University of Colorado, Graduate School of Design and Planning

Material Information

University of Colorado, Graduate School of Design and Planning thesis project
Chiang, Willie T
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
106 unnumbered leaves : illustrations, maps, plans (including 8 folded in pocket) ; 22 x 28 cm


theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master's degree in Architecture, College of Design and Planning.
Statement of Responsibility:
Willie T. Chiang.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
08683786 ( OCLC )
LD1190.A72 1980 .C46 ( lcc )

Full Text

En Des Thesis Arch 1980
environmental design
auraria library

This thesis is dedicated to Chris

THE AURARIA SITE General Service Area Site Location Site Boundaries Topography Soil Conditions lOOjear Flood Plain Primary Private Utility Lines Radio Beam Water Mains Sanitary Sewers Storm Se/ers Historical Landmarks Zoning
SITE MASTER PLAN General Building Zones Street Networks Mass Transit Pedestrian Circulation Energy Distribution Expansion Potential
ACADEMIC Programs UCD Programs GSDP Programs -architecture -urban design -landscape architecture -urban and regional planning -interior design
-Center for Community Development & Design
THE PROGRAM -UCD space needs -GSDP space needs
THE SITE Description Walking Time Map
Physical Characteristic
Auraria Design Guidelines PROBLEM STATEMENT

The program for this project was derived in part from the Auraria Master Plan, and the UCD Replace ment Facilities Plan 1980. The information was gathered in joint effort with Dave Powers.
Special thanks to Bill Taber,campus architect, and David Alexander, campus archivist, for their contributions.

Thesis Introduction
After 20 years of school, this is It. The final stop.
It is a time when you know that you used up all your quota of excuses, and hope that you learn enough to make a living.
Well, enough of sentiments!
In November 1980, after numerous debates, the Auraria Board and the Colorado Regents decided to move the UCD facilities acrss the Speer Blvd. A new facility will replace the existing functions in Town Bldg., East Class Room and Bromley Building. The new facilities will enclude a 200,000 s.f. building on Block 10, and a 50,000 s.f. addition to the Science Building.
My particular interest, is to design a 43,000 s.f. section to house the Graduate School of Design and Planning (GSDP), and the general, massing of the rest of UCD.
The reason that I chose this project for my thesis is because it's a real and viable oper-tunity to explore the different dimensions of architecture and urban design. What made it more challenging is the fact that it'll be a building for the future architects and planners ....and we all know how pacified a group of people they are!!
.....I hope they don't burn down my model after the presentation!!........

This section of the Long-Range Site Master Planning report for the Auraria Higher Education Center is designed to present data in connection with the characteristics of the site. While there are actually two site areas involved in the total Higher Education Center the land area west of Cherry Creek known technically as the Auraria Urban Renewal Project and the land area east of Cherry Creek which is the present and intended site for the Denver Center of the University of Colorado the major thrust in this report is toward the Auraria Urban Renewal Project site which is the largest of the two and which will contain the majority of the facilities for the Center. In this section of the report, we begin with a brief overview of the site in relationship to the basic service area of the Auraria Higher Education Center and gradually narrow the focus of our study to the specific site itself. Rather detailed reports are made setting forth primary characteristics of the specific site.
Service Area
The City of Denver is very close to being the geographic heart of the basic service area of the Auraria Higher Education Center. The service area is made up of Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, and Jefferson Counties. This geographic grouping is known as the Denver Metropolitan Statistical Area. It is a vital and dynamic urban area with a population which is exhibiting a strong growth trend. Studies performed by the Denver Research Institute/Univer-sity of Denver have indicated that the areas diversified economic base has produced a high degree of stability and that the functional emphasis placed on such elements as education, medical services, research, and space age technology has been reflected in the Denver Metropolitan Area's average level of income, education, and the housing of its citizens.
Site Location
The map of the city-centered metropolitan area graphically illustrates the centrality of Auraria within the most highly populated portion of the five-county service area. Major elements of the highway network are also shown on the city-centered area map. Because it is the nature of an urban campus to be populated primarily by commuter students, the relationship between site location and the location of the major highway/street network is a particu-
larly critical one.
The so-called Auraria area site already involves commitments by the University of Colorado/Denver Center which occupies its own facilities on the east bank of Cherry Creek and by the Denver Public Schools in the use of the Emily Griffith Opportunity School within several blocks of the Denver Center.

Boundaries of the proposed site for the Denver Center of the University of Colorado and of the Auraria Urban Renewal Project site are described below and illustrated on the drawing on Page 15.
Colorado University/Denver Center presently owns a ground area of some 66,000 square feet on the block bounded by 13th Street, Lawrence Street, 14th Street, and Arapahoe Street. Existing buildings on this land are gradually being modernized and converted from their previous uses into effective facilities appropriate to the needs of the University.
At the time of this study, the following property is owned by the State of Colorado in behalf of the University of Colorado/Denver Center:
1/ Obtained from the Denver Tramway Corporation, Lots 17-23 inclusive, Lot 73 East Division, City of Denver, between 14th and 13th on Arapahoe.
2/ Obtained from Isadore and May Miller, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and the northeasterly one-half of Lot 5, Block 73, City of Denver, on Lawrence Street.
The University is presently seeking to expand its land holdings through the acquisition of the following properties:
1/ The remainder of the block presently occupied by the University and bounded by 13th Street, Lawrence Street, 14th Street, and Arapahoe Street.
2/ The land area bounded by Speer Boulevard, Larimer Street, 14th Street, and Lawrence Street.
3/ The triangular property bounded by Speer Boulevard, 13th Street, and Arapahoe Street.
4/ Air rights above automobile parking structures planned by the Denver Urban Renewal Authority and located on the two-block area bound by Speer Boulevard, Arapahoe Street, 14th Street, and Curtis Street.
5/ Property adjacent to Cherry Creek which will be vacated if and when Speer Boulevard is rerouted as indicated on later pages of this report. This land rests between Lawrence and Larimer Streets.
In the buildings presently owned by CUDC and located on the site area described in previous paragraphs, there are some 218,000 gross square feet of space in the classroom and tower buildings and 54,500 gross square feet in the Library Building.
The University is presently in the process of planning additions and renovations as part of a continuing program of upgrading the facilities at the Denver Center. -
The Auraria site was selected by Metropolitan State College as the site of its campus in 1968 after a thorough selection procedure. This land area, which is occupied by marginal and deteriorated industrial buildings intermixed with older residential structures, is rich in historical background. On this ground was Denver's first public school, its first hotel, and its first water system. Several significant structures on the site have been set aside as historical landmarks. These structures will be discussed in a special section of this portion of the report.
In very general terms, the Auraria site is located immediately west of Denver's core city commercial area. It lies in a land area between Cherry Creek and the main lines of the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad, just north of West Colfax Avenue. The legal description identifies the site as being located in Section 33, Township 3 South, Range 68 West, of the Sixth PM, of the City and County of Denver.
The following is the boundary description of the Auraria Urban Renewal Project as provided by the Denver Urban Renewal Authority. "Beginning at the point of intersection of the north right-of-way line of West Colfax Avenue and the northeasterly right-of-way line of the official channel of Cherry Creek: thence, northwesterly along the northeasterly right-of-way line of said Cherry Creek Channel to the point of intersection with the northwesterly right-of-way line of Wazee Street extended: thence, southwesterly along the northwesterly right-of-way line of said Wazee Street extended to the point of intersection with the southwesterly right-of-way line of Sixth Street: thence, southeasterly along the southwesterly right-of-way line of said Sixth Street to the point of intersection with the north right-of-way line of West Colfax Avenue: thence, easterly along the north right-of-way line of said West Colfax Avenue to the point of beginning.


1 (';.'

Neither ground nor aerial surveys of the land area selected to serve as the permanent site for the Auraria Higher Education Center were available for use in the preparation of this report on the Long-Range Site Master Plan. Because of this, and because the slope of the land is relatively gentle and uncomplicated, topography available from the United States Geological Survey has been used for the purposes of this study alone. Prior to physical planning for site elements or buildings on this land area, it is recommended that a complete and detailed topographical survey be obtained.

The soil data presented in summary form herein is based on two primary sources. For the Auraria Urban Renewal site, a study was made by Woodward-Clyde & Associates in behalf of the Colorado Commission on Higher Education. A complete copy of that study is on file at the offices of the Commission. For the Skyline Urban Renewal Project, soil data were prepared by Chen & Associates, Inc. and provided by the Denver Urban Renewal Authority. A complete copy of the Chen study is available in the DURA office.
The information contained in this section of the Auraria Higher Education Center Long-Range Site Master Planning report is presented for general information only. When further detail is re-qu!,ed, it is suggested reference be made to the complete studies mentioned above. Definitive site selection for buildings as well as physical planning for buildings should be based upon detailed investigations of sub-surface soil conditions conducted by qualified soils engineers. The recommendations, conclusions, and other data contained herein are those of the soils engineers who conducted the preliminary sub-soil investigations and consultations.
Soil Conditions/Auraria Urban Renewal Project Site
The following data deal with the Auraria Urban Renewal Project Site and were prepared by Woodward-Clyde & Associates.
The test holes indicate that up to approximately 20 feet of manmade fill is underlain by loose to medium dense sands and gravels with occasional stiff clay layers (Platte River and Cherry Creek alluvial deposits) and then by claystone bedrock found at depths of 8 to 47 feet. The man-made fill is shallow (up to 4 feet thick over most of the site) except in the westerly portion and along Cherry Creek north of Curtis Street where depths range from 5 to as much as 20 feet. Areas where the man-made fill is in excess of 10 feet in depth are shown on the accompanying drawing. The alluvial sands are generally loose near the surface becoming me- ; dium dense at depths greater than 10 feet. The upper, loose sands are believed capable of supporting low loads and the medium dense
sands are believed capable of supporting moderate loads. The claystone bedrock is medium hard to hard near the surface, becoming hard to very hard with depth, and is capable of supporting heavy loads. Estimated contours of equal depth to bedrock are shown on the accompanying drawing.
Free water was found at depths of 5 to 14 feet, generally at about 10 feet. It must be assumed at this time that the free water will rise at least 5 feet above the levels measured during wetter years and seasons and will respond rapidly to water level changes in the South Platte River and Cherry Creek. The soil engineers recommend further study be done to determine more exactly the extent of this free water and the levels within which it fluctuates. From this, the subsurface drainage requirements could be more readily defined.
In the opinion of the soil engineers, the best type of foundations for heavy structures, and for light structures where the depth to the claystone is shallow, will be straight-shaft piers drilled into the claystone bedrock. It is believed final investigations will confirm that such piers may be designed for maximum end pressures of approximately 30,000 to 60,000 PSF with a side shear of about l/10th the maximum end pressure for that portion of the pier in bedrock. Pressures in the lower end of the range will be applicable for lightly loaded piers drilled to shallow depths into the claystone. Pressures in the high end of the range will be applicable for heavily loaded piers penetrating more than about 10 feet into the claystone. Because of caving soils and shallow ground water, pier holes will require temporary casing into the claystone. This casing will permit dewatering, cleaning, and inspection prior to pouring concrete. It is believed a minimum pier diameter of approximately 30 inches will prove appropriate.
The soil engineers believe the best type of foundation for lighter structures, considering both safety and economy, will be spread footings on the natural sands and gravels below frost depth. The upper, loose sands are capable of supporting spread footings designed for maximum soil pressures of approximately 2,000 to 3,000 PSF. The deeper, medium dense sands and gravels will support spread footings designed for maximum soil pressures approximately 4,000 to 6,000 PSF. Higher soil pressures could be utilized for spread footings at shallow depths if the loose sands were removed to a depth equal to one footing width below foundation
level and replaced with the same sands compacted to 100% density.

In the opinion of the soil engineers, the man-made fill should be removed from under floor slabs and be replaced with controlled fill. The natural sands and gravels are firm enough to support normal, lightly loaded interior floor slabs. Base course compacted to high density will be required under floor slabs subjected to vehicular loads. Basement floor slabs may require special consideration where excavations extend into the claystone bedrock. The claystone will swell upon wetting and cause the slabs to heave. Shallow ground water will require either design of basement floor slabs for hydrostatic uplift or provision of a subsurface drainage system beneath the slabs.
EXCAVATION SLOPES AND DIFFICULTIES The soil engineers believe the man-made fill and the natural sands and gravels can be excavated without difficulty using normal earthwork equipment. The bedrock can be excavated without blasting, but will require heavy ripping equipment. Light blasting or air spade work may prove necessary as a construction expedient in confined excavations that are inaccessible to heavy ripping equipment. The soil engineers believe the sands and gravels will stand on temporary construction slopes of approximately 1:1 above the water table, but will cave back to 2^2:1 or flatter below the water table unless dewatering is accomplished in advance of excavation.
1/ Man-made fill, generally shallow but locally up to approximately 20 feet deep, is underlain by loose to medium dense sands and gravels and then by claystone bedrock at depths of 8 to 47 feet. Free water was found at depths of 5 to 14 feet.
2/ The soil engineers believe the best type foundation for heavy structures will be straight-shaft piers drilled into the claystone bedrock.
3/ In the opinion of the soil engineers, low to moderate pressure spread footings on the natural sands and gravels will be the best type foundation for light structures where man-made fill is shallow.
4/ The natural sands and gravels will provide satisfactory support for normal, lightly loaded interior floor slabs. Where man-made fill occurs below floor slabs it should be removed and replaced with controlled fill.
5/ Basement floors will require special consideration because of shallow ground water and swelling claystone.
Topsoil, sand, silty, moist, some organic, dark brown (SM).
Man-made fill, clay, sand, cinders, coal, bricks, trash.
Sand, medium dense, silty, moist, brown, tan (SM).
Sand, medium dense, slightly clayey to clayey, moist, brown (SC).
Sand, medium dense, slightly gravelly to gravelly, moist, brown, tan (SP).
Gravel, dense, clayey, moist, gray (GC).
Clay, medium stiff to stiff, sandy, moist, brown (CL).
Clay, very stiff, moist, olive, brown (CL, CH).
Claystone, medium hard to hard, moist, gray, tan (bedrock).
Claystone, or sandstone, hard to very hard, moist, gray (bedrock).
Indicates that 8 blows of a 140-lb. hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive a 2-inch diameter sampler 12 inches.
Free water level and number of hours after drilling that measurement was taken.
Depth at which hole caved.

TH W TH IS TH-16 TH-1T TH IS TH-19 TH 2QTH 21 TH-22 TH-23 TH-2U TH-25 TH-26 TH-27 TH-28 TH2#
TH-30 TH-5A TH-31 TH-32 TH33 TH-3A TH-35 TH-36 TH38 TH39TH37

Soil Conditions/Skyline Urban Renewal Project
This portion of the soil conditions summary deals with the Skyline Urban Renewal Project upon which the site for the permanent campus of the University of Colorado/Denver Center is located. Data contained herein are summarized from a preliminary soil and foundation investigation performed by Chen & Associates, Inc. in behalf of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority. The total project covers an area bounded by Speer Boulevard, 20th Street, Champa Street, and Larimer Street.
The preliminary investigation in its complete form includes the determination of possible foundation types for the various configurations of buildings which might be constructed in the area and the general bearing capacity of the upper soils as well as the bearing capacity of the lower bedrock. It provides a detailed analysis of the physical characteristics of the various subsoil strata and general criteria on the pavement design for the area. A total of 69 exploratory holes were taken within the Skyline Urban Renewal site, 22 of these were drilled into bedrock, 9 were drilled to a depth of 25 feet, and 38 were drilled 4 feet deep for the purpose of determining the subgrade bearing value. The 25 test hole locations shown on the drawing on Page 23 are holes which were only 4 feet deep. The deeper holes are located in portions of the Skyline Urban Renewal project beyond the boundaries indicated on the drawing. Because of this, test hole logs have not been included in the text of this report. They are available, of course, for reference purposes in the offices of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority.
Subsoil conditions within the Skyline Urban Renewal area are very erratic. Generally, they consist of four major soil strata and are described as follows:
Existing Pavement The existing pavement consists essentially of an asphalt wearing course on concrete over a thick base course material. The total thickness of the pavement and base course is about 20 to 24 inches.
Fill Material Fill material was found in many exploratory holes. Most of this material consists of fairly clean soils containing very little trash. In general, the fill material found was loosely compacted.
Gravelly Sands Most of the upper soil in the area consists of gravelly sands which vary from 10 percent to more than 50 percent gravel. Maximum size of the boulders exceeds 5 inches. Silt or clay lenses were found occasionally in the gravelly sand deposit; In general, the gravelly sands are dense and this density increases with depth. This material is excellent for the support of building structures.
Clays In several exploratory holes, a thick layer of clay was found. This layer was sandwiched between the gravelly sand stratum and situated immediately above the bedrock. In general, the clay deposit is stiff and will not settle excessively under moderate pressure.
Bedrock The top surface of the bedrock was found at depths 16 to 48'/i feet below the existing ground surface. The bedrock consists essentially of claystone which, at the lower depths, belongs to the typical Denver Blue Formation. In several holes, very hard sandstone bedrock was found in the bedrock formation.
A water table was found at depths varying from 12 to 49 feet below existing ground surface. Due to the caving nature of the upper soils, the exact water measurement could not be obtained., Since the water table in general is low, it should not pose much of a problem in the design and construction of the structures. The/ water table does, however, pose a difficulty to any pier drilling' operation.
High Rise Buildings High rise buildings are considered here to be those which exceed 10 stories in height and exceed a column load of 1,000 kips. Based upon past experience, the soil engineers believe the most economical foundation system for high rise buildings in this area is straight-shaft piers drilled into bedrock. The following items should be considered in the design of this pier system:
1/ The bearing capacity of the Denver Blue Formation is approximately 60,000 PSF maximum. If it becomes desirable to design the piers in excess of 60,000 PSF, it will be necessary to conduct a full scale load test at the building site to determine the actual settlement of the Denver Blue Formation. From the test results, it is estimated that under a 60,000 PSF pressure, the maximum settlement of the piers will be from 2 to 2Vi inches.
2/ The drilling of pier holes for high rise buildings in the downtown area is a delicate operation and can only be performed by an experienced driller. Because water will seep into the drill holes, both from the upper soils and from the seams in the

lower bedrock, all holes should be cased above bedrock. In order to foresee all unexpected difficulties that may be encountered in the drilling, it is recommended that a large diameter trial pier hole be drilled before the Contractors enter their bids. This should minimize expenses involved in additional work.
3/ The hardness of bedrock in the Denver Blue Formation increases with depth. This hardness increases at the rate of approximately 3% per foot and the skin friction increases at the same rate. Consequently, a great gain on the pier carrying capacity can be obtained by drilling further into bedrock.
4/ For high rise buildings, the foundation constitutes the most important part of the entire structure. Because of this, it is recommended there be full-time inspection on the pier drilling operation in order to insure that the piers are founded on reliable material. This can be accomplished by having an engineer enter each individual pier hole and carefully examine the formation of the bedrock.
Intermediate Size Buildings Intermediate size buildings are considered here to be buildings which are about 6 to 7 stories high and which have a column load of less than 1,000 kips. The test holes indicate that at a depth of 10 feet below existing grade the gravelly sand strata are generally dense enough to support this building size by the use of spread footings. The following considerations should be given to the design of the spread footing foundation:
1/ The most important consideration governing a safe spread footing foundation is the consideration of settlement. The soil engineers indicate that for a steel structure, a differential settlement of three-quarters of an inch can usually be tolerated. For a rigid concrete structure, a differential settlement of one-half inch can usually be tolerated. In the design of footings it is therefore essential that the maximum differential settlement should be within tolerable limits. This can be accomplished by proportioning the size of the footings in accordance with the allowable maximum soil pressure. Consideration should also be given to the wetting conditions as well as to the rise of the water table.
2/ The soil engineers believe the maximum soil pressure of the i gravelly sands should be in the magnitude of 4,000 to 8,000 PSF. An investigation should be made on individual buildings to accurately determine the maximum allowable pressure. If clay lenses or soft pockets are present in the gravelly sand strata, the settlement of the footings could increase and thus increase the differential settlement. This should be carefully considered.
3/ In case the gravelly sand stratum is not capable of supporting a high column load, several foundation alternatives can be used in order to increase the loadbearing capacity. These are as follows:
A/ The use of raft foundation
B/ The use of gravel pads beneath each individual footing, thus distributing the load to a larger area
C/ The increasing of basement depth or increasing the height of the foundation wall to reach the lower, dense, gravelly sands
Serious consideration should be given to these detailed foundation designs for each individual building.
4/ If the soil engineer is to assume full responsibility for the foundation system, he should carefully inspect every footing to make sure it is founded on the proper bearing soils.
Lightly Loaded Buildings For lightly loaded buildings, one to two stories high, spread footing foundations can usually be used. In this area, however, the existing buildings were usually constructed with basements. After the existing building is demolished, the existing basement area creates a problem in the placing of foun dations. Therefore, careful consideration should be given to the design of the foundation system so all footings will be placed on natural soils. The soil engineers indicate that in many cases it will be more economical to place the footings on compacted, con trolled, structural fill.
1/ High rise buildings in the area should be founded with piers drilled into bedrock.
2/ Intermediate height buildings can be founded with spread foot ings on the upper gravelly sands.
3/ Small buildings should be founded with spread footings either on compacted structural fill, or with spread footings on the nat ural soils.
4/ No special subgrade treatment will be necessary if the width and alignment of the new streets are approximately the same as the existing streets.
It should be emphasized again that data contained in this section of the report are of a generally preliminary nature. Detailed con sideration of specific building sites or of actual foundation design should be undertaken only after obtaining more definitive soil data from a qualified soil engineering firm.

100 Year Flood PEasn
This section of the report presents a summary of information provided by Wright-McLaughlin Engineers whose work primarily included the definition of the flood plains resulting from the South Platte River and Cherry Creek as related to the Auraria Urban Renewal Project site. Wright-McLaughlin have based this report upon data obtained from recent studies conducted by the Corps of Engineers as well as from studies which they themselves have performed in the past as related to flood channels.
The definition of the flood plain of any stream must be related to a particular size flood having a specific frequency. In this regard Wright-McLaughlin believe it is appropriate to utilize the criteria developed by the Denver Regional Council of Governments as presented in the URBAN STORM DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL. This manual, in general, conforms to the Federal flood policy as presented in A UNIFIED NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR MANAGING FLOOD LOSSES as sent to Congress on August 10, 1966 by President Johnson. Based upon generally accepted policy, the 100 year flood has been chosen for analysis. The 100 year flood is defined as the magnitude of flood having a 1% chance of occurring in any given year. The standard project flood is one which might have a frequency of once in 500 years or longer. The chances of this flood occurring are so remote that only minimal steps are usually taken to protect against possible damage resulting therefrom. In regard to the standard project flood, Wright-McLaughlin suggest certain
precautions might well be taken in the design of the facilities tor the Auraria Higher Education Center. These precautions include the following:
1/ Discourage below grade computer center facilities, basement storage of valuable library or other materials, and placement of costly or irreplaceable goods below ground level without provisions being made with respect to flood-proofing.
2/ In the design of the structural systems for buildings at the Higher Education Center, the engineer should take into consideration uplift and additional pressures due to flooding from the standard project flood.
Wright-McLaughlin indicate in most development in the United States today, provisions are not generally made to protect for floods greater than the 100 year flood. They are of the opinion that such provisions could be made as a matter of cautious planning.
Urban storm drainage and flood control measurements must be evaluated from the standpoint of the drainage of the site itself as well as from the effect of flooding of the two major streams. In this instance, consideration must be given to disposition of the initial and major rainfall which occurs on the area itself and runs off as storm water during and immediately after precipitation occurs. Study of this condition would produce data regarding the type of storm sewer outfall and major drainage interior provisions which are needed to protect the proposed development of the Auraria Higher Education Center site.
The drawing on Page 27 indicates the 100 year flood plain as it now exists. This flood plain generally concurs with the limit of the South Platte River flood which occurred in 1965. The Corps of Engineers indicates that, upon completion of Chatfield Dam, the 100 year flood plain should be completely removed from the Auraria site. If and when Mt. Carbon Dam on Bear Creek is completed, the floods on the South Platte River through Denver will be even further reduced.
Chatfield Dam is scheduled to become operative as a flood control structure no earlier than the summer of 1973. Actual completion will be dependent upon the funding made available for the project. On this basis, it is possible that the Auraria site could be subjected to flooding from the South Platte River for an indeterminate period of time. The depth of flooding relates to the topography of the site and the 100 year flood could vary from zero at the water edge to well over 10' at the deepest point along Wazee at the northwest corner of the site.

Since it is presumed that the Auraria Higher Education Center will construct buildings prior to the completion of Chatfield Dam, several general possibilities should be considered related to the 100 year flood plain of the South Platte River. Most buildings could be sited in a manner which will put them either completely out of the flood plain of the South Platte River or at its edge where flooding will be shallow and can be controlled through grading and building design. If buildings must be sited in the flood plain, Wright-McLaughlin indicate it is possible to incorporate temporary flood proofing measures into the building designs at a nominal cost. Generally, it would appear that facilities less subject to flood damage and costly repair such as surface parking lots and physical education fields should be placed in the flood plain in lieu of buildings. Finally, it is recommended that, as site planning for the Auraria Higher Education Center proceeds into more definitive stages, current data regarding the progress of Chatfield Dam be obtained. It is entirely possible the Dam will be completed prior to the completion of Auraria facilities, thus minimizing flooding problems related to the South Platte River.
Early work performed by the Corps of Engineers indicated that the 100 year flood plain on Cherry Creek would be contained in the river channel as it passes the Auraria site. Because of recent changes brought about by new flood data, primarily resulting from the 1965 experience in the Denver region, the Corps of Engineers is revising its concepts regarding potential flooding of Cherry Creek on a 100 year flood basis. Data made available to Wright-McLaughlin point toward the probability that, during the 100 year flood, Cherry Creek will overflow its banks into Auraria at Stout, Curtis, and Market Streets. The extent of this flooding is indicated on the drawing on Page 27. It is estimated that the depth of flood waters would be such that flooding would be generally limited to shallow flows of 1' and less with most of the water flowing in the streets.
The Corps of Engineers has proposed several hydraulic modifications to the existing Cherry Creek Channel and Flood Control Works. The most important for Auraria would be the deepening and riprapping of the Cherry Creek Channel through the downtown area. This channel modification would also include the reinforcing of the existing channel walls where necessary. These corrections would increase the channel capacity in this area to a point where it would pass the 100 year flood depth and would totally eliminate the Cherry Creek flood plain from the Auraria site. Presently, however, the Corps of Engineers does not have a detailed plan or design for these improvements and apparently does not have any authorization to proceed with such improvements. The
City of Denver recognizes the potential flood hazards along the lower reaches of Cherry Creek. Still, the City does not have firm plans for channel improvement work along Cherry Creek.
Wright-McLaughlin believe that improvements to the Cherry Creek Channel will probably not be constructed within the next five years but may be accomplished within the next ten year period. Because of this, they have made a series of recommendations for protection of Higher Education Center buildings from Cherry Creek flood-^ ing during the period prior to completion of channel improvements:
1/ The State should file a formal request to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District" to undertake Cherry Creek improvements at the earliest possible date. Copies of this request letter should be sent to the Corps of Engineers and to the City of Denver. Meanwhile, consideration should be given to the construction of a simple flood control barrier along the left bank of Cherry Creek.
2/ An early review of flood control planning by the "Urban Drainage and Flood Control District should be made. Upon completion of that study, if it does not appear that construction of improvements to the Cherry Creek Channel and Flood Control Works are scheduled for the immediate future, prevention measures should be then undertaken by the State in cooperation with the District and the City of Denver. These measures would include the construction of flood control barriers along the left bank of Cherry Creek at the problem areas. Such barriers could consist of a decorative solid wall or raised walkways about 2' higher than the existing bank. These barriers should tie into the bridge railings.
3/ In lieu of the barrier, the State might choose to construct buildings in a manner which would raise first floor levels to a point at least 2' above the road crown elevations. This action would probably be considered reasonable even without the Cherry Creek hazard because it would provide for storm drainage of site areas immediately around the buildings and overcr_ne hazards considered normal to any site.
Further data in connection with the 100 year flood plain may be obtained by reference to the complete copy of the Wright-McLaughlin Engineersreport on file in the offices of the Colorado Commission on Higher Education.

100 Year Flood Plain

8/ Telephone Telephone services shown are vital for the southwest, west, and northwest areas of the Metropolitan Denver Area. Disruption or relocation of these services would cause considerable customer inconvenience and necessitate redesign of certain long-distance circuits. Approximate cost of relocation of the companys major systems through the Auraria site is estimated to be $300,000.00. Therefore, planning considerations should be given to permitting these facilities to remain undisturbed.
9/ Electrical Power This underground electrical power cable is a key public service company circuit which provides primary voltage electrical power to the downtown network system. It would be very costly to remove or relocate this facility.
10/ Telephone Microwave This microwave beam is discussed in the next section of this report.
11/ Telephone Microwave This microwave beam is discussed in the next section of this report.
12/ Traffic Signals This line relates to traffic signal control terminals and related control circuits which may be eliminated incrementally as streets are vacated in the development of facilities for the Auraria Higher Education Center. Terminals which will remain or will be relocated are dependent upon remaining street intersections and traffic/pedestrian control patterns. Future control equipment should be arranged to utilize
adjacent leased telephone lines.
13/ Western Union This portion of Western Union cables existing between Champa and Walnut Streets constitute proposed replacement of overhead lines. The final location of underground cables may be adjusted by the planners of the Auraria Higher Education Center in coordination with Western Union officials to suit area development plans. The final location may be predicated on such factors as spare duct space and availability of leasable conductors from the telephone company. Relocation costs could be significant.
14/ Police and Fire Alarm Signal Circuits The present police and fire alarm circuits are not indicated on the drawing cross page because the cables occupy telephone company owned ducts for the principal runs. Circuits are available for extension to contemplated facilities of the Auraria Higher Education Center as they are constructed.
15/ Street Lighting Street lighting is not indicated on the drawing cross page. All present street lights are served from overhead services from the power distribution system and will be incrementally removed as streets are abandoned.
Data presented above and on the drawing cross page are based upon information generated by Swanson-Rink & Associates. A complete copy of the Swanson-Rink report is on file in the offices of LKA.

Primary Private
A number of primary private utility lines exist on the Auraria site. Included in these utilities are steam, gas, telephone, electrical power, telephone microwave, traffic signalization, Western Union, police and fire alarm signal circuits, and street lighting. The approximate location of these lines is indicated on the drawing cross page. In following paragraphs, information regarding these lines is presented and the feasibility of relocating them is also discussed.
The numbers in the text relate to like numbers on the drawing.
1/ Steam This line is the primary steam feeder from the Zuni plant to downtown Denver. It is a 14" line with pressure which varies from 50 PSIG to 275 PSIG depending upon the steam load. There is a possibility this line could deliver steam to the Auraria Higher Education Center facilities. Relocation of this line would be critical since it is the main feed to the entire uptown area of the central business district.
2j Gas Item 2 identifies a gas pressure regulator station located at approximately 1460 West 7th Street. This regulator station and building is the primary pressure regulator station for three primary gas mains which serve areas other than the Auraria Higher Education Center site/Relocation or shutdown of this station would be critical.
3/ Gas Line 3 is a primary gas feeder. It is a 10" steel low-pressure main with approximately 3 PSIG operating pressure.
This main can be lowered or relocated if necessary provided
Utility Lines
any required shutdowns are properly scheduled.
4/ Gas Item 4 is a primary gas valve vault and regulator station which is located in the vicinity of the intersection of 7th Street and Walnut Street. This regulator is essential to the operation of the primary gas feeders. However, with proper scheduling it can be relocated if required. Lowering or relocation of the underground valve vault can be accomplished but it should be noted that scheduling problems and cost would be so substantial that every possible measure should be taken to overcome the need for such procedures.
5/ Gas Line 5 is a primary gas feeder which is a 20" steel high-pressure main with approximately 150 PSIG operating pressure. This main can be lowered or relocated if necessary provided shutdowns are properly scheduled.
6/ Gas Line 6 is a primary gas feeder. It is a 20" steel high-pressure main with approximately 150 PSIG operating pressure. This main can be lowered or relocated if necessary provided shutdowns are properly scheduled.
7/ Gas Line 7 is a primary gas feeder which is a 24" cast iron lowjaressure gas main with approximately 3 PSIG operating pressure. This main cannot be lowered or relocated without complete replacement. If it is necessary to lower or relocate this facility, a new steel main must be installed and shutdowns must be properly scheduled.

_> K IMXI M* <-
_1 _ i- k-*
--T- TMA/nC MNM.

Two microwave radio beams pass above the Auraria Urban Renewal Project site.
1/ The beam shown on the drawing cross page as Beam No. 1 is a Mountain Bell Telephone Company microwave radio beam extending from 931 14th Street to facilities on Table Mountain.
2/ Beam No. 2 is a Mountain Bell Telephone Company microwave radio beam extending from facilities at 931 14th Street to facilities at Martin Marietta Corporation.
The design of buildings at the Auraria Higher Education Center should be accomplished in a manner which will avoid blocking the paths of these microwave radio beams. In order to accomplish this, construction along the beams centerlines should be limited to a height of 220' above present grade extending 50' horizontally from f beam.

|gSj %mm k wjfit BrM

Water Mains
The existing water distribution system on the Auraria Urban Renewal Project site is diagrammed on the drawing cross page. This system is composed of water mains which serve the Auraria site as well as mains which pass through the Auraria site and serve areas beyond its boundaries. Some of the mains indicated on the drawing may be removed as required for construction of the Auraria Higher Education Center. Others should not be removed or abandoned although they might be relocated for reasons described in the following text. The key shown on the drawing indicates water mains sizes as well as identification of mains which are candidates for removal and/or relocation.
The following general conditions should be evaluated as facilities for the Auraria Higher Education Center are planned:
1/ The material, age, and condition of existing water mains on the site are assumed to be satisfactory for continued use. This assumption should be re-evaluated as decisions are reached regarding mains which are to remain and plant charges, if any, for mains which might be abandoned. Salvage of abandoned mains should be considered.
2/ Any main proposed for abandonment must be left in service until the area which it serves (including feed and circulation services) has been completely acquired and vacated or alternative equivalent service has been provided for remaining properties. Individual services may be abandoned as the building or area being served is removed from useful functions.
3/ If streets and alleys are closed, water department regulations require exclusive easements for any mains remaining or new mains installed as part of the Denver water system. It is possible this requirement might be relaxed through appropriate negotiation processes.
4/ Auraria Higher Education Center facilities could possibly be served by parts of the water distribution system which might otherwise be abandoned. As facility planning progresses, this possibility should be carefully considered.
5/ Some expense will be incurred in abandoning mains and eliminating residual dead ends. This expense should be of a minor nature.
6/ A charge will be made by the Denver Water Department for plant value of the distribution system abandoned. It is assumed this expense will be paid by the State.
Following items briefly describe each of the water lines which serve
site areas where service must be maintained. These water lines
must either remain or be relocated. They are identified on the
drawing by letters and described in the text below:
A/ The water main on Sixth Street from Wazee north for which no size is shown. This main serves property outside the Auraria site where service must be maintained.
B/ The water main on vacated Wazee Street west of Sixth Street to 7th Street which is a 12" main. This main serves property outside Auraria where service must be maintained. It also provides circulation for the main described in Paragraph A above.
C/The water main on 7th Street from Walnut north which is an 18" main. This main is a feeder for an area outside Auraria where service must be maintained. It also provides circulation for the mains described in Paragraphs A and B above.
D/The 6" water main on 11th Street from Walnut north. This main serves property outside Auraria where service must be maintained.
E/The 12" water main on 13th Street from Walnut north. This main serves property outside Auraria where service must be maintained.
F/ The water main on Walnut Street from west of Sixth Street to east of Speer Boulevard which is a 36" main. This water main is a principal feeder for downtown Denver. If it is relocated all mains which presently pass through the Auraria site and provide service outside of the site must be reconnected to the feeder in the new location to provide circulation and supply. Relocating this main would cost approximately $180,000.00.
G/The water main on Stout Street from south of Colfax Avenue to east of Speer Boulevard. This 24" main provides feed and circulation between parts of downtown Denver outside the Auraria site where service must be maintained. Relocation co$t is estimated to be approximately $70,000.00.
H/The water main on Colfax Avenue from west of Osage to the intersection between Osage and Colfax. This 6" main serves property outside the Auraria site where service must be maintained.
1/ The water main on Colfax from Osage to east of Speer which varies in size from 18" to 24" and all of its connections to the south must remain. This main provides feed and circulation to an area outside the Auraria site where service must be maintained.

The data contained above as well as that on the drawing cross page are based upon information generated by Ketchum, Konkel, Barrett, Nickel, Austin Consulting Engineers.
number indicates the diameter
\ Tlk

The drawing cross page indicates the existing sanitary sewer system on the Auraria Urban Renewal project site. This system is made up of sewers which serve facilities on this site as well as those which pass through the site and those which are located within the site boundaries but which serve areas outside. The key on the drawing indicates the size of the sewer and whether it may be relocated or removed entirely.
The following general conditions should be evaluated as the planning of facilities at the Auraria Higher Education Center progresses:
1/ The material, age, and condition of existing sewers on the Auraria Urban Renewal Project site is assumed to be satisfactory for continued use except for the 28" x 42" line which is known to be in a deteriorated condition. This assumption should be re-evaluated as decisions are reached during detailed planning phases.
2/ It is required that any sewer proposed to be abandoned must remain in service until the area it drains has been completely acquired and vacated or until alternative equivalent service has been provided for property remaining. Individual services may be abandoned as the buildings being served are demolished.
3/ Existing sewers which are abandoned should be left in the ground. The advisability of filling the abandoned system with grout or sand to prevent future settlement should be considered.
4/ Auraria facilities could probably be served by parts of the existing sewer system which might otherwise be abandoned. As planning progresses, this possibility should be carefully considered.
5/ Requirements for easements for sewers which remain in vacated streets and alleys should be investigated as planning progresses.
6/ It is assumed that no charge will be made for the plant value of any sewer which is abandoned.
The following text briefly describes each of the sewers which serve areas where service must be maintained. These portions of the sanitary sewer system may be relocated but may not be removed. They are shown on the drawing cross page and keyed to the text below:
A/ The sanitary sewer on Wazee Street from west of Sixth Street to east of 11th Street and all sewers draining to this line from the northwest. This sanitary sewer is a trunk collector which picks up sewage from an area outside the Auraria site where service must be maintained.
B/ The sanitary sewer on Wazee Street from west of 13th Street to the intersection of 13th Street and Wazee Street and the sewer draining into this from the northwest. This 12" sanitary sewer picks up sewage from an area outside the Auraria site where service must be maintained.
C/ The sanitary sewer on 11th Street extending from south of Colfax to north of Wazee. This 28" x 42" sanitary sewer is a main outfall sewer passing through Auraria from other areas where service must be maintained. The sewer was constructed of brick near the turn of the century and is overloaded with present flows. The line is in poor condition and any major construction near it could cause rupture and major damage. Because of this, and in order to permit greater flexibility in the design of the component buildings, it is considered necessary to relocate and rebuild this sewer. It is possible the cost for the accomplishment of the reconstruction and relocation project may be shared by the State and City.
D/ The sanitary sewer on Speer Boulevard running from a point south of Colfax to 13th Street; thence, north on 13th Street to a point north of Wazee. This is a main outfall sewer passing through Auraria from an area outside the site to which service must be maintained.
E/ The sanitary sewer from Speer Boulevard and Lawrence Street to 13th Street; thence, extending on 13th Street to Larimer. This is a trunk collector sewer from an area outside the Auraria site to which service must be maintained.
F/ The sanitary sewer extending from the intersection of Osage and Colfax must be maintained through the Auraria site although it may be relocated if necessary.
Data presented on this page and the drawing cross page are based
upon information generated by Ketchum, Konkel, Barrett, Nickel,
Austin Consulting Engineers.

Every intersection within the Auraria site is presently served by the existing storm sewer system. While this system is old judging by similar conditions within the Skyline Urban Renewal project, it should be in relatively good condition and structurally adequate to remain in service on the Auraria site where its present location is properly related to the street system designed for the Higher Education Center.
An analysis was made of the existing system by Wright-McLaughlin Engineers to determine its capacity with reference to tributary inflow into the Auraria site and storm runoff generated within the site itself. The results of this investigation, while very preliminary in nature, indicate that the system is generally adequate to convey the five year frequency storm runoff throughout the project area. This analysis was based upon the assumption that on-site detention, including roof ponding, would be practiced within the boundaries of the Higher Education Center site in the same manner as presently conceived for the Skyline Urban Renewal Project. If the concept of on-site detention is not utilized, the existing storm sewer system cannot be considered adequate for even the two year frequency storm runoff.
The concept of on-site detention, which can significantly reduce the required storm sewer sizes for an area, simply refers to the practice of retaining water where it falls for a short period of time while releasing it at a controlled rate. Actually, many areas inadvertently provide on-site detention due to undersized inlets, poor grading which results in depressions filled with water, and sags in roofs which cannot be drained immediately by the roof drains. To design for the benefits of on-site detention, it is necessary to forecast the rate of discharge from areas. Within the Skyline Urban Renewal Project area, the allowable discharge or runoff rates are computed as follows:
Roof top areas Vi" per hour
Parking lot and Plaza areas 1" per hour
These rates of controlled runoff can be realized with little or no additional cost associated with the construction of buildings or parking lot/plaza areas. Actually, if the Architect and drainage engineer work closely, a savings in building and site development cost can often be realized. For developments such as the Higher Education Center complex at Auraria, the utilization of grass drainage swales, small park-like depressed areas which would function as storage pools during high runoff and large water storage roof areas can be utilized to significantly reduce the necessary storm sewer sizes for the area.


Within the boundaries of the Auraria Urban Renewal Project, three properties have been designated as historical landmarks St. Elizabeth's Church, Emmanuel Chapel, and St. Cajetans Church. These properties are identified on the drawing on Page 24. The Tivoli Brewery has not been designated as a landmark but is considered by many to have special architectural and historical significance. For that reason, it is also designated on the historical landmarks drawing. Each of these properties is described below.
St. Elizabeth's Church has been designated as a historical landmark by the City and County of Denver and has also been recognized as a National landmark through its inclusion in the National Register. The church is situated on Lots 4 through 6 inclusive, Block 29, West Denver, together with all related improvements, also known as 1060 11th Street, in the City and County of Denver. The following data pertain to St. Elizabeth's Church:
Original Owner
Original Use Present Owner
Present Use
Franciscan Order of Friars Minor of Province of Most Holy Name
Franciscan Order of Friars Minor of Province of Most Holy Name
Street Number 1060 11th Street
Wall Construction Cut Stone
Number of Stories 2 (average height is 43')
Date or Period Style Architect Builder
Exterior Condition Interior Condition
Gothic with a few Romanesque motifs Brother Adrian, O.F.M.
Father Francis Koch and German parishioners
Briefly, the history of St. Elizabeth's Church covers the following events. In 1878, Bishop Machebeuf was petitioned by Germanspeaking Catholic families to create a parish. The request was granted, land was purchased, and a church was built on the corner of 11th and Curtis Streets. This parish, known as St. Elizabeths, was the second Catholic parish to be established in Denver. It is the oldest parish on Denvers westside in point of service. In 1887, Father Francis Koch, O.S.F. was appointed the first Franciscan rector of St. Elizabeth's. Because the original church became too small, it was torn down in 1890. The new church built in German-Gothic style was consecrated in June, 1902. It was designed by Brother Adrian, O.F.M. of the Sacred Heart Province. It measures 132' x 69' and its spire reaches a height of 162'. The church was constructed of lava stone quarried at Castle Rock. Outstanding interior features of the church are the carved wooden statues on the front alter which were brought to Denver from Germany, paintings over the alter, and painted /stained glass windows which were given by early parishioners.
Emmanuel Shearith Israel Chapel has been designated as a historical landmark by the City and County of Denver and, like St. Elizabeths, is recognized as being a National landmark through its inclusion in the National Register. This little building is located on the west 102.7' of Lot 12, Block 31, West Denver, with all improvements situated and located thereon, also known as 1201 10th Street, Denver, Colorado.
Significant data regarding Emmanuel Chapel include the following:
Original Owner Original Use Present Owner Present Use Street Number Wall Construction Number of Stories Date or Period
Bishop John F. Spalding Episcopal Church Wolfgang Pogzeba
Artists Studio (as late as May, 1967) 1201 10th Street Cut Stone
One with interior balcony 1876
Exterior Condition Interior Condition
Romanesque/Gothic (Transitional)
This small stone building is Denvers earliest church that still remains standing. The land upon which it rests was purchased by John F. Spalding, Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Colorado, in the year 1874. Its location is significant in that the church was constructed on the site of the very first Sunday School in the Rocky Mountain Region, a "Union Sunday School which

was organized by Col. Lewis N. Tappan in 1859 and embraced all denominations. Construction on Emmanuel Chapel began in 1876 and the church was consecrated on September 14, 1877 as "Emmanuel Episcopal Chapel. For years it retained the distinction of being the only Church in a ward containing a population of more than 2,000. In the '80s it was connected with the All Saints Mission of North Denver. Commerce made its way into the area in the 1890s and the Episcopalian population was replaced by others of different religious backgrounds thus, Emmanuel Chapel began a period in which its use changed from time to time.
In 1903, the congregation of Shearith Israel bought the building and converted it into a Synagogue. They formed a Talmud Torah in 1906, teaching Hebrew to large groups of Jewish boys in West Denver. Services were held at Shearith Israel Synagogue until 1958 when the diminishing membership forced its closing.
The exterior heavy stone wall construction and narrow window openings give the church an appearance of a mixed Romanesque and Gothic style. The bright interior (painted white by the present owner) has unadorned plaster walls, rounded plaster ceiling, and wood trim. Originally there were rose windows at both ends of the building. In 1963, the church was converted into an artists studio.
St. Cajetans Church became a Denver landmark in 1970, due more to its social significance than to architectural merit.
Significant data regarding St. Cajetans Church include the following:
Original Owner Original Use Present Owner Present Use Street Number Wall Construction Number of Stories Date or Period
Catholic Church Church
Catholic Church Church
9th and Lawrence Streets
Brick and stucco
Exterior Condition Interior Condition
F. J. Kirchoft Construction Co.
St. Cajaetans Church was erected in 1926 on land donated to the Catholic Church by John K. Mullen, a prominent Denver pioneer, who made a fortune in the milling and grain business Mullen was the founder of the Hungarian Mills and the leader in organizing the Colorado Milling and Elevator Company.
The site of St. Cajetan's was originally the old Mullen homestead
and the area was then considered Denver's finest residential district. The Mullens lived at this location until 1889 or 1890 when they moved to 896 Pennsylvania Avenue. In 1923, Mullen gave the land to the Catholic Church and a parish comprised predominately of Spanish-American people was organized in 1925. The church was first conceived as a basement structure because of the lack of building funds. Mr. Mullen later donated an additional $50,000 to the $20,000 raised by the parish and the structure was completed. His wife, Catherine, died before the church was completed, and it was given as a memorial to her at the time of dedication.
In 1970, Tivoli Brewery was proposed as a landmark in the City and County of Denver. The City Council declined to follow the recommendation of the Landmark Commission thus, the building has not Oeen formally named as a historical landmark. Still, there are many who consider the Tivoli Brewery to have substantial architectural and historical significance. Certainly, it is a delightful building in many ways.
Significant information regarding Tivoli Brewery includes the following:
John Good Business
Carl and Joseph Occhiato Business
1342 Tenth Street Brick
Two main stories 1859
Old Country Bavarian F. C. Eberly Unknown Poor Fair
Tivoli Brewery was founded in 1859 by John Good, a Bavarian Master Brewer, who brought the first loads of hops to Denver by ox cart in August 1859. He died in 1918 and the Brewery passed into the hands of his son, John Good, Jr. In 1965, the Brewery was purchased by the Occhiato Brothers from the Estate of Mrs. Lo-raine Good Kent Vichey, the widow of John Good, Jr. The old building is said to have the oldest water well in the City of Denver and it is considered as being one of the few remaining structures in the nation patterned after the old country breweries.
Buildings which have been designated as historical landmarks represent land use commitments on the Auraria Site. Because of this, it is considered necessary to define the obligations and restrictions
Original Owner Original Use Present Owner Present Use Street Number Wall Construction Number of Stories Date or Period Style Architect Builder
Exterior Condition Interior Condition

if the new application differs substantially from the original application, the new application shall be handled as if the initial application had not been made.
In any case where the Building Department, the Department of Health and Hospitals or the Fire Department or any other duly authorized officer or agency of the City and County of Denver shall order or direct the construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair or demolition of any improvement to a structure for preservation or in a district for preservation, for the purpose of remedying conditions determined by that department, agency or officer, to be eminently dangerous to life, health or property, nothing contained
herein shall be construed as making it a violation of Ordinance No. 63 for any person to comply with such order or directive without receipt of a statement from the Commission. Any such department, agency or officer shall give the Commission as early notice as practicable of the proposed or actual issuance of any such order or directive.
When a historical landmark is given National recognition and placed on the National Register, further restrictions are placed upon it. These are outlined in Section 106 of THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966 which reads as follows: The head
of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or Federally assisted undertaking in any state and the head of any Federal department or independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case may be, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in the National Register. The head of any such Federal agency shall afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation established under Title II of this act a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertaking."
In the specific instance of the Auraria Urban Renewal Project site, this requires the Secretary of HUD to take into account the effect of any Federally assisted undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included on the National Register, before approving the expenditure of Federal funds on such undertaking. Section 106 also provides that the Secretary of HUD shall afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to activities which involve listings included on the National Register.
The data contained in this text, as well as that indicated on the drawing cross page, are based upon information provided by the Denyer Landmark Preservation Commission.

The Auraria site is within the boundaries of the City and County of Denver and under most circumstances would be subject to the zoning regulations of this municipality. The State of Colorado, however, is not bound by municipal regulations, thus any use made of this site by the State of Colorado would not necessarily be required to comply with the zoning regulations. The following zoning analysis is based upon the assumption that the Auraria site will be developed in compliance with the zoning regulations of the City and County of Denver.
The Auraria Urban Renewal Project site is presently zoned 1-1 District and 1-2 District. These two zone districts are similar and include such allowable uses as some manufacturing, processing, and/or fabrication plants; certain wholesale and retail sales; warehousing and storage facilities; offices; banks; parking structures; restaurants; junk yards; etc.
The Colorado University/Denver Center site is presently zoned B-5 District. This zone district includes such allowable uses as wholesale and retail sales, warehousing, offices, banks, bowling alleys, billiard parlors, churches, dental and medical clinics, dance studios, hotels, institutions, laboratories, mortuaries, motels, post offices, private clubs, schools, theaters, veterinarians, hospitals, multiple unit dwellings, etc.
The principal use proposed for the Auraria site is for a higher education complex composed of one or more institutions of higher education and the necessary accessory and supporting facilities. This principal use best fits within the parameters of the R-5 District of the zoning ordinance of the City and County of Denver. One of the requirements of the R-5 District is a special zone lot plan for planned building groups. The planned building group will allow a maximum flexibility in the planning of the higher education complex. It is possible that a megastructure may be required and, if so, the planned building group will allow it.
The following information has been extracted from the zoning ordinance of the revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver: Article 612 District Regulations, Section 29, R-5 District. The following is outline in form and has been condensed. It should be used for general guidance purposes only.
All uses established or placed into operation after the effective date of this ordinance shall comply forthwith with the following limitations on external effects.

Enclosure of Uses Every use, unless expressly exempted by this ordinance, shall be operated in its entirety within a completely enclosed structure.
Sound, Vibration, Heat, Glare, Radiation, and Fumes Every use shall be so operated that the sound generated; the vibration generated; and the heat, glare, radiation and fumes emitted do not exceed the limits specified in this ordinance.
Outdoor Storage and Waste Disposal No highly flammable or explosive liquids, solids, or gases shall be stored in bulk above ground. All outdoor storage facilities for fuel, raw materials, and products shall be enclosed by a fence or wall adequate to conceal such facilities from adjacent property.
No land shall be used or occupied and no structures shall be designed, erected, altered, used, or occupied except for either one or more of the following uses by right provided, however, that a use by right may be accompanied by lawful accessory uses.
Uses By Right The following uses may be operated as uses by right:
a/ Art Museum, Public b/ Church
c/ Community Center d/ Community Recreation Facility e/ Fire Station
M Governmental Offices, excluding Maintenance Shops g/ Institutions h/ Library, Public
i/ Public Park and/or Playground: need not be enclosed j/ Parking of vehicles for Art Museum, Church, Governmental Offices, Institutions, Libraries, Schools and Universities, or Colleges
k/ Police Station
1/ Residence for Clergy, including Monastery, Convent or Seminary m/ School: 1) Elementary and/or Secondary School meeting all requirements of the compulsory education laws of the State of Colorado and not providing residential accommodations; exempted from limitations on external effects of uses relating to volume of sound generated; 2) any School not permitting the use of machinery, other than office machines and mechanical or machinery parts of household appliances used for instruction of or practice by the student. Repair as a service or the sale of repaired appliances prohibited. Classes or other school activities not permitted after 11:00 PM. n/ University or College, including residential accommodations for students and faculty.
o/ Railway right-of-way: Any railway right-of-way existing on the
date this ordinance became effective, but not including railway yards, maintenance, or fueling facilities; need not be enclosed.
p/ Landing or take-off area for police rotorcraft, not including maintenance, repair, fueling or hangar facilities; need not be enclosed.
a/ All Uses by Right Incidental only to a use by right; any use which complies with all of the following conditions may be operated as an accessory use and need not be enclosed:
a-l/ Is clearly incidental and customary to and commonly associated with the operation of the use by right;
a-2/ls operated and maintained under the same ownership or by lessees or concessionaires thereof, and on the same zone lot as the use by right;
a-3/ Does not include structures or structural features inconsistent with the use by right;
a-4/ Does not include residential occupancy except by domestic employees employed on the premises and the immediate families of such employees;
a-5/ If operated partially or entirely in detached structures, the gross floor area of such detached structures shall not exceed ten percent of the area of the zone lot; provided, however, that this limitation shall not apply to detached garages or detached carports used exclusively by occupants of structures containing the use by right or by persons employed in such structures;
a-6/ If operated partially or entirely within the structure containing the use by right, the gross floor area within such structure utilized by accessory uses (except garages and dining rooms for the exclusive use of occupants or persons employed in the structure) shall not be greater than 300 square feet or ten percent of the gross floor area of a structure containing any use by right.
Zone Lot for Structures A separate ground area, herein called the zone lot, shall be designated, provided and continuously maintained for each structure containing a use by right. Each zone lot shall have at least one front line and shall be occupied only by that structure containing a use by right and a subordinate structure or structures containing only accessory uses. The zone lot for each structure shall be not less than 100 feet wide at the front setback line for structures and shall contain not less than 12,500 square feet. Upon application to and approval by the Department of

Zoning Administration, the boundaries and area of a designated zone lot may be amended if full compliance with all requirements of this ordinance can be maintained.
Location of Structures Except as otherwise hereinafter provided, the space resulting from the following setbacks shall be open and unobstructed.
a/ Front Setback All structures shall be set in a distance of not less than 20 feet from each front line of the zone lot; provided, however, that on the two shorter dimensions of any block oblong in shape, the front setback may be reduced to ten feet for structures which face on either longer dimension; and provided, further, that detached accessory structures, except those detached accessory structures used as garages or for recreational or outdoor cooking and eating purposes or gas fired incinerators, shall be set in a sufficient distance from each front line of the zone lot so that such structures are located only on the rear one-fourth of interior zone lots and on corner zone lots are located only on the rear part of the zone lot which is adjacent to and corresponding with the rear one-fourth of abutting interior zone lots and no closer to the side street right-of-way than thirty feet or one-half the dimension of the corner zone lot, measured perpendicularly from the side street right-of-way, whichever distance is greater;
b/ Rear Setback If no alley abuts the rear line of the zone lot, all detached accessory structures and fixtures shall be set in a distance of not less than five feet and all other structures shall be set in a distance of not less than 20 feet from each rear line of the zone lot. If an alley abuts the rear line of the zone lot, detached garages and carports opening directly on the alley shall be set in a distance of not less than five feet from the alley line; detached accessory structures (including garages and carports which do not open directly on the alley) and fixtures for the disposal of trash and garbage may be located on the alley line and all other structures shall be set in a distance of not less than 20 feet from the centerline of the abutting alley;
c/ Side Setback All structures shall be set in a distance of not less than seven feet and six inches from each side line of the zone lot;
d/ Permitted Encroachments on Setback Space Belt courses, sills, lintels, and pilasters may project 18 inches into front, rear and side setback spaces. Cornices, eaves, and gutters may project three feet into front setback space, five feet into rear setback space and 36 inches into side setback space; provided, however, that, if the side setback space is less than five
feet in width, then such projection shall not exceed one-half the width of the side setback space.
Outside stairways may project five feet into front setback space, ten feet into rear setback space and three feet into side setback space;
Unwalled porches, terraces and balconies may extend five feet into front and rear setback spaces;
Canopies may project any distance into the front setback space.
Any structure or part thereof which is below the grade of any setback space may project any distance into such setback space.
e/ Fences, Walls and Retaining Walls Fences, walls and retaining walls not exceeding 48 inches in height may be erected on any part of the zone between the front line of the zone lot and the front setback line for structures and on any other part of the zone lot may be erected to a height not to exceed 72 inches; provided, however, 1) Retaining walls abutting public rights-of-way may be built to any height; 2) Schools, public parks and/ or playgrounds may erect open-mesh fences to any height on any part of the zone lot and 3) on a corner zone lot, fences and walls not exceeding 72 inches in height may be built on the rear line of the zone lot and on the front line of the zone lot from the rear line forward to the rear of any structure containing the use by right.
Bulk of Structures No part of any structure (except church spires, church towers, flagpoles, antennas, chimneys, flues, vents or accessory water tanks) shall project up through bulk limits which are defined by planes extending up over the zone lot at an angle of 45 degrees with respect to the horizontal (a pitch of one foot additional rise for each foot additional setback) and which planes start 1) at horizontal lines which are co-directional to the side line or lines of the zone lot and pass through points ten feet above the mid-point of each such side line or lines, and 2) at horizontal lines which are co-directional to the center lines of all streets abutting the zone lot and pass through points ten feet above the mid-point of such centerlines between the boundary lines of the zone lot extended, and 3) at, if no alley abuts the zone lot, a horizontal line which is co-directional to the rear line of the zone lot and passes through a point ten feet above the mid-point of such rear line of the zone lot; and if the rear line or lines of the zone lot are established by an abutting alley or alleys such planes shall start at horizontal lines which are co-directional to the centerlines of such abutting alley or alleys and pass through points ten feet above the mid-point of such centerlines between the boundary lines of the zone lot extended.

Maximum Zone Lot Coverage The sum total of the ground area covered by all structures, on a zone lot, shall not exceed 60 percent of the area of the zone lot on which the structures are located.
Outside Area of Window Exposure Each legally required window shall have not less than the following amount of outside exposure determined in the following manner: From a reference point located at the bottom center of the window, extend outward, at a right angle to the window plane, a horizontal sector of 140 degrees, centered on the window with a radius of ten feet. Within this sector the minimum required outside area of exposure for the window shall be any open sector or combination of sectors totaling 70 degrees. Applied in the direction of adjoining zone lots, the area which may be credited as outside area of window exposure, extends to required setback lines, regardless of the actual location of structures.
The provisions of Article 613, permitted signs, shall be in full force and effect in this district.
The provisions of Article 614, off-street parking requirements shall be in full force and effect in this district. University and colleges are uses by right which are placed in parking class two. Parking class two requirements state that there shall be one off-street parking space provided for each 600 square feet of gross floor area contained in any structure or structures containing any use by right; provided, however, that for each habitable unit in a motel there need be provided not more than one off-street parking space.
The provisions of Article 615, off-street loading requirements shall be in full force and effect in this district.
The provisions of Article 616, special zone lot plan for planned building groups shall be in full force and effect in this district. Under the standard provisions of this ordinance a separate ground area, referred to in the ordinance as the zone lot, must be designated, provided and continuously maintained for each structure containing a use or uses by right. Pursuant to the procedure hereinafter set forth, two or more of such structures may be erected and maintained on the same zone lot. Also, several zone lots may be combined into one special plan covering a planned building group. The procedure is intended to permit diversification in the location of structures and to improve circulation facilities and other site qualities while insuring adequate standards relating to public health, safety, welfare, and convenience in the use and occupancy of buildings and facilities in planned building groups.
As to Scope The procedure hereinafter set forth shall not be construed to waive nor shall there be waived thereby any regulation for any district except the regulation that a separate ground area, herein called the zone lot, shall be designated, provided and continuously maintained for each structure containing a use or uses by right.
As to Districts The procedure set forth shall apply only in the R-l, R-2, R-2-A, R-3, R-3-X, R-4, R-5, B 1, B-A-l, B-2, B-A-2, B 3, B-A-3, B-4, B-A-4, B-6, B-8, l-P, and 0-1 Districts, provided, however, that in the 0-1 District the procedure shall apply only to buildings open to the public.
Applications for Approval. How Made and Contents All applications for approval of a special plan hereunder shall be filed with the Department of Zoning Administration by the owner or owners of the entire land area to be included within the special plan, the owner or owners of all structures then existing on said land area and all incumbrances of said land area and structures: shall contain sufficient evidence to establish that the applicants are the owners and all the incumbrances of the designated land and structures; shall contain such information and representations required by this ordinance or deemed necessary by the department and shall include plats and plans showing at least the following details drawn to scale;
a/ The land area which would be included within the special plan, the present zoning classification of the designated area, the land area of all abutting districts and the present zoning classification thereof, all public and private rights-of-way and easements bounding and intersecting the designated area and the abutting districts which are proposed to be continued, created, relocated and/or abandoned;
b/ The proposed finished grade of the designated area, shown in contour intervals not to exceed two feet;
c/ A description of the proposed zone lot or zone lots and the boundaries thereof;
d/ The location of each existing and each proposed structure in the designated area, the use or uses to be contained therein, the number of stories, gross floor area and approximate location of entrances and loading points thereof;
e/ The location of all outside facilities for waste disposal;
f/ All curb cuts, driving lanes, parking areas, loading areas, public transportation points and illumination facilities for the same;

g/ All pedestrian walks, malls and open areas for use by tenants or members of the public;
h/ The location and height of all walls, fences and screen planting;
i/ T^ie location, size, height, and orientation of all signs other than signs flat on building facades;
j/ The types of surfacing, such as paving, turfing or gravel, to be used at the various locations;
k/ The location of fire hydrants.
Review of Applications for Approval. Standards All applications hereunder shall be reviewed for completeness by the Department of Zoning Administration and, if found to be complete, shall be transmitted to the planning office and to any other agency, either public or private, which might be affected by approvals of such applications. All applications hereunder shall be reviewed by the planning office and approved or disapproved. Any approval hereunder may establish necessary conditions and limitations.
Standard Provisions of Ordinance No application hereunder shall be approved unless the application and the accompanying plats and plans comply with all regulations established for the district or districts in which are located the land area and structures designated in such application, except the regulation that a separate ground area, herein called the zone lot, shall be designated, provided and continuously maintained for each structure containing a use or uses by right.
Site Facilities All special plans hereunder shall make due provision for:
a/ Adequate design of grades, paving gutters, drainage and treatment of turf to handle storm waters, prevent erosion and formation of dust;
b/ Adequate, safe and convenient arrangement of pedestrian circulation facilities, roadways, driveways, off-street parking and loading space, facilities for waste disposal and illumination;
c/ Adequate amount and proper location of pedestrian walks, malls, and landscaped spaces to prevent pedestrian use of vehicular ways and parking spaces and to separate pedestrian walks, malls and public transportation loading places from general vehicular circulation facilities;
d/ Arrangement of buildings and vehicular circulation open spaces so that pedestrians moving between buildings are not unnecessarily exposed to vehicular traffic;
e/ Proper arrangement of signs and lighting devices with respect
to traffic control devices and adjacent residential districts;
f/ In business building groups near or abutting residential districts, fences, walls or year-round screen planting when necessary to shield adjacent residential districts from parking lot illumination, headlights, fumes, heat, blowing papers and dust and to reduce the visual encroachment of commercial architecture, signs and activity on residential privacy and residential neighborhood character.
Minimum spacing between buildings, orientation of main window exposures and entrances in R-3, R-4, and R-5 Districts. The following required spacing between buildings shall be measured perpendicularly from any exterior building wall; it does not apply in corner-to-corner placement of buildings where perpendicular wall exposures do not overlap:
a/ In buildings containing multiple dwelling units, walls containing main window exposures or main entrances shall be oriented as to insure adequate light and air exposure; shall be so arranged as to avoid undue exposure to nearby through traffic ways or undue exposure and menace to concentrated loading or parking facilities; shall be so oriented as to preserve visual and audible privacy as between adjacent buildings;
b/ A building wall shall be located no closer to another building than a distance equal to one-half the height of the taller building of the two, but in no case less than 25 feet;
c/ Any open court area which otherwise complies with standard of minimum spacing and open area of window exposure must, in any case, leave at least 25 percent of its perimeter free and unobstructed for access by emergency vehicles;
d/ A building group may not be so arranged that any temporarily or permanently inhabited building is inaccessible by emergency vehicles.
Approved Special Plans Registered and Recorded After completing its review of an application hereunder, the planning office shall return such application and all pertinent data, together with a notice of recommendation, to the Department of Zoning Administration. The department shall give due notice of disapproval to the applicants. Upon receipt of an approved application from the planning office, the department shall register a copy of the approved special plan among its records and shall record a copy thereof, or such other record thereof as deemed proper by the department, in the office of the clerk and recorder.
Effect of Registered and Recorded Special Plans All special

plans registered and recorded hereunder shall be binding upon the applicants therefore, their successors and assigns, shall limit and control the issuance and validity of all zoning permits and zoning certificates and shall restrict and limit the construction, location, use and operation of all land and structures included within such plans to all conditions and limitations set forth in such plans; provided, however, that upon application to and approval by the Department of Zoning Administration, based only upon a showing of engineering necessity therefore, minor changes in the location of structures may be permitted if such minor changes will not cause any of the following circumstances to occur:
a/ A change in the character of the development;
b/ An increase in the ratio of the gross floor area in structures to the area of any zone lot;
c/ An increase in the intensity of use;
d/ A reduction in the originally approved separations between buildings;
e/ An increase of the problems of circulation, safety and utilities;
f/ An increase of the external effects on adjacent property;
g/ A reduction in the originally approved setbacks from property lines;
h/ An increase in ground coverage by structures;
i/ A reduction in the ratio of off-street parking and loading space to gross floor area in structures;
j/ A change in the subject, size, lighting, flashing, animation or orientation of originally approved signs.

A site master plan must be a flexible framework for growth. In a sense, change is the name of the game. As our society changes, it is inevitable that the nature of the city will change, educational content and techniques will change, modes of transportation will change, people involvement in the planning processes will change, and all aspects of the world in which we live will be dynamic. Still, when we construct a building we make a long-term commitment related to the use of the land upon which the building has been placed. This commitment can be converted from brick, steel, and glass into dollars very readily when one considers the consequences of removing the building from the land which it occupies in order to convert the land to other uses. Land development for green spaces and parking facilities represent a much shorter range commitment for land use. Because change will inevitably exist and because commitments still must be made great care is essential in effective land-use planning.
The Site Master Plan, represented by diagrams in this section of the report, has a basic flexibility which will permit major land-use patterns established for the Auraria Higher Education Center to react effectively and economically to change. Several examples of this kind of flexibility may be pointed out. First, although approximate dates may be established for the completion of major changes to the street network surrounding and passing through the Auraria Higher Education Center, there is no way to know precisely when or even whether these changes will actually be accomplished. Thus, it is necessary for the Long-Range Plan to be developed in a manner which will permit the facilities of the Higher Education Center to respond to varying configurations of the street network. Then too, who can say that enrollment will reach the max-imums anticipated or who will say that it will not surpass anticipated maximums? Again, flexibility must come to the rescue and provide the ability for less or more building space to be constructed than presently anticipated. Will the University of Colorados Denver Center grow to a point which exceeds its ability to acquire land east of Speer Boulevard/Cherry Creek or will it be necessary for CUDC to "leap frog" the Cherry Creek/Speer Boulevard divider in order to build facilities on the Auraria site itself? Who can say with certainty that effective mass transit will be available within any
given time frame? Obviously, this occurrence bears heavily upon the type and extent of automobile parking facilities to be constructed on the site. Uncertainties such as these require that a flexible master plan be created at the outset and call for a program of continuing re-evaluation and adjustment of land-use patterns to assure the Long-Range Site Master Plan will exist in a dynamic state.
The diagrams in this section make abundant provisions for change. In order to illustrate the capability of the Long-Range Site Master Plan to react to changing conditions, many aspects of the plan are presented in two configuration forms on the campus site drawings. The drawings are based upon the configuration of the campus in the base year of 1976 for the most part. At this point in time, the population and programs of the Higher Education Center will call for full utilization of the Auraria Urban Renewal Project land. Land-Use Plan Configuration/1 assumes limited street improvements and calls for the use of some interim facilities to continue into the base planning year of 1976. Land-Use Configuration/2 assumes that major street improvements will be accomplished by the base planning year and that all space on site occupied by the institutions at that time will be permanent newly constructed space. Obviously, the plan is capable of reacting to "middle ground circumstances somewhere between Configuration/1 and Configuration/2. These middle positions are not indicated in the drawings but, with continued surveillance over the Long-Range Site Master Plan as time passes, they may easily be incorporated into the pattern of development for the campus.
Each of the Site Master Plan drawings in this section deals with a specific planning response to the FORM GENERATORS. Although the drawings are presented separately for the purpose of clarity, the planning process involved the consideration of each Master Plan element as a part of the functioning whole. The contents of one drawing and its related text interrelate with each of the other planning elements as reflected by the drawings and text describing them individually. The order of presentation of these drawings has no particular significance other than an attempt at clarity of presentation.

Five land-use zones on the campus will contain the buildings required for the Auraria Higher Education Center. They relate to CUDC, Metro, CCD, Shared-Central, and Shared-Peripheral. The Site Master Plan identifies the boundaries of these zones and deals with relationships between them. Each institution will be responsible for the long-range master planning of its own facilities within the boundaries of its individual zone. As an example, Metro, along with its project architects, is well under way with Schematic Planning of its buildings. During this process, a continuing dialogue has been establshed between Metros project architects and LKA in order to permit Metro to relate its facilities into the context of the total Higher Education Center facility. This may be accomplished only through a procedure of continuing communication between planners.
Land coverage ratios and building densities require careful consideration when any building complex is constructed. On an urban site where land is somewhat limited, this is particularly true.
Because the very real possibility of enrollment and/or program growth exists at each of the institutions in the Auraria Higher Education Center, planning for all land-use zones on the campus has been undertaken on the basis that the Higher Education Center will ultimately grow to the maximum size projected in previous portions of this report. The planning alternatives future expansion of the campus land holdings immediately adjacent to the present site to permit facilities to grow horizontally or imposition of a strict maximum level on enrollment and educational program would appear to be either totally unacceptable or to limit the potential for flexibility in planning to the point that they are not realistic candidates for further consideration. Beyond that, the size of the Auraria Urban Renewal project site is adequate to permit this kind of forward-looking planning to take place without causing it to inflict hardship upon the design and constructon of facilites.
Considering the building zones at maximum predicted development, the following land-use density data will be useful in visualizing the characteristics of the structures which may be built within the five building zones.

CUDC plans to put some 975,000 gross square feet of building space on a land area of approximately 4.5 acres. Based upon a land coverage of 80% which is similar to the land coverage anticipated for the Skyline Urban Renewal Program in the area of the Denver Center the average height of buildings to be constructed by the Denver Center will be 6.22 stories. Obviously, as project architects consider building massing, some portions of the CUDC facilities will exceed the average height. Other portions will be much lower. This land-use density would seem to be perfectly appropriate for the location which CUDC occupies. Preliminary building design concepts studied by the University are compatible with the projected land-use density.
Mertopolitan State College will ultimately construct some 1,877,000 gross square feet of buildings on its 19.5 acre land zone. If a 50% coverage factor (building footprint) is used, the average building height for Metro would be 4.42 stories. This does not represent an exceedingly high density use of the land zone set aside for Metro and, as a result, should permit substantial flexibility to the designers of buildings for Metropolitan State College.
The Community College of Denver projects approximately 480,000 gross square feet of building area will be required if it is to reach maximum enrollment and program levels projected earlier in this report. If it covers 50% of its 7 acre land area, the average height of these buildings will reach 3.15 stories. This is considered particularly appropriate for the Community College since much of its building space will be related to occupational education and will contain much heavy machinery imposing severe loadings on floor systems, thus, suggesting the economies of low-rise buildings. The low-rise building concept is further enhanced when one considers the delivery and material handling frequency required by occupational education facilities. Generally, one would expect the academic buildings at CCD to exceed 3.15 in height or perhaps to be
placed above space used for occupational education. The land area provided for the Community College of Denver seems adequate and appropriate to serve its function in the urban context of its site.
The Central Shared Facilities will place approximately 1,131,500 gross square feet of building area plus 800 automobile parking spaces in a parking structure on 9 acres of land using a land coverage factor of 80%. This will require an average building height of 3.6 stories above a building base not to exceed 1 story in height which will contain the automobile parking spaces. The Central Shared Facilities are visualized at this point to have a megastructure building design concept. This is considered to be especially appropriate for a facility of this type and will offer exciting design possibilities.
SHARED PERIPHERAL/BUILDING ZONE This 4 acre land area will ultimately accommodate 196,000 gross square feet of building area at a 60% land coverage factor. The resultant average building height is 1.9 stories. Low-rise buildings are considered to be appropriate from the economical standpoint for the space-use classifications projected for this facility. Further, the 40% of open space which will exist in this land area will be required for Physical Plant and vehicle yards.
Land-Use Configuration No. 1 indicates the location and size of the interim land-use zone occupied primarily by CCD but in part by CUDC. Metro and the Shared Facilities both Central and Peripheral are indicated as being within their permanent building zone. On Land-Use Configuration No. 2 all components occupy facilities within their permanent building zone. It is interesting to note that the relationships between the land-use zones are basically similar either way. Thus, the integrity of the Master Plan is not violated through the use of interim facilities. Further, it should be pointed out that construction of permanent facilities within the permanent building zone for CCD can take place without interfering with facilities within the interim building zone. The transition from interim to permanent facilities should not be a difficult one.

Land Uce Configuration /1

Land Use Configuration/2

The three major land consumers at Auraria are the Building Zones, the HPER/Environmental Zones, and the Parking Zones. Each of these play a large part in the functional characteristics of the Higher Education Center. This portion of the Site Master Planning section directs itself toward the HPER/Environmental Zones.
Health, Physical Education, and Recreation (HPER) programs in an urban institution differ somewhat from programs offered on the traditional suburban campus. Part of this is due to the fact that the urban campus has a somewhat different kind of student whose needs in this program are not entirely similar to the needs of the student attending a less urban institution. It is generally believed that a higher proportion of the Health, Physical Education, and Recreation program offered at Auraria will be in interior space rather than exterior space. This conclusion is reached based upon knowledge of student needs as well as knowledge of site limitations. HPER Land Zones indicated on the campus plan in this section cover a total of 27.5 acres. For the most part, these zones will be grass playing fields with appropriate markings and equipment. Within these predominately grass areas will also be paved game courts, paved pedestrian sidewalks, and areas of trees and shrubs for environmental purposes.
Within the general category of environmental spaces on the Auraria Higher Education campus are the street greenways, the historical landmarks, and on-campus green spaces landscaped for visual purposes.Street greenways at Speer Boulevard/Cherry Creek and Market/Blake Parkway areas were discussed in Section 3 of this report. A minor greenway consisting of grass-surfaced earth berms and trees exists along 8th Street as it passes through the campus. The landscaped berms (or mounded areas) are visualized to be located between major streets and parking areas to partially conceal the "sea of automobiles" from view. Sensitive treatment of landscaped berms can do much to enhance the visual -quality of the Center at a minimum outlay of funds.
Environmental green spaces also exist at the sites of the historical landmarks. The St. Elizabeths Church site opens beautifully from the Speer Boulevard/Cherry Creek greenway creating magnificent vistas from the Central Business District as well as from Speer Boulevard. The buildings of Metropolitan State College provide a sense of enclosure to the St. Elizabeth's Church site and form an effective background for the church structure itself. In order to free other portions of the site and to enhance the meaningfulness of the area around St. Elizabeths Church, the Emmanuel Chapel

building has been relocated from its present site to this new environmental space. The Site Master Planning Consultants recommend that this area be treated in the nature of a European city square combining paved areas for people circulation and landscaped areas for environmental softness and warmth. Automobile parking, which is essential to the function of St. Elizabeths Church, may again be concealed by the use of earth sculpture in the form of softly flowing landscaped mounds.
The area of the site which contains St. Catejans Church and Rectory is also to be treated as a landscaped environmental area much in the same manner as that occupied by St. Elizabeths Church. In this case, however, St. Catejans Church occupies an open green area much in the form of the mission churches of California or the old New England church. Again, careful handling of landscaping, blended with some limited automobile parking immediately adjacent to the church itself, should serve to enhance the visual characteristics of this religious structure.
Certain areas of the Auraria Higher Education Center site will exist as purely environmental spaces. The building zones are set back slightly from Speer Boulevard to permit the installation of landscaped green spaces in order to give the buildings an appropriate visual setting. Within the building zones themselves, it is expected that environmental areas will be planned, many of which will be
extensions of the green areas at the edges of the building zones. Thus, the campus is tied together in a meaningful way visually making it an appealing place indeed.
The considerable expanse of paving in parking areas should be broken by occasional landscaped spaces. Computations of the number of automobiles per acre contained in another portion of this section allow for the planning of green spaces within each of the parking areas.
It is interesting to note that the magnitude of green space which must be provided in an urban campus such as the Auraria Higher Education Center is substantially less than that provided at the suburban campuses. This is one of several instances where the urban campus offers real construction and operating economies because of its closely knit facilities. Another instance of where this geo-, graphic proximity offers substantial economy is in the matter of energy distributon which will be discussed later in this report, j
Much of the visual quality of the Auraria Higher Education Centei; will depend upon the sensitive planning of its HPER/Environmentat areas. Since few significant differences in green spaces exist between Land-Use Configuration/1 and Land-Use Configuration/^] a campus plan drawing for Configuration/2 should be adequate to illustrate the nature of these spaces as conceived in the Long! Range Site Master Plan.

Land use zones for automobile parking are indicated in both Configuration/! and Configuration/2. Except for the parking of 800 automobiles in structured facilities within the land zone of the Shared/Central Facilities, automobile parking in 1976 is considered to be entirely on surface parking lots. The Consultants believe this to be by far the most economical manner to accommodate the parking load imposed by the Higher Education Center.
On Land-Use Configuration/2, 42.5 acres of surface parking lots are provided in the parking land-use zone. This land area will accommodate 5,280 automobiles and will make provision for the space required by the parking stalls themselves plus vehicular circulation space and strategically located landscaped areas. The parking zones are primarily at the north end west edges of the site. Their location has been predicated upon the functional relationships required by automobile circulation as well as the relationships called for among the building zones and the HPER/environ-mental zones. As a by-product of these functional relationships, the parking zones were located in the short term flood plain of the South Platte River, thus placing primarily low-cost facilities within the potential flood area should it remain on the site for a shortterm after completion of Higher Education Center facilities. As discussed earlier in this report, this procedure tends to give an added element of insurance against the outside possibility that some flooding of the site could happen prior to the completion of flood prevention facilities upstream on the South Platte River.
Automobile parking for 800 vehicles is provided within the building zone for the Shared/Central Facilities. It is likely this parking will be at ground level and will be below the plaza/pedestrian level in the Shared Facilities megastructure. The structured parking provides close-in parking facilities essential to meet the demand of a limited number of drivers using the Higher Education Center who are willing to pay a higher parking fee for the convenience of shortterm, close-in facilities.
Configuration/1 is greatly similar to Configuration/2, the primary difference being in relationship to the interim-use buildings for CUDC and CCD. It is likely that the permanent site of the CCD Building Zone may be used as an interim parking facility until construction of permanent CCD buildings is undertaken. This would provide reasonably close-in parking for CUDC and CCD until the interim-use buildings between Walnut and Wazee are phased out permitting the construction of the surface parking area projected in that area after demolition of the interim-use buildings.

CUDC also projects the possibility of using parking facilities provided in a structure which the Denver Urban Renewal Authority expects to construct on the land area bordered by Speer Boulevard, Arapahoe Street, 14th Street, and Curtis Street. This large multi level automobile parking structure will be immediately adjacent to the southeast boundary of the CUDC site, thus providing close-in parking for those who require it and are willing to pay for it. The number of automobile parking spaces to be provided on campus at the Auraria Higher Education Center was computed by multiplying certain automobile-use factors times the number of students, faculty, staff, and visitors projected to be on the campus at peak load periods and then adding an appropriate allowance for overlapping of demand for spaces caused by incoming and outgoing traffic. As an example of the overlapping, a student arriving for an 11:00 o'clock class may find that students departing from a 10:00 o'clock class have not yet vacated their parking space. Automobile-use factors in this study are derived from standards established by many urban related campuses which already exist. These standards have been modified as a result of automobile-use polls and inquiries made at Metropolitan State College. In order to relate them to specific local patterns, further adjustments have been made related to anticipated class schedules, at the Higher Education Center, which will be designed to impose the smallest reasonable automobile load to the off-campus and on-campus street networks at the times of peak load created by the Central Business District and other non-campus related traffic flows. Since the Auraria Higher Education Center offers a substantial evening program, as well as its daytime program, effective use of parking facilities will be made during evening hours and daytime hours. Table 1 projects the maximum parking requirements based upon the percent of student auto drivers determined by the Metropolitan State College survey conducted in 1969. This indicates the maximum parking spaces required in daylight hours will be 7,022 and during the evening will be 6,450.
Time Students on Campus ^ Student Parking Spaces Required W Maximum Parking Spaces Required1
8:00 to 9:00 AM 5,700 3,150 ....
9:00 to 10:00 AM 10,100 5,600 7,022
10:00 to 11:00 AM 9,100 5,050 ....
11:00 to 12:00 N 9,500 5,270
12:00 to 1:00 PM 7,700 4,270
1:00 to 2:00 PM 7,800 4,330
2:00 to 3:00 PM 8,500 4,710
3:00 to 4:00 PM 5,300 2,940
4:00 to 5:00 PM 2,200 1,220
5:00 to 6:00 PM 6,400 3,550
6:00 to 7:00 PM 10,300 5,700
7:00 to 8:00 PM 9,600 5,340
8:00 to 9:00 PM 5,500 3,050
9:00 to 10:00 PM 4,900 2,720
(1) Data from the Commission on Higher Education January, 1970.
(2) Computed by the following formula: Students on campus times the percent of students driving automobiles (44.2%) times overlap factor (1.25)
(3) Computed by adding spaces required for faculty, staff, and visitor vehicles to student vehicles already computed. Data on faculty, staff, and visitor parking requirements were obtained from Lamar Kelsey & Associates, January, 1970.
The transportation consultants consider it to be likely that substantially heavier use will be made of the mass transit systems as time goes by. Table 2, therefore, indicates daytime parking demand based upon improved transit-use rates and "strong transit-use rates. The 6,080 parking spaces actually provided by the Site Master Plan assumes that the percentage of student automobile drivers will rest somewhere between 1969 levels and the so-called improved levels" in 1976. Table 2 also shows parking space demand at maximum development of the Higher Education Center Facilities. The likelihood of strong use of the mass-transit system by 1990 is substantial. If this is not achieved, it is always possible to increase the number of automobile parking spaces at the Auraria Higher Education Center through the process of constructing multi level parking structures for a larger percentage of the vehicles than indicated on the Site Master Plan drawings.

Land Use Configuration/1

On-site street networks provide for both primary and secondary vehicular circulation. The term primary on-site vehicular circulation deals with all vehicular movements on the Auraria site except those of service and emergency vehicles. This category would include traffic having a destination or origin on the Auraria Higher Education Center site as well as traffic passing through the site and not related to the Higher Education Center in any way. Secondary on site vehicular circulation is made up of a system of streets on the Higher Education Center site which are necessary in order to provide for service, maintenance, and emergency vehicles only.
Through traffic, not related to the Higher Education Center, will jse the street network at the perimeter of the site and will pass through the site on Larimer Street, Lawrence Street, 8th Street, and, ultimately, on the Market/Blake Parkway which will be partially on land defined as being included in the Auraria Urban Renewal Project. For traffic having a destination at the Higher Education Center, or originating from the Center, the primary functions of the internal street network are to provide vehicular access points into the campus from the arterial access routes and to facilitate movement to and from parking.
For several reasons, it was considered wise to investigate the possibility of using existing streets perhaps considerably remodeled and improved in lieu of entirely new streets to satisfy the needs of primary circulation. In the first place, the cost of using existing streets is likely to be substantially lower than the construction of new streets and, secondly, a number of utilities exist within the pattern of the present street network and if these streets were removed it would be necessary for easements to remain in their place.
After detailed study of the transportation problem, LKAs transportation consultants Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, working in concert with representatives of the City of Denver and consulting with representatives of the Colorado Department of Highways, reached a series of conclusions in connection with the on-campus primary street network. LKA coordinated those conclusions with the Site Master Plan and the resulting street network is exceedingly functional, has a high degree of flexibility, and does indeed make use of existing streets for the most part.

Two campus plan drawings describe the on-site vehicular circulation/ primary. Configuration/2 describes the system as it may ultimately be upon completion of hoped-for improvements. The new Market/ Blake Parkway has been indicated at the north boundary of the site with the westbound lane generally being in the present Wazee Street right-of-way. The eastbound lane has been constructed on Auraria Urban Renewal Project land. A landscaped median would be designed for the Market/Blake Parkway. For traffic approaching the campus in the westbound lane of the Parkway, two left turn storage lanes would be installed to permit entrance into the campus on 8th Street. A diamond intersection would be constructed between the Market/Blake Parkway and Speer Boulevard. Speer Boulevard is indicated in its realigned location permitting a portion of the CUDC site to extend to the bank of Cherry Creek. The westbound viaduct for Colfax Avenue has been indicated as completed, thus, removing westbound Colfax traffic from 8th Street. East-bound traffic on Lawrence Street will enter the site on a right-turn loop leading to 8th Street. 8th Street will have a two-way flow of traffic, a median strip, and left turn storage lanes.
Configuration/1 is much the same as Configuration/2 except Market/Blake exists on the Walnut and Wazee rights-of-way in an interim configuration awaiting construction of the proposed Market/ Blake Parkway. This configuration also indicates westbound Colfax traffic entering the site at 8th Street and continuing westward on Larimer as it is presently. While it is hoped that the Colfax Viaduct can be completed at an early date, thus removing this traffic from the campus, it is obvious that the street network will tolerate delay of the completion of the viaduct project without requiring any significant design change in the Site Master Plan. Of course everyone will benefit from the construction of the westbound Colfax Viaduct. In 1969, the City and County of Denver requested funding of this viaduct from the State Highway Commission. This request was a renewal of requests of several years standing since the present routing has always been considered to be an interim improvement. This requested improvement cannot be charged to the Higher Education Center. It has long been planned to provide better access to the Central Business District.
It should be noted also that the Chief Traffic Engineer for the City
and County of Denver wrote the following in connection with the Market/Blake Parkway on December 5, 1969. "The interesting thing about this concept is that we are proposing a system which we feel can be built with anticipated funds but also the facility is one which will provide direct service to the Auraria site whereas Skyline Freeway did not; thus, perhaps a portion of the cost of this particular project should be earmarked for the Auraria site. Again, I emphasize that with or without the Higher Education Center this proposal is needed to provide adequate traffic service for the increased density upcoming on the Skyline Urban Renewal Project." In that same letter the following was written. "In conclusion, we feel that the proposals currently submitted in the vicinity of the Auraria site are relatively modest and our capacity calculations indicate that they can provide the degree of service which projections for the Higher Education Center indicate must be served. They have the advantage in addition of serving a much broader base than just the Higher Education Center. In fact, as I have indicated in the text above, most of them were proposed prior to the Auraria site concept and will be needed for improved downtown access whether or not the Auraria site is chosen for the Higher Education Center. We do believe that even if the site for the Center were to be located elsewhere, essentially, the same access demands will develop over a period of time at the Auraria site as it redevelops to higher density commercial uses."
At the CUDC site, the total existing primary street network will be left intact. It is considered to be a necessary element in the flow of vehicular traffic in the Central Business District and the Skyline Urban Renewal project.
Secondary on-site vehicular circulation will take place on street networks which exist totally within the building zones. These networks which provide for service, maintenance, and emergency vehicles will be planned by the architects and planners who are retained to provide services for CUDC, Metro, CCD, and the Shared Facilities. Generally, this secondary system within building zones will include controlled access streets supplemented by portions of the sidewalk system upon which programmed service and emergency runs may be made. The secondary system must be planned in a manner which will properly relate it to the primary street network.

Land UseConfiguration/1

Land Use Configuration / 2

Mass transit
Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, Inc., the transportation consultants for this project, have been involved in a number of transportation studies for the Denver Metropolitan Area in recent years. Because of this, they are well acquainted with the nature of the area, its existing street-highway systems, the mass public transportation situation, and the most likely characteristics of the nature of future transportation systems. They recommend that the planning for the Auraria Higher Education Center be based upon the assumption that public transportation systems will ultimately grow into effective and economical facilities which will generate large public usage. They indicate that the proposed air cushion demonstration project is a valuable one for the City and the Higher Education Center and urge that Site Master Planning integrate this demonstration project with the Center. If this is accomplished, three alternatives present themselves in terms of the elevation of the air cushion vehicle system. It could be located at ground level, which would be generally lower than the pedestrian level at the point pedestrian levels and street levels intersect, or it could be at the pedestrian level, or one story above the pedestrian level. Since the street level location would require the closing of necessary primary streets, this alternative has been discarded. Pedestrian level location is likely to act as a barrier to the pedestrian system if major intersections between the plaza level pedestrian system and the mass transit route coincide. Thus, if the proposed mass transit route is to run through the building zone portion of the site, it is suggested that it be one level above the plaza pedestrian level. If the mass transit routes are at the perimeter of the site where pedestrian traffic is to be a ground or street level, the mass transit system route should be elevated one story.
As indicated previously, the mass transit system is considered to be an evolving system, the first stage being the construction of the demonstration air cushion vehicle system extending from the Den-
ver Bears Stadium west of the Auraria site to the heart of the Central Business District east of the Auraria site. The ultimate goal is a regional transit system which will very likely incorporate the dem onstration system into its total fabric. At this point in time, no specific routes have been selected for the demonstration system. The Site Master Plan drawing indicates three alternatives in order to provide maximum flexibility in ultimate planning for the mass transit route as it passes through or by the Auraria site. The first alternative is the Lawrence Street Corridor which will set aside a potential east-west route passing through the heart of the building zones. This commitment is made with the full knowledge that the Lawrence Mass Transit Corridor may never be used and an alternate route may prove more feasible. Alternatives two and three do not pass through the building zones but are either adjacent to them or somewhat more remote. While three potential routes are shown on the Site Master Plan drawings, the actual number of planning alternatives is almost infinite so long as the building zones are not penetrated by the mass transit routes.
In addition to the elevated mass transit routes, a passenger station will be required at the Auraria Higher Education Center site. Obviously, student, faculty, staff, and visitor use of the Higher Education Center will be a prime generator of passenger load for the public transportation system. The Voorhees analysis indicates that one passenger station should be adequate for the purposes of the Higher Education Center and recommends a central location be found for the station to provide for delivery of passengers to a point which is as close as possible to their ultimate destination.
Mass transit considerations are indicated only upon the Config uration/2 drawing. All routes shown thereon are equally applicable to Configu ration/1.

Pedestrian circulation on the Higher Education Center campus may be divided into two major categories circulation outside the building zones and circulation inside the buildng zones. In order to provide a total working system, the two categories of pedestrian movement must be carefully coordinated between site planners and building planners.
Principal on-site pedestrian circulation patterns deal with movement of persons entering the campus as pedestrians and those who enter the campus in automobiles and become pedestrians upon leaving their parked vehicle. A series of major pedestrian entrances to the Auraria Higher Education Center site is proposed. These entrances, which are above street level in the form of elevated bridge/plazas, connect major elements of the land surrounding the campus to the campus itself. Pedestrians from the Central Business District, retail, financial, governmental, and other centers, will reach the campus either through the University of Colorado/Denver Center and across a pedestrian bridge into the Shared Facilities; or through the Convention Center pedestrian bridgeway which connects with Metropolitan State College. As at all major pedestrian bridge/plaza entrances, the pedestrian circulation system feeds quickly into the major building spines after crossing relatively short environmental areas on the campus. Additional pedestrian bridges may well be constructed to provide access to the campus from the West Side Community, along the south boundary of the campus, and the possible future Higher Education Center/Community Related Development of land to the north of the campus. In both cases, these entrances will be bridges crossing above the primary street network at the campus perimeter. It should be noted that overhead bridges are recommended in preference to underpasses for pedestrian circulation. Several important factors bear upon this decision. First, some question regarding the feasibility of underpasses exists due to the presence of a subsurface water table in the Auraria Higher Education Center site. Secondly, underpasses are considered difficult to supervise.
Further, and of considerable importance, the overhead bridge plazas have potential to become exceedingly pleasant visually, expressing in a very strong sense the connection of the Higher Education Center to the City which it serves. Finally, the walk on the bridge/plaza connectors should provide a pleasant human experience if the connectors are properly designed. Their visual quality may be enhanced through the use of landscaping; outdoor furniture such as seating units, sign kiosks, waste receptacles, and graphics; and well designed lighting fixtures which will enhance the appearance of the bridges day and night as well as promote safety.
The pedestrian linkages from parking lots to the building zones art visualized as being paved sidewalks at grade level. Again, the effective use of landscaping, outdoor furniture, and lighting could combine to make the sidewalk system a pleasant place indeed. Conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles along these routes are minimized in comparison with those in the Central Business District due to the substantial reduction of the number of streets on the Higher Education Center site.
Pedestrian circulation patterns within the building zones are visualized as centering upon a major pedestrian spine which connects the building zones themselves as well as major areas within each building zone. This is the key element which ties the buildings of the Higher Education Center together visually and functionally. It is a powerful ordering element which may be either wholly outside buildings, wholly inside buildings if a megastructure concept is used, or some of each. It should provide a high degree of impact offering the pedestrian an exciting trip full of satisfying visual experiences as well as a convenient route from one point to another within the building cluster. It could be compared to the mall of a great shopping center filled with effective graphics, fountains, landscape or planting elements, seating units, banners, and many

other carefully designed functional and visual elements. Important building spaces would be intimately related to the main pedestrian spine. Where the pedestrian spine connects the building zones, it would be in bridge form above street level and would completely avoid conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. These connecting linkages might be enclosed, open, or a combination of both. A major focus of the main pedestrian spine would very likely be the mass transit passenger station. All in all, this major pedestrian circulation'element should be an exciting space indeed.
Related to the major pedestrian spine will be secondary pedestrian ways feeding into buildings or portions of buildings. These elements would take the form of the more traditional corridor systems within educational facilities. The entire pedestrian circulation system in the building zones is seen as being a series of pleasant streets between work tasks.
The campus Master Planning Consultants urge those who undertake physical planning of the site and of the buildings on the site to take every possible opportunity to coordinate their work on individual projects in order to assure that an effective total project is the result of their efforts.

The design of energy generation and distribution facilities was not primarily the function of the Site Master Planning Consultants. Since energy distribution is an important element of the Site Master Plan, LKA has included a brief description and a site drawing in this report in order to assist in its completeness of coverage.
The energy generation plant has been located in the west portion of the Shared/Central Building Zone. This is an effective location which places the generation plant in a position which is central to the building zones to which energy must be distributed. The main energy distribution loop will be located at the perimeter of the Shared/Central Building Zone and secondary distribution systems will extend from the main loop probing into the individual building zones for CUDC, Metro, CCD, and the Shared/Peripheral Building Zone. The Shared/Central Building Zone will be primarily served from the main loop at its perimeter.
This energy generation configuration is considered to be a highly efficient one. It is far more compact than systems carrying similar loads which are located on suburban campuses covering far more acres of land than this urban institution.
Land-Use Configuration/2 is drawn in this study. Configuration/1 would be basically similar and could extend a secondary system into the interim buildings if engineering studies indicated the wisdom of connecting these short term buildings into the central energy generation plant in lieu of continuing full use of the existing facilities which they contain. This is an optional matter and considerable flexibility exists in the Long-Range Site Master Plan.

While it is anticipated that adequate provision is made for expansion of the buildings of the Auraria Higher Education Center within the individual building zones, the Long-Range Site Master Plan provides for growth beyond these zones which could conceivably occur. On many pages of this report, the planning consultants have discussed the urgent need of providing a campus framework, and a group of buildings within that framework, which permit a high degree of flexibility. Here is an illustration of flexibility in action.
Fulfillment of the Land-Use Plan, shown on previous pages in this section of the Long-Range Site Master Planning report, will serve to make strong commitments upon certain land uses. Certainly, where buildings are constructed, a long-term land-use commitment has been entered into. On the other hand, grass fields or surface parking lots do not represent such a major commitment because the dollar expenditure made to improve the land is a much smaller one. In other words, there is a hierarchy of land commitment which ranges from relatively low-cost land improvements such as surface parking facilities and health, physical education, and recreation fields; through intermediate land-use expenditures such as roadways, utility easements, etc.; up to the high levels of commitment which one establishes when a building is constructed on a site.
Recognizing this degree of commitment, it is possible to achieve a substantial amount of land-use flexibility. On that basis, the land-use configuration of the Auraria Higher Education Center site has been designed in a manner which places either health, physical
education, and recreation areas near the buildings; or areas designed as environmental green spaces; or areas for surface automobile parking. This means that building zones may grow into these low-commitment kinds of land-use spaces. When this happens, the HPER fields, which are required for programmed purposes, may be extended into automobile parking zones. Reduction of the size of the parking zones may be achieved through lack of demand if effective public mass transit systems tends to replace automobiles as a mode of transportation or through consolidation of parking facilities through the conversion of land consuming surface parking lots into land-conserving multi level parking structures. Parking structures, which are obviously far more expensive to construct than surface parking lots, may ultimately prove to be economically viable due to the growth in land values on or around the Auraria site.
The direction of expansion for each of the building zones, as recommended by LKA, is indicated on the campus plan drawing. It should be pointed out that, in addition to the possibility of expanding into air rights above the automobile parking structure projected adjacent to its building zone, CUDC might leapfrog Speer Boule-vard/Cherry Creek and expand into the Auraria Urban Renewal Project site itself.
Thus, low-priority, land-use zones on the Auraria Higher Education Center site have been made into a land reservoir providing necessary flexibility which will permit the Auraria Higher Education Center to face up to growth which may be required in the somewhat unknown future.

UCD Programs
Baccalaureate Programs
communication and theatre, English, fine arts, French, German, philosophy, Spanish
(areas of emphasis) accounting, computer-based information systems, finance, international business, marketing, minerals land management, organizational management, personnel management, public agency administration, real estate, small business management, statistics, transportation management
elementary education, secondary education, rehabilitation services
civil engineering, civil engineering and business, electrical engineering, electrical engineering and business, electrical engineering and computer science, electrical engineering and computer science and business, applied mathematics, applied mathematics and business, mechanical engineering, mechanical engineering and business
offered only at Boulder
music and media
biology, chemistry, geography, geology, mathematics, physics, population dynamics, psychology
anthropology, economics, ethnic studies, history, political science, sociology, urban studies
Master's Programs
communication and theatre, communication disorders and speech science, English, humanities
M.B.A. areas of emphasis: accounting, finance, management science, marketing, organizational management, personnel management, production and operations management, transportation management.
M.S.: accounting, finance, management science, marketing, management and organization.
early childhood education, educational psychology, elementary education, foundations of education, guidance and counseling, library media, reading, secondary education
applied mathematics, civil engineering, electrical engineering, electrical engineering and computer science
architecture, architecture in urban design, interior design, landscape architecture, urban and regional planning
basic science, biology, chemistry, environmental science, geography, mathematics, psychology
public administration, urban affaire (also, doctorate in public administration)
anthropology, economics, history, political science, social science, sociology

University of Colorado
Application deadline Match 16
Architecture Division Chalmers Q Long Jr, Director
library Multiple Discipline Voluntas Denver 1.500 (arch) Boulder 0 300 |#tch)
AC5A faculty Councilor Daiynt C Nunim tndoan>n| Slat* Slides 22.000 latch)
Degree Taars far Dagraa Accred. ler Adretaatee Number Can fan ad 1977 76 (st. Nu. Can fan ad 197*79 % Apprta. Aeeep. at afinnlng el Kraft am 197979 % Aeeap. fa Prof. Part ef Pregram 1976 76 ff appftaj . fvrt time linden's 1976-71 Part lime Students 1976-79 Itudanta M let Yr. el Prey ram Eeraifn Itudanta Out-el llate Students ii Ifhnlc Mlnailty Students ti ana tas le 2/7 7-2/76 transfers ham | ya. reader 1976-79 Openings In l-y. Part ef 4 2 Pro* 1979 Eat Ho. leal Yeats 0-ada Put tuWf Prat. Oaf In 1979 79
Bf Ol 4 ha diploma course reg 66 S3 45% 449 12 160 3 160 10 60
M Arch 1 1st prof degree. ech transcripts portfolio letters 3 3 40% 6 4 6 3 4 2 1 0
M Arch 2 NAA0 BEO. BAED. B Arch or equ*v portfolio, letters transcripts 12 19 30% 62 3 30 1 70 10 3 0 30
M Arch 3 NAAB BS. BA. transcripts portfolio tellers IS IS 20% 83 3 36 1 36 74 3 0
M Arch UO f T st prof degree, erch. LA. o planning transcripts portfolio letters 2 3 40% 1 6 3 2 6 1 4 0
MURP 2 BED. BS. BA transcripts fellers 23 24 00% so 60 42 3 1 7 46 ' 6 3
MLA 2 3 BED BS. BA portfolio. transcripts letters 0 8 60% 36 6 18 0 7 20 1 1
MID 2 3 BEO BS. BA portfolio transcripts letters 0 0 60% 11 1 12 0 3 17 1 0
iir-i-o- l^vxi to. 19/9 19 0"rrd m frwMw en*v
Colloge of Environmental Design
Dwayne C Nunim, Doan
Denver. Colorado 80202 303 492-7711
UNDE HOW A Oil ATI PROGRAM. SOU1DIS The goaf of Ihe environmental design ptogum is to ptovtda the highest cal'bar of Skills. knowledge and experiential learning oppotluntltas in designing tot tha human phyveaf anvironmonl and in rotated environmental problem solving ateas Each Student is exposed to tha Scientific problem-solving process and fuff tango of environmental problems at every scale o* human settlement
A diverse and dedicated environmental design faculty with expertise *n urban planning, landscape a'cbitectuie. graphics. Industrial design, inter lot design, environmental psychology, resource management aichitectute and ott*f disciplines implement a curriculum which provides prpprofessional liaining in a broad spectrum pf Job opportunities O* functions as an entire to a wide choice of graduate programs A generous elective arrangement (drawing upon the humanities media. |be social, physical, and biological sciences! encouiagns the student to build a strong cognate or complementary emphasis to addition the basic environmental design problem solving process serves an mtegralive experience lo the entire curriculum The graduate o this program should have e pragmatic understanding of human as welt e* naloel forces the! shape |he environment this evolves from an analysis of environmental problem solving at every level of human activity, to addition. Students should become creative, develop environmental awareness and professional responsibly, and he able to communicate effectively in o*do to collaborate with others
0RA0UA1E PROGRAM. DENVER There are three programs leading to the degree Master of Archteclure The one year program is open to students with a Bachelor o* Architecture degree the two-year program avaitah'e to students with Bachelor of E mwonmentel Design or Architectural Studies: end |h# three year program is open to students who hove a Bachelor of Science o Bachelor of Arts degree in any held
The Mailer o* Architecture piogram is the first professional degree program m architecture offered by the college Its aim is to educate studonts whose careers wH he m the design of the built environment Tho curriculum is based upon a eo*e progiam m design, technology architectural hsloy and professional practice Design rs concerned with Ihe understanding of form and shape consistent with human needs end available technology along with the development ol graphic communication itilii Technology provides basic knowledge of fhe physical systems o structure, mechanical rou*Dmen| Wlumin*lK>n acoustics and the mteuelel'OnshiDS of these systems Architectural history reviews the terms of fhe past and fheu philosophic significance as well as current architectural ideas and directions. Professional practice rt concerned with Ihe Skills and knowledge needed lo make design a reaMy.
The curriculum utilises the unusual Colorado region and imolves a conviction that architecture has Hi roots m the geology, topography, vegetalefn. efimate and cuhu'e of an area The program has e close alliance With the profession and an effort is made to involve lf>e student with ectuel erchitecture protects and problems through
professionals, the Community Design Center, and public or nonprofit organisations The design curriculum is based upon a seguential progression of courses whch begin wi|h e smalt social unit leg. family, small group) and progress to e large scale design problem (eg. e cortege campus. # new tk village, urban redevelopment) The technological Sequence siarts with |h baste concerns (ie. basic structures, materials, water supply. wastes) and develops lo e couse that revolves the integration of the Structure! end environmental Systems in e building The professional practice courses lead lo #n internship program whnre the Student if placed m a practicing professional s Mice end exposed to the range ht activities In that office
Ouat master s degrees ere offered ihrough jnm| programs with |h* Planning and tandsraoe Architecture divisions
The Dvts'on of Architecture received In 19 7 R 7 9 Si I 000 m Colorado giants lo esidnot studonts. 16500 m outside Scholarships 11 TOO in graduate assistant funds and t I 200 m work study funds
ViS'lmg lecturer program Statewide Community Design Center program (tor credit)
freshman environmental design orientation
Summer makeup Courses Semester at Sea Program
Internship piogram
Institute lor Advanced Urban Studies
(research center)
Model shop, photo lib. multimedia communication center Student AIA Chapter lemmefionl (newspaper)
Maurice G Barr. BA (Art). MA (Art and Design), design
C Herbert Bowes. BA (Arch). MA (Arch), design
Clarence A Briggs. BA (Arch). MA (Ind Oes) design
Devon M Carlson. BS (Arch). BS (Arch E). MS I Arch) architecture! history Spenser W BA. MA PhD (Env Planning), environmental perspectives David l Paulson. B Arch. M Arch, design
Associate Profaaaore
Dennis It Holloway. B Arch. M Arch/UO.
architectural and tolar design Joseph B Juhasr. AB. BA. MA. PhD. environmental psychology
Aaalatant Profaaaore
Gerald S Cross. BS Arch. MS Design, media and design
Wilhem Q Hendrix. BlA. MIA PhD. landscape design
Jack L Hillman. Bf A Ind Oes media Margit A Johansson. BA MA. PhD. ENVD sociology
Eleanor M Saboski. BS. MS PhD ENVD biology
Max Stee'e. B Arch. M Arch, media, design tarry D Swertwood. BA Fine Arts. MFA. media
Vlaltlng l act mart
John D F ember g. BA Arts in ENVD. MIA.
landscape architecture Dean Foreman. BA ENVD. media Alien Harlow. BA Arch. MA Arch.
architecture appreciation Norman Haun. B Arch. M Arch, architecture appreciation
Kathleen Kimmrtt. BFA. media Phillip J Tabh. BS Arch. M Arch, design David l Watkins. 8 Arch, architectural history
ftohert W Kmd*g B Arch. M Arch.
architectural design, professional practice John M Prosser. BA (Arch). M Arrh. urban design
Daniel J Schl. B0. BS. MS. PhD. planning G K Valter. BS. B Arch M Arch architectural design professional practice
Aasecleta Prefeeaore
Eugene F Benda. Dipl Arch end UO. urban dos*gn
David R HiH. BA MCRP. PhD. planning Davis C Holder. BS |CE) MS architecture.
Civil and structural engmnetmg Atiila Lawrence BFA. MA interior design Chalmers O tong. BA. B Arch. M Arch, architectural design, environments! controls
Herbert Snyth. BS (Arch) MBP planning
Robert C Utrmqm. BS B Arch E. M Arch.
architectural design end construction Darnel B Young. BfA. B Arch. MLA. landscape architecture
Assistant Professors
Ousne H Blossom. BA BSLA. MLA landscape architecture Gary Crowell. B Arch. M Arch, architectural design and construction Jonnt Jones. MCP. planning James M Knopf. BA. Ml_A landscape architecture
Alvaro Mato. B Arch. M Arch, architectural design and thno*y
James Westkott. RS BA MCRP. MA. planning
Vlaltlng lactwtara
laute Cronenwell. 8 Arch. MCRP. architecture, design
David Decker. B Arch M Arch, architecture, design
Michael E Doyle Bt.A. M Arch, architecture, graphics
Virginia Dubrucq BID. erehitneture. design Kathleen S Hoelt. B Arch. MS (Arch).
architecture, preservation Ski Milbum. B Arch, architecture, solar design
Michael Murphy, B Arch. M Arch.
architecture, design Jnnmfer Moulton. Bf A. M Arch.
architecture, theory Chester Magel B Arch. M Arch.
architecture, design John Williams. B Arch, architecture, graphics

The Center for Community Development and Design at the University of Colorado at Denver provides community development, educational and technical assistance to solve design, planning and community problems upon request to groups, organizations, neighborhoods, communities and small towns that cannot afford or do not have access to these services. The Center provides these services to aid in the development of the community and to encourage local self-reliance. These services are provided by mobilizing the faculty and students of the College of Design and Planning.
The Center provides its service through a decentralized, cooperative partnership system of community and neighborhood development centers. Together, ; communities/neighborhoods, local government, private industry and the university provide the following to neighborhoods and communities: community develop ment, educational services,technical assistance.
Six full-time staff coordinate and/or supervise the students and faculty of the College of Design and Planning and professional volunteers. Together, they are the primary resource base in providing services.
The Master of Interior Design Program is structured with the primary mission of educating designers who will be qualified to assume responsible leadership roles in the continuing evolution of the profession and in the improvement of the quality of man's near environment by constructively relating the design process to man's life process. It is characteristically unique in that it emphasizes a multidisciplinary approach, an interior architecture and space planning orientation, a social and behavioural base, and coordinated academic-professional community learning experiences.
A two-year program is open to qualified applicants with Bachelor of Architecture, Interior, or Environmental Design degrees, and a three-year program for these holding bachelor's degrees in other fields from accredited four-year colleges or universities.

The Master of Architecture Program provides comprehensive studies in theory, design, technology, and practice toward the development of expertise necessary for the practice of architecture. The central city location of the Graduate School of Design and Planning further stimulates educational experiences in an urban context through interactions among students and various professionals, case studies, internship programs, and opportunities for involvement in community service projects. Interdisciplinary studies with other divisions in the School are encouraged.
Two program options accommodate different educational backgrounds. Graduates with four-year pre-architecture or environmental design degrees follow a two-year program, and a three-year program is available to graduates with unrelated degrees. Students with a Bachelor of Architecture degree should consider the Master of Architecture in Urban Design option.
The Master of Architecture in Urban Design (a post first professional degree program) focuses on the complex problems generated by dynamic urban and regional growth and change. The basis of this program is formed by the utilization of information systems available within the concentration of government agencies and institutions in the Denver area, as well as those in the School's Urban and Regional Planning, Landscape Architecture, and Interior Design/ Architecture disciplines. State and city outreach work is available through the Center for Community Development and Design, in addition to case studies of anticipatory and feasibility design development chosen from the community.
Two program options are available: the one-year program for applicants holding a professional degree in Architecture and the two-year program for those holding a degree in Planning or Landscape Architecture.
The Master of Landscape Architecture Program is structured to prepare individuals for a wide range of career paths dealing primarily with physical planning and design. Toward that end the program takes a broad view of the scope of activities of the landscape architect in applying design and planning methodologies to emerging man-environment problems unique to the Rocky Mountain Region and its frontier areas. Participation in actual projects within the Denver metropolitan area, through the Center for Community Development and Design, is also stressed in an effort to combine theoretical and applied learning.
A two-year program option is open to qualified applicants holding a first profesional degree; a three-year program option is open to qualified applicants holding degrees in other disciplines.
Of fundamental concern to the Master of Urban and Regional Planning Program is social action, citizen involvement, and community development. Studies within this framework prepare degree candidates to research, design, plan, and evaluate the outcomes and strategies for social and environmental action. Graduates from the program are qualified to practice in areas of environmental design, community development, social-services, material resource management, ecology, environmental impact assessment, public and private urban planning, urban renewal, and regional planning. Because Denver is the Rocky Mountain Region's center for managing thses fields of action, students have unique opportunities to combine the general principles of academic learning with practical experience in nearby operating agencies and organizations.
A two-year program is offered and is open to qualified applicants with degrees in any discipline.

UCD Program
Introduction and Summary
This program plan is a detailed description of replacement facilities to be constructed within the Auraria campus core to house programs of the University of Colorado/Denver, Metropolitan State College and the Community College of Denver at Auraria, that are currently accommodated in old buildings east of Cherry Creek and across Speer Boulevard from the remainder of the campus. The project calls for construction of 249,000 gross square feet, the equivalent of current east bank space, at a total estimated cost of $19,150,000. It is estimated that one-half the cost may be realized from the sale of the existing east bank facilities and property.
The replacement facilities are to be constructed on blocks 10 and 11 with approximately 50,000 gross square feet in laboratories and general classroom space as an addition to the Science Building (Block 11), and approximately 200,000 gross square feet across Lawrence Street just northeast of the Learning Resources Center to house the remaining programs (Block 10).
The project schedule anticipates the cormencement of architectural design In July 1981, a call for construction bids in January 1982, with completion and occupancy by June, 1933,
Background and Objectives
1.1 The University of Colorado/Denver
Having offered extension courses in rented facilities in Denver since 1912, the University of Colorado, in 1956, purchased the fifty year old Tramway Building and Car Barn for use as an extension center. In 1967-63 the state purchased the Bromley building and appropriated funds for its renovation. Bromley served first as the UCD Library and was then assigned to the College of Environmental Design. During the period 1970-73, the state invested additional funds in the construction and equipping of a second floor addition in what is now the East Classroom Building.
1.2 The Auraria Higher Education Center
The Auraria Higher Education Center was created by statute in 1974. Among others, the duties of the Auraria Board are:
(a) To plan, construct, own, lease, operate, maintain and manage all of the physical plant, facilities, buildings and grounds in the center (except that land owned at the Auraria Center by the Regents of the University of Colorado shall continue under such ownership but shall be maintained and managed in a similar manner to the

(a) (continued)
other facilities in the Auraria Center) and such additional land and facilities as the general assembly may from time-to-time designate to be part of the Center and to accept and hold for the use of the Center and its constituent institutions such property as was designated or used prior to May 13, 1974, for purposes of the Center or its constituent institutions.
During the period 1974-77 the state appropriated $955,600 to the Auraria Higher Education Center for the purpose of renovating the Tramway building. This was the last capital construction appropriation made for the purpose of acquisition or improvement of the east bank facilities.
Although the east bank buildings were acquired prior to the establishment of the AHEC and were not originally planned to function as part of the Center, they have played an important role in the development of the Auraria Higher Education Center. Currently, approximately 20% of the total assignable square footage of instructional and office space at the Auraria Higher Education Center is located on the east bank of Cherry Creek of which nearly 135,000 asf, or 94%, is occupied by the University of Colorado. Practically all of the auxiliary, library, physical plant and physical education space used by UCD, as well as 35% (73,000 asf) of its instructional space, is located in the campus core west of Cherry Creek.
AHEC Master Planning.
In 1978 the Auraria Board of Directors and the Regents of the University of Colorado adopted companion resolutions stating that all future campus facilities would be constructed west of Cherry Creek and that use of the existing east bank buildings for high traffic activities would be phased out.
Life Cycle Cost Studies completed in 1978 demonstrated both the long term cost benefits and immediate health, safety and academic advantages of locating all programs of UCD, MSC and CCD on the main Auraria campus. Extremely high operating and maintenance costs of the old UCD facilities, coupled with isolation of faculty, staff and students from major core facilities of Auraria, and the hazardous crossing of Speer Boulevard by large numbers of students, prompted a thorough evaluation of alternatives.
During the 1979 session of the Colorado General Assembly there was extensive discussion concerning various organizational models for the Auraria Higher Education Center (AHEC). These discussions culminated in legislation which called for elimination of duplication in a wide range of academic programs and instructional support services. Subsequent action by the Auraria Board and the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (CCHE) resulted in adoption of a consolidation plan for eliminating duplicatory programs, and called for the Auraria Board to undertake a campus-wide reallocation of space as part of its implementation.
In related activities the executive director of the Colorado Commission on Higher Education, in a December 5,
1979 letter to the executive director of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority expressed concerns regarding proposals by the Regents for the purchase of additional property on the east bank, as well as for the future usefulness of existing east bank properties and facilities. It was intended that a planning process be undertaken which would resolve the issue of the east bank buildings so that there would be an agreed upon framework within which long-range physical planning could occur.
On February 15, 1980 the chairmen of the Joint Budget Committee and the House and Senate Education Committees wrote to the chairman of the Auraria Board expressing support for the position taken by the executive director of CCHE in his December 5 letter and asking that Auraria promptly address the question of the future of the east bank facilities. As a result of these activities and developments, the Auraria Board established the Facilities Master Plan Task Force with the charge of (1) reviewing the contribution of these (east bank) facilities to the effective operation of the overall campus during this time period and, based on this review, of (2) developing recommendations for the role that these facilities should play in an updated master plan.
On April 1, 1980, the Facilities Master Plan Task Force submitted the following recommendations to the AHEC Board of Directors:
In order to meet the education needs of metropolitan Denver in the most efficient and economic fashion, it is recommended that the Auraria Board of Directors in consultation with the constituent institutions begin Immediately to develop plans for providing facilities in the campus core area (defined as that area bounded by Colfax, Speer, Larimer and Seventh Streets), for all programs of the Auraria Higher Education Center, Including those housed in the east bank buildings. RECOMMENDATION II
In order to focus resources on attainment of Recommendation I as outlined above, and for the reasons cited, it is recommended that there be no capital investment in improvement of the east bank properties beyond those required for maintenance and more efficient operation.
In order to facilitate the statutory responsibility of the Auraria Board to provide adequate facilities for the constituent institutions and to enable the development of a unified, comprehensive campus master plan that treats equitably all of the institutions, it is recommended that title to the east bank properties, which is currently vested with the Regents of the University of Colorado, be transferred to the common landlord for the entire Auraria Higher Education Center at such time as the University operation moves to the west bank.

In order that the Auraria campus may provide the type of environment within which the constituent institutions can carry out their role and mission statements, it is recommended that the Auraria Board diligently pursue plans for traffic realignment in and around the Auraria campus, assuming that all facilities of the Auraria Higher Education Center will be located in the campus core area as defined under Recommendation I.
Having previously approved Recommendation III (December, 1978), Recommendations I, II and IV were adopted by the Auraria Board in April, 1980. The Regents of the University of Colorado, 1n May, 1980, endorsed Recommendations I, II and IV, and agreed to move to the Auraria main campus when suitable facilities become available.
Program Planning Committee
Based upon the above actions, the executive director of the Auraria Higher Education Center appointed a Program Planning Committee for UCD Replacement Facilities on August 18, 1980. That committee (with representation from MSC, CCD, UCD and AHEC, the Trustees of the Consortium of State Colleges, the University of Colorado presidents office and a student), was charged with developing recommendations concerning the programming of replacement space for the 249,000 gross square feet in the east bank buildings. In conjunction with this project the University of Colorado at Denver is updating its Master Plan which will be submitted to CCHE upon approval of the Regents early in 1981.
Project Justification
Justification for the UCD Replacement Facilities is fully developed in the following excerpts from the April 1, 1980 Report of the Facilities Master Plan Task Force, referred to in 1.3 above:
One of the primary responsibilities of the task force is to make recommendations that will insure that the Auraria Higher Education Center Master Plan includes provisions for meeting the long-term facilities needs of the constituent institutions.
A review of the background materials indicates that a very positive aspect of the AHEC is that it contains 171 acres of valuable land that provides excellent opportunities for j
accommodating programmatic changes and expansion. Given the basic design and construction of the campus, support services are within close proximity to the academic facilities that are constructed on the west bank. Unfortunately, the physically isolated facilities on the east bank that are currently largely occupied by the UCD are not easily accessible to the UCD academic programs housed in west bank facilities nor to critical and highly utilized support services such as the Auraria library, media center, interfaith center, student center, child care center, HPER facilities and parking lots.
During the design and construction of AHEC, extremely restrictive space planning guidelines were imposed through footnotes to the appropriations bills. Hence, it is widely recognized that space standards at the AHEC are extremely tight when compared to other institutions of postsecondary education in Colorado and nationally. Therefore, it can be expected that a continued demand for additional space will be evident at Auraria even in a period of stabilizing enrollments.
Given the potential CU demands for additional space and given that many of the current UCD academic and support services are located on the west bank, it is apparent that it will not be possible to provide a coherent. Integrated program of facilities for the University of Colorado-Denver on the east bank of Cherry Creek. Relocation of the current UCD programs to the west bank would permit physical consolidation and integration of existing university programs, provide flexibility and opportunity for expansion of space to accomodate additional programs, facilitate greatly the implementation of academic and support program consolidations with MSC, provide ample parking for students and staff and greatly improve accessibility of UCD students and staff to such support services as the library, media center, child care center and student center.
Such a relocation of programs would also be consistent with the officially adopted Auraria Transportation Policies and Objectives (Appendix B). These policies call for concentration of academic activities and associated capital investment in a campus core area on the west bank. When combined with the policy which designates Arapahoe Street as the pedestrian gateway from downtown to the campus core area, the acknowledged safety factor associated with the required student crossings of a congested Speer Boulevard will be substantially alleviated.
Finally, such a relocation would significantly reduce operation and maintenance costs while improving levels of service. Statistics related to increased costs of maintaining the east bank facilities are documented in the Life Cycle Cost Report and in pages B-64 to B-79 of Appendix B. Additional costs of maintenance, beyond those calculated in the Life Cycle Cost Report, include:
a. Costs related to landmark status. Because the Tower and East Classroom buildings have been placed on the National Register of Historic Places, much of the exterior repair and maintenance work will have to be of a non-standard or custom nature. This will increase costs.

b. Parkinq costs. Aurarla must keep rates on parking at the eastern edge of the campus below rates prevailing in neighboring commercial lots in order to provide inexpensive parking for users of the east bank buildings.
A recent study by the Auraria parking division indicates that if free market rates were charged for these lots,
It would be possible to lower rates on all other non-permit campus lots by 25C a day. In effect, users of the main campus parking lots appear to be subsidizing users of the east bank buildings at a rate exceeding $5,000 a month.
c. Food service costs. Because of the isolation of the east bank buildings, it has been necessary to continue operation of a kitchen-service type snackbar in the Tower Building rather than employ only the vending operations used in other lounges on the campus. Formerly, the $15,000 annual loss incurred by this operation was made up by revenues from vending and food service (Mercantile Restaurant) operations on the main campus.
The east bank snackbar is now subsidized by the State Social Services Department, Division of Rehabilitation, Services for the Visually Impaired.
d. Space allocation costs. Due to the isolated location of the east bank buildings, space allocation in support of the academic programs is often inefficient. A current example of this is the approximately 3,000 ASF Environmental Design Library located on the second floor of the Bromley Building. The university has argued that the location of the Environmental Design program in the east bank buildings requires a library that is separate from the main Auraria library. Even though the University of Colorado has been designated as manager of all Auraria libraries on behalf of the three constituent institutions, it has not been possible to merge the Environmental Design Satellite into the main library even though more than adequate space is available in the west bank facility.
A second example of inefficient space assignment relates to the consolidated Auraria office of services to disabled students. Although services for disabled students attending all three constituent institutions are to be consolidated in a specially designed accessible location on the west bank, 1t will be necessary to also operate a "satellite" disabled student office on the east bank because the facilities are isolated.
e. Physical plant and security costs. The Auraria security and physical plant base of operations is on 7th Street.
Because of the distance and congested conditions between these facilities and the east bank buildings, the provision of equal services to these buildings is significantly more costly than on the main campus.
With respect to security services several items are apparent. First, due to their location in a congested, high traffic area of downtown Denver the buildings are more difficult to secure than are those on the west bank. There is a high incidence of thefts and burglaries in the east bank buildings and there are
constant recurring problems involving derelicts and transients sleeping in the lobbies and restroom areas. Second, the response time of the Auraria Department of Public Safety to fire alarms, bomb scares and other security alerts is generally longer when the east bank buildings are involved. This results not only because of the physical distance but also the extremely dangerous Speer Boulevard intersections which must be crossed in responding to emergencies.
The Auraria Physical Plant staff time and effort reports (Appendi B) indicate that maintenance and operation of the east bank build ings is significantly more costly per square foot than for the west bank buildings- These additional costs result from the original design of the buildings, the general condition of plumbing and electrical support systems in the buildings, the poor efficiency rating of assignable gross square footage, and the interior finishes of restrooms, hallways, etc. which require additional routine maintenance costs on almost a daily basis.
Even with this additional effort the maintenance of the facilities remains unsatisfactory in comparison to the main campus.
Finally, numerous studies have documented that utility costs of older buildings dramatically exceed costs of comparable facilities that were constructed in compliance with current energy conservation codes and requirements.
Due to increased sensitivity to energy conservation, studies concerning the energy efficiency of the east bank facilities are currently underway. With rapidly escalating utility costs it is anticipated that utility usage studies of these facilities will demonstrate a dramatic difference in cost per square foot above the utility costs per square foot of the main campus.
The Life Cycle Cost Report, officials of the University of Colorado, State Buildings Division, and the Auraria Higher Education Center have all concluded that a massive investment in rehabilitation of the east bank buildings Is necessary if they are to be raised to even minimal standards of adequacy. However, the extremely poor assignable square footage to gross square footage (.56) efficiency rating of the east bank buildings argues against a major renovation as the cost per square foot of usable/assignable space would be extremely high.
This low efficiency rating results from the limited flexibility that exists when an attempt is made to renovate a historical structure for uses for which the original building was not intended. Initial design features such as 15-17 foot building modules, when coupled with 0SHA safety and code requirements, prohibit even the most creative architects from improving building efficiency. Further, federal, state and city building codes require that when the cost of renovation of any part of a facility exceeds a designated minimal limit (the cost of renovation of the east bank buildings would greatly exceed this minimal limit), the entire facility must be brought into compliance with codes. Under this provision the entire electrical, plumbing and heating systems of the east bank buildings would require extensive reconstruction as a part of the renovation. This reconstruction of

basic utilities could easily exceed the utility costs of a new facility, and even though it might be possible to bring the building into technical compliance with code it is highly unlikely that the current and anticipated utility demands of such east bank programs as the energy intensive science laboratories could ever be satisfactorily met in these facilities.
Finally, the continued increased costs of maintaining these facilities compared to west bank facilities, especially in light of an overall objective to provide facilities in the campus core area for all programs of the Aureria Higher Education Center, would make any investment in rehabilitation ill advised from an economic standpoint.

Space Requirement Summary
The following is a summary for initial planning purposes of areas allocated to each unit and division with assumed increases of ten percent over current space assignments, subject to further review and evaluation of deficiencies. The first group of assignments is to Building A, primarily UCD Replacement Facilities, but including Education and Physics space for both UCD and MSC. The second group of assignments is to Building B, an addition to the Science building to house primarily Biology, Psychology and general classrooms.
Buildinq A Block 10 Non-class
Office Support Class labs Labs Storaae
Business 3,732 455 257 242
Continuing Education 648 714 96
UCD Education 3,471 1,063 257 127
MSC Education 2,141 1,058 177
Engineering T 1U ? ?1 f < '
- Administration 867 63/ 201
-Civil 4 Urban 1,189 105 5,531 30
- Elec. 4 Computer 1,884 105 6,318 253
- Mechanical 626 no 1,265
- Elec.Maint. 4 Cal.Lab 73 829 3J97
(Engineering Sub-totals) (4,639) 1957) (13,963) (3,680
Grad. School of Design & Plan. 43,294
(see GSDPprogram for specific
space allocations)
Graduate School 721 380
Gr.Sch.of Public Affairs 2,797 361 4t n < ^
Liberal Arts 4 Sciences
-Advising 1,302
-Study Skills 935 757
-Chemistry oo *+ 3,056 384
-Physics (UCD 4 MSC) 2,054 3,746 692 69
-Geography 549 1,433
-Geology 546 1,617
-Anthropology 778 1
-Economics 1.075
-Ethnic Studies 102
-History 796
-Political Science 486
-Sociology 803
-Division Offices 353 1 ,072 29
(Liberal A 4 S sub-totals)(9,779) (1,072) (10,109) (1 ,076) (93)
Center for Env.Sc. 1 ,577 172 17*1
Bldg.A/Academic Sub-totals 33,249 6,322 47,205 2,653 6,255 2,471
Combined: (98,155 asf)
*To consider adding Education Class-Lab
**To consider some Chemistry offices.

UCD Administration Bldg. A Office Support Storaqe Other
- Chancellor 638 1,059 150 \ - Academic Planning 437 184 'C 2 /
- Admissions & Records 620 1,334 476 2,441 * 97 1
- Affirmative Action 176
- Alumni Development 274
- Budget & Finance 1,800 128
- Computer Science 3,711
- Education Opportunity Program 677 466 (I9-?
- Finance 761 498 /* ? 1
- Payroll/Personnel 442 772 96 I 1 <7
- Public Information & Publ. 577
- Vice Chancel!or/Academic Affairs 407 173 reo
- Vice Chancellor/Student Affairs 1,409 642 for1
(Administration Sub-totals) (87218) (4,944 ) (17034) (67T527
Combined: (20,348 asf) 2 { 0<=> &
Interinstitutional Bldg. A Classrooms Support Storage Other
- Classrooms (of 30,280 total) 7,280
- Media Center 329
- Physical Plant 2,200
- Lounge/Vending 1,200
- Lobby/Waiting Areas 1.3C0
(Interinstitutional Sub-Totals) (77280) (329) (2,200) (2,500)
Combined: (12,309 asf) 1
UILDING A Total gsf

Space Amount
Design Studios Architecture.... 150 sta. 0
Land. Arch...... 56
Urban Design.... 14 11
Interior........ 42 "
Planning......... 28 "
Print Room......
Reference Sect.
Administration Deal's office Asst. Dean's office Administrative Asst. Secretaries....3@ 125 ea. Reception/waiting Records/xerox/stor.
Conf. Room Faculty lounge Directors....50 125 ea.
Faculty......25 0 100 sf
vi' 10 0 80 sf
50 ea. 7500 L-
2800 L
700 L
2100 U Y* 1
150 tJo \0trf
100 is/t- \ 0jLI
TOTAL 14750
(2X1^ 175
l (o itT 150 U
1 z* 375 NU
/ % 250 NO
If, 250 U
if,S 200 L
625 u
' 2500 800 -5725

Ofaces... 2 0 125 Check station
Support facilities/ study/stacks
250 -
2021 m-TOTAL 2471
Slide Library
Office___ 10 125 125
Audio-visual equip. 250
Slide Storage 250
Note: Slide viewing area is part of the library study area.
Misc. Spaces
Seminar/ Jury Rm. 50 500 2500 ^
Laminations/ Deezine Club office 150
Computer facility 250
Auditorium 2500
Classroom (indicated under "inter-institutional") Outdoor Space/Sculpture (varies with design) Outdoor Space/Recreation (varies with design)

Support facilities TOTAL 8570
(includes fire, corridors, stairwells, elevator restrooms, etc.)
Center for Community Development & Design
Offices......40 100
Director... 10125
Staff...... 20125
Proj. Stations..150 50
Model Shop
Dark Room ... 20 200
Student Lounge/kitchen/sleeping
Gallery (Note: also auditorium lobby)
400 -125 < 250 -750 -i 125 -150 150 < 53 *>
650 400 200 500 ^ 2000 5353
Total for C-U Grad School of Design 43,294sf
(Total does not include classroom space and other inter-institutional space.
U- 5~V. a AT
I t?A. I 0 |o X y'Z
*0/ r l*+12
I 0 A ( S
Z is I'bxiZ
L* r 'lyC

_GSDP Space Relationship



' \lo\4b

' Fifx.i&ii.iTT'
tl^HTnJ^ -
^rtAee oiw&c-f 4^,4 u4Hj
* <2pEPA->C£ uuiHPtoMj^ p^g. i^oc^u <^>P
TWWW T^t£:
Pile TaL-K- ^
"T>a*U LAU EufcCTftic^c ouTLBTf

_ Lounges
wict>J <5>(J-|-^ Mipa&bfi
Ht Pte*sUT*T**J 6'fit^fc
&uj uoj L / '

Budget and Schedule Budget
The total estimated cost of UCD Replacement Facilities is $19,150,000, of which $9,500,000 will be requested from state appropriations, and approximately $9,650,000 is to be realized from the sale or disposition of the east bank property and buildings.
Professional Services
Architectural & Engineering (Bldg.) $908,000
A/E Site, Landscaping,Utilities 165,000
Surveys and Site Investigation 83,000
Total Professional Services $1 ,156,000
Building, 249,000 gsf x $62/sf $15,438,000
Site Work 309,000
Landscaping 463,000
Utilities 309,000
Percentage for Art 154,000
Contingencies 826,000
Total construction costs $17,498,000
Movable Equipment
New Equipment 150,000
Replacement Equipment 346,000 $19,150,000
The following assumes that construction management or fast-track methods will be utilized to control costs and minimize the effects of escalation.
Program Planning Completed Capital Request Approval and Authority to Proceed Design Development Contract Documents (Basic) Bid Date Award Contract Contract Documents (Detail) Completion/Occupancy
January, 1981
June, 1981 September, 1981 December, 1981 January, 1982 February, 1982 June, 1982 June, 1983

Project Description Siting
The UCD Replacement Facilities are to consist of two major elements: 1) an addition to the Science building of approximately 50,000 gross square feet, and 2) a building complex of approximately 200,000 gross square feet, immediately across Lawrence and northeast of 11th Street. (See site location map next .page.)
Other sites in the vicinity of St. Cajetan's and Tivoli were proposed and evaluated, however, the following significant factors led to the final selection of the 11th and Lawrence site as an overwhelming first choice: .
1) The need for physical adjacency to existing science laboratories, availability of specialized utilities, and the improvement of functional relationships in the science programs.
2) The advantages to students and faculty of locating 1n close proximity to the Auraria Library and other support services such as the Student Center.
3) The maintenance of close working relationships between UCD Graduate and Professional programs to downtown Denver resources.
4) The availability of potential future expansion space and adjacency to possible auxiliary enterprise facilities that may interface both to graduate programs and the Denver business and government community.
5) The siting is consistent with Master Planing for the Auraria campus and is within the core area designated for intensive academic activity.

Site Walking Times

ANNUAL ftjkEAN 50*

Latitude N 40


Statistical Araa
514,678' 104 52'W 39 45'N 5,280 It. 12.892 52.5 F
Physical Characteristics
State ol Colorado
Denver Standard Metropolitan
City and County of Denver
Mean Annual Precipitation Mean Annual Temperature Wind Factors
Prevailing Wind Cold Polar Air Pacific Air Gulf Air Hot Dry Air Solar Angles3 Time (Mountain Standard)
June 22 8 AM 11 AM
2 PM 6 PM
March 21, September 24 8 AM 11 AM
3 PM 5 PM
December 22 8 AM 10 AM 1 PM 3 PM
- Westerly
- Northwesterly (fall and winter)
- Westerly (summer)
- Southeasterly (spring)
- Southwesterly (summer)
Altitude Bearing
37.36 90.72
69 12 42.14
59.76 65.92
14.81 108.37
22.50 69 66
27.72 22.67
41.54 41.48
22.50 69.66
5.48 52.97
20.66 29 38
25.02 15.20
13.95 41.96
Aurarla Higher Education Canter
Original Site
Gross Project Area
Original Property Area
Original Streets & Public rights-of-way
168.467 acres 89.720 acres 78.747 acres
Site as Proposed
Gross Land Area Buildirjg Land Coverage Automobile Parking (3,750 spaces) Public Streets and rights-of-way Playing Fields
Landscaped Park and Pedestrian Areas
168 467 acres 14.460 acres 30.214 acres 43.780 acres 13.935 acres 66.078 acres
Soil Conditions/Geology
Bedrock Subsoil Top Layer
- Denver Formation
- Alluvium deep, loamy,sandy
- Man-made fill