imm
t.
1:z c.t ,
> I f ~ ~rfM17y,^
~?H.<.li ~ . ~ r ` SAS
J + I r+ 1 1 ~ 1 +
} l~n Jf ,tW
• r..,AGW II F ~yy~,4S.S,~ ATV ' t 1 Y ~~r~ ~ P.
.7 1 •C~e^! '11 _ ,3sjS' V ~
k,+•`~~ Q ezo
;ww,rwn wr•., ~ •''eir r 7" .hf,i~4 ~f+'7l; 7~L '+Y. 't ~''~`~a
i
- aye' _ t?y.}
1 1 f r + / - + ~ ~ 11 ~
vet ~i c~z~ ~
t s cif t 1 .y ~ : t-}, t 7 L
t L:
aSxrN't~-
1^ l 'z~~. :1Yt `f+^'-'t~4 5 ~}T f 1. lFti ~>C+•
.1 r s i Ycr °y _I° .L P ft. t Q~ ) t{ ~t -•r.~ .F,.
•f Jj .`:..!ti ^~•n F..y t'. F-.'• r!,l~. 't- tJ tl;.~h :rte
2 Perspective View- 25'-0" Solar Fence at 12:00pm on December 21st Perspective View- 25"-0" Solar Fe
4, ki
G
i-
~S b G tiY f+.'Jf + 1
F
~i.~ .'h j l.~~Jr ~d riFY
ige at 10:00am on December 21st Perspective View- Proposed Flatiron Village at 12:00pm on December 21st Perspective View- Proposer! Flatir
Site Review Applicant Statement
RE.: LUR2008-00040
90028 1h Street: Flatiron's Village
17 November 2009
The applicant has worked closely with city staff over a period of over three years during
which we began by working with historic Boulder Preservation Committee on site
redevelopment concepts to ensure a sensitive design response. We also maintained
contact with neighboring property owners and neighborhood representatives throughout
the design process to ensure the project was consistent with the needs of the
neighborhood, community, and intent of the zoning district.
We then moved through Presubmittal Conferences, Concept Design and Site Review.
We were sent back from our last site review with significant challenges and the
sympathies of Planning Board on a difficult problem in which there was limited direction
given to us that could result in an approval upon resubmittal.
In the intervening year we have worked closely with staff to overcome all challenges.
This submittal contains no significant conditions of approval and has staff support. The
major obstacles we have satisfied are:
• Elimination of any solar encroachments on neighboring properties;
• An agreement to Landmark the historic Lotus Building including the open space
to the west of that building;
• Redesigning the site plan to accommodate mature trees;
• Minimize car/pedestrian conflicts and the impact of the underground parking
garage, and;
• Access driveway on the pedestrian plazas by relocating it to the extreme east end
of the site.
The applicant, at the recommendation of both staff and Planning Board, has concentrated
density on the East side of the site in order to accommodate the historic resources
presented by the Lotus Building and designed the building to act as an inconspicuous
"background building" while offering a pleasing rhythm of horizontal and vertical
components complimented by stone, verdi-gris metal panels, and Greenwall
(architectural living plant trellises). The building has been articulated to the degree
possible while allowing a sufficient density to make the project economically feasible.
We have strived for significant, high-quality open spaces needed to satisfy the design
criteria for open space, solar access, and quality pedestrian experience on the site.
The project as currently designed, meets or exceeds all discretionary criteria for
detention, setbacks, open space, parking, bicycle parking, landscaping, and multi-modal
Page 2 of 2
pathways including their integration to the future off-site path network. In addition, the
historic Lotus Building and the "urban oasis" to the West of it have been restored and
will be landmarked as part of this project.
The resulting project delivers many Community Benefits including:
• Dedication of an "Urban Oasis" on the West side of the property as part of the
landmarked boundary wherein no development will be allowed in the future;
• Park-like open space accessible to the public but privately maintained throughout
the site;
• Multi-modal corridors and connections thereto from public rights-ol=way;
• Protection of the view corridor towards the Flatirons for residents of Golden West
Manor;
• Preservation, Restoration, and Landmarking of the Historic Lotus Building
• Provision of high-density residential dwellings, including affordable housing,
where desired by the community, and supporting:
o Walkable, pedestrian friendly neighborhoods;
o Environmental sustainability;
o Reduction on reliance on private automobile use;
o Elimination of the visual impact of parking lots resulting from 100% of
parking provided underground.
The overall site development has achieved a balance of clustered/concentrated high
density housing (which the city has desired for this zone), design of new structures which
form a neutral backdrop to the historic Lotus building, a large expanse of natural park-
like space accessible to the public and located on the West side of the site, an open
foreground view of the historic Lotus building, a highly articulated public plaza space
which is sheltered for the elements and adjacent to small-scale commercial goods and
services serving the surrounding pedestrian neighborhood, and a complete removal of
typical automobile-dominated landscape through underground parking with access
thereto located adjacent to the east property line discretely between properties.
Solar Shadow Study
We have provided two studies of the shadows cast by our proposed four-story building at
900 28th Street in Boulder.
Study "A" illustrates the 10 AM, 12PM and 2PM shadows on November 22"d and
December 22"d. This provides an overview of the longest shadows that would fall on our
two neighboring properties in winter. It shows that on December 22"d, the shadow on the
terrace falls on less than 20% of the total terrace and is far less than the shadow cast by
the 25 foot Solar Fence. By noon the shadow has receded to less than 10% of the terrace,
leaving over 90% in sunlight This condition continues through 2:00 PM. There are no
shadows cast on the terrace on November 22"d except on the southwest tip.
Study "B" depicts the 10 AM shadows cast from November 22nd through January 22nd.
This demonstrates that the maximum shadow on the Golden West Manor terrace never
exceeds 20% coverage and only reaches 20% of the terrace on December 22"d at ten in
the morning.
NOVEMBER 22ND, NO'vf ER 22NO, 12.00 PNI NOVEMBER 22ND, x:44 PM
1
G LL)EN Y,'E (30LIDE4'iaL""i _;r.._~EN'o1'E r
GOLDEN %NEST GOLT]IFN r ,r T ° lu7LL~i~r~ r.~~+`E' 11'
77 25' SOLAR FENCE ~rr F 25` SACLAR FENCE
gilt? pr:-977 -(l W y4L%RFGNGC axTl0
~I I,~DQ~rV L NC
51 IADOW Ll NC SHADOW L AE
Rd,
r ~
f+' r f
29TH 900 28TH immim 900 28TH
r
h r
/f r' r 1f,Y
~~I
DECENIRER 22W 1:000 AM QECEN' BER 22ND, 12, 00 PPA DEC'FPOHR 22ND, 2. OR
e Jf'
i
f
IWO -1
,r II~'ir.
GOLDEN awE=, -Ula~
4r ~ - A. UOLCEN WEST `:~j
~ir' SCaLzh FENCE Farlt:r FEPi"F ~ATfcl
:-Ar,CN~ L I NE `,;:l .1tGCilili L.NG
c
I- E.
f / I r/
l f
f0~TH 0 48TH ' 9TH
r ~ F
NOTF. PIA60W- LINE. A(,94)5
PATIO INTAUME5 E(TENI'
r 17 50U- 4, R- N6E 5'{Ai~OW
f r
NOVEMBER 22DECEMBER 7TH 10:00 AM DEGEME3L-R 22N ~ 10;00 AM
r ~f
E 7T
t OLDEN 'Q~'ES" L[~E J rEST GOLDEN WEU-va, F.
FAT lp
T,17 IGaj +'LIPIl= ACC1NLINE
TIC) N14
07 ."T
',CyF i Il
I (..lRr, 1 -.n
2 -3 F. A
A L.
cl LL'90D 28TH, 26T , /900 28TW`
l ~
! x I
DECENIEER 9TH, 10:00 AM i JANUA,.RY 14TH, 10;001 AM . ' JANUARY 22ND, -10;00 AM -
ti~ L[lE~!`~4'E LCEN'~1_8E r I LI;ENV L%I
JIDLl. Li WE 7-1 TT 1~ ,LC~I Cti 1' ''kk JJ-r s "°3LIDEN VYI_ T -
I I~~ 12 1.4 L N L ~ a. Il'1]U ►t _ItJt i SHAD'1",' LIbq=
=4
E3
r
900 28TH rraa 28TH
f ,,9aa 28TH
r f
OF, 50I--M-42 F a N(,E UK,(
~f f
ATTACHMENT C
~I
1
r i R
6J W
1
r
I
JINX.
-
PRO.JECT:°A NEW CONDOMINITM51EXISTINIS GOM.MERCIAL B/1LDIN6 I - ZOI RH_B ADEN
LOT AREA. (2,073 U'
REOD OPEN SPADE, 5 ii-'r,m MAFF FJJIIO N~ I IN-AI RO
bT]I4 (6056) FLT !A : N
FINSNED BUILDINb AREA: ?F BJKAIN6'A': `CXI5TIN6) F.., A
15,462 SF
BVILOING'S'- 9<9295= ~iFlh 47~r1 'A ~~r; 'I.' ~.-r~'
TOTAL `WISHED FLOOR AREAi 110245 5F
OPEN SPACE PROVIDED: I °fi:F'(.Lw,1t ILtl ~rurn'p 91.LDIYi 1I%1_ AT?.,...
GPET W, !PRi ON GRADE, 64;201
Ex157IRI PRIVATE OPEN SPADE: 911 SF NCNV PRIVATE OPEN SPACE! 4;76 SF h2 ~,F x 59 6A-CONIES) ~ ~TOTAL_ OFDN °PALE F? OVDE7: 6<,754 SF (6,
5595)
ELr rATITI,M '1'I c r-l
~c314
DRNf/iAY (I) '1'160 51- /
FU I :rA1 rA
ORI~/IA"(2:RAM°): 339°SF I a_.. .'°'i'tBc ~y" 9 _ -
l
II,IS? 5F kELaGArt TEL RFIGGAIL L I I I_ d L 1L
DR13JILDIIVEnNGAr A'
BJII DIN, FOOPgl%ls LINE C" F%ISF@( Hf1kHLY-lY_E! NE J-PA4Klt,, Ap Uhl F F0I,IbN.L AAM, A. bbkl dItfl
BJILDIN (E TOTAL xISTMIG)B,'02 SF (INLLUDINS 50M' BALCONY MI'uli - OE,^UJ,K 4 ORIVEVU,1 Of (Zn F 0F.:1~ ~1 I - W O II-ul!
G B', 25;0505F(INCLUDINb D.ALLONIES,I TO OF. P.EN)VED
oni, 53J375P
Con
FEI6H" REOOIREMENTS;, HEI6HT ALLOWED: 40 FEET '~T - , I _ ' - ~ ' - ~~~'r
~t
hJ'-IGH' PROPO^~ED:
5 UDING A. XI TINY
4
BVILDIhG e: LLN POIN55165; HIGH POINT; -SSbv; HEIGHT: 505 FEET
f p veu Ai V 1
(5) b W 6, PARA°BT SEOTONS ARE S3 °EET AEOVS LOW FT
059'15 J'ES5 Z LL 1 1 ,_;•;G^ f 7
AGIVAL 91 LD7\G HEIGHT 44 ^O'
p
h )NB9'6TF IaOG' / F
An
PARKINbREOD- I
Jj I*i~r'1 t. cnl n~ ti, L EnN ,
Bl_ 9 A (Exls-wc 00 n, ERC.IAU I6 (5A00 5RUJ007 !n ieu 1 r.. r 2U EI2R6fNGT Rf!II /.4! K EA-MENI err ;pE u, \ I A L s aov
ve of Ce) M
BLCC, A (Exls•INV R -IOENTIA.i 15 ((6) 4-0,'Daoo." x 5) ACW-6 EASEWIif O Ih LNE RAR 5 9n I, RLd Av
('VI.6E0ROONSaU 7-0' ~ ` c~' R,.u~ i i I It
X71 .arorAl 36 sPxES ~ ~ / ~I, 1~S~1 ~ •~AAL41EOllOLlCtI
B_W: B ME'A RESIDENTIAL) 38 L,46) BEDROOMS x 9) r b nn l V `p' ` }II
1 J-~ y j' L
5 ((4) 7-BEDROOMS x 2) ~ ~ Q I v r { 7 I F
17 ((b) 2-BEOPOOMS x IS)O II F 04 -
III~~I /
I U BEORDOKSa 11 _ A `..r _ q
r
uraL. 055 S SPAPADES ~OLxh rA6E5 ~ itY E LA-C dkITJI 1 00
GRANDTOT.4L~ 19
u J ~ N
PARKIhb FRwID PARKING REQUIRED. IL.- ~ O
STAVDA?6 I7T
ALL GAR: 112 401 (MAX A OYRD: 691 /
ADA 6':L1L (kFi.91Y! JB'
, 10 d 4 (RB51'JEN 'AL 59n) „F P~0.n JEN:.: ~r., f i,. } G V:.
INOH^ ¢ 5 V_,X'TAIL 1-;'5) ( V r
TOTA_ 2Z5
REF Ah.., cCXJl~F L`• / ♦ 1
BICYCLE 04 GRADE, 39
OAR4CE H6 00% OF TOTA_ PAitKINb) C L x "1 FEII l
1 5? 55 l3 .J 215. QC W b 13. N , A lyiy'` 11y'(Jrr h1
To-u IT
x W
- r i I' y
PERMNPNP r A-r-nkDa9LE ,TITS , / - ' % it rT,
RLWIFIL9
ROVIL 11 a (2C%r 59 ONITS)
F , 12 I , ' I I l I l 1/ M,F„H .1
PROVIDED 0 B (2-OF ROOM, 1200 SF, UNITS) 1! /1 I - D
EVY-0J'. 55 L7,IT5 ~ ~4 4 / ~ iJ D
9L STING A6CE557C[,LRITY ,YETEM: KEY°08
iL ° Q r I - _ I I
SITE ROTES Li
A) FOUNTAIN Z YP t ; 1 Pr _~I ill
13) cc, H <
Q J r I A{ -~T b
r-) -EL JS
O) RA SdO RANTER LJ l -~--•-7 S~
E) q, „ D 7 1T
~A -
4AND°C APING ON GRADE Y I ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ I+ - - - - - 1 ~j
In , f - f N ll
F-) coRA rPE BIKE RACrs Ex 71 l1 I a PA' ✓
1 ~ILJ~ 'A +`~y
AO 915E RAVrrF'c.L-c`DAIA
Al 'HADOnf+N%d si5 w I I I ' I E:1 NC 4_ bGa~✓rrrvvr r A- F ;~r
A2 IAtiK.KU GAPkLt AT& V 6 ~~a I LII W
A3 I1 AL FLOW PAW
A4 CtiJR~•l0 ftEV/ TIP, 5/ N , T = T,
31.YLE PARKIWO D` FAILS n/ LLLL III ur I gg d ~tt"TYP
A7, ELEVA-10N, LL
U 6 k 71- _ LL
A6 511E LAYLDIIS Ef;TONr,
Mil''
AT
AU "F(`15PA4F Af~ I I A - - - S~HAXM FN 5P4,FAI15 VU SEU IOV, Y1~~1 I i y 1 L c N
AS
rl NA ER oaAwceRL,vI !.fg3 ' - f u Z g m
G2 NA51 R LIMIT' Q)NNE6TIDN FLA11
17
C3 EPfYONGaKIROLFtAU ~I i I I EX151~dG I ° A Ark "I~ r~ net Ya r u fk16 m
dj I r I r~=A I {i ~i lh' 7G~ x m
r Lna'n RAN
u ccw.'YARD rr°n I I L 537•' - 'I 5 y I w . D
12 IRk13NI6N PI AN
~I m
JJ19 rrfll,. l I I~ I I A4 .A•f~k I n .xAuc6 E`{ a u m
t
ue~. rAn 2,
I> 17,
II5~.+ER I +-~T ~l wa r 'e%157ti7 i~ T V I <
71,
1D
LI I 11. ~Li1 ~Ir
r
OC"4',ry I~Y m `~Af Tt taKS 1 - Ps
5 V n
j 9 111
r
aNww,'no 9 y~:r --S_- I\ r. •0 atGRMV~RULILIiYJSE>r"
_71-1~1 11,
/y \ { kJu A J 'TK r
FI KL FE L '
:
PR L ` I i A rt
4R7FAF I'd
K_rLI h AI
E c
rJ SIDEVik K' EASEMEt,7
nO Fff
-
l
%
RF r1VE FXLSI'W., LUkB 'S ` h3'1 A0A RAI't' 150 57;&EI
xn FEDESTI:IAN °~~AN' FNADAr PLIANT
RGJ1TtKl5,JtVLiLK AJO a
;.iNYE o- nrLAr -FIIYiAFi: srRIPJ PARKIN5 1
°E~~;1kIAiJ AGGE55 PEDESTRIAN D2P✓CrJA'f sA+DA~ LU1 D- TO QTY
(roucNETE
GU.H d 6tgTJL IG ( fi :1ANPAF.[>i
EN JP51RIP1t~ AGC,F55 _ AGv`H fRANCF 7U oRIVFrJAr ~Trza°i(= rr~ I
LCT REMOVE pX STINV aRR JNDER6-RaND 714ND,4flD P1 AN II r-s7~~ q
u~peRPA55 j SITE PLAN AS f~Jf~OF:A AVt_itiUr G1ANVR_rLALCWIT,- PARKING
coke einTi~K TO
! l ALx7VE Gi:AJL -N.4~ 1' l Fl i7H LLLV s LNG FT O -0 /Y,-. AL%.A.61 ! „NADOf~'LL7 ,7.'1
A 45-6" 120.3' a5' 107P
~ C PEN JT vN',,i
B 34'-6" 1010' .5,35' 33'-2' 876'
rt • t)t nkGtift~ h j
G 98'b' 102..0' 1535' 33'21' 615'
D 39'-10' 152' 18 31'10" Lfr'S' h - !1 =NrC=Y,:I:7 fi In"c ~T7
D2 3v'-f0" !a.2' -325 43=1" 113.4• ~'r~h ~i..~~ =i~ I h~'d;i s Ix ,y,a w
P 4110^ 114 r' .G1' 37 7" 99.3 _ F Ii v - Ip. rtb ! w c
r1 fa S.; sY iO FQIji~ Y :t,.n4 fill
F 41•, p" 1244• ,24' 4<1,-~„ 137.4' :14A. -_..At;
6 44'8" 1183' r9 48-0" 7?7.D• 5rW4GntA VI
1 bf host ..a !
N 46' b" 118.3' 3D 51+6" L16.3' p4 :'q~:; s ~ ~ W
1 46 6" ,13.0' 4' S~J' 6" 1334' 1A ~ ,~y F+Mi
J 45'6' 12[7,4' 35" 44'-O° laa.l' ~V
K 44 -0" 116.4" 2.`i' 46.6" 173.0' 11 P11 S I-CIIIII
L 32'6" 116.0' -m' 331-6' 84,5' r. 1n•d sij >'e e,: i d' nLr+hF a
M !
< 33'6" B45' ~
N 31'-(l" 81.0' -X J4' p" 76 7' r✓ Ha x`I~ I V J
_ - "'rn• _ . ,''T _ eY FRCP. 7 a
O 44`-0" 1/6.4' O 44'-0° 4'
p 44'O" 1220' .2' 96~.0. 121. f'
4-4
EX15T7NG BUILG/NG -AO -/,/57F/2 511A!)C" 9CNEDULE
ROOF PT. NT ABDVF !BADE SHADOW LPNe TH CL EV 4+ END f'7 AU..V52`4; NC A.1-M,7LO 3NADOH 1-ENr71-11 z'_6,3sr r 4~6' 34.5'
2 fd=6" 35 1' e.5' 13'-O" 344' I fr
3 74.0' 66 6757653' 1 ! I t l _
4 16°6" 48.9' - f.T. U" 50.3' 1 I I I t
5 26701' O 26.6•' 7621' 1 \ L~ L~ L I I ~L y~ d L
6 7✓.P 0 26.6" 70J1 L L 1 1 L L 5!V r W - W
7 4 6' Sv' n 4'-6" 51.7' l 1 I L 1 L
8 /4'-6' 5l J' 541' 1 L j -
N 24'-6" 76.0'
10 I7 6" 463'
HAVM r
AGJUSTLD SHAOO" FRCIM ?O'-O` ALL as 51YT134(--< 'r ' i _ ~ r . ~r nr a
f~ f n. 1 II fit Ti
!^l4LL pT. 1/I. AAOYE GRApf :MAGI?NI LCPK7N ELEV. 9 CIJD PL AD.-H157PD M
SI 40,'? 105.4' iL5' 313'$" 701A' I - _ /
52 40`0' !CL`i.9' +3 3Y-o° vlv 1 1 I I J 'b' ~f
55 j
4010" os.9 0 X00 105.9' ~Jii i~ } ~~I - - x ( 7
54 40-0" o5. 9' s 3s'-o' 02.6 ~Il j j ! 1y ~y 1, F
ss 40.0" 059' s s -o" 926' ~f I ~ I I i ExiSi C~ _
_
sd 4a'o" 1054•
57 40'-0" 125.4' -4' 44`C7' 116.5'
1 I w
I I tti
fdJ. 057E=fe, 3H4f7C" PROM i5' 0 SOLAR FFIVC,F CT FROPERIY LANE
rEhGf p NT ALXJVL- GKADt .SHARON, LEM1Y>M E7.F.V. ®f-N(7 F!, AD_iG57F0 N7. AP.TLJ SJIADOW L£NG7N I •I I t ~P I I I~ I s..sr e _ . 1--~
0
1 ~J-i
f2 662' +41 23' 7" 623'
3 2s=v" 66?' 6.4 18'-7' 'Me, I 1 ~ 1'~ 1 L i ~ _ ~ ~ ny~
f4 2.5 D" 662' -2' 27 D' 7L5' I I~ 1 v / ~g - - L W
Y I - ` ~ yLi P.
FS ~
Ily IY1.
F6 >-5 O' 66.1' 28.0' I III \ f _ I c r = M
Iy ~ j t t u e t
v-
PROPOSEp 5UILDING5 AU,,t6 J~TfD 5Hl+GOiN S.r,HEDUL.E ON AIJ.JAGFN7 f<OO/- -ti -r
RVOF K. HL AEOVP 5,?ADf SN1,G0;'Y LLN67N ELEV. ® CND PT -D_,85TTD NT. ApJ15IFD ?NAPOW' LCN6Ir1 _ _ - , - _ _ - - . _ _ _ s
J 45'-6' 129.4' •152' S0'- 3" BO.4'
K 44'-J" 116,4' 05.1, 3O'-7' 41.2
L 52-6 ° 460' +114' lD'-8" 18.2' rr q n I q
M 32' 6^ 46p' :174' rO'-8" 2P,.2' pp S H Q L! O W A I V A L I S IS .A t
Y n N .C
i,
h 5F IS
I- ~ L l 4 7~
-71 - JI _ - - _ - tf 2
}4~i
77
r J
Y LL i~ Y~..fJ1~'
- - III i!.s i•r?,I 7- A&I In^y 14 1{tYI .lv~, 1e3, i4k 56s 55s 14s 53s Sts
Sls 'AAS 44)5 415 46x1 55
h 5~~ n I - 'I m alr.~rrs~,~.: II ° (1 rF
'y
I_• ~ ' 1' 7 1 9 7'i l-7 -9' l-T l 9 1'7 1 9' 7lA• 1-1' 7 4` 7 9 0 V..~d pl-0 A 1' R' i 9 1-9 -l1-, P-9• 7l 9 V-9, l'-9• 1 9• 1-0'
1'-4' 74' 7'-Q' L I.+I
J ~~J
O
IT 17• 7 1T ry ; •62s J12' 0~, rr a' i2• IT
Ir la•r~ ~~-L ° ~'1
4, 4,
1
c.:• 2?-0' i S'-0" 19'i?' I~ 14 y24 15-0• 1A'.0' 2q{i•i p-0 I190 a4'-0° m ~ 14~
--e - I A5
e Fr- IN Tr - _ I '4 5!n'~,Ah` •I 5 Z5 R32 ^vw vSl4b 7 ,R.St~ a Y 1~4
m
I-,
III ml 1 I n ®s 1 U o eGs ~m N®- VI
FFfR1I Jv 3s4 p
~IlllWll ~I I ~ v 3 1`._.h N BI 4 ~f W
Paz as
R uF ! W
s31 4,65 f52
II 1' = bi h b e _ 66s r l05 1~ - _ - -i r~
43 ! q~~
221 10.1 10B 53
0. le$ ~615 _ ~75 b IF,
P rv III~~~"'111
132 iP I 20 fi
4 v , ?Xl 142 10( 605 Ibs 54 Q, 114 42 p Q H
1• 6A, e C 0 )I w
!I 113
I 41
u II ~I 635 ' i5' I f n®° ° w{ B~ ° 45 I o n 1 q ~o F~ ~.i
o~VALL 1Uq ,pb- 31 p i~d it 0 lai 6 sr PI 1' 74 III ''4° <'e 1 I~1'~1
a ~B1dJP 1UeUQtE+:I7<~u5,,, - `~v 12~~
~6 U ~GOI,• r'H, :wRtS B8 Q Pic, IBS ° v 120. 06 Y v 11" 3B 4 41 Aa b5 p
00
. 109 B2 b _ _ FF{ 3l p r
r II W4
N tY~
.13 b Q ,
i ~ o- PI ° ~ 4 o- 1"a 7 ~9 9I4 4 ¢ ~ ° 1v
J? 6. I. 47 .n n3 b~, 0 1ta 4? Ir: 1 ~~II
4 'ss 4 ry° 12-3 3 P ° w G
da [1~~H,_,1a,
Ail
_p
P P
.(1°. 4 Q o 116 Q~1
lal U
u _ " ° _ B 9-I' tl I 11-11r 6 `PARKING p,IX.KS
=-k--fe i 0 TrP'LAL NA u
9b 4 4 U1 ~ 115 4 Q 11.`,. r'6• . h. N `xPG:56EVEi5 a f
15 I n ? ,cc I 114 ° 'rM ul +N T
n r Io 0 7
E
M, _530. H'i 9'•0 • a a -0' 1' v' e' o e a• a' a• e° Z7 f'-1
y1
k, Ile, ,
AI{r IVOPARrur 9~E
si +AU RFN
NE, 'Pk1F,
9.•VT l W
.o A
4
i
Vll!I~~E`irsit22;~5r.r..
QU
z11.4
rI 4 Np~
55'-8' 10'-4' 44'-0' .p j,. 533ar ~1., (n m ~
Y`T~11 0
rz ~ o x
o~
vam
O HUN
1 PARKING GARAGE LEVEL 3 W 2 PARKING GARAGE LEVEL 2 3 PARKING GARAGE LEVEL 1
I
71
.;.y F
N
~jl L
_ - z
j •r• L 'r' w
Wp
_ V-I -IT
c~v
,7 r n
FLU
fMi1
1
(/~11
I 1
' l ticr~ - - f _ .1vJ is ri, c~.\ ) 4~ xs•. 7 n
iv L
1 .
Q
pW,
I
F..i0
I 0~
W
_ r
OVD,
-
a 77
Y •<C,:G-~ ~ r-I ~r. Y~ [.p>-~w~
IA•+r Itl JI J~ u
I I 1 ICI tT \i
- `LYyYP ~ - ~ V
N .r
t..~A I N a v m~
1 'Il OI ,
bx
w N
mu ,;n+• I =
`;rF t mS,.,
r r ~ `~a oao~
S c 2 o.ioi
t
1 LEVELS 2--4 2 LEVEL 1
scnLF: 0° A3 SCA F 1/,6"
N
P.INTER ~ ~ \ -
II p' \ l '
PLANTER
a ~
10 6Erit R-AGK9
7 f31kF RACKS PLANTER
19-0 (~G]
MfhVW_K ~ e-i
- U T :.fl Lb1._ r. L _Il i 1111 I'-i ~.i
...F...
w
BICYCLE PARKING 2 BICYCLE PARKING (z, 3 BICYCLE PARKING G Z
SCALP 1/4 " `,A 4) ;~.nLt_ 1/z" _ I'-()"
r
A4
7A4)
- Snnrtp nM~e rcti,
' z
H
_ w
- - -
t ~ in o a
A'~L3 n' ^-I'ro TIER FaNTMi EQNfVIt.
tf4AT-04Nfir r, J.~ I ~ ro m
1 H p;r;;u .'d Y
4 ~ PLANTER TRELLIS1_ BENCH FOUNTAINS
'.A4 SCALE •/I'
Ts, ,
r -':At G L
- ~ l I lr I~ Tul I t C
-ILI
- T - L
~A PLANTER/TREI
,A! .LIS/BENCH 6 ELEVATOR MAINTAINANCE~STAIRS PLANTER SEC7101v1
A4i:
_ NIMH) 5IFFL LCkNT:R5
Iti CH FWLLO9URF nYP)
n lR ihN iU W
IFXAN PAIE7
El E
FE
A56i r'i f SNOSIOM'
-
- L _
t®®®n
1i ;11E RPMEF FIIPl ,TY i .i. a+ a V
SOUTH ~ r-m Rnv i i u 1, r+ou„FO 5 r-~
ELEV.
i.i.47?IYNi~
SCAl
ell
7-1
n f - - H
O
r -
m IML
{ - w
I,
-0 AY.
NORTH ELEV,
(5 )-SCALE: 3/32.. - l'-L"
r
71
{ F-
E-j
' ) U
a
W i a
I ,
~fT V
70 --IN
izvf
nN
~F~ vy
~o
/3EAST ELEVATION
.a
JB FF-~
-
41-1
•
i
~Tir L
sr I s
GVEST E~~
A5 ` -
Ali-.
Ell El
® _~r_ •~I
- ti
o
rerr Ik~;<++ _ - ~y
tlir Tlhu.,TREE7 F{-+ F" I I j- 331~ 11.~._
z
5~~ IQLwALK - - - - - - ' ' - I I 1 ~
-
.
I
I ~ F1~R5 F• ~ W W
a
I
-p I, V ,,LEL L,:tFP-, ~x WET EAST SITE SECTION
Z
f H E1~,CfaIJRt. 1 f Pl FrViha T -
- . _ r-1.- - j 6 SCALE: 1/I6" _ 1'-0 O~
A_ N ~T
H4 ;q-~H H~ ---T I I b
h' '
00
FE EH EB it ~ m ~ i,7 I ~'.GI _
r' =A LINE Or EA15113,S v W 463
®
5375 c
7 1-
I
71
I
I. • s RLl^i"~
IPVE.. - 94 I~
FZPI AREA
r2--~ NORTH -SOUTH- SITE SECTION
SCALL: I 16
M..OraFti
i rlG~a
o r,
V N
LIW OF EXIST N6 0 4 o o m
N(7O
04 N
a
5 2 5
o~
I "5: F: Gf' u nt
I iI
7 m
_ 531b or; w v
MECH. EQUIPMENT FOOTPRINT W~
r ,
5305,05
1 ~i 7
IAIA9EU SIl'N 11 1
i
NORTH--SOUTH BUILDING SECTION 1'E~*E"U05RE I-'
- 'All
f ? C+
- ~ C
_
310 F
LLVLL
i
40 ;A:I, LEAL 2
n V,INDO9lS I (.E~tL 2
6 PARAPET SECTIONS`
XAl; ,/2.. l'-0- t [jA 4G 1
VY.C ST-EAST BUILDING SECTION ~ fY
LIKE
r~Hr',DDII LAST a-f1. d f ri[-`.r SI ;'S
fFL'x FE4; -
'~i R FE`N,t _
1 1 .r.-. ` h 11'~ \]I'Cx rYR+ -Npi±~V~.A~T
r aY15fGOT 9 3biI
- ~ s~xnRFEce - - - RtpPQ°,.P '.Dr II
ti , I Il J4 r.>prmrs„nyansuxw
.aver se ors En Q v rC;
• (t gY. I ROOF ELE;AT b'IJ
ano - ~ it sys-•.-1lciiif jlrG 1 .M ~ -W,. ~
re o. M1
I.. x•~ rsuw '~q.l ^.u +KS+ww,i n'»MR~MIK'M!~ I 1~'^4, ~ s•m,:~F'J, ~..I
- I,
VIE-`
\\l I r
w
ACTUAL SHADOWS: 2 PM, DEC 21 ST
7~ o u
Lon
I i *na:o* 1--1 ~
.,ntF~s ab
1~
; vaGQ
1; zE iti I $ y I
I I;j
I - - 5~1~ ~ fli I r Ta
I I 1 I IEi-~ I ~ t- -i:l i L F- L.. I ~ 4'
,ACTUAL SHADOWS: 2 PM, DEC 21ST `J~J
NN
7 CD
r I GFii^.R AN,?A69
TI NA4QR rlt t~
F
h~,ssCL- MIX--
l -5a1nk+4r n7:: t''V•~dU F~~~'~ }~~I ~..r- _ - {
5~s. - -
LY 25 FOOT
L_,__._-._ RFLNCt
- - - I I Y
F2 I' n i
'1~ ACTUAL SHADOWS: 10AM, DEC 21-S1 l
-A7) AL- 4 ACTUAL SHADOWS 10 AM, DEC 21ST///","
'
• { - i .CAL11 20'-_. r „ -
4, N~T C" thy'
I '_r I
U n.. .'J1AIXX4 GASi 6Y 4Q FcXrs
A: ffA?1
Av lhitJ an an f••:FrGN.•, ~ Ifu!<VW10,ti
USi hl T '7' _ -
li' I r 131.- A °,:YS- ALARf:f7e£ `."EIIIACX tI
. ¢s+L➢Ylien 5,Kni iArJi,1.:T~II'
aos ~[v r n F - - T -~c
`i is I 1~ -f /t-f IF W
-~n_ - III -tiM1 n~ CcH._cpA1: rr ' .t
VA, 1 C"" 03
r C1,'•~1 I'1~ I~,. 1 i~' Scn4rF•~ t I i t h~l
- - ..es~ y,. ~ - avci•A~ _ am .1..11 { ' I I a . r~ Ec v ~n
31
+n 141 J i q~? v
Ti? n 1 w7~'" 6 r _ 4in I~ecr- +rn ~ i jrii~ .t• 1~~ ~ oN
we L 1
R3! e, .s I'111S~1Z1~ ;11.!.10 Li. . o
:n a
i i iu wi.a I~ .3Y`•
I
n s 1,4 ~ m
v
Li rFpirf L~ ~ a ~ ~
i4 i!
I
Fi~
I I ~ ~ _ 1sT or x FOOT
I I I c
1 ' YxAR FL7(d
I I I L dY PDOF I F' S ' 9 o e
i I -kA~,v GAM ao R
I I _ J e• O FOOT
H16H AALON I
a
I i I ~~roncx uNE I ~ I i a_
{
I I i I I I I ~ g 4
II I I 1~ i_ - r v^
II I I it j `sd
I
~T
i
I I I I;I - l y
I I I 'i I
II I IIII +
r: zs- a
5 ACTUAL SHADOWS: NOON, DEC 21ST,., ACTUAL SHADOWS: 2 PM, DEC 21ST r~
i
.
W
.I ~l G„ ~7 M •
~ I W0 ~
-
< 1 I -
w I I 3 ,:ul I
x C
m 120 5F 120 z
to ! xli?T~NG' HI 76&IG7 51'
X
w
II i ~ ~ w
71
Mill T77
❑ ❑ I u
a _v
"A IF
z
`r'I~~i - I 1 0 oj
❑ ❑ _ - o n ICI rp o
I I 9 R
T
9
7 N `VA(F 0M 6i rAPF -
_
H
AREAE\' :PAGE F
~LOJ'RED: Gil - 5- .`b0%i
C'°=~ :°AG= °ROVIDED: 65.C ib 5" r6 66%i 11II
nPrN 5PAGE ON 6RADE, 6420+ 5= '
--x,5T N6 PRIVATE OPEN 5PAGE QIT 5F
NCiN PRIVATE OPEN SPA,-E- 4,176 S- (72 5-- z 58 DALGONI:5) ? n o
r25% Or REQ'D • !6503 5F1
-VTAL OPEN 5PAGE PROVIDED 6A.2g4 5F f61.65~J
~Rwerw~ r.a, ~r60
?RiVAY rOTAi-. , 3350, 5p
O - w
RNCAE:NAY TOTAL. 1,155 SF
'71LON6 FOOTPRINTS:
F3J'LD NG 'A' (Ex15TING). 8102 5' (;1GL.D!N5 50h'E BALCONY) OPEN AREAS
BUILD,N6 6' 25,030 F SGL 7;Ny BALGOr1E51 / QQ
, i 3? 32 : ~.AU. ~ SCA.F ?C•-C`
..0. 5. 7Aa •rgp+Aa
p n tr G:.wRfz `'715xf. POND A 5i7a p rC, g 557. y
D I a4LS ANa 9arrA! *fD J
A
• r awr 1 ~ SjRt>~ ~ 2: •hll I Ppl : A CuJ
l le AEYEAtE PASK{ 1• A, r•1dw,•, I w
I a} Ot.x •'?aRra 2._~ I 7 6
A ~fse,/ aKn' prn32J fem. 33d!.5 S:zJ.S T_ 13.-m'l'oe nl-
7nAlR t 1 1
➢ r r r1 N'MCK ; f Ipv.^I
l +R. t,9 x,h a C
r:' -ra:. FAdW 5J21
531
/ Ar.c s% . ' g I
vRrA A
TAIL ,
SkErv'; a_A SECtt;C DRAIN
MILL I]E'A4 _
o!, WALL t: DETAIL AURMA AKNUE
2URN OR fIX
- - Mih'ah 4PI
~ rnrrtr
TYPICAL POND OUTFALL STRUCTURE
PLAN WE4y CCNSFRIJrr RA-).,; A:644 jyV:r CF
%WWALK Ac;+Cr.mr r3 arirvrn,'+,Ur;O
wAt: rx rtnu v""'t \ NIXNtTY MAP
tax- un,
11
I y SC,ALC' 1130'
wr NRff drK'c^; Rr f'-
Cr.'dr~ fEN RA2 1 lJ:1r \ r'N'r.11~15•.
T 'fRr / - _
~t _x- T-~ ~ •r. • +a,r
Yf rcN CHA
Al', R c 1O~•:'-
ROUVD
ffE /ABIF ff v S~y A
y'la~ aA+• ss ~xa!u L F G F N D
IIww x ° - ' r,-!JrI S+ 2 Y.r tSr v
to-e!NlAnG7r G-[Z r r SEE 'AW , vvA i(e~ Monhda
MN• f W1f l , - 4 N •ldrrr 3 11 1 ,v 7J rC!
t G ; dC. O fxlNalg ManhWe
r_N RAPS i N" LAStVJ;- • Srk O SN
fx A'•1P - plfrf9 (NAILr sP+rtC _ Y rlLU e7r J(fC Aa. bltl!U DT ai4idrO 'I (ffi'1arC
w.'; r 1111 4 k ~F^'✓ -I r r fa+N A-J
yr !rr + - ~'rp'et rnA +yt~ D i eJV. s>ao d aNtWVa 'L4PA 14 R~l GA
ILt `1'. P rf, . Set! s fWitM tnPot
,TI(.rAAar ~M-...+t. 51 75 , F,YO~~,I 3 ❑ P
IhM'Rh+ ~a~ QC• Oi/htk4C AY ✓,s5J2F_35 V'!•eJ ~11
,~•LI w,.~ p a.
'a'4 Sh 0i 'L lvL UYN Srrw cwc rs Lx+e I F.F. . tJr! Sfartn Pipe
r' 1 q'kWPARAW57ARr+RA E[N
n..R L:P(T+}` "J n ➢AAxA1e dAAACE (t W C+l I ■ n
0.32 I o.or+cRrs cwrANrr ] ~ Erhlrlp Storm Pfpe
+ OC. Nrn AS•✓A:1, I wsrEltC+e Rc'A3
t ,'r ra.tw+r ~ I frhfklg Contwrr
I ~ ' Euu+v; _ - ~f Prapo»d CmtaM
V
NR.CK N A.73 P•,vvuu. Bare Wv. 77r5!!O- b fl, .ltrl c•P44
tEE rAR SECTION B-8 .ACr Aar ,a - _ ruA.- : 4-= 1CA w.r 012 R I r'7C PropatW BbY
.r `
A
At*$for BOW
----1 - F 1 I Boundary
N eNAx a 11 I • 84 I Borln Ba(ndary
rfr raft I - , - -1, • a 014
Flo■ Anow
NY •SJJ!.1J w xblo
aa• rNY.•SJ71
aril' • AC.!' -I[V q 07r ,•aIhpr~ry(,Y a . ~YV 5J t Jf
urrss rGV w+tset rAAr I MOinf 5-28 Structure Alvmbar
Au Avtiha A I r Y YuMH! e' 3nu I ~I
r. n>'.,' rw x N, • r I n1y wv~NC ' / e u S N. • ee17 a srv I a4v C12 Ba.Nn ta+s flan
YA P1 • I 7F'S:4A•GL t l:L • 6, A.YRP rA_ r~. 41'.!! !,f
qq +tr 10-,F PC_rIY CRN:I! I . Ufl'.tJ:AA ?•c
d+X xre• SLL f+5t! •Y I { N ac.
' ~ / syx tar c ! rvA-lyn.n.< 5 • so s
I I nnv+RC:.~c - vv.77:r+r
fh IAOS I ~ aTr. a r 1 I - It rV Nom'
04vIS ~1 y .•.r 'I Urk
wv- lK rreLr Ili ~ I ~ ~ I ,w r rv'n ~ ~J
! ~Atna [ • C3
jvtirf°L i (f~I~ lY+a'rP atd wrr.u O1oA',
rrn°uV , WP~fR + P > ry Q ae' aa.~ r oe,
4 a
WEV 1
m .LAeJFCA
I Af EPA! A >F rASittnt I r
nn I-_e r &Atx IxsN(n'l EXISTWG r
e• niter fanrrtr I n• B3 " •,f'I' L
amt d. rM tc as u x u a a~~'~ "1 -.2 STORY 64JIMN17
1 ws l
vALtl A AOow •Axw wa P 900 28M STREET -F 4_ I ICI
rJ I H .5771 92 M O0. F8 C. 9u1b11G N e 4GN: II `
' I Cr RA+9K0 ROSA ~ I J III Y
`
Ilr.VArfh 1A7A0 I Y Ik II F•CG ~k f ! I 'Ri AF : ^ r 77
CLYMEAU, aA'Y 4-0+eNtl
, .~r ri l5$ rbN' $ IV f f9± LL ~e ~JI
WaLOW r A 117+0
➢;Rr mo or R ?,l
.gF[71dN A-A s,{` J4 I I ~ ! -1 oc. ~'*zrPr ~ LA
~ resuAe ~ a .a ' ~ 2 • 3]~ i
.S 7rr n
I A 2 ~ s+' n• sn• I O r y,: 1r• srv .5
1 I I Sq-
ND?E5. I OC. . rt~~11,~~-a.ra 'svev 7.,y: I ~ ~,6'~~7zc7
i. Route ca aewlycanlNUcled tool warpage la Mlorla GRAPHIC SCAL.
CW(OCtJOn 41MY1 V a~'eftly fe dOfenlydn pond. e I ( fA' .A
2. All pipa outWA ral eenteM rp rep er equhdJenf troll%ar ,O} I °L I. e 4,Pt .7 .~,I
pratratrG, to be datefrMlMed 011 PAhlkof daeWeOnt SVAmirtel I ➢/,'A / 3_,. -
y I~lta r 'P 'rt6
J EwNOIt cond4lcn at oxlsting dra7oage slump and pump. I e' WA010 , BT A. + a •y B2 ' I~ I ~ner, - :a 9
ReJtaa w nocessary WALK e 1 r'' K 1 0 07
a 101 design Of Storm cutlet prpea and routing through parxlny j R, OC. a11 yr b, 0f.
yaroga '01 po ceo'dAatod wll, tha gv uge Struclwe of
te0 time of IechnNca' doarmanf SuOmlltaJ, C? _
'Lr T tE r;ras D' cr- •r, is
aaw
FV
ti V•' ' !r't' - \ ! s'-'e •w • fa+S 0uaur fS. - SYa! ' CALL THE JnUTY NorFICA.Ti
Fond A Pond 8 + V - fn9rwC ftp UJ A fe CESITER Of COLORADO (J.h CC.)
rwrArtta Avr_•JIRP7 e~
WQOnficeElewupn 5321.00 531900 s--^1 ' 7.
0•YtQiflCeEleah00 532220 532156 II- - r-~ a7`'~L 't A' r e s ~~.JJ +•T s°uls"AA-l
s a a a sy C1 aA t •,z, ~L,,_ Rw e ;
"'I _ nuc Jr Rc,v "f ~I eu ecre A r r.n
Top Outlet Box 5323 14 $322 39 U w. A
- Ln, ro•c ee - O IJ v o:r .rte: wM`:::n. 7+ra
Outlall Fife EleSation 5320 50 53i 5 00
4 - G - - -1 aC n - -
x r • - All
Zi~
WQ,SE 5322.20 5321.55 h k''(;rr sg_1c
5323.14
532239
S E
100Yr W SE x32364 532339 ~R A ~4; Nr.sJ;zw
1DYr W tiara 7r~;• mvR9fc prrr,On, 9110 28tH STREET
M ,L9 + 4 ..Sly r
NEENAN Grate R•1879 SIG R-3462 -B
° P - BOULDER CO
10•YiOOficB(WxH) 1.1"x0.4" 1"x084" ca lAsr♦vunCASEWUt
?g{ r e c unrAnrv s ur Y an A-I -prdvat ➢ A vnc nko MASTER DRAlNAGE 5t
WQ Orifice (WxFI( 9 Y X 10" 20"x 18" t uda AAU r0 dE Atuotn wu-srr810 a yr r.NKAOA4 yfq +w rx mrL-a+r wA dwr
OlArau 5qe 8" g' NaAE.AmN,P AURORA AVENUE +swa- GRADING PLAN
r f~ae d ^.•rsA l7aN
•c•u ~',I,A;= ;~h'IiRST k R;SDC';T,7S, 'SC
avt.r•vl_ ~ J ,:759•'1'1SG lyG;ne,gc
tax•P i`l 1NI Irv.ly. 4,Y.a:tl
Xv-
v7 RI[C
0
+t
PPIMI°.4U
nECAM1C le'C eY #LY! Illiii
EX LiG i I'CIE FA Toff'~~,,~~~~ f trt"AA 'r C/5 WAI C% UWr Fl7( -
III,``
0 u,
mra"cAr a"c BY aursE
cee~ BY ccuasr -
AURORA AVENUE
' 11~AAY?dAt 1
ANN AA!
(NA7Fll M F7
I 5 o,S MYNITY AIAP
~l } nNlluS S PRil+tlSED f
iC/IL I'.I250•
11 ~ t niCR:C 1A}HSeJCY2A'
I !W q,1A We a No
h'A drNJKi 9vduWG I I~ rxanxr.
T P°'
VAC.Ii lttn:aa I> ~ Sf4n'5'RAA J
NOTES:
h ( I my awrrEC Aa ewev I - 1 1. Conslrucl all water & sewer services
I
in accordance with latest City of
~.1 mwtvn's ! IArfDWG
- Boulder specification
e I BuYtYn'e nera,PUA,r I }~;'x
~¢N - errssnce rar xl, U IfAAr I Field
muxnn I prior to ebeynnogOf utility
h "tie-ins"
A z, _
-L~,SS I in• Aarrv.u.•a , Prk9lL
construction. Pothole existing utilities
I rY d 51" as necessary to determine
construcfability of proposed services
1
^ Benchmark-
+f- r # _ •V xr xr - xl x r xr - r t SW Car, Cor. Nfi/q SW114 Sec. 37 found
^ [ r- n= 3.
monument it; range box per monument
I I record. Bench mark elevation b,3,3/ .(J8
q 'I f~„sAyG~y,•yr~ Tmsrcvrtra
y~ "--4•WVAk eN' usys 1950dolum.
. I II
4 AI '
10R WRICA07W isRNC[ S~"I ~f wasu Jf I r I~ 4. Water Services - Final size to be
rnmoeAa s xi+<a"nc C. - determined when building permit
RlPWAApfMU
F v- v,
777 17 1 1 _ submitted.
n ti
`W k
3 h~ AclrtAl[ rHSnm: r;'ti^ " r _ gRSrmu r n 'PrkP 5. flP9rode existing 5/4° irri9ofion line
I I VARAIUWArrP
I 0 W:Ri(: MW JIN[ rRs to 1 112
I d a rem'Mor"Vo I 0
p
n M I Pm.evQn 5=A1 IPr n IIXd f 'I r I I~ 1
0 _ I as' secwwr E&MM" EXiSANC a111AAr r'cAre uJTEA 117111
A[C 04 19tug, AV IhC PA4NUVi RARI (iMVM f
A isa a e'°r u"x PULDING
f`
nsmdc x/[
I W 'y uumwc x l, I[ L E G E N D
1 l A mrsev no uv / -•~r I y BU#U'uG
I a 'C 1 s~au tr r:MvaiTt'>.dl~. ~ I ~ leyti" ~ a, I VIII • PrgVUVed .uonnde
Y s' l mro,t a«.r
i 1
Z T I J7r ; I A{ N YMtrr Ydre
~ ~ ~ I I ~ n /~~a 1' " ~AUV i1We ~ I ~ ' _gy (LI _ rnznAS as'
e N ✓/1 r~ + ,i k I " O pA Ali F UR1N rASIII'Xr A FRO uy&-t
Plug
3 H
I I , I
fXI eNn N6fm'1lne
1 -I m sasnwa $S J r r, - 9 ` rcw.axs w ' ~ . ✓ ti g wWl ,r
X
u) N, Pr~oK,asee~ne
1n ~erw,a ScAmine
L i~ l ~ l~. ~r / ' ~ 1 III - - - Prapwed Stwmltita
I ~ ~ ~ I ~ E ;7t~`~ °/n. stin xr r~ r 4 ~ ~ ~ I I ' I III ~"r",y sl«mrne
I ~ I - ~ ;1 9 , ~ ~ f 's ';v` III ~ -b- Sew> SaAca
_e'a'rnprm -.X..„~' ra[ t; AxaIAUCIw ,~'~x>Fx j III -e- ebaEne
US
1q WALK
F"M
I I AOnkar>F o .'f ~:j.iy 1, , ~ - ~ I prt~ ~ I-
A 0.tri~ Gne
y
_ U
I k 1 - - Fi6ar ~tk
I III
-w-tr-
I - Y ~ fAar R flecbk
-
l
,CArbl / - / • -h IIllN V.. 3rPVC1I K III
11PC ICr~ 'I' ♦ FLA4rlN r E•SfYI + RMWVt ® IO'Irpe 'R'Mlef
_ v I ll \ / !/"lFR of A "1 Lf Ar I,C gkR nNG e' . 5' r " A' Inlet
V Y yI I [ I I SWII 5' OIA A-J
A7 61 0
n
C cP L.SANi 19•P.CF ~M sua w RGn-~ F~ s u J.A h rJ a e
_tk
an"ITS ME PAaPfQp1 El '
+aip •An I lFSrw" Snn roA T fc ? r io, pel : a, Y• r- N rnuP ~x.l aecPn~sz rrortn
i
TY You we
tr 5`t [A 6A CALL THE U LIOOnFlCAII
CENTER OF COLORADO (O.N,C.C.)
o - 1. _ - - -
I Iwr•rax rnsme J cwuaAa r um!rv uSer,?~r v, nACVS,vL a
>'<'✓4rC sNW 3'NA A i B R
1Ay1pgl fllS Yf, lrp
$ry g5 aa
AURORA AtCNI Pun" - U A (WDM Dd
~ cwrn rue AM? MHATf 3RVr - ~ -
wRl N' PIRG d !!lnCl! It - -
F
9 ~M- -iF- 7 -IF- 9 -N- 9 -x-- 7 -IF- 1 - X-- 7 -M-- 9 -IH % - M 9 -ice ) -fi- - '1 -rte ) -M~ -.e- 7 ~V- 4 a V Y 5 -e- ' - PR-G- -Ib-
INV- IgINr CAS, i E E IC. EPHfMF. I:A1V MI
I o VIII nl hNVIANnIE CASIERN f'll`EIINE LOCAPONS
~N -,11 h1N rro. UI SA rvE BY ILTL,.
- p, -OJ- r4--71J ~ SSl1.'AJ -a1-rN.-OJ ~YJ4-OI~OJ~J~~~OJ~"N-OJ`•ro~~R-pl-rl~cu-A--A 5~- b: INICRSE
nJ--- ro- al-`r<-aJ (EVasE 5/5
s/s
U051MV WW C~ E)
uA LkEOW
sS 1Wd S4A C RAB CBEAAS'
wr.56.~ W GIPr 900 28TH STREET
P".° "r ,W SJIV BOULDER, CO
~ INV WI . 5J,11.9 .WA: trJl~Slif}
ipnIINCwvt UTILITY CONNECTION PLAN
+ I { 6' r/S NIP WONG rF & VAI VE
h ASSOCIATE' ),NC
J _ ,iaat,+s ) 111Ufi3T
go,a'IVri fil II P LUhsllli[YQ Ftiflfi}7715
wan xN 71 lp hdW M ~a
W4 t%q
.Iii Yp4 ti7 W [S
~ ~
PLANT SY1,f MILEMM _-b metiiriene}n aiefi. amine
TLC
WN"
gardens
1 Niern ao~w +uu>r
} ~~mr•w..a.~n Landscape Design
`psnaomonle
~nle0w :~rfiun iln'v
~ / Kw~.aOOnaas \~J "^"'n wsan ~""rm wd
nw, _mam Yrr w,n enn
IN Ctt.I - par M n •
,(~~(vl ~ ORWBRALII® T~tn g li}SM, R'
L~q•IRN IN
Ili u
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . } i- A
Di.OnD,Y ~,}1 DW01,1WI
CL 1
T \ 1„A uce}•~4t:A 1 } + +ws nnea p xeM uen
i'l £ y§vl I - 3 t 1Y ! 11 ~1 / .11 I w40 tl . `~~in m'+i?
mx-
RNIM Ewsp. y,y
(LP
...fir ~ , •
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - I r~ 10TAI-WE CIF5T12'-REhR6L'- Ya
~t I rCITU MJuKR Y TRTI TacX3 PAmn 0a
t} 'oYB aL•xrm'CFr~fS µnm~Sir'2Wist15!
IIfUAIN NLIII) TOTALCI➢HIIIY CF TRIES Ao f5mm RIGVAIEW4
MS3 w pl xp - I OPOSE4 yUP,.pIAD
-
rnxRCgI'DVE _ ,r Et. } I PLANTING SCHEDULE
51, E M. 0,
- I OOGYIGl R41E. _ CCWDWAG 5Of Ott.
- - - - - NN I~ AAV 070 A
MID r` DCCEUPmmomW
- _ {-1.. 1 ~ 1 A Uk- NmWd 0.M NDIEffmw Td I
_ 1 F i - LI I f I ~B 00mv-dw CATNFAWESMW fd
IW \ awr+e+a 11133s
w.§nv Swr ar,a0omarpuE Td t
I Z' 1 ^ 1 - _ - < D 9nIP ~W Layer MAlESE TREE LLIC Teat 7
1 ( A IF ~ A'r~tlW[Dt,~,'/YUnB`W hVICEEB fAUT11 R7W 7a >
~la~' M1DY'~ ~k`} ~NTOI t~ TA. D
/ U.W WLLIOIMFFM 7 6
I IY
ff~IJU~FIIB
Y I ~~~V
- ..i ) Yt
p~/y f ~ -,p~ I f f "`C`IA If v~. ~x r~~ ~ •r D ph. ppnl 9iw a1E&WCF aV®U ea 7
4 ~ I IIII / L ,~yt~~ ~ '11~ I , ^ I - - I H Rur~.erYF f WILYNUPRO RIM 6d G
I _I TM~r.r' •°•t'•~Ih4J s ' I,t nR ,l 1 ~rq.u~d+n+wsb' caLnwRurtanrrA,rra 6e a~
y ,.f, L
9Ysnlew 39MAVAN
~II L 1 ~ ~ ~ . I rr' } h o[au
s,~AVAWxamE sPL IS
y A I r K~„ ~A 2, Tx asi 5FL 15
I F- ROSE
` 3, , - • 7 Jr - / N raync,rrMSr~ryar/ RORSYTM~ra+ancar sy. a
(Y ! D fT,rI0A Y1161n 4F1l1 L's'.WAWCCIFYCIALEIEDD a90. S
Il 1 I r I u if Y`lS 1 - I P ROBE DOOaOR ]pi 17
1 0
=A S III_ Y 1 I D BAOPa++MYIOU IIAC I.@9 KIM Sa. t7
AtEYY AmWdfp 9Y®EWiICDLUWA 6 Pt
W l Lt i n ( ~y a p,lr;~ I e aa-"I na~u ~ SWL m
C, I r a M yus w i g ~ l- T I ~ f -ti 4
A AA
I \ u,pq.y ~F l41' F /,ri1 RJR { ~1 J' n, ,R if IL I ONUrBlf11OR ASSM
0LL
85671t I)n L~i Ylf I ?d..r : / I dCP9~ L, ~ge8clnbdlh~r MUM IVa wfd$IERF6UI~ii® 5~ 1a
PL 31
n1 v ~wmum.wrM GIBUIEaeH td 42
ti 1 rP l v/ a ICJ l I w spwr. awssrEUCp r tt~ P tz
~ L. 1 r} L.M
ORAN
BOIL do
~0 T ttri tf~Pp :I I:q ~r K PLUIE
{ f 1 rr ~ri~ ~'9"A" ocovmsramvrtn
• ~~I " - 1 ^ Y labeMpgln}Ytrr HOIEYBU UGROUI)DUVER LPL so
- L rer. `x }sl v- I 2 9.d_ slcr~eoa mmdOSs as
v~ II 1 , . , I
9 ® MYn~o. sAt~ uraR 1
11
! I 1 t I {off rtN'C C'}laa et MM 9-L IT
I I /d } . Y . f, I CC Ar.r. mm.. up9ESa%WE 114
Lri$T 6L HI pO A1O . N
A7 I \ of
10GVAlE - [0 AMnY P.Yhrl' MrENFAA AfE&POI CASTEL VERWOUND 1pl 77
1 EE Alden vrin A~ CryR ~lI0RI13Od5P1COO a
yl
` bAa •p IuYA 'r ~ f lklNiWN 0"- y~rn} r. Wx XANTH "Wwwrw 1PL 53
I I l 1 / Iv ICI,, - - - - - - ~1 Ad fmre ~d na 7~0Nd+ rPeeTTEMON r a lao~rs~ie PEAK PURI i Its
a
to Etvfri H ff - 1 {_Y`K+•'I \ o Rwdl.Ngplpk SaE AU991Ax sD.i 31 W
„
1 r11 Ea I Ir ~r "p►.mans.e~d wwumw+W 1y N
urns T 1 , . I ( ' ' ,r.s,rd sr wmnuaaOUROws sot sl W
I I I 0ltr0G9r l 7 I ~ ti. I kb / tl
UN NIF11111 iir rawrDm um Bpi to
AaY1EA I
I ~JIAl. F ~t tl~ fS ;r I un 1. ~u. ~il~ cae W 7~ ~~,1 dp, m. ~ >~ra~ s~ er
± LL
e~KOMOM urocGHTTCL WffGR KffV
Apu .t 4i,an
I a 1Q~ ~,tft I I i t~ a ~T C~~' I rn o
Lt T ~ E ~ ~l A ~ I z'•~T (~1~ ~ I a9 euE Gw~a r C>
I ~ •((y}}V~~,~,)1 - 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~l 11/ , R Isaac"fA = a Ata i I 1 /11
I. F%51d. O1; FOC .lnl MVl IA~lO n-!` 1~L~~a;i {0.n,' ft•,. I 1 - - ~y_ .T.• •)'•~4 J//+. I I F,I e: 1.. ~:I I 9nM,~WO
Ir EI~era NOTES
i eeVnekEryrn anrtrw Q
Wd -Q PLANT Co w rtif~
T !y 4 ' t >
Ian Ir.W I. ` I yf I J' F 1. _ r r' ~1 "~i l O~`#1 ,~rl ; t ft 1'~ ► I 2 Tne plop w aaoasrd,Ahrwpm*mrcemW"L_ft.ddue.hrtMlah
J
1 1 F"~ils 1'~ r f S! a t - J
~ bdrip.dlvlvY dkmdlOYeh~J.IY~NAIp1YAl4
Q
~~k~T 1• m: W A I ~ ~L( II~,_~~-{7f~ it~, t-. ~ L. it ~/~,~ti /nF~~gyf•;+~E~Js~S 1ar~,~;O~'~i~:' a~ sa=7.+da.blk.trvwraMw.wrhmirvuaauwmrrlAmdl
~ LO
~..u~n;A''fL^C~~r~l~~.~~~~;~t1*.+3i.:~ ':.r ~~1 IM, 1. ,•fO ,kw` ~'µ''f", ~~1 ~'fi:~~'..~" '~~1',,r•I umutn3Oedurb me►onvlrea~ex
III'
r +vf , , , .•y{ __,y7}~• ,.orb,,..1...nr.rf.,E~w+uwAwdoadnal.~w.IOrrE.vw.a
7:
9 4 / } 1 . L.;: _ 4 , '7~ Cy'rlikf --1 ~1 _ ~I4me e~mm~mu.urr~paulr Em rewrwd
1 T -
C -4M+.;,'.1 0 { yjj4{. 1I~n x '*i •~IJ:;pt'r~_ ~u `.l .4~ r u~~~~?, } 7 j , spanearehnlo01e 117u 41e9 r41b+ndslMh+~P7~tleigna
motcrlo
,*'~~??T~•••¢~=__1 1 Mrs ,.Yi" ,~.-e1 r 1_- ~l_.1." - 9Nlnvsmlwieomx+a.eeamvnnulydwmeubometelu, unmwle~uglm_ -
uw..rlR~pv ROa- - ^ - T
7 S li 14 T ::G 0 IIIC INRII' dtllRfN
DA VIII. R7f \f.C I I; A~R i rRntRCr'rvisla+c&~ l".~ ®`;sj 1.6 p ova.td}.aadwia~+a.~avdcwdd,rd.fperrMTra IR aemx
• B L'p " a v r A b R A {/;?1~ L P^0 " ^"f r.a~l`""roeYma j*-Wa." maf.w Hp 1 1R1O
a ll I,.f 1 0 4 nSUDS CfiI~NAY' ern Wdm 6YlOE 8U0rRF1
~ pi;IWg tnW a9'41. il,~ 4mnNdmlNw>ando~tewNd~bhark4Tdrl tdtp'ieF7s WIC .
D EE OuRRIC ENTAfJICF iO a+E tti.ve'ab ~nYwwtott83,tli ism F®IIi1L
a { _ A e 4O1IlRlA .0 11 - - - PIN: PA 11"
CENTER RpSfIAG Lti(nI, Ed5 Ps.. I.al ROidme Ain,onahandu.al.wgssrl.naln~evau60abmevamAmar
.E:axa anaT
nR0IIL86'6 u O
st }-i~u 5ptjCNh
ONDLRCPTUhJ
W d eoraA m Mrimrb uhKmopl lpdnrur, Pdc~lhlb
ACT 111,111ILK & 1ANDS CPE AND A o~Rvuonu f ' " „asa~~eawduR ~ {yy} 1~~C na LN~ "r °4h
cu ca
FI('.CI S11 ro .h AC offe. fGE PARftNC Imwwedi~rr~a7 ax Lawlawnadix}onAr
CURE A, ER TO SIM k R T.,& . lIII h E ' ll QI 'r9 P~ +*W
/ Affi0 N?hl vwh lrfi anum w mph tlfeC # P+IraMrnYa 9A6 d
I1RA k tlJT1R IU CITY hNTAHOS !r101i s Uy 17 ~ CF NEW LAWSiAlI NEVI DRIVE A0A C CUT (AIP TO ANT
CITY
..I 10.CUrtlrhArryinWYlq~~OppbE,MddnlOrMOfdglOdlIIIhm hb
I I uuv x0l n6 ~U E SIANOARDS r
iq T)TF1 ..yylq,rt ,AiF are
7K hYTItNS,I d91PA IWIASO%tGi~ ImF 1:
l$LL ONLJ 15.AUWlu.TE WATSR TIC O fUVEWAY ENTRANCE 71 RdebW,Ci,'dBttYYDlWn otlWlwdNl,4k4. typo
E~q"flh~
nNUn u pw ; A-scA it 2RwoE.ansy..e rpetradvmdvm arrln
Inlet Ir-lo}~ - 1AaFa
IANSCAPE PLAN p
arnE.1~P `Y' 0 10, 2,0,
L1.0
%
I
C) ~ ~ w ~}~1Ii+), II ~ ~ti r li r/~ I J~ I
f f~ T d I . ~A441Ft~ ~I y~ W o
4 Q
Lr
r
M
0~~
~ rI .Ir ~ "Y 'k 1, I~~I-•~ - _ r/I\`'R ' 1~'~ s.. es- i r~
(r~ A Sy\
~v. - f, ~ 4 ~ ~7yyj~~ P~' i ~Ir• 5 z w l~I,r`rsLrr l-~':
vJa x,,-? L,I ~w
f?-
-
)I I ' III ~I Pi 3U I I \4~J~S~"+
12
i vw `_f 1V1 ~Y IIII 1- 1I I { I~ I i. ( 'h 4 " o
00
t• ~J 1 ! I III ~ I . _ dll I - I 1 I
J 4~k }.7 I l n IFS ~`T~~', I ~ t Z I I v ~f-~tv l;~ ~ I
I\J/I a a a a a F \ll'r ' n I~ d{^~~~ da~{rt YI
J~ If ~ 1 I L ~ fy v - ~ I
) S 1 i > > + 3 3 3 ~ _
1 \ ) )
l _ ) 9 d a ) 3 3 ) ) i ,-'ice f r✓ I` 'S I I b
I 1 h > + + '777 ~r
L -I IS~J III ? + y
77 rrii y$ I•
~AL
1
moo) 1~ c_ v U
1 1 In I ~ W !
LLJ
Vi I 111 I I - I lil-~ ~ f~
O I . I In ° I~ I LLJ 1 e
I
f q~
- • ! , I ti I cn - I
I ~J~ I I I ~ I # r I, Ell;
cl ~ VIII II. ' i!1 }II,1y ~',I
~y.. LJLiI L~yL1111 ~ Z y~. ~+,r l r~ ~ H.
~ zI Q
v} > 0) do
I IJ li I J
I I~ I I C I + I - x- - miwnen~7p-
Il eertx
t
pnrtrt \ + wF y MIS
~~7v?JJ~ 99mK
Lac611E 74% -
eluaotuoannxmww
*wm
L2.0
r~
R
7a
k1~t I gg'' %q tl 16
F+.F In
A,~~ 0171 (S Rya
a: fir. a ~r
77
qq 1y F
FFF---
w
rn
LLI
Yr
F -
C/) 0
= U
N p
o,~ ~amx
naxa Mgt
IIiEGR P/q~
Was
11H1 {T
L2.0
TIC
gardens
LanASCOfl e De si9Fl
LEGEND
ALL ZONES ARE MODERATE
MAIN LINE
LATIRAL LINE
DRIP 'I.
SLEEVING
I
- ` O IRRIGATION CONTROLER
I
I CONTROL VALVE POP-DP/ROTOR READS
f5 I I Q
_ I 1 li II it CONTROL VALVE DRIP SYSTEM
-III L~ ' A QUICK COUPLER
I
~ I II
I
1 'j~ I I oee•
j I I aoxoa
7 ~ I' I •,~a~ o c s•
r
771
IRRIGATION NOTES
-.I I q
3/4"MAIN TOa LANDSCAPING I I .Lo9maAin ne I'r`IC tluvma er
r+ vc---t _
ea•
a.A'. eirouelvaws arm nnrymenw~fne Wll auromei: anlam All
~ 1 aura r9m.,xaa-~ arm tea~a.m mma i~ rcrlmra-aryslen
+ ~ I
d~ sTATIGa I-. -.a'. N, ~ o rm r uxrzal9iaWMxzPep i -0-
r 1
• a.orsa I eai~'AdCcF~ - ~ ~ j d~ai unrePaosea prt7no slwa arxe rraw~msu
1y I .A PlouCel s'a.o,wn Ld~rfinlME Oea laax~yeak xr
""FLOW
F. ~iuo pp -•1
~A um vraD~ ' -
,~L :II h_1ll ~iyn ga srs , ~I ~ ~ pl Vu Y~atlep9rN laarvalero es:'fe al AS ps`Vantaelttl I
~NUIJ Dim~alltd lr~f0~-OVh'2f1 N01 ~ D~'m9p gl~'nA¢VUlfasoll n~ilgbl. syslm~4Wlie NVwNpy'wx e~~Ji~ru4naii
I 1. nr leuw snury'I lerua in~•am rose
Ir---
~b 40 Pvc
P1C
N1A[ 6UML! Illl - 1 EI 1~.aIP~ Gl Y Yd hP dl MI ~IOSaY ~hn
Mwlkls. l l MNgryeIXmaregm P ~Widl'ri9 roy x..
er xv r.~aon ems b of ra y rz..
e .m, wars >.w~ixcnllw.a n i ¢mnr
ru.-mucsarew k~ .e a a...~L. n,
r. Iw swa Te a, oa r a, ^
o u'
~Aaor,r aino:r wrracia
~ ]LIL L A /r I scar:reuvsl~~rocryalmaimmauanacr.wnrw~~aiar~~
aF 3 9
I I
I , I
canZ11 "'i"inE" m I L
r.dn~8ral fro lu„'xa~a I I L~.- II I r
a~oo~~uwrm~nnwrollr~ I
zr II
J, W
bm, Mma
W
f t!I
I I I 71
I
4
Du N w
- ~ o cr)
D DaxP ~ ~ I ~
WiM Iabl~~~ I^I
s P I MI pn tl.nf w,>t~ , I i= ~rx
HIa
I ' t SAMM&
Idy loL20 aU h (a6perl Ih AII4iNiulk'frzmi
NAMMX
-AaWd b< WI tl eucfv ]ra MAMMAL
11 Oiniuplinu YM MAMMAL
~ I I
MMF- xATO
ow fulle
MMM I MKAN
L4a0