Citation
Orchard Place Nine : spec office building in suburbia : commodity, firmness and/or delight?

Material Information

Title:
Orchard Place Nine : spec office building in suburbia : commodity, firmness and/or delight?
Creator:
Metcalf, David Michael
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( Master of architecture)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
College of Architecture and Planning, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Architecture

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of copyright holder or Creator or Publisher as appropriate]. Permission granted to University of Colorado Denver to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
ORCHARD PLACE NINE
SPEC OFFICE BUILDING IN SUBURBIA: COMMODITY, FIRMNESS AND/OR DELIGHT?
An Architectural Thesis presented to
the College of Architecture, Design and Planning,
University of Colorado at Denver,
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Architecture
David Michael Metcalf
Fall 1986


The Thesis of David Michael Metcalf is approved.
Committee Chairperson
Principal Advisor
University of Colorado at Denver
December 1986


Acknowledgements
Preface
Introduction
Thesis Statement
Project Summary Design Issues
Architectural Program Owner Criteria
Building Type and Size Quality and Image Construction Budget Operating Cost Projections Site Determinants Climate Topography Subsoil Conditions Easements
Available Utilities
Access
Context
Zoning Requirements Permitted Uses Minimum Setbacks Maximum Heights Floor Area Ratio Open Space Minimums
Parking Standards Traffic and Access Miscellaneous Building Code
Allowable Floor Area Maximum Height/Number of Stories Location on Property Exit Requirements Light and Ventilation Toilet Facilities Fire Protection/Life Safety Construction Assemblies Colorado Energy Code Disenfranchised Participants The Community The User
Design Documentation
Project Description Design Drawings Model Photographs
Conclusions
Bib!iography









PREFACE


Each of us is a product of his (or her) time — as the choice of phrasing herewith only serves to demonstrate.
A middle-class childhood in the relatively sheltered and stable America of Eisenhower, Howdy Doody and "better living through chemistry" (pre-Timothy Leary) instills a faith in basic truths and fundamental institutions, and an expectation that progress means a better world more than necessarily a different world; the Bomb is a hazy boogyman, Davy Crockett is every Boy Scout's role model, and rock-and-roll, like Communism and Dali, 1s someone else's rebellion, someone else's fiery dragon. Adolescence is idealism brought to life in John and Bobby and Martin, the demure innocence of Annette and Frankie's restraint on a beach blanket, the altruism of the Peace Corps, and the Ultimate Truth and honesty of Modern Architecture. Post-adolescence arrives abruptly as a crepe-hung riderless horse walking down Pennsylvania Avenue, the debauched promiscuous intentions of Viet Nam, the pragmatism of metal skin simulating the steel skeleton hidden in Code-required fireproofing, and the dawning realization on a bloody field in Kent, Ohio that purity and innocence of purpose are a damned poor defense against a frightened used-car salesman holding a loaded rifle. So little wonder that adulthood starts out as an instinctive retreat to self-absorption, as readily evidenced by me-first, materialistic acquisition as by equally egoistical martyrdom for a transient Cause or a self-centered refusal to participate in any more no-win, zero-sum games until the rules get changed to "the way things ought to be." And somewhere along the line, every now and then, some semblance of maturity arises amid the pall of Yuppie surfeit, the Instinctive urge for a better life for your progeny, and repeated lessons to the effect that faith may move mountains but never quite manages to remove the garbage.
In the dialectic of Hegel, the process described above is generalized as the conflict-resolution system of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Marx posed this in socioeconomic terms as capitalism, communism and socialism; political extremists of every stripe see it as the Establishment, the Revolution and (the current version of) the New Order. Architecture most recently is experiencing this as Modernism, Post-Modernism and — well, the synthesis of the current architectural dialectic has yet to properly reveal itself. Hegelian philosophy insists that such resolution is inevitable, that balance will be achieved, but it sets no timetables, mandates no definite process, and offers no guarantees as to how permanent such a balance will be.
In fact, the "balance" of Hegelian confict resolution is not necessarily a balance in the sense of symmetry, moderation, even compromise, or (most


especially) stasis. Nor is the process by which synthesis is to be achieved necessarily a clear, linear progression toward a firm conclusion. Rather, the balance of synthesis is that of the high-wire artist, found in a process of constant motion in response to continually varying conditions: absolute stasis is rare, fleeting, even destabilizing and hazardous to continued existence. The only true constant is change, and at any given point in such a process, change may be in different, even opposing, directions simultaneously. Thus the forces tending toward the status quo, the revolution and some form of compromise may co-exist in time and place, waxing and waning in their separate rhythms until coincidence and reinforcement cause one or the other to prevail, at least momentarily — for as Che Guevara recognized, that every revolution contains within itself the seeds of Its own counterrevolution, incubating them in the heat of its own success, demonstrates the Inevitability of continual revolution.
The physical universe, as a theoretically "closed" system of energy, is said to be inherently entropical, continuously, inevitably degenerating and "running out of steam." Isolated systems within that universe can be "open" and successfully perpetuating as long as they grow, taking in new energy/ matter from the larger, closed system surrounding it -- but even the most efficient such open system must eventually reach the limits of the closed universe, thereby coming up short against entropy at last.
The universe of thought and ideas, being non-physical, is not a closed system (theoretically) and therefore is capable of continuous renewal, reformation, regeneration. It is this concept of regeneration — similar to the electronics usage as "amplification by feeding energy from output back into input" — that appears to offer the basis for a self-perpetuating ever improving process for constructive change. This is controlled, positive feedback; it is inductive-deductive reasoning applied to and reinforced by a constantly expanding set of data. It is, closer to our present purposes, that series of progressively larger integers whose ratios ever more closely approximate the irrational mumber representing the Golden Section revered by Pythagoras and Le Corbusier. As a matter of fact, it is the proportion study for Corbu's Le Modulor (see Figure 1) inscribed upon the base of his Marseille block, which most graphically represents the rhythm and repetitive progression of regeneration.
To have meaning and existence, however, such an idea from the non-physical world must be translated into concrete action, which necessitates freezing that constantly-changing idea in one particular state at some given time. Thus its realization is inherently flawed, to the extent that it loses its vital quality of regenerative change. Nevertheless, it is the single most
encompassing organizing principle I have encountered, and it is the basis for my understanding of and approach to the design process in architecture.
And like a good homemade stew kept constantly simmering on the stove benefits mostly from tasting and consuming, from experimentation and sampling, ever changing subtly from day to day, yet retaining always fractional flavor and elements of every ingredient ever added to the
it
some
pot.


Figure 1
TIT













INTRODUCTION


Eight years ago, In June of 1978, I walked away from the drawing board --and "drawing room" discussions of architectural theory and style — and entered the "board room" environment of design-build construction management. I carried with me Howard Roark's vision of the Architect as Master Builder, capably integrating the detailed craft and sensibilities of the planner, engineer, artist, stonemason, carpenter, businessman, and philosopher In one "fountainhead" of architectural design knowledge. Academia's emphasis on — and too many students' preference for — debating design theory and experimenting with the latest trending styles, rather than on familiarization with and assimilation of the skills fundamental to a rational, coherent approach to the process of building design, had left me cold, contemptuous and unfulfilled. So I ran off to the "real world" to learn my trade and find renewed inspiration.
In short order, I began to appreciate certain realities about the building process. First, the range of materials, equipment and systems available today for building 1s already too expansive for any single mind to attempt to encompass — much less keep up with — in more than a cursory manner.
We live in the era of the "team approach" to building design, with a dozen specialists in discrete but necessarily overlapping disciplines meeting together around a conference table to resolve design questions into one harmonious plan.
Reality No. Two is that narrow specialization all too often results in narrow minds with a tendency toward viewing any problem only 1n terms of their own area of expertise, and often only when a problem obviously falls squarely within the limits of that small world. The Owner knows what his pro forma demands (and he knows what he likes); the Contractor knows how to hold costs to the budget to keep the Owner happy (and to avoid risking his own profit margin); the individual technical consultants arrive with firm pre-judgments as to which structural/HVAC/electrlcal/sprlnkler system is most appropriate to this type project (or they s1t nervously around the table, hoping to avoid controversy, ready to produce whatever system first is suggested by somebody -- anybodyI -- else); and the Architect retreats into hawking his current style (assuming he has one handy) or resigns himself to serving as Code specialist and document production coordinator. Resolution of design questions in such an environment — assuming anything remotely resembling a design process can begin under those conditions — tends most often to resemble a tug-of-war wherein the strongest argument and/or the strongest ego ultimately prevails, by virtue of Owner flat, the "team" consensus, or dogged force of will. The winner takes the marbles at stake 1n tha* articular round, and the next round begins immediately;


the loser, generally, 1s the project itself, to the extent that the set of available options most appropriate to the needs of the building is prematurely (even abortively) restricted and the optimal direction of the total design is skewed -- or wrenched to and fro, if there is no consistent winner in the struggle.
The third reality is that, inevitably, some one member of the team finally assumes leadership. (Some aspire to greatness, some have greatness thrust upon them.) I have seen this contest resolved into leadership by the Owner, by the Architect, and even by the Contractor. The results have varied relative to the personality and experience of the individual leader and the composition of his “followers," but withal the tendencies have been predictable: a building so designed is perceived readily as "the developer's building," "the designer's building," or (God help us!) "the contractor's building," displaying in each extreme the mind-set peculiar to its principal creator through its overall flavor and his degree of control through its unique mix of promiscuously compromised detailing. A "good, all-around, work and pleasure horse" designed by this means may meet the general intention — i.e., "a horse" -- but it is likely to show certain inappropriate or inelegant secondary characteristics. The wild mustang caught free on the range by the owner may have great spirit and fire, but it basically is an unknown quantity with hidden genetic flaws, and even its visible qualities may be lost in breaking the animal to its new owner's requirements. The architect's Thoroughbred has beautiful lines and unbeatable speed, but its high-strung nature and delicate constitution brought about from generations of in-breeding make it a risky pleasure mount and no kind of work animal at all. The contractor crosses his favorite Arabian with a pretty little burro he saw driving home one night and prsents the team with a mule that is a strong worker, cheap to feed, and gentle with children, but it will never win any contests for beauty, speed, or cooperation (and reproduction is out of the question.) In the worst case, the Siege Perilous remains unoccupied, and you get a horse designed by committee -- but a camel's ability to go for days in the desert without water can only compensate so much for halitosis, a nasty disposition, and a face and form only a mother could love.
The concluding reality is that when the Team Approach works effectively, as evidenced by the generally-acknowledged success of its end product, it is because someone introduces and maintains the basic elements of three ineluctable processes:
1. inductive-deductive reasoning
2. interpretive cornnunication
3. progressive regeneration
The specific techniques comprising each process will vary according to the situation, the cast of players, and the experience and abilities of the instigator; there is no fixed recipe. Knowing these mechanisms 1s the craft of making team design work; selection, adaptation, balance and timing so as to Inspire the synergism of the team effort is the art.
Induction is adductive, involving observation and analysis of more and more particular facts and individual cases until enough specifics are assembled to evidence a pattern or a tendency which can be generalized as a relatively reliable "known" principle. Deduction is reductive, applying a set or sequence of known principles to a specific unknown variable until the possibilities have been reduced to a "best case." This inductive-deductive reasoning process can be as condensed and as derivative as adopting from the beginning someone else's existing criteria-performance matrix (e.g., Figures 2, 3 and 4) and evaluating each level and element of your design within those guidelines. It can be as involved and as focused as generating your own set of critical principles from an original study of similar buildings which appear to "work" to your satisfaction, and then applying those hypotheses to the particular program and site confronting you. It can even go so far as "zeroing-out" all but the most inescapable giveps of culture, structure, et cetera and creating your own language of architectural design from the smallest element to the most intricate rule of organization or semantics (as witness the pattern language of Alexander and Ishikawa, the seven invariables of Bruno Zevi, or any of dozens of other attempts to discover "basic truths" and a rational, scientific process for design such as are surveyed in Emerging Methods in Environmental Design and and Planning, published in 1970 by the MIT Press.) Practical constraints of time and budget, the basic project type, and the peculiar capacities and inclinations of the project team (e.g., the owner's patience) will combine to determine the complexity of the reasoning process that can be utilized effectively, but the overall form remains inductive-deductive, either overtly or covertly — and therein lies the next danger.
Hidden agendas and unstated or untested assumptions can undermine the most rigorously logical reasoning process as readily as diametrically opposing values or viewpoints, left unresolved, can paralyze that process. Communication within the design team requires more than the mere listing of facts or survey of opinions; effective communication must be complete and uniform to all participants, and that demands active listening, facile interpretation, and arbitration, or conflict resolution. Someone must be alert to the troubled look, the reluctance to comment, the incomplete remark, the weighted phrasing, and the folded arms that usually signify some incipient conr1 * or frustration: if the civil engineer merely con-


Pros and cons of alternative HVAC systems
HVAC system Installation* cost Impact on finished spscs Environmental control Maintenance requirements Equipment life Flexibility Opportunity for energy recovery Overall energy conaump.
1. Multi-zone, constant votums Medium Mechanical room on Lauela several is « vis. Superior Low Long Low Low High
2. Single duct constant volume w/rehaat. Medium Low Good Low Long Medium Low High
3. Single duct VAV w/etec. pertm. rad. Low Low Good Low Long Medium Low Low
4. Single duct VAV w/pertmeter fan powered VAV-etectrtc retwet Low Low Good Medium Long High Medium Low
S. Dual duct constant volume Medium Low Superior Low Long High Medium High
6. Dual duct VAV Medium Low Good Low Long High Medium Medium
7. Four pipe tan coll system Medium Medium Good Medium Medium Low High Low
A. water source heel pump Low Low Good » as —a-n*yn Medium Medium High Medium
Figure 2


Power, Lighting, Electronic, Communication Systems For Today's Office Buildings: (PLEC) Distribution Evaluation Summary*
Design Criteria Systems Capacity Flexibility Security Wire Management Aesthetics Initial Costs Life cycle Costs Best Application
In-floor G G E G E P E Corporate office with high flexibility and high capacity requirements
Access (Raised) Floor E E F F F P G Corporate office and data processing center with extremely high cabling requirements
Flat Conductor Cable P F P G G F F Renovations where alternative system is not available.
Poke Thru G P P G F G P Offices which expect little turn-over and few rearrangement requirements
Floor Boxes P P E G G G P Conference rooms and out-of-the-way locations where service requirements do not change.
Mfd. Wiring Systems (power distribution systems only) G E NR E G E E Any building having open areas and accessible ceilings
Hardwiring F P G G G P P Applications where electrical contractor cannot wait for MW system components Non-accessible plenum
Overhead Track Systems G G G G P P G For high capacity requirements where data and communication cables must be enclosed in a metal raceway and PLEC system was not designed into building
Service Poles G G F G P G G Good system for offices in which PLEC distribution systems were an afterthought
Partitions P F F F E F F For low capacity requirements with good access to service feeds; limited flexibility requirements.
Surface Raceway P P G G P F F Retrofit applications where extensive renovation work is not contemplated and walls are available. Also for perimeter feed in new construction.
Key
E Excellent G Good F Fair
P Poor NR Not Relevant
Figure 3


Organizing Performance Criteria for Evaluating the Integration of Systems
PHYSIOLOGICAL NEEDS PSYCHOLOGICAL NEEDS SOCIOLOGICAL NEEDS ECONOMIC NEEDS
Performance Criteria Specific to Certain Human Senses, in Hie Integrated System
I SPATIAL Ergonomic Comfort Handicap Access Functional Servicing Habitability Beauty, Calm, Excitement, View Way finding. Functional Adjacencies Space Conservation
2 THERMAL No Numbness, Frostbite; No Drowsiness. Heat Stroke Healthy Plants, Sense of Warmth, Individual Control . Flexibility to Dress w/thc Custom... Energy Conservation
3 AIR QUALITY Air Purity; No Lung Problems, No Rashes, Cancers Healthy Plants, Not Closed in, Stuffy No Synthetics No Irritation From Neighbors Smoke, Smells Energy Conservation
4 ACOUSTICAL No Hearing Damage, Music Enjoyment Speech Clarity Quiet, Soothing; Activity, Excitement “Alive" Privacy. Communication
5 VISUAL No Glare, Good Task Illumination, Way-finding, No Fatigue Orientation, Cheerfulness, Calm, Intimate, Spacious, Alive Status of Window, Daylit Office "Sense of Territory" Energy Conservation
6 BUILDING INTEGRITY Fire Safely; Struct. Strength + Stability; Weathertightness, No Outgassing Durability, Sense of Stability Image Stalus/Appcarance Quality of Const. “Craftsmanship" Matcrial/Labor Conservation
Performance Criteria General to All Human Senses, in the Integrated System
Physical Comfort Health Safety Functional Appropriateness Psych. Comfort Menial Health Psych. Safety Esthetics Delight Privacy Security Community Image/Slatus Space Conservation Material Conservation Time Conservation Energy Conservation Moncy/Investment Conservation
Figure 4


cedes that a surface drainage scheme "can work," because he is uncomfortably aware of the owner's budget worries and the architect's preference for a compatible site organization, it were better to have explored his doubts 1n detail at the first site discussion than to discover with the first exchange of preliminary construction drawings that the bird-baths and gully-washers are so obvious and so inescapable that the building has to be raised or re-sited at the eleventh hour. Someone must be ready and able to translate the unmatched jargon of two separate engineers (or an engineer and the owner's financial advisor) so as to establish plainly that they are in fact headed in the same direction (or, more likely, are talking in circles around each other's point.) Someone must be able to see beyond the specialists’ habitual tunnel vision, identify sufficient commonality of value or purpose, and co-opt aspects of each viewpoint such that the interest and support of each team member are enlisted. And sooner or later, someone must step inside a deadlocked issue, analyze the opposing forces, and induce movement off dead-center by strengthening one vector, weakening another, or introducing a wholy new factor relating to the conflict at hand but hitherto overlooked or blocked out. This arbitrative aspect of communication enhancement goes beyond mere compromise in the sense of "I'll give up something if you will" or "I'll give in this time but you have to give in next time" to create a spirit of mutual striving toward a clearly-stated, continually more defined set of goals.
Overall progress, a more or less consistent flow, therefore becomes essential to a team effort — and not simply in terms of settling upon details and finally completing the set of long-awaited construction documents. To establish momentum and maintain energy and enthusiasm among participants, it is critical that progress be perceived as continual refinement of previously accepted concepts or intentions. Each level of detail, each individual choice, must reflect clearly both a derivation from and a meaningful amplification of its successive antecedents. This typically admits in the short term a logic loop of re-examining or re-considering earlier decisions in light of subsequent thinking, but ideally the long-term effect of such loops is to identify the dead-ends stemming from flawed choices and assist in tracing the problem to its source, as well as to demonstrate the validity of sound choices made in the context of an expanding network of reinforcing relationships. Real progress in the course of the healthy design process tends to resemble a spiral, an outwardly expanding system of selections such that origins can be identified, rational growth can be traced, and a conclusion or set of conclusions can be reached, all within the compass of that same system.
Keeping these processes working as a gestalt tends toward the concept of team leader as a generalist, whose understanding of the essentials of each special discipline within the team is sufficient to ask the right questions and filter the resulting Information for those factors meaningful to the other members of the team and thus most relevant to the project as a whole. In practice, the Owner rarely has such breadth of knowledge and, in any case, is most interested in "keeping his eye on the bottom line": that is his primary pay-off. The Contractor may have the necessary knowledge, accumulated through long and varied experience, but his Holy Grail remains the profit he expects to make on his investment of men, equipment, and material 1n constructing the building, thus rendering his impartial dedication to "what is best for the project" highly suspect. The consultants have been criticized sufficiently already for their shortcomings; suffice it to repeat that they are being paid (by whom is Irrelevant) solely for their special expertise. This would appear to lead us back to the Architect (who, after all, usually has the least profit motive, substituting ego gratification and professional reputation for the more bankable rewards); he, at least, has the overview albeit not the detailed knowledge of the experts, so he can be counted upon to take the "higher road" and represent impartially the best interest of The Project to produce a sound, useful and harmonious building.
That leads us back to the concept of the architect as master builder, if in slightly less god-like form than traditionally envisioned. Architectural design in the developer-dominated team approach is now external to the architect himself, but his cognitive and discriminating function remains central to this necessarily more rational, explicit process. The “black box" effect of value judgments and design choices made in the privacy and inexplicably intuitive recesses of The Master's mind, though still revealing itself in innumerable details large and small, has been transformed into an open, methodical, demystified process less subject to quietly suppressing those nagging little voices that occasionally insist on noting, with all due respect, that the Emperor Is wearing no clothes. At least, this way, the warning arrives before the castle door closes behind the poor man and the paparazzi start shooting.
And that leads me back to graduate school in September of 1986, to pick up where I left off but with a better perspective and understanding of where I am headed and how best to prepare myself for my eventual arrival.









THESIS STATEMENT


"Height and zoning restrictions produce clear technical solutions for office buildings. The only thing left for architects is 'facadomy' -- packaging."
CHARLES THOMSEN, 3-D INTERNATIONAL
"Spec office buildings tend to be gyrated forms
with a visual gimmick that fouls up the net-to-gross floor area ratio."
CHARLES GWATHMEY, GWATHMEY SIEGEL ARCHITECTS
"The only chance you really have to make architecture in these buildings is in the space between the car and the front door, and a section change in the lobby."
ROBERT SIEGEL, GWATHMEY SIEGEL ARCHITECTS
"Innovation comes from solving real problems in the real world.
The only meaningful innovation is that which is wanted by somebody."
CHARLES THOMSEN, 3-D INTERNATIONAL
"Rules should be derived from exceptions."
BRUNO ZEVI, The Modern Language of Architecture


September 2, 1986
SLFTBB Architects, P.C.
123 Tuft Road
Front Range, Colorado 80200 RE: Request for Proposal
Gentlemen:
You are invited to respond to our enclosed “Request for Proposal" dated July 4, 1986 for consideration as the Architect to design a quality. Class A speculative office building on property owned by the Developer in the South Greenwood Plaza office park area near Denver, Colorado.
Your proposal shall be predicated upon the following information:
1. Site - 4.691 acres on the northwest corner of South Ulster Street
and East Caley Avenue, unincorporated Arapahoe County, CO (Location Plan and Site Plan enclosed as Exhibits 1 & 2; Preliminary Soils Investigation, Exhibit 3; Adjacent Street Plan & Profiles, Exhibits 4 & 5; Existing Sleeving & Utility Plan, Exhibit 6; Boundary Survey, Exhibit 7; Topographical Map, Exhibit 8; PBG Zoning for Arapahoe County, Exhibit 9; Covenants for Greenwood Plaza South, Exhibit 10)
2. Building - Projected as a midrise (7 to 9 story), minimum 150,000
sq. ft. (gross), office building accommodating both single- and multi-tenant floor leasing; structured and surface parking as required by ordinance, but at no less than one car per 275 sq. ft. (gross). Building should fit into speculative lease market reflected by existing buildings surrounding site.
3. Proposal Requirements - As outlined in RFP, enclosed.
.4. Schedule - Proposals due by 5:00 p.m. MOT, September 8, 1986
Award announced by 12:00 noon MDT, September 10, 1986 Schematic Design presented for Owner approval by October 17, 1986
Design Development complete for final acceptance by December 5, 1986
Construction Begins, February 29, 1987 Occupancy by first tenant, April 1, 1988
5. Contract Form - Standard AIA Document B131 (1979 Edition)
6. Project Team - To be selected by the Owner and Architect prior to
execution of a contract.
7. Rejection - The Owner reserves the right to reject any and all
proposals for any reason, stated or withheld.
All questions, correspondence and your proposal shall be directed to the undersigned as Owner's Project Executive.
Sincerely,
BSRD, Inc.
Juan de los Hombres, Assistant Vice President
JDLH/aup


The kind of letter your secretary handed you this morning with your first cup of coffee Is a definite good news, bad news classic: the good news 1s that you've finally made the short list for a commercial design project over the 40,000 square foot barrier you been knocking on since you went out on your own; the bad news Is that 1t's for a speculative office building,
1n the suburbs no less, and for a local developer who has been voluble In his disdain for the “artsy monuments to ego" erected over the recent years by his more visible competitors.
Not that you're so interested 1n designing monuments per se, but you would like to think you can do better than dressing up some financial wizard's latest warehouse for office workers and playing draftsman to h1s “designer." It wouldn't be so bad 1f 1t were a downtown high-rise, where the technical challenges would stretch you a little and look good 1n your brochure. You could even have looked forward to the programming complexities and the need to "express the corporate Image" for a suburban company headquarters building on a hard-to-bu1ld site that (as they say diplomatically) presents some unique opportunities. But this: what do you do with a build-it-cheap-and-lease-lt-fast office box on a pla1n-Jane site?
So, reluctantly, you reach for the telephone and tell ol' Juan de los Hombres that you're simply too busy to respond -- hah! like hell you do. What you really do is call the man and assure him that you look forward to submitting a design proposal and immediately arrange to visit the specified site and as many of BSRD's similar buildings as you can find. (Not that they're so hard to recognize: most of the red brick and black glass office buildings across town belong to those guys.)
And then, out of the clear blue sky, you hear Senor de los Hombres gushing (yes, gushing) about how Impressed the B1g Man was with that little post office branch you completed last year, and how they've waited to find the right opportunity to approach you for a design collaboration, and how excited everyone is that your firm is one of the three the Big Man feels can best breathe some imagination and innovation into this new project. He'll be happy to show you around the company's holdings personally tomorrow morning, are you free for lunch? look forward to meeting you, thanks for accepting our invitation, see you at nine, you're quite welcome, c1ao — wow. After all that, how can you have been so ready to walk away from such an opportunity? Maybe it's time to look at this project with a new perspective, to trash all your preconceived notions and start thinking about the best way to rise to the old challenge of commodity, firmness and delight In what somebody only moments ago was dismissing as — what was the phrase? "just a warehouse for office workers?"


One week later, the Big Man's arm around your shoulder and a smug grin splitting your face, the job is yours. Champagne 1s distributed around the room and the B1g Man himself ("Call me Hank, son!") 1s offering a toast...
*To the architect who had the guts to tell me what I've been doing wrong as well as what I've been doing right over the past eight years and nineteen office buildings; who had the uncommon sense (for an architect) to suggest that materials and building systems be chosen at least in part for their ability to perform several functions 1n one assembly; who didn't hesitate to state the obvious, that you put the extra cost where It will perform the most vital functions or be most obvious to the senses; who managed to convince me that he really can give me what I want for the money I have to spend by working with me instead of for me or against me. Congratulations, and welcome to our Team!"
Okay, so you've cooked up a tall order for yourself this time. You've shown something to this guy that makes him believe you can teach and learn at the same time. Now you get to prove it: either this suburban spec office building will demonstrate the ability of your rational design process to find cost-effective ways of organizing basic, off-the-shelf construction technologies into a semantically rich, timeless architecture, or you eat your words and slink back down there with the smarmy stylists who told you that imagination was wasted on a building like this aside from the games you can play with skin, and form, and lobby.
Is that what I said I would prove? Really? Well, best to get started, then.


In this section, a survey will be made of all relative restrictions requirements, recommendations, preferences and other considerations
affecting the design of the building.
Format of this survey will include: identification of source pertinent discussion building elements affected
A preliminary analysis of each constraint will be attempted simultaneously with each discussion, with graphic indication of relative strength of need shown as follows:
must/must not should/preferred suggested
In addition, each factor analysis will be numbered to facilitate future reference and comparison during the Schematic Design phase to follow programming.
ARCHITECTURAL PROGRAM


OWNER CRITERIA: BUILDING TYPE AND SIZE
Owner has developed eight low-rise (two- and three-story) office buildings on properties north and northwest of this site over the past eight years. Due to higher land cost on this site, as well as lesser height restrictions and the nature of recent construction surrounding the site by others, the Owner wants to maximize net rentable area on this site in a mid-rise (six-to nine-story) building, over and above the 127,500 NRSF projection upon which he has based his financial pro forma.
Because of increased building density on this site and size limitations of property, Owner expects to provide structured parking on-site. Pro forma assumes separate income from structured parking facility accommodating 383 vehicles, based upon three cars per 1000 NRSF. (At 315 square feet per space, parking structure will approximate 120,645 SF.) As Owner prefers a total parking ratio, surface plus structured, of one space per 275 NRSF, surface parking for 81 vehicles should be provided. (At 305 square feet per space, surface parking will approximate 24,705 SF.)
Primary leasing effort will focus on full-floor tanants, especially those whose space needs do not permit them to seek prestigious full-floor lease in larger office buildings surrounding this site — such buildings having floor plates in the 45,000 to 60,000 square foot range. However, the exigencies of the commercial leasing market in the southeast Denver corridor, especially at present, dictate that typical floor plan be efficiently adaptable to multi-tenant floor layouts, with individual spaces as small as 1000 NRSF.
☆
OFFICE BUILDING AREA > 127,500 NRSF
A PARKING STRUCTURE TO BE INCLUDED
|A PARKING STRUCTURE AREA > 121,000 SF |
1C SURFACE PARKING AREA > 26,000 SF

£ TYPICAL FLOOR PLATE = 16,000 TO 19,000 NRSF
IyY floor PLAN = 85% TO 95% EFFICIENT


OWNER CRITERIA: QUALITY AND IMAGE
Owner's previous office buildings have focused on provideing above-average Class A office space for lease at slightly below market rates by emphasis on careful value engineering of construction elements and concentration of cost premiums on top-quality, user-affective features such as lobbies, elevators and HVAC systems. Intentions of exterior architectural form and materials have been modest, trying to build image of solid, workmanlike quality rather than trendy styling.
Given the nature of existing buildings surrounding the site on the east (Tuscany Place), west (Carrera Place) and southwest (Cascades), the Owner acknowledges the need for this building to present a stronger image of quality and visibility to avoid getting lost in the crowd as "another one of those little office buildings out around the Denver Tech Center." At the same time, the Owner remains convinced that his past emphasis on basic value engineering is more important than ever. Therefore, exotic and custom materials, systems and detailing should be minimized in favor of accomplishing esthetic effects by canny organization of standard building components.
Owner has indicated several areas and features in building as having been critical in conveying his preferred image in earlier developments:
a. main entrance and lobby
b. elevator cars and service
c. public restrooms
d. upper lobbies and corridors
e. flexible HVAC zones
f. adequate electrical power for tenant needs
g. private plumbing readily available to tenants
Owner is disinclined to invest in centralized specialty systems -- i.e., a so-called “intelligent building" -- for this market, especially while technologies for such systems are changing as rapidly as they have been during the past five to ten years.
FINISHES = "COMFORTABLE LUXURY" NOT "TRENDY"
STRONG VISUAL IMAGE FOR BUILDING
/\ ESCHEW EXOTIC OR COMPLEX CONSTRUCTION
A
A
HIGH-VOLUME OR ATRIUM-TYPE MAIN LOBBY
CUSTOM ELEVATOR CAR FINISHES
AVER. ELEVATOR INTERVAL ^ 30 SECONDS
HVAC ZONES ^ 1000 SF
TENANT POWER >2.5 WATTS/NRSF
TENANT LIGHTING >5.0 WATTS/NRSF
EMERGENCY ELECTRICAL SYSTEM


OWNER CRITERIA: CONSTRUCTION BUDGET
Owner has based his financial pro forma upon the following projected construction costs:
Office Building @ $55.00 per SF (gross)
Parking Structure 0 $20.00 per SF (gross)
Site Development @ $4.00 per SF


OWNER CRITERIA: LEASING CONDITIONS
Leasing of space in the building will be based upon “Usable Area" and "Rentable Area" as per American National Standard Z65.1-1980. Certain definitions under this Standard have significance relating to the arrangement of major building elements:
a. Measurement of both Usable Area and Rentable Area is to the interior surface of the dominant portion of the permanent exterior building wall, which is that surface constituting 50% or more of the floor-to-ceiling height.
b. Measurement of Rentable Area includes floor areas which may be occupied by common facilities such as corridors, lobbies, toilets, janitors closets and utility or service rooms.
c. Calculation of “Net Rentable Square Feet" will be as follows:
NRSF
tenant
USF
tenant
x
RSF
USF
floor
floor
for leases
These definitions essentially mean that each tenant pays for his actual floor area plus a pro-rated portion of common areas on his floor, such as lobbies, corridors and restrooms.
Owner's experience with his existing buildings has shown that varying dimensions from core (or corridor) wall to exterior wall around the floor plate improves the variety of spaces available, thus enhancing flexibility in fitting potential tenants into building.


DO NOT RECESS DOMINANT PORTION OF EXTERIOR WALL

LOBBIES NEED NOT BE TINY FOR ECONOMY
VARY DISTANCE FROM CORE TO EXTERIOR WALL


OWNER CRITERIA: LEASING CONDITIONS
Introduction
)
American National Standard Z65.1-1980
This booklet describes standard methods of measuring office building Usable Area, Rentable Area, Store Area, and Construction Area.
Usable Area
This method measures the actual occupiableareaofa floor or an office suite and is of prime interest to a tenant in evaluating the space offered by a landlord and in allocating the space required to house personnel and furniture. The amount of Usable Area on a multi-tenant floor can vary over the life of a building as corridors expand and contract and as floors are remodeled. Usable Area on a floor can be converted to Rentable Area by the use of a conversion factor.
Rentable Area
DEFINITIONS
1) "Finished Surface" shall mean a wall, ceiling or floor surface, including glass, as prepared for tenant use, excluding the thickness of any special surfacing materials such as paneling, furring strips and carpet.
2) "Dominant Portion" shall mean that portion of the inside finished surface of the permanent outer building wall which is 50% or more of the vertical floor-to-ceiling dimension measured at the dominant portion. If there is no dominant portion, or if the dominant portion is not vertical, the measurement for area shall be to the inside finished surface of the permanent outer building wall where it intersects the finished floor.
This method measures the tenant's pro rata portion of the entire office floor, excluding elements of the building that penetrate through the floor to areas below. The Rentable Area of a floor is fixed for the life of a building and is not affected by changes in corridor sizes or configuration. This method is therefore recommended for measuring the total income producing area of a building and for use in computing the tenant’s pro rata share of a building for purposes of rent escalation. Lenders, architects and appraisers will use Rentable Area in analyzing the economic potential of a building.
It is recommended that on multi-tenant floors the landlord compute both the Rentable and Usable Area for any specific office suite.
Store Area
This method measures the ground floor rentable area of an office building for occupancy as store space.
3) "Major Vertical Penetrations" shall mean stairs, elevator shafts, flues, pipe shafts, vertical ducts, and the like, and their enclosing walls, which serve more than one floor of the building, but shall not include stairs, dumb-waiters, lifts, and the like, exclusively serving a tenant occupying offices on more than one floor.
4) "Office" shall mean the premises leased to a tenant for which a measurement is to be computed.
CONVERSION FORMULA
Rentable Area Usable Area
= Rentable/Usable Ratio ("R/U Ratio")
Usable Area x R/U Ratio=Rentable Area
Construction Area
This method of measurement is to be used primarily to determine building cost or value and is not used for leasing purposes except where an entire building is leased to a single tenant.
Rentable Area R/U Ratio
â–  Usable Area


OWNER CRITERIA: LEASING CONDITIONS

American National Standard Z65.1-1900
The Usable Area of an office shall be computed by measuring to the finished surface of the office side of corridor and other permanent walls, to the center of partitions that separate the office from adjoining Usable Areas, and to the inside finished surface of the dominant portion of the permanent outer building walls.
No deductions shall be made for columns and projections necessary to the building.
The Usable Area of a floor shall be equal to the sum of all Usable Areas on that floor.
•Note: Assumes glass line as illustrated is the dominant portion. See illustrations "A" through "O".


OWNER CRITERIA: LEASING CONDITIONS
Rentable Area
American National Standard Z65.1-1980
The Rentable Area of a floor shall be computed by measuring to the inside finished surface of the dominant portion of the permanent outer building walls, excluding any major vertical penetrations of the floor.
No deductions shall be made for columns and projections necessary to the building.
The Rentable Area of an office on the floor shall be computed by multiplying the Usable Area of that office by the quotient of the division of the Rentable Area of the floor by the Usable Area of the floor resulting in the "R/U Ratio” described herein.
WOMEN
sa«8sg
LOBBY*

l 1-lrrr—
• FAN ROOM S. y- •••

•Note: Assumes glass line as illustrated is the dominant portion. See illustrations "A” through "D".


OWNER CRITERIA: LEASING CONDITIONS
^onstnuc^iGn^rea"
American National Standard Z65.1-1980
The Construction Area of a floor shall be computed by measuring to the outside finished surface of permanent outer building walls. The Construction Area of a building shall be the sum of the Construction Area of all enclosed floors of the building, including basements, mechanical equipment floors, penthouses, and the like.
The number of square feet in a ground floor Store Area shall be computed bymeasuring from the building line in the case of street frontages, and from the inner surface of other outer building walls and from the inner surface of corridor and other permanent partitons and to the center of partitions that separate the premises from adjoining rentable areas.
. e. ^•- «OTr'
- - - -
No deduction shall be made for vestibules inside the building line or for columns or projections necessary to the building.
No addition should be made for bay windows extend* ing outside the building line.


OWNER CRITERIA: LEASING CONDITIONS
Clarifying' I (lustrations
American National Standard Z65.1-1980
Illustrates a vertical permanent outer building wall where glass comprises 50% or more of the vertical floor-to-ceiling dimension and, therefore, is the dominant portion. Points of measurement are shown by the connected arrows.
Illustrates a vertical permanent outer building wall where non-glass material comprises 50% or more of the vertical floor-to-ceiling dimension and, therefore, is the dominant portion. Points of measurement are shown by the connected arrows.


OWNER CRITERIA: LEASING CONDITIONS
American National Standard Z65.1-1980
Illustrates a partially non-vertical permanent outer building wall. Points of measurement are shown by the connected arrows.

Illustrates a non-vertical permanent outer building wall. Points of measurement are shown by the connected arrows.


OWNER CRITERIA: MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
Tenant build-out and move-in is expedited -- and disturbance of existing tenants is minimized — by having one elevator serve double duty for passenger and freight service. Such a car would require a deeper car platform and greater weight capacity. In this same vein, Owner prefers to minimize obtrusiveness of bulk deliveries into building.
Past problems with injury lawsuits and repair/replacement costs have led Owner's property managers to proscribe decorative tile paving in lobbies and outside entries.
Continuing problems with persistent water infiltration through window-wall systems has Owner extremely anxious to avoid similar problems in a taller building.
10 ONE LONG-PLATFORM ELEVATOR CAR
c SECONDARY ACCESS FOR DELIVERIES
NO TILE ENTRY/LOBBY FLOORING


SITE DETERMINANTS: LOCATION MAP


SITE DETERMINANTS: VICINITY MAP
VICINITY MAP
*0 SCALE


N00°I3,53‘,E 321.72'
SITE DETERMINANTS: PROPERTY SURVEY AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION


SITE DETERMINANTS:
PROPERTY SURVEY AND LEGAL DESCRIP'
LEfiM. DESCRIPTION:
The South one-half of Lot 2ft," A SUBDIVISION OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE ft/ WEST” of the 6th Principal Meridian, County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, beinq additionally described as follows:
COMMENCING at the center of said Section 21; THENCE north 00°16'38“ east alonq the east line of the NW1/4 of said Section 21, a distance of 15.00 feet from whence the NE corner of the NW1/4 of said Section 21 bears north 00°16'38" east a distance of 2634.38 feet; THENCE north 89°55'16" west a distance of 25.00 feet to the SE corner of Lot 28,. beinq the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE north 89°55,16‘* west alonq the south line of said Lot 28, and 15.00 feet north of and parallel to the south line of the SF1/4 of the NW1/4 of said Section 21 a distance of 535.Ofl feet to the SW corner of sa’ 1 Lot 28; THENCE\north 00°13,53." east alonq ‘ho west line of said Lot-. 2distance of 321.72 feet to the NW corner of the south 1/2 of said lot 28; THENCE south 89055'4l" alonq the north line of the Sl/2 of said Lot 28 a distance of 535.26 feet to the NF corner of the Sl/2 of said Lot 28; THENCE south nn°16,38" west alonq the east line of said Lot. 28, and ,'5.00 feet west of and parallel to the east line of the NW1/4 of said Section 21 a distance of 321.79 feet to the SE corner of said Lot 28, beinq the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, containinq A.691 acres (204,360 square feet) more or less.


SITE DETERMINANTS: CLIMATE
CLIMATE AND PLANNING WITH EMPHASIS ON DENVER
WHAT IS CLIMATE?
The earth’s climaie is ihe product ol the sun which supplies the energy to set the atmosphere in motion Climate can be defined as the collective state of the atmosphere for a location at a given time of day or year. It is frequently descrioed m terms of these statistical weather variables temperature, wind, sunshine, precipitation and cloud cover
The state of the atmosphere at any moment for a given location could also be described in terms of energy, because it is the result of continuous exchanges of energy within itself and with the surface of the earth If the surlace changes, as when urbanization replaces countryside with concrete and buildings, the mechanisms of energy are modified and the climate changes.
In Denver the combination of buildings, paved surfaces and air pollution has altered the local climate The core city is hotter than the surrounding countryside in summer. During the winter air pollution interferes with the receipt of solar radiation It is estimated that a smoggy day can lower the surlace air temperature by as much as ten degrees F
TEMPERATURE
Denver area temperatures typify a mild interior continental region Extremes of hoi and cold temperaiures lasting beyond 5-6 days are a rarity The diurnal temperature range between night and day is greater than the winter to summer swing. Table I gives the mean and extreme temperature summary as recorded by the United States Weather Bureau at Denver, Colorado
TABLE I
MEAN AND EXTREME TEMPERATURE SUMMARY l°FI DENVER, COLO.
Mont h Dally Maxlmum Oallv Mininun Month 1v Vein Pecord Hi eh Record I.ow NomaJ Degree Davs Base 65°F
9ll°r nnd above 32°F and below
rite it ir.r) (Coo 1 lnr.>
Jan 43.5 16.2 29.9 72 -25 loss 0 0 30
Feb 46.2 19.4 32.8 76 -30 002 0 0 27
Mir 50. 1 2 3.9 37.0 94 -11 86S 0 P 27
Apr 61.0 33.9 67.5 85 - 2 525 0 0 13
Mav 70.1 61.6 57.0 96 22 251 0 • 2
Jun pn. i 51.9 66.0 106 30 90 110 5 0
Jut 87.4 59.6 73.0 106 4 3 n 15 0
Aug 35.8 57.4 71.6 101 41 0 208 9 0
Sen 77.7 47. A 62.8 07 20 120 54 ? 1
Oct 66.3 37.2 52.0 88 3 60« 5 0 9
Nov 53. 3 25.4 39.4 79 - 8 769 0 n 25
Dec 66.2 i a. 9 32.6 74 -18 1004 0 0 29
Annul 1 64.0 36.2 50 1 in/. -30 6016 625 32 162
* Leas than one half.
Source: Departmenl of Commerce. 1977


SITE DETERMINANTS: CLIMATE
g HEATING AND COOLING CHART, DENVER, COLORADO
'!$$$$&// normal heating degree days
NORMAL COOLING DEGREE DAYS ---—"»• SUN ANGLE
DATA SOURCE: U S WEATHER BUREAU 1941-1970, DENVER
SUN ANGLE


SITE DETERMINANTS: CLIMATE
PRECIPITATION
WIND
Denver lies in the semi-arid rain shadow of the Rocky Mountains. Mean annual precipitation equals 15.51 inches with the bulk of the moisture coming in the spring months. The winter months are normally the driest months. From November to March, the precipitation usually falls as snow. Heavy thundershowers are not uncommon during the warm summer months. Table II shows Denver s precipitation characteristics.
Daily precipitation amounts greater than or equal to 0.10 inches can be expected on the average of 88 days per year and the maximum daily rainfall recorded at Denver is 3.55 inches. Thunderstorms account for most of the summer precipitation. and annually there is an average of 41 days with thunderstorm occurrences. Snowfall averages 59.9 inches per year and snow has been recorded in every month except July and August. The maximum monthly and maximum 24-hour snowfalls recorded are 39.1 inches and 19.4 inches, respectively.
Wind speeds in Denver are normally highest in winter and spring and lowest in late summer and fall as shown in Table III Sustained wind speeds of 90 miles per hour with gusts to 120 miles per hour have been recorded along the foothills west of Denver. The maximum recorded surface wind speed at Stapleton International Airport was 56 mph in April. 1960 and again in July, 1965. The latter is not. however, a recommended design wind speed representative of the Denver area, since winds a few feet above the surface or along the foothills might be considerably higher.
Knowledge of the prevailing wind direction is a grossly overused and not particularly revealing statistic by itself. For heating, ventilation and air conditioning applications it is much more important to know the various wind directions and wind speeds in relation to the outdoor air temperatures and those desired temperatures in the building at the time heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment is func-
TABLE II
DAILY, MONTHLY AND ANNUAL PRECIPITATION DATA (inches! DENVER, COLORADO
Month Total Precipitation Mean Nunher* Snow .Mean Number • of Davs with Snow 1.0 Inch
Mean Month]v Maxirun Monthly Minimum Maximum 24-hour of Davs with Precipitation >..01 Inch Monthly Mean Maxinun Monthly
Jan .61 1.44 0.01 1.02 A 8.4 23.7 2
Feb .67 1.66 0.01 1.01 6 8.0 18.3 2
Mar 1.21 2.89 0.13 J .48 8 12.6 29.2 4
Aor 1.93 4.17 0.03 3.25 0 9.6 28.3 3
May 2.64 7.31 0.06 3.55 10 1.5 13.6 #b
Jun 1.93 4.69 0.10 3.16 Q TC 0.1 0
Jul 1. 78 6.41 0.17 2.42 9 0.0 0.0 0
Aur 1. 29 4.47 0.06 3.43 8 0.0 0.0 0
Sep 1.13 4.67 T* 2.44 6 1 .9 21.3 *
Oct 1.13 4.17 0.05 1.71 5 3.8 31.2 1
Nov 0. 76 2.97 0.01 1.29 5 7.6 35.1 2
Dec 0.43 2.«4 0.03 1.34 5 6.5 30.8 2
Total 15.31 7.31 Tc 3.55 98 5°. 9 39.1 18
Monthly totals arc rounded to the nearest whole day. 'Denotes less than one-half.


SITE DETERMINANTS: CLIMATE
TABLE III
MEAN AND EXTREMES OF WINDS DENVER, COLORADO
Month Mean Wind Speed (mph) Prevaillng Direction Maximum Wind Speed Recorded (mph) Direction Associated with Maximum
Jan 9.2 S 53 N
Feb 9.4 S 49 NW
Mar 10.1 s 53 NW
Apr 10.4 s 56 NW
May 9.6 s 43 SW
Jun 9.2 s 47 S
Jul 8.5 s 56 SW
Aug 8.2 s 42 SW
Sep 8.2 s 47 NW
Oct 8.2 s 45 NW
Nov 8.7 s 48 W
Dec 9.0 s 51 NE
Annual 9.1 s 56 NW
SOURCE: U.S. Dep«rc=«nc of Comtrct, I>77


SITE DETERMINANTS: CLIMATE
TABLE IV
AVERAGE HOURLY WIND SPEED (m.p.h.) AND DIRECTION AT DENVER
Data Saurca: U.S. Waathar lurtiu
bxiiloa af Vlnd Var.aa: Ogvat.*** Daaaar, rooftop alavat lata at a» aaar Hal« foat Off lea


SITE DETERMINANTS: CLIMATE
TABLE V
MONTHLY AND ANNUAL SUNSHINE AND CLOUD DATA
Denver, Colorado
Month Percent of Possible Sunshlne Number ofa Clear Days Number ofa Partly Cloudy Days Number ofa Cloudy Days Mean Sky Cover (Tenths)
January 72 10 10 11 5.5
February 71 8 9 11 5.8
March 70 8 10 13 6.0
Apr 11 66 7 10 13 6.1
May 65 6 12 13 6.2
June 71 9 13 8 5.0
July 71 9 16 6 5.0
August 72 10 14 7 4.9
September 74 13 9 8 4.4
October 73 13 10 8 4.4
November 66 11 9 10 5.3
December 68 11 10 10 5.3
Total 70 115 132 118 5.3
^Monthly totals are rounded to the nearest whole day. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1977.
tioning. Tables III and IV. used together, may be of some limited use in this regard.
Table III presents monthly annual mean and extreme winds at Denver The annual average wind speed is 9.1 miles per hour with Apnl having the highest average (10 4 miles per hour). Because of the nighttime drainage wind down the South Platte Valley, south is the prevailing wind direction in all seasons. During late morning and afternoon hours, north and northeast winds are most frequent as shown in Table IV.
SUNSHINE DURATION AND CLOUD COVER
Sunshine duration is defined as the number of hours ol sunshine reaching the surface which is intense enough to j cause distinct shadows Denver receives on the average 70 percent of the tolal possible sunshine throughout the year
Annually Denver averages 115 clear days (10 to 30 percent cloud cover), 133 partly cloudy days (30 to 80 percent cloud cover) and 117 cloudy days (80 to 100 percent Cloud cover). Table V presents daytime solar and cloud dala at Denver.
SOLAR RADIATION
Solar radiation varies with latitude and season. Incoming radiation has a value (solar constant) of about 2 gram calories per square centimeter pCr minute al an angle perpendicular to the outer boundary ol the atmosphere The solar collector on a Denver house will receive about hall that rate of energy during an average summer solar day. The depletion is caused by many factors including reflectivity, cloud cover, ozone, sun angle and absorption by the earth s vaporous atmosphere Table VI is a summary of average daily solar and reliected sky radiation for Denver and oiner


SITE DETERMINANTS:
CLIMATE
TABLE VI
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE DAILY SOLAR AND SKY RADIATION IN LANGLEYS [cal/cm'2/dayl
Star ion Ian Fel. M..r \!-r lav .1 '-US J<.l A».e Sent Her 0.C
Riverside. Calif. 2oO 335 i La Jolla. Calif. ?to 305 -00 400 505 510 500 475 400 340 290 240
Nov Orleans. La. 220 2 75 150 -23 4c,0 470 425 425 380 380 300 205
Fresno, Calif. 170 275 400 573 650 700 633 615 510 480 3o0 155
Nashville. Tenn. 140 210 310 410 503 5)0 510 460 385 300 200 110
Davis, Calif. 210 2S0 37 3 560 640 700 690 615 515 360 240 115
Phoenix. Aria. 270 3 JO 4 8«"i 570 660 650 600 555 495 400 300 260
Crand-Junetion, Colo. 210 265 400 -:o 550 620 610 543 445 340 2)0 195
Boise, Idaho 130 185 i 10 420 525 565 600 525 405 275 160 115
Oodrfe City, Kansas 2 IS 26 S 37 5 460 515 575 5*5 540 440 345 2)5 215
Ely, Nevada 215 270 420 495 565 620 600 560 460 360 2 50 200
Brovnsvl1le. Texas 260 265 365 190 500 525 553 510 410 360 250 2)5
Fort Worth. Texas 2)0 265 330 4 30 510 575 570 550 445 365 270 2 30
Midland, Texas 260 293 260 4 90 545 560 560 540 4 50 355 295 2 50
Spokane, Washington 10S 155 230 395 495 565 605 510 350 210 113 80
Lander, Wyoming 20 S wo 4 60 5)5 590 595 530 4)0 3 30 215 130
boulder, Colorado 200 270 400 4 30 460 515 510 460 4)0 315 210 190
Denver, Colorado* 240 325 425 510 560 610 620 560 460 34 5 240 195
â– Based on Huron, Weiss and Wilson nanograpli and the U.S. Weather Bureau cl tautological noreali (percent of possible sunshine) for the 1941-1970 period of record.
Source: U.S. Weather R ireaq Records (unless otherwise noted)
TABLE VII
SOLAR POSITION AND INTENSITY;
- SOLAR HEAT GAIN FACTORS* FOR 40° N LATITUDE
Solar T lice A.M. Sol«r PositIon Oirect Norma) IrrudlatIon, Etuh/sq ft Solar Heat Cain factors, Btu h/sq ft Solar T ine P.M.
A11. Azimuth N Hi £ SF S SW W MU Hor .
SlItPER 5 4.2 117.3 21 10 21 20 6 1 1 1 1 2 7
6 14.8 108.4 154 47 142 151 70 12 12 12 12 30 6
June 21 7 26.0 99.7 215 37 172 207 122 21 20 20 20 07 5
A 37.4 90.7 246 29 156 215 1 5? 29 26 ?6 26 15) 4
9 48.8 80.2 262 3 3 11) 192 161 45 31 31 31 201 3
in 59.8 65.8 272 35 62 145 148 69 36 35 35 237 2
n 69.2 41.9 2 76 37 40 80 116 88 41 37 37 260 1
12 73.5 o.n 278 38 )P. 41 71 95 71 41 38 267 12
Half Da y Totals 242 714 1019 810 311 197 18) 180 1121
WINTER s 5.5 53.0 88 2 7 67 83 49 3 2 2 6 4
9 14.0 41.9 217 9 10 135 205 151 12 9 9 39 3
Dec 21 *10 20. 7 29.4 26) 14 14 11 3 2)2 210 55 14 • 14 77 2
n 25.0 15.2 27M 16 16 56 217 242 120 16 16 10) 1
12 26.6 0.0 284 17 17 18 177 253 177 18 17 11) 12
Half Du v Totals 49 54 380 811 781 27) 50 49 282


SITE DETERMINANTS:
CLIMATE
TABLE VIII
EFFECT OF DATE ON SOLAR ANGLES FOR 40° N LATITUDE
Solar Time Winter Solstice Dec. 21 Equ inoxes (Mar. 2 I /Sept. 21) Summer Solstice (June 21)
Altitude Azimuth Alt itude Azimuth Altitude Azimuth
4:00 a.m. — — 0. ° -121.3°
5:00 a.m. — — — — 4.2° -117.3° 1
6:00 a.m. — — 0. ° -90.0° 14.8° -1C9.4*
7:00 a.m. 0. • -58.7° 11.4° -80.2° 26.2° -99.7°
8:00 a.m. 5.5° -53.0° 22.5° -69.6° 37.4° -90. 7°
9:00 a.m. 14.0° -41.9° 32.8° -57.3° 41.9° -80.2°
10:00 a.m. 20.7° -29.4° 41.6° -41.9° 59.8° -65.8°
11:00 a.m. 25.0° -15.2° 47.7° -22.6° 69.2° -41.2°
12:00 noon 26.5° 0.0° 50.0° 0.0° 73.4° 0.0°
TABLE IX
SHADOW LENGTHS FOR SELECTED SLOPES AND TIMES (in feet per one foot of obstruction!
40° N LATITUDE
Solar Time Level Ground 5Z S* Slope 52 N Slope 5 2 W Slope 52 E Slope
Winter 10:00 a.m. 2.7 2.4 3.0 2.8 2.5
Solstice 9:00 a.m. 4.0 3.5 4.7 4. 7 3.5
Equinoxes 10:00 a.m. 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1
9:00 a.m. 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.2 1.5
Summer 9:00 a.m. 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8
Solstice 8:00 a.m. 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.2
7:00 a.m. , 2‘1 2.1 2.0 2.* 1.9
* Slope is downward to the south at a rate of 5 feet pet 100 feet of horizontal distance.
DW TO PLAN WITH CLIMATE iD SOLAR ENERGY IN DENVER
e lirsl step in planning with climate and solar energy is to ntily those parts ot a development project which are sensi-â–  to weather and climate including solar variations. For istruction ol a residential unit or project, or with any deci-
ture will be a necessity. Reltr to Tables I. V, VII, VIII, and IX lor relevant Denver daia.
The cost benefit ratio and how a planned solar system compares with conventional systems, will be important. In this regard it is important to compare protected costs based on the expected lile ol the equipment. Solar is expected to become more and more attractive as lossil fuel related


SITE DETERMINANTS: CLIMATE
attitude angles


SITE DETERMINANTS:
CLIMATE
ij os nnoM rue
EFFECTS OF SUN SHADES UPON SOLAR HEAT GAIN ON WINDOWS
FACING EAST
FACING WEST FACING SOUTH
â– "â– HEAT GAIN ON UNSHADED WINOOWS -----HEAT GAIN WITH SHADES
IIIIIIIIIIheat blocked
• Use light color for roofing material since a light colored roof will be 60'F cooler in the sun than a dark colored roof.
• Where appropriate, square and rectangular buildings should be designed since they use only 2/3 the energy of L-or U-shaped buildings
• In Denver west walls m particular, exposed to the sun, should be painted light colors or shaded with vegetation.
• Where possible, batt-type insulation should ordinarily be used. Reler to the Denver Building Code. Chapter 62, for recommended thickness of insulation.
• Buildings should be built to withstand external loads exerted by wind and snow and not collapse on account of structural fatigue or materials decomposing in the weather
• Vents or fans in the attic or ceiling mat allow warm air to rise up and out ol the house, wnde drawing cool should be considered
• The building should not allow the penetration of unwanted wind, precipitation and pollutants and. further, it should maintain a certain balance in exchange of heat and moisture with tne surroundings by modifying the passage of heat and the transport of moisture through the outer skin.
• All windows above grade should be at a minimum double-glazed (Refer to Denver Building codes.)
• All exterior doors and interior doors leading to unheated areas above grade should be weather-stripped and sliding glass doors should be double-glazed.
• The total energy required should be computed as the annual estimated BTU's necessary to heat, cool, and light the proposed residential building For purposes of this calculation. tne exterior walls should consist of no more than the equivalent of 20 percent doors and windows. (Reference the Denver Building Code. Chapter 62. Series 1978.)
• Fireplaces should be constructed such that their operation will increase heat energy supplied to the living arfea in quantities greater than mat lost througn air excnange during combustion


SITE DETERMINANTS: TOPOGRAPHY
Site is relatively level in eastern one-third, sloping gradually downward from east to west and steepening in slope from middle of site to southwest corner for an overall drop of approximately 25 feet. Western half of site also slopes downward from north to south approximately 15 feet.
A
A
SURFACE PARKING EASIEST AT EAST END
AVOID SOUTHWEST QUARTER FOR TOWER


yj
EAST CAU^V AVENUE-
SOUTH ULSTER STREET


SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
m A. G. WASSENAAR. INC. SOIL »NO fOUNOATlON CONSULTANT*
PhONC 303 759 8 100 2 180 S IVANMOE SUITES DENVER COLORADO 80222
SOIL AND FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION FOR:
ORCHARD PLACE NINE NW OF E. CALEY AVENUE AT S. ULSTER STREET ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
PREPARED FOR:
WALTERS CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 5975 S. SYRACUSE, SUITE 107 ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80111
November 13, 1981 Project No. 81782


SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
A. O. WASSENAAR. INC.
^MONI S03/7S8-8 I OO
2IIOI IVANMOf SUITV 8
SOU. AND FOUNDATION CONSULTANTS
DENVER COLORADO S0222
November 27 , 1981
Walters Construction Management 5975 S. Syracuse, St. 107 Englewood, Colorado 80111
Attn: Mr. Bob Novack
Subject: Soil and Foundation Investigation
Orchard Place Nine, NW of E. Caley Ave. at S. Ulster St., Englewood, Colorado Project No. 81782
Gentlemen:
We have completed the soil and foundation investigation for the proposed office building and parking structure to be located at the subject site.
Our summary of the data collected during our field and laboratory work, our analysis and our opinions and conclusions are presented in the attached report. The analysis of our investigation is intended to provide the design criteria for the foundation system and floor slabs of the proposed structures.
The subsoils, in general, consist of 1.0 to 11.5 feet of stiff to very stiff, sandy to very sandy clay and medium dense, very clayey sand which is underlain by firm to medium hard claystone-sandstone bedrock. Hard to very hard claystone-sandstone bedrock and hard to very hard sandstone bedrock was encountered 4.0 to 15.0 feet below the ground surface. Near practical drilling refusal was encountered in very hard, strongly cemented sandstone in 7 of the 14 test holes at depths of 15.0 to 32.0 feet below the ground surface. No ground water was observed during this investigation.
We recommend the proposed structures be founded on straight-shaft piers drilled into the competent bedrock material. Minimum penetration into competent bedrock should be 10.0 feet in the parking structure and 15.0 feet in the office building.
We believe the floor slabs for the parking structure can be placed directly on the natural soils if some precautions are taken. We estimate 4.0 to
11.0 feet of fill will be required beneath the office building floor slabs. The on-site, more sandy materials are suitable fill material for this use. Using the design criteria and the precautions given in the report, the subject site is suitable for the proposed construction.


SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
Walters Construction Management Nov. 27, 1981 page two
Selected soil samples tested for water soluble sulfates indicate a modified Type II cement is recommended for foundation concrete in contact with the soils.
For service areas and fire lanes we recommend a pavement section of two inches of asphalt and six inches of base course compacted to a density of 95" of standard Proctor density according to AASHTO-T-99.
If you have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We have appreciated the opportunity to provide this service for you.
AGW/sen
Sincerely,


SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
Table of Contents
Title Page
Purpose ----------------------------------------------------------- l
Proposed Structures ----------------------------------------------- 1
Site Conditions ----------------------------------------------------2
Field Investigations ---------------------------------------------- 2
Laboratory Testing ------------------------------------------------ 3
Subsoil and Ground Water Conditions ------------------------------- 3
Eight Story Office Building ----------------------------------- 3
Parking Structure --------------------------------------------- 4
Foundation Recommendations ---------------------------------------- 4
Eight Story Office Building ----------------------------------- 4
Parking Structure --------------------------------------------- 5
Floor Slabs and Exterior Concrete --------------------------------- 6
Eight Story Office Building ----------------------------------- 6
Parking Structure --------------------------------------------- 6
Structural Fill Soils --------------------------------------------- 7
Retaining Walls ------;-------------------------------------------- 7
Water Soluble Sulfates -------------------------------------------- 8
1
Surface Drainage -------------------------------------------------- 8
Ground Water and Subdrains ---------------------------------------- 8
Construction Excavations ------------------------------------------ g
Pavement Thickness Design ----------------------------------------- 9
Limitations ------------------------------------------------------ 10


SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
Table of Contents Tcont]
Attachments Page
Site Plan, Location of Exploratory Borings ---------------- Figure 1
Logs of Exploratory Borings-------------------------Figures 2 and 3
Legend * Notes for Exploratory Borings -------------------- Figure 4
Settlement - Swell Test Results -------------------- Figures 5 thru 8
Gradation Test Results ------------------------------------ 9 thru 11
Summary of Laboratory Test Results ------------------------ Table 1


SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
Foundation Investigation Orchard Place Nine NW of E. Caley Avenue at S. Ulster Street Englewood, Colorado
Purpose
This report presents results of a soil and foundation investigation at the site of a proposed eight story office building and parking structure to be located northwest of the intersection of East Caley Avenue and South Ulster Street, Englewood, Colorado. The investigation was completed to assist in determining the best type, depth and design criteria for the foundation system of the proposed structures and any special precautions which should be taken. Factual data gathered during the field and laboratory work is summarized on Figures 1 through 11 and Table I attached. Our investigation results and our opinions, which are based upon this investigation and our experience, are discussed in the following report.
Proposed Structures
We understand the proposed structures will consist of an eight story office building and a three level parking structure. Construction materials will consist of precast or cast-in place concrete. The office building will have no basement and the parking structure will be below grade. We assume the maximum interior column loads for the office building structure will be in the order of 1000 kips dead load plus reduced live load and maximum interior column loads for the parking structure will be in the order of 200 kips dead load plus reduced live load. The location of the structures is shown on Figure 1. Our assumed lower floor levels are shown on Figures 2 and 3 attached. If the proposed floor levels vary more than two feet


SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
from our assumed floor levels we should be notified to re-evaluate our recommendations.
Site Conditions
The topography at the subject site slopes gently to the southwest with vegetation consisting of natural grass and weeds. There is an existing residence in the southeast corner of the tract. Approximately 8.0 feet of fill material is stockpiled above grade in the northeast corner of the parking structure site. There are no bedrock outcrops or bodies of water on or near the site.
Field Investigations
Subsurface conditions were investigated by drilling 14 test borings at the locations indicated on Figure 1. The .borings were advanced using a four inch diameter continuous flight auger powered by a CME 55 or Acker AD II drilling rig. At frequent intervals samples of the subsoils were taken using a California sampler which is driven into the soil by dropping a 140 pound hammer through a free fall of 30 inches. The California sampler is a 2.5 inch outside diameter by 2 inch inside diameter device. The number of blows required to drive the sampler into the soils is known as a penetration test. The number of blows required for the sampler to penetrate 12 inches can be determined and gives an indication of the consistency or relative density of the soils encountered. Results of the penetration tests are presented on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figures 2, 3 and 4.


SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
Laboratory Testing
The samples were returned to the laboratory where they were visually classified and appropriate testing assigned to evaluate the engineering properties of the various soil layers. The laboratory tests included settlement-swell tests to evaluate the effects of wetting and loading on the soils.
The results of the settlement-swell tests are presented on Figures 5 through
8. In addition, gradation analysis tests and Atterberg limits tests were conducted to evaluate the grain size distribution and plasticity on samples of the shallow clay and claystone soils. The results of these tests are presented on Figures 9 through 11. Unconfined compressive strength tests were also performed to evaluate the shear strength of the bedrock materials. The results of these tests and water soluble sulfates are summarized on Table I.
Subsoil and Ground Mater Conditions
Eight Story Office Building (Test Hole Nos. 1 through 6)
Our test holes in this area indicate 1.0 to 9.0 feet of stiff to very stiff, sandy to very sandy clay which is underlain by zero to 8.0 feet of firm to medium hard claystone-sandstone bedrock. Hard to very hard claystone-sandstone bedrock and hard to very hard sandstone bedrock was encountered
4.0 to 9.5 feet below the ground surface. Near practical drilling refusal was encountered in very hard, strongly cemented sandstone in Test Holes 1, 3, 4 and 6 at 15.0 to 20.0 feet below the ground surface. No ground water was observed at the time of drilling or eleven days after drilling.
A more complete description of the subsoil and ground water conditions for the office building is given on Figure 2 attached.


SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
A
BEST FOUNDATION IS CAISSONS
Parking Structure (Test Hole Nos. 7 through 14)
Our test holes indicate the subsoils in the area of the parking structure consist of 3.0 to 11.5 feet of stiff to very stiff, sandy to very sandy clay and medium dense, very clayey, silty sand underlain by zero to 12.0 feet of firm to medium hard, occasionally weathered claystone-sandstone bedrock. Hard to very hard, poorly cemented claystone-sandstone bedrock and hard to very hard, poorly cemented sandstone bedrock were encountered
4.0 to 15.0 feet below the ground surface. Near practical drilling refusal was encountered in very hard, strongly cemented sandstone in Test Holes 9, 10 and 12 at 22.0 to 32.0 feet below the ground surface. No ground water was observed at the time of drilling or 7 to 10 days after drilling. A more complete description of the subsoil and ground water conditions in this area is given on Figure 3.
Foundation Recommendations
In our opinion, the best foundation system for the proposed structures would be straight-shaft piers drilled into the competent bedrock materials. The following design criteria should be observed:
Eight Story Office Building
a) Piers should be drilled a minimum of 15.0 feet into competent bedrock.
b) Piers should be designed for a maximum end-bearing pressure of 50,000 pounds per square foot with a side shear of 3,000 pounds per square foot for the first
15.0 feet of penetration of competent bedrock. Below the first 15.0 feet of penetration a side shear of
5.000 pounds per square foot may be used.


SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS

VOID FORM REQUIRED UNDER GRADE BEAMS
c) A minimum dead load pressure of 10,000 pounds per square foot based on pier cross-sectional area should be used.
d) All piers should be reinforced their full length.
e) A three inch minimum of void material should be provided beneath the grade beams between the piers to assure effective concentration of loads on the piers.
f) Concrete should be placed immediately after each pier hole has been cleaned and inspected.
g) Portions of the very hard, strongly cemented sandstone bedrock will be difficult to drill. We recomment a large crane type drilling rig or equivalent be specified.
Parking Structures
a) Piers should be drilled a minimum of ten feet into the competent bedrock materials.
b) Piers should be designed for a maximum end-bearing pressure of 35,000 pounds per square foot with a side shear of 3,500 pounds per square foot for that portion of the pier in competent bedrock.
c) A minimum dead load pressure of 10,000 pounds per square foot based on pier cross-sectional area should be used.
d) All piers should be reinforced their full length.
e) A three inch minimum air space beneath grade beams between the piers should be provided.


SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
A
SLABS ON STRUCTURAL FILL ACCEPTABLE
f) Concrete should be placed immediately after each pier hole has been cleaned and inspected.
g) Portions of the bedrock contain hard to very hard cemented sandstone layers. We believe some of these formations may be difficult to drill for large diameter piers. We suggest that a large drilling rig be used
at this site to do the work. The office building will most likely require a heavy crane rig or similar heavy duty drilling equipment.
Using the forementioned recommended design pressures we estimate the maximum settlement for each pier will be less than one-half inch and differential settlement between piers will be in the order of one-fourth inch.
Floor Slabs and Exterior Concrete Office Building
We estimate that from 4.0 to 11.0 feet of structural fill will be necessary under floor slabs in the area of the office building. Slabs placed on properly controlled structural fill inthe office building area should be separated from bearing members and moderately reinforced with reinforcement continuous through slab joints.
Parking Structure
The proposed lower floor level of the parking structure will be supported by sandstone bedrock. No precautions are necessary for slabs placed directly on the sandstone bedrock. If the parking structure excavation exposes clay-stone or claystone lenses as bearing material for slabs the claystone should be removed to a depth of 3.0 feet below top of subgrade and replaced with a


SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
suitable structural fill material compacted to 95 percent of standard Proctor density. The parking structure excavation should be inspected by a soils engineer to confirm non-expansive materials at the top of subgrade.
Structural Fill Soils
We estimate that from 4.0 to 10.0 feet of structural fill will be necessary under floor slabs in the area of the office building. Where fill soils are necessary beneath floor slabs and pavements the on-site soils are a suitable fill material. If the more granular on-site soils are used for structural fill in the office building area they should be placed in six inch maximum loose lifts at above optimum moisture content and compacted to 95 percent of standard Proctor density according to ASTM D698. Prior to placement of fill all existing organic material and topsoil should be removed. Offsite materials to be used for structural fill should be tested and approved by a soils engineer before hauling to the site. A suggested guide specification for placement and compaction of structural fill is attached.
Retaining Walls
Where retaining walls are necessary they should be designed to resist the
lateral earth pressure. This pressure depends upon the type of soil, depth
of cut and allowable movement of the wall toward the excavation. If the
natural sand soils are used for backfill the retaining walls should be
\
designed for a lateral earth pressure of 50 pcf equivalent fluid pressure plus surcharge. If clean, free-draining sand or gravel is used for retaining wall backfill the walls should be designed for a lateral earth pressure of 35 pcf equivalent fluid pressure plus surcharge. A drainage system behind the wall should also be provided.


SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
Water Soluble Sulfates
Laboratory tests on soil samples selected as representative indicate a low to high percentage of water soluble sulfates. The results are shown on Table I. According to published information a Type II cement is necessary for all foundation concrete which will be in contact with or within six inches of the natural soils. We recommend the Concrete Manual ACI-301 Section 3.4.3 be used regarding the water cement ratio and water reducing admixture.
Surface Drainage
The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the structure has been completed:
a) Backfill around the exterior and interior foundation walls should be moistened and compacted to 95 percent of standard Proctor density (ASTM D698).
b) The ground surface around the perimeter foundation walls should be sloped to drain away from the structures in all directions. We recommend a minimum slope of six inches in the first 10 feet.
c) Roof downspouts and other water collection systems should discharge well beyond the limits of the backfill.
d) Other usual precautions which may be indicated during
I
design and construction.
Ground Water and Subdrains
Present ground water conditions, in our opinion, will not present a problem for the proposed construction. In the parking structure area at our assumed lower level elevation the subsoils generally consist of pervious sandstone.


SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
/\ NO PERIMETER BUILDING DRAINS REQUIRED
A PAVING =6" BASE + 2" ASPHALT
We believe, if the ground surface and roof drainage are properly cared for then no subdrains will be necessary.
Construction Excavations
In our opinion, most of the foundation and utility excavations may be constructed using conventional earthmoving equipment. Some problems are anticipated when drilling into the very hard bedrock, as previously discussed. Deep utility excavations may require some jack-hammer work or light blasting where strongly cemented sandstone is encountered.
Pavement Thickness Design
During our field investigation no test holes were drilled in the proposed driveway and fire lane areas. We anticipate the subsoils in these areas to be similar to the poorest quality subsoils encountered in the building areas.
Our laboratory tests indicate the sandy clay is the overburden material for which the pavements should be designed. The plasticity index for the clay is in the order of 15. The AASHO Highway Subgrade Classification for all anticipated subgrade materials will range from zero to 10. These materials are considered to range from good to poor for roadway subgrades.
A pavement thickness design consisting of six inches of crushed aggregate base course and two inches of asphaltic concrete in the driveway, fire lanes and parking areas would be acceptable. The subgrade and base course should be compacted to 95 percent, according to AASHT0-T99. Positive drainage from the asphalt surface will be important.


SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
Limi tations
The test borings in this investigation were spaced to obtain a reasonably accurate knowledge of the existing subsoil and ground water conditions for design purposes. Variations in subsoils not indicated by the borings are always possible. If unexpected subsoil conditions are observed during construction or if the type, size or location of the structures has changed we should be notified in order to provide additional recommendations. Pier hole drilling and placement and compaction of fill should also be inspected by a soils engineer.
If you have any questions concerning this report or the investigation, please call.
AGW/sen
Attachments


• TEST HOLE NO. 12
I
TEST HOLE NO. 10
PROPOSED
TEST HOLE NO. 13
PARKINS
STRUCTURE
TEST HOLE # NO. 14
TEST HOLE NO. II
I
I
• TEST HOLE NO. 7
TEST HOLE NO. 6
1 TEST HOlE NO. 4
I TEST HOLE NO. 6
4
TEST HOLE NO. 9
TEST HOLE + NO. 5
EAST
CALEY
AYE


SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
-705
• 700
.690
•685
-600
• 675
•670
•665
TEST HOLE TEST HOLE TEST HOLE TEST HOLE TEST HOLE TEST HOLE
NO. 1 NO. 2 NO. 3 NO. 4 NO. 5 NO. 6
ELEV.5702 ELEV.5702 ELEV.5700 ELEV.5700 ELEV.5695 ELEV.5697
OFFICE BUILDING
710“

' 50/4
FINISHED LOWER LEVEL ELEVATION (PER THIS OFFICE)
22/12
- 20/9
-50/5
700-
695-
-22/12 L-j ?7/l?
. 28/9
690 J J-50/5 -I
Tl
J-50/5
675-
50/5
1-50/4
-50/55
655.5
LOOS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
ELEVATION- FEET


SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
TEST MOLE TEST HOLE T^ST MOLE TEST HOLE TEST HOLE TEST HOLE TEST HOLE TEST HOLE NO.7 NO.8 NO.9 NO.10 NO.11 NC.12 NO.13 NO. 14
ELEV.5699 ELEV.5700 ELEV.569A ELEV.5700 ELEV.5695 ELEV.5696 ELEV.5694 ELEV.5689
r 705
-700
-695
•690
•535
- 690
• 675
705T
PARKING STRUCTURE
r
FINISHED LOWER LEVEL ELEVATION (PER THIS OFFICE)
l-35/e
§■
£
f
g.
-25/9
L 15/12
22/9
L 3t /6
&
• /*
L A0/6
-â– iO/6 BQ- 36/6
iL 30/6
50/2
1-50/5 Kyt-50/6
660
3-50/3
- jS ’zVt
I
§ 630, 39/6
m
â–  .
& 670
V "50/5
1
i
3- 50/5 665
i-506/65°-
SEE FIGURE A FOP LEGEND AND NOTES
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3
ELEVATION-FEET


SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
LEGEND
CLAY, STIFF TO VERY STIFF, SANDY TO VERY SANOY, SAND LENSES, CALCAREOUS, MOIST, BROWN (CL)
WITH OCCASIONAL
Pvl SAND, MEDIUM DENSE, VERY CLAYEY, SILTY, MOIST, CALCAREOUS, “ BROWN (SC)
s
CLAYSTONE-SANDSTONE (BEDROCK), FIRM TO MEDIUM HARD, POORLY CEMENTED, BLOCKY AND WEATHERED IN PART, MOIST, GOLD BROWN TO OLIVE BROWN TO BROWN
0
CLAYSTONE-SANDSTONE (BEDROCK), HARD TO VERY HARD. POORLY cemented, LENSED. MOIST, GOLD BROWN TO OLIVE BROWN TO BROWN
0
SANDSTONE (BEDROCK), HARD to VERY HARD, POORLY TO MODERATELY CEMENTED, CLAYSTONE LENSES, GOLD BROWN TC OLIVE BROWN TO BROWN
SANDSTONE (BEDROCK), VERY HARD, BROWN
STRONGLY CEMENTED. DIFFICULT DRILLING, MOIST
h
20/12
INDICATES THAT 20 BLCWS OF A 140-POUND HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES ARE REQUIRED TO DRIVE A 2-INCH DIAMETER SAMPLER 12 INCHES.
rl
INDICATES NEAR PRACTICAL DRILLING REFUSAL IN STRONGLY CEMENTED SANDSTONE.
NQIES
1. TEST HOLES WERE DRILLED OCTOBER 22, 23. AND 26. 1981, WITH A 4-INCH DIAMETER CONTINUOUS FLIGHT POWER AUGER.
2. ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND REFER TO THE TOPOGRAPHIC SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY OTHERS.
3. DRILL LOGS SHOWN IN THIS REPORT ARE SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS. EXPLANATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE REPORT.
LEGEND l NOTES FOR EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 4


SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
SETTLEMENT - X - SWELL • SETTLEMENT - X - SWELL
A. G. WASSENAAR. INC.
SOIL AND FOUNDATION CONSULTANTS
I I | | l I tt I r t . lilt Noturol Dry Unit Weight • 84.8 pcf Natural Moisture Content = 13.8 percent
V- a ATER
J ^ DDEE ETTL EMq XT L NC El CON^TAN r PR ESS URE
E ECAC SE OF W ET T f Si. 1
1
\ 1 |
1
â– sfel IN * P* RE f^NT1 BE SSUf^E CAUS E 0 F N( :r EA S E
1 1
SAMPL : of ] SAIKIDT fl M ft rfcOM TEST HOLE NO 1 A )EPTH 1 wO* 1
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
Settlement — Swell Test Results
FIGURE 5


SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
A. G. WASSENAAR. INC.
SOIL AND FOUNDATION CONSULTANTS
— "| 1 —i—1—r—m ■ r——i—r it’" Noturol Dry Unit Weight = 105.5 pcf Natural Moisture Content = 20.4 percent
1 ! 1 1 !
P 1 1 1 . i i
L I
SWE |_l JN 3Efc a )N ItANT PRESS BE CA u
r WET _ 1,( ——1— -seTtlemen ' INCREASE • BEO ;n pre US ss E u a !E FI
J i/ATER i D 1 !
ADDED i i I
! 1 1
SAMPLE OE CLAT ST or CL =l?OM TES T Hci.E NO 1 A l_L A’ ■! 5EPTH 1 t-0*
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
Settlement— Swell Test Results
Figure 6


SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
SETTLEMENT - * - SWELL SETTLEMENT - * - SWELL
A. G. WASSENAAR. INC.
SOIL AND FOUNDATION CONSULTANTS
—1—rn in "T t—t-i-htt Natural Dry Unit Weight = 102.3 pcf Natural Moisture Content : 22.6 percent
|
1
— ;we -L ur 40 1 qONsjrANl ■ PRfl [SSI, )RE
3EC A US £ 0 * 3TTING
— p i * ' i
- WATER ( 1 tcrr ai iCf T ||
I * P ESsijRE 1
i ! 1
SAMPLE Qff CljAY TT ^RQM TEST HOLE L I —S— 61 - ( :epth a;o' 1
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
i — . .. i 1 1 1 ”p 1 H 1 1 1— 1 1 Noturol Dry Unit Weight = 109.1 Pc * Notural Moisture Content = ia a percent
j i I
1 L i _L _ . !
p-SWE | UNI DE =? Cf )NC 1 i »TANT press JRE BE CAU,
—r OF —^ WET TI^tG j i
r 7 p n i - r< > J
-JrfATER ADDED £ I 1 !
i .. ) ‘ 5E IN T V fRE EMENT BE [SSUpE jECAU * INC beA, SE
1 1 1 !
SAMPLE of CLfYS IT TCjNi - â– sANDSiq NE FROM T Fs L XE : NCI. 6 AT JEPTH 8. 0 1
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
Settlement— Swell Test Results
FIGURE 7


SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
SETTLEMENT - X - SWELL SETTLEMENT - X - SWELL
m
A. G. WASSENAAR, INC.
SOIL AND FOUNDATION CONSULTANTS
1 1—TTTTTI 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 Noturol Dry Unit Weight • 104.6 pcf Noturol Moisture Content = 20.4 percent



s' NO BEC M0VEME AUSE :nt ?f Uh rfp D 1 R C ENG DNS1 ANT PRE ESS UR E
7 * >—
ir 7 £
WATER ADDED L 1
1 i yt i d\ILtMtr i CREASE n be IN f | £ Jbb ssu u RE F
L_
SAMPLE : OF i CLAYS nn rcfME i 5m test hole n 9 i AT -1_ Di jpTH' 8.1
0 1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
! i 1 • ! Til j i ■ 1 l Noturol Dry Unit Weight = 105.2 pcf Noturol Moisture Content = 17.2 percent
! j | i
â–  1 1 1
— S *EL _ JNBS.. fSS NSTANT PRE >SUF ?E C, MJSE
r W ET , r ! i ’ '
Li P> In i / i I i 1 ...
i -i-WATER ADDED TL 1 1 ETTLEMEN1 Li CD l :au$e NCR
— i ' ! IN PRCO&UF 1 1 1 _ I-
- T 1 1 i
SAMPL^ OF CLAYS re NE -5I MIDSTONE , FROM TES HCL.E 111' NO. Hi . iT D^PTt H 1 8. 0 i 1 i I
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
Settlement - Swel I Test Results
FIGURE 8


SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
PERCENT PASSING PERCENT PASSING
A G. WASSENAAR INC.
SOIL ANO FOUNDATION CONSULTANTS
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
hydrometer analysis 1 SIEVE ANALYSIS |

1 t run i MtauiR i | tun i tawiLi.:
Dlltfin OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
Figure 9
PERCENT RETAINED PERCENT RETAINED PERCENT RETAINED


SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
A G. WASSENAAR. INC.
SOIL AND FOUNDATION CONSULTANTS
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS ~1
ct« I--.ITO „lt ....... ,..T-T-dtWL'! I (■mt8"1 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
Figure 10


SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
YI&
A G. WASSENAAR. INC.
â–  OIL AND FOUNDATION CONSULTANTS
6RADATION TEST RESULTS
I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS ~1
CL.TO..".. T» "lt ..... |—>,« I mid?uw I c6«*»« [ hM11T^o.mH
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
Figure 11


SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
A G. WASSENAAR. INC.
SOIL AND FOUNDATION CONSULTANTS
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
TEST HOLE NO DEPTH (feet) SOIL TYPE PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows per foot) NATURAL MOISTURE (%) NATURAL DRY DENSITY (PCF) UNCONFINED COMPRESSION (PSF) WATER SOLUBLE SULFATES (%) SETTLEMENT (SATURATED) (%) SWELL (SATURATED) <%)
1 1.0 CLAY, SANDY, CALCAREOU BROWN (CL) > 20/12 13.8 84.8 SEE FIGURE 5
1 4.0 CLAY, SANDY, CALCAREOU BROWN (CL) S 24/9 0.001
2 9.0 CLAYSTONE, OLIVE BROWN 35/9 20.5 106.1 SEE FIGURE 5
3 1.0 CLAY, SANDY, CALCAREOU BROWN (CL) 5 25/12 i,.. 109.7 SEE FIGURE 6
3 14.0 CLAYSTONE, OLIVE BROWN TO GOLD BROWN 26/6 18.2 106.4 10,800
4 14.0 CLAYSTONE.BROWN 35/6 20.4 105.5 SEE FIGURE 6
5 4.0 CLAYSTONE, OLIVE BROWN 28/9 22.6 102.3 SEE FIGURE 7
6 8.0 CLAYSTONE-SANDSTONE, OLIVE BROWN TO GOLD BROWN 50/5 14.6 109. 1 SEE FIGURE 7
8 8.0 CLAYSTONE, OLIVE BROWN TO GOLD BROWN 30/9 0.33
9 8.0 CLAYSTONE, BROWN 20/6 20.4 104.6 SEE FIGURE 8
TABLE I


SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
A G. WASSENAAR. INC.
SOIL AND FOUNDATION CONSULTANTS
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

TEST HOLE NO DEPTH (feet) SOIL TYPE PENE TRATION resistance (blows per foot) NATURAL MOISTURE (%) NATURAL DRY DENSITY (*CF) UNCONFINED COMPRESSION (PSF) WATER SOLUBLE SULFATES (%) SETTLEMENT (SATURATED) (%) SWELL (SATURATED) <%)
1 1 12 18.0 24.0 CLAYSTONE-SANDSTONE, BROWN SANDSTONE, GOLD BROWN 50/6 50/6 17.4 105.2 â–  0.019 SEE FIGURE 8
TABLE I


SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
A G. WASSENAAR. INC.
• OIL AND FOUNDATION CONSULTANT*
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURAL FILL GENERAL
The Soil Engineer, as the Owner's representative, shall approve the material, method of placement and compaction and shall give written approval of the completed fill after taking a sufficient number of field density tests to assure compliance with the specifications,
MATERIALS
Granular material having 100% finer than 6 inches and not more than 40% passing a No. 200 sieve will be satisfactory for fill, provided the plastic index is less than 10. Soils not meeting the above specifications, but proposed for fill should be tested and approved by a soils engineer.
PREPARATION OF NATURAL GROUND
Vegetation and organic topsoil shall be removed from the fill area.
The area to be filled shall then be scarified, moistened if necessary, and compacted in the manner specified below for the subsequent layers of fill.
PLACEMENT OF FILL MATERIAL
No brush, sod, frozen, perishable or other unusuitable material shall be placed in the fill. The materials shall be delivered to the fill in a manner which will permit a well and uniformly compacted fill. Before compacting, the fill material shall be spread in approximately horizontal layers not greater than 8 inches thick.
MOISTURE CONTROL
While being compacted, the material shall contain uniformly distributed optimum moisture for compaction. The Contractor shall be required to add moisture to the materials in the excavation if, in the opinion of the Soil Engineer, it is not possible to obtain proper and uniform moisture by adding water to the fill surface.
COMPACTION
When the moisture content and conditions of each layer spread is satisfactory, it shall then be compacted by an approved method. Compaction shall be at least 95% of maximum density for fill around the structure and beneath floor slabs and at least 95 % for fill beneath the foundations. Moisture-density tests should be performed on typical fill materials to determine the maximum density. Field density tests must then be made to determine the adequacy of the fill compaction. The compaction standard to be utilized in determining the maximum density is ASTM D698-66T which requires using 25 blows of a 5.5 pound hammer dropped 12 inches on each of 3 soil layers in a 1/30 cubic foot mold.


SITE DETERMINANTS: EASEMENTS
Utility easements currently exist on site as a result of an earlier proposal for construction on the property:
a. electrical distribution easement at southeast corner of site, totalling 0.019 Acres
b. sanitary sewer easements running north-south flanking the middle to the site and connected east-west near the north property line, totalling 0.588 Acres plus 2,820 square feet
The sanitary sewer easements can be adjusted with Southgate Sanitation District in the course of project design and determination of site utilities layout.
Additional street rights-of-way have been granted to Arapahoe County along East Caley Avenue and South Ulster Street, totalling 0.47 Acres.


SITE DETERMINANTS:
EASEMENTS
LOCATION North of Calev Avenue and West of Ulster Street_____________________________W.O. • J.O. NO. 05-80786
i AOMINISTRATIVE ANO OPERATING PRACTICES wetaw
MOUNTAIN BELL - PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY G«d No._______________________
PSCO 0nwvwsm No.______________
AO.w. A«HM Mtn. BeM Doc. No._____________
UTILITY EASEMENT
The undersigned Grantor hereby acknowledges receipt of S One dollar & no Conti from PUBLIC SERVICE COMP AN OF COLORAOO. 560 15th Street Denver. Colorado. 80302. ANO THE MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE ANO TELEGRAP COMPANY. B31 14th Street Denver. Colorado. 80302. hereafter called the Grantees, in consideration of which he hereby gran unto said Grantees their successors and assigns. an easement to construct operate and maintain utility lines and ail fixtures ar devices, used or useful in the operation of said linos, through, over, under, across and along a courts as said lines may be hereof*
constructed m Lot Block
Subdivision
in the NVAj of Section 21
Township 5 South . Renos 67 Uo«t . of tht Sixth
Principal Meridian in the City of , County of Armpohoo
State of Colorado, bnenaaema wdeMad the easement is described as follows:
An usaant for oloctrlc distribution facilitieo as shown on attached drawing aarkad Exhibit "A" and harato made a part tharoof.
Said e
15'
feet in width.
Together with the ri0it to enter upon said premises, survey, construct, maintain, operate, repair, replace, control end u» said utility lines and related fixtures and devices, and to remove objects interfering therewith, including the trimming of tree and budies. and together with the right to use to much of the adjoining premises of Grantor during surveying, construction maintenance, repair, removal or replacement of said utility lines and related fixtures and devices as may be required to permit tfw operation of standard utility construction or repair machinery, and the ri^it to permit the installation of the facilities of an> other company. The Grantor reserves the right to use and occupy said premises for any purpose consistent with the right ant privileges above granted and which will not interfere with or endanger any of the said Grantees facilities therein or use thereof Such reservation by the Grantor shall in no event include the right to erect or cause to be erected any buildings or structure; upon the right-of-way harem granted. In case of the permanent abandonment of said right-of-way. all right, privilege and imereti herein granted shall terminate.
Grantor further grants unto the Grantees the right privilege and authority to permit any form of other communications oi other utility company to occupy and maintain its facilities widiin and in accordance with the provisions of this utility ornament The work of installing said lines and related fixtures and devices shall be dona with care; the surface aioof'Mid right-of-way shallpt restorjd substantially to its original level and condition. . - r â–  fi
Grantor tfiall include the plural and the feminine. -- • f /”4
Signed this „
15 th
_ day of
5975 S. Syracuse St. *107
STATE OF COLORADO I County o< Arapahoe i “
15thdw of March
Enaltwood. Colorado 80111
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
82
Bill L. Walters
My commitaion expires_________10-29-83
Witness my hand and official seal

l* ac«l"f H* •fttelW
•Mica l<


SITE DETERMINANTS:
EASEMENTS
s*
LEGAL DESCRIPTION UTILITY EASEMENT
An utility easement located In tha NW 1/4 of Section 21, Township 9 South, Range _ 47 Wait of tha 4th Principal Meridian, County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, more particularly described as followai
COMMENCING at the center of said Section 21,
WHENCE the Center Waat 1/14 corner of said Section 21 bears N89*SS'14'W a distance of 1213.42 feet)
THENCE N44*0S'33*W a distance of 107.94 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING on the northerly right-of-way llna of East Caley Avenue)
THENCE N0O’04'44'E a distance of 19.00 feet)
THENCE S44*99'14*E parallel with said northerly right-of-way Una a distance of 90.43 feet to a point on a curve on the westerly right-of-way line of South Ulster Street)
THENCE along said westerly right-of-way Una along tha arc of said curve to the right, having a chord which beers S92* 19’04’W a distance of 24.90 feet, a central angle of 73*31'22*, a radius of 20.00 feet, a distance of 24J4 feet to e point of tangent on said northerly right-of-way line of East Caley Avenue;
THENCE along said tangent N49* 39'18"W along said northerly right-of-way Una a distance of 40.07 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 0.019 acres, more or leas.
PREPARED UNDER MV SUPERVISION;
FORM sior is/rai WHO


SITE DETERMINANTS:
EASEMENTS
Av__N£ COC.-MW 3CC.2I.T9C, IS
N
40.00*.
ORCHARD PLACE 9
N 00*04*44**E 15.00*
S89*55 16 E
N*LY R/W^
Ca-S52*!9'04V* C * 24.50*
A â–  73*31* 22" Z R * 20.00*
L* 26.36* -
^CWI/16 COR.-SEC 2I,T5S,R67W.
CALEY
a:
UJ
to
-j
3
CENTER-SEC: T5S,R67* INTERSECTlOf OF E. CALEY £ 6 S. ULSTER
NOTES:
1. PARCEL NO. I CONTAINS CX0I9 ACf MORE OR LESS (816 SO. FIX
2. BEARINGS BASED ON THE EAST LIN OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC2I, T3S,R6*. AS BEARING N00*I6'38"E
PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION:
mlMml hHM
ERTIFICATION:"rE€iSTERED LANO SURVEYOR * If,/It
I mj Mm( Ib tMc surrey It «

EXHIBIT A
!*{ 16112 1*1 MERRICK Mcrrte* and Company • 10SSS East Daftany Ortvo 0«m>. Col.r.4. > T*(Mi. M9/7I1-074I
REVISED
APPROVED M-S-Sl
CHECKED ORCHARD PLACE 9 P.S.CO. EASEMENT
DRAWN wsc 3-3-42
SURVEYED taccTM.ict.Mi R#7W^ T5#^ sfC NW,/4
ACTION â– Y DATE r.^0. I 1 ISZ

FORM 3107 (3/7«) WMO


SITE DETERMINANTS:
EASEMENTS
EASEMENT
DEED
THIS INDENTURE, made this _________day ot ___________________________ • 198_•
'jttwttr. Bill IM __________. Party of the Firac Fart; and SOUTHGATE SAN1TAT10K
DISTRICT. Arapahoe and Douglas Counties, Colorado, a quail-municipal corporation.
Party of the Second Parc:
tfmCSSEIH:
WHEREAS, ch. Party of tha Firac Parc ii tha ownar of cha hareinaftar das-
c r it cd l.'.nds , ana
WHEREAS, the Party of the Second Part has constructed and now operates
art maintains a sanitary sewer system within its boundaries and is desirous of extending the same by the construction and maintenance of outfall lines and facilities o\cr, under and across tha lands of the Party of the First Part;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sura of One Dollar (SI.00) and other good and valuable considerations, paid by Party of the Second Part, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by Party of the First Part, the Parry of the First Par: hereb\ grants, bargains, sells and conveys to the Party of the Second Part, its successors and assigns, a perpetual easement and right of way for the construction. maintenance, removal and replacement of sanitary sewer lines, manholes ano
relates facilities of such sire and capacity as necessary or required by the Parry
cf the Second Part, though, over and across the following described parcel of land s;: u«; . iving and being in the County of Arapahoe and State of Colorado, to
wi: :
See attached exhibit A
The above described parcel is shown on a map, a copy of which is attached :>r-rzc anc maoe a part hereof.
IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY convenated and agreed by and between the parties
ntrcrc as follows-’
The Party of the Second Part shall have and exercise the rign: of ingress arc ir.. to over, through ana across the above- described property for any
*s-. m-caful for the full enjovmcnt of any other right of occupancv or use provioed
: cr i.cr«ir..
Z. Th»- Party of the First Part shall not construct or place anv structure
:r out!d.ng. remporarv or permanent, or plan: any tree, woody plant, ano nursery st oil., r f any kind, on any part of the above dc-scriocd r 1 aht -of-wav. Anv such place-
â– nm oil tin- .ioona. Described right-of-wny after the date of this agreement may be removed by the Party
of tin Second part without liability for danwges arising therefrom.
After construction of any sewer line or lines as hereinabove referred i n« general surface of the ground, except as necessarily modified to accomodat c •; pun i nani es. shall be restored, as nearly as mav reasonably be. to the grade
• i.o condition it was in immediately prior to construction. Topsoil shall be replaced :n cultivated and agricultural areas, and anv excess earth resulting from installations bv the Partv of the Second Part shall be removt d from the right-of-way at
: tie soie expense cl the Party of the Second Part. The Party of the Secono Part
..g-evs that for a period of one year following construction which involved disturbance
rf ri.c surface of the ground, the Party of the Second Part will maintain the surface
. ‘..v,ion and quality of the soil by correcting any settling or suosiding that •ray occur as a result of the work done by the Party of the Second Parc.
i. The Party of the First Parc has retained the right to the undisturbed
ir.j occupancy of che subject property insofar as such use and occupancy is .rr-i-rint with and oocs not impair any grant herein contained ana except as herein
-a i so provided.
The parrv of the Second Parr may proper:
re, own anc exercise


SITE DETERMINANTS:
EASEMENTS
the rights in the subject property as herein provided for tr. oruer rc insure to the Partv of the Second Part a dominant easement for the exercise of the Party of Second Parc’s functions and chat the exercise of any rights in the subject property other chan those retained by the Party of the First Parc should be within the sound discretion of the Party of the Second Part. The Parry of the Second Pert agrees to permit and authorize such ocher uses of the subject property, not reserved In
Party of the First Part, as will not impair the Party of the Second Part's dominant rights, upon the payment of reasonable compensation co the Party of the Second Par: anc upon such reasonable terms, limitations and conditions as the Party of
tnc Second Part shall find reasonably necessary to protect its dominant right of cceujancv of the subject property for the purpose of the Party of the Second Parc «i:nout undue or unnecessary injury co or impairment of the esrate retained by
;hc Party of the First Part.
b. In case the Party of the Second Parc shall abandon its rights herein
.ranee and cease to use the same, all right, title and interest hereunder of the ’;.r:\ of the Second Parc shall cease and terminate, and all nghes of the Party r: rhe Second Part so abandoned shall cease and terminate, and the Party of the
First Part shall hold said premises, as the same may then be. free froit the rights
.»i .v.;.nconcd and shall own all material and structures of the Parry of the Second
i.irt so abanaoned, but nothing herein shall be construed as working a forfeiture ** ..oandonmctK of any interest derived hereunder and not owned fcv the Party of
• :.t Cersnc Part at the time of the abandonment of the Party of cue Second Part's
-.gh-.s.
The Party of the First Part warrants chat it has full right and lawful -.uthoritv rc make the grant hereinabove contained, and promises and agrees to defend me Farcy of the Second Part in the exercise of its rights hereunder against any otfec* in its title to the land Involved or its right to .make tnc gran* hereinabove
ror.cainec.
6. Each and every one of the benefits and burdens of this agreement shall mure co and dc binding upon the respective legal respresentac1ves. heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
V. Unless special provisions are attached hereto, the above and foregoir-icr.stitutes the whole agreement between the parties and no additional or differen: representation, promise or agreement shall be binding on any of the parties r.erctc with respect to the subject matter of this instrument. To tnc extent chat
..nv special provisions attached hereto are in conflict wir.n any other crovisions -.tree:, such special provisions shall control and supersede any other tern, ar provi-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties .-.s o: the day and year fire above written.
hereto have executed tne withir. Acreemenr
(Title »
STATE OF COLORADO )
)
COUNTY OF _____________)
fuiisc riped and sworn to before me by
on rhis _____ a.tv o{ 1 ^8
Mv commission expires: _________________
' S
t A L •
Notary Public
ANITATTCN DIET?’CT:
SOUTHGATE S


SITE DETERMINANTS:
EASEMENTS
P—*0H0«
tnurrr xaxxmxmt
(»0» EXCLUSIVE)
An Otmtj
irwattt
couMHcnra u
THXMCI MS0*M’10*M — ■ at MS.TO font,
THUIC1 HM'M'M'I
rnmnmiit
thkmck Winn
THXMCI MOO* 04*44*1 a THXMCI Mu*snrw • THXMCI MOO*04*44*1 a THUciiu'snnt THKMCK MM*04f44*Ia THXMCI MW*
THXMCI MM*MT
BXOIMMIMO. Contalnln* dlxtt
(South, I Stata at Colorado,
MM 1/4 of aid Saotiaa U a la tha TXUX point 01 Uaa ad tha MM 1/4 of aaM
Mm TXDX POINT OP
LMOAL DXSCUPTION OTtLITT XASXMXMT (M) POOT MON-EXCLUSIVE)
A utility aaaat looatad la tha MM 1/4 at Saotiaa 11, TowntfUo S South, Bam 17 Moot ot tha 4th Prlaalpal Moridlaa, County at Arapahoa, Stata at Colorado, â– ora partloularty draarfcad aa followai
COMMENCING at tha oaatar at raid Waotlon 111
THXNCX NW*M*10*W aloof tha aoatb llaa of tha MM 1/4 ot aald Saotiaa 11 a (Sataaaa at 100.71 fart,
THXMCI N00*04T44*I a (Sataaaa at 40.M foot,
THXNCX MM* Ml I'M and parallai with tha aonth llaa ot tha MW 1/4 at aald Saotiaa 11, a (Sataaaa at 1S4A4 faat to tha TXDX POINT OP BIOlMNDtO, THXNCX ooatlaulaf NI»*M'1I*M aad parallai with tha loath Uaa at tha NM 1/4 at aald Saotloo 11, a (Sataaaa at (0.00 faat,
THXNCX N04*94’44*1 a (Sataaaa of MLW faat,
THXMCI SM* M il’S a (Sataaaa at MM faat,
THXMCI 804*04*44*W a IMtaaoi at HIM faat to tha TXUX POINT OP
BXCXNNINa
Containing 0J00 aoraa, taora or laaa.
P4EP11CD UNOCK or
juraivaoa
SOUTHGATE WATER ft SANITATION DISTRICT
(o»m nor i j/rai »xo


SITE DETERMINANTS:
EASEMENTS
NE C0R-NWI/4-SeC-2I.T3S,RS7W,
CW 1/16 COR. SEC. 21 T.3S, R.67W, POUND NO. 3 REBAR
PKKMMB UNOCT NY
4AVWON. /
_____
EGI1TEREO LINO SdNvf Yi
EoM Lna of tt» NW IM Sk.2I,T9S, R.C7W o> NCWrfMTE
CENTER SEC. 21 T.3S,R67W INTERSECTION OF E. CALEY AYE a S. ULSTER ST. P0UM3 NO. 4 REBAR SET M ARAPAHOE CO RANGE BOX.
RTIFICATION- REG.
EXHIBIT A
^|i6112hI J * MEJÂ¥8CK and COKFANY ENGINEERS and ARCHITECTS 10805 E. BETHANY DRIVE
MCViSCO
AP^novto zW /•in
CHECKED IMi -■/•in NMI1 ORCHARD S— Prmanftt Uf*ty £r»«marrf
DRAWN O.R.D. 1/6/82
SURVEYED LMiliM iar . ••) R67W. TSS. SEC, 21. NW 1/4
N— ACTIO* ■Y OATC 4mm mint — laa hum I aaaa* afc422fl 1 li.rX.
SOUTHGATE WATER 8 SANITATION DISTRICT
FORM JI07 ( 5/T«) «N0


SITE DETERMINANTS:
EASEMENTS
EASEMENT
DEED
THIS INDENTURE, uii thu ____________ of ___________________________ , 19«_.
ttween Bill L. Waifn_______________, Party of tha Firac Part; and SOUTHGATE SANITATION
•ISTRICT. Arapahoe and Douglas Counciaa, Colorado, a quasi-municipal corporation,
arty of the Second Part:
WmCSSEIH:
WHEREAS, the Party of the First Part is the owner of the hereinafter des-
rir-cd lands, ana
WHEREAS, the Party of the Second Part has constructed and now operates
r. : maintains a sanitary sewer system within its boundaries and is desirous of >.:rnd:r.g the same by tha construction and maintenance of outfall lines and facilities \tr. under and across the lands of the Party of the First Part;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00* and •ther good and valuable considerations, paid by Party of the Second Part, receipt f which is hereby acknowledged by Party of the First Part, the Parry of the First art hereby grants, bargains, sells and conveys to the Party of the Second Part, ts successors and assigns, a perpetual easement and right of way for the constructor.. maintenance, removal and replacsmanc of sanitary stwer lines, manholes4«nd
i latte facilities of such size and capacity as necessary or required by the Parry
f rbt Second Part, chough, over and across the following described parcel of land !\ing and being in the County of Arapahoe and State of Colorado, to
See attached exhibit B
T.n- above described parcel is shown on a map. a copy of which is attached
'~c:c »nc. .T.aoe a part hereof.
2T IS HEREBY MUTUALLY convenated and agreed by and between the parties
.c rt : c .14 foilows:
The Party of the Second Part shall have and exercise the rign: of ingress .re ir. to over, through and across the above described property tor any
•:rf -.••‘•dful lor the full enjoyment of any oth» r right of occupancy or use provided
1. Tht Party of the First Part shall no: construct or place any structure
r m:iid:nw. temporary or permanent, or piant any tret, woody plant, and nursery -loth, rf any kind, on any part of the above desenoed right-of-way. Anv such piace-
•»n: on eix .iDovi uescribed right-of-wny after the date of this agreement may be renewed by the Party
•! tin Sccoik. hart without liability for denges arising there!ran.
>. After construction of any sewer line or lines as hereinabove referred . . i n< general surface of the ground, except as necessarily modified to accomodate ; t *•! rt • n.mi cs, shall be restored, as nearly as may reasonably be. to the grade
:.a u.ndi: :on it was in immediately prior to construction. Topsoil shall be replaced . r. ; ul: ivarcd and agricultural areas, and anv excess earth resulting from insralla-rv the Partv ol the Second Part shall be removed from the right-of-way at
:»<■ ‘-eio expense c! the Party of the Second Part. The Party of the Second Part
;'c-s that for a period of one year following construction which involves disturuanc*
■f ti.» surface of the ground, the Party of the Second Part will maintain the surface
'.•vat ion and quality of the soil by correcting any settling or suosiding that •v occur as a result of the work done by the Party of the Second Part.
i. The Party of the First Part has retained the right to the undisturbed
•'iJ.w occupancy of the subject property insofar as such use and occupancy is •n-ixttr.: with and ooci not impair any grant herein cor.riinc-d and except as herein
:• —«.so provided.
The parr
of the Second Parr
may proper i
at s-. i rc .
own anc rxerc isc


SITE DETERMINANTS:
EASEMENTS
the rights in the subject property as herein provided for ir. order re- insure to the Party of the Second Part a dominant easement for the exercise of the Party
of Second Part's functions and that the exercise of any rights in the subject property other than those retained by the Party of the First Parc should be within the sound oiscretion of the Phrty of the Second Part. The Party of the Second Part agrees to permit and authorise such other uses of the subject property, not reserved in Party of the First Part, as will not impair the Party of the Second Part's dominant riches, upon the payment of reasonable compensation to the Party of the Second
Par: and upon such reasonable terms, limitations and conditions as the Party of
the Second Part shall find reasonably necessary to protect its dominant right of occupancy of the subject property for the purpose of the Party of the Second Parc without undue or unnecessary injury to or impairment of the estate retained by the Tarty of the First Part.
6. In case the Parcy of the Second Parc shall abandon its rights herein
ur.ir.ted and cease to use the same, all right, title and interest hereunder of the “arty of the Second Part shall cease and terminate, and all righes of the Parcy
rf the Second Part so abandoned shall cease and terminate, and the Party of the First Parc shall hold said premises, as the same may then be, free from the rights
sc np.-.ndoned and shall own all material and structures of the Parry of the Second
i.irt so abandoned, but nothing herein shall be construed as working a forfeiture : r abandonment of any intarast derived hereunder and not owned fc\ the Parcy of
•-he Seconc Tart at the tima of the abandonment of the Parcy of the Second Parc's
-ighes.
The Parcy of the First Parc warrants that it has full right and lawful
..uihoritv to make the grant hereinabove contained, and promises and agrees to defend me Party of the Second Part in the exercise of its rights hereunder against any
ocfcct in its title to the land involved or its right to unakc the grant hereinabove
contained.
6. Each and every one of the benefits and burdens of this agreement shall inure to and be binding upon the respective legal resprestniacives. heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
9. Unless special provisions are attached hereto, the above and foregoir. constitutes the whole agreement between the parties and no additional or different oral representation, promise or agreement shall be binding on any of the parties nt-rcc: with respect to the subject matter of this instrument. lo t n« extent chat
anv special provisions attached hereto are in conflict with any ocher provisions hereof, such special provisions shall control and supersede any other tern, or provi-jic-nv he reef.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed enr within Agreement «".s o: the day and year firt above written.
Tit lei
STATE OF COLORADO )
)
COUNTY OF _____________)
Subscribed and sworn to before me by
a.i\ of _____ _________, 198
on this My commission expires
Notary publn
SOUTHGATE SANITATION DISTRICT:


SITE DETERMINANTS:
EASEMENTS
legal DBacmirnoM
An utility asiamant looated in fhp NW1/4 i 87 Want of the 8th Principal Me mar* pnrtieulnriy daeorited m to,
COMMENCING at tha can tar THENCE NI»*55'18*N aloof dlatanea of >08.78 faati THENCE N00*04'44*E a THENCE N8»*58n8*H THENCE N04*04'44*B THENCE S8f* SS’tl'
THENCE 808*04'
Containing l,o&Faquara foot, non or laaa.
n 21, Townahip 8 South, Ranfa ty of Arapahoe, Stata of Colorado,
of tha NW1/4 of said Saetioo >1 a
to tha POINT OP BEGINNINGi a datanoa of 30.00 faati
of 10.00 faatj OP BEGINNING.
LEGAL DESCBJPTION
CTTLfTT EASEMENT (OS’ NON-EXCLUSIVE
An utility aaaamant loaatad in tha NN1/4 of Saetioo >1, Tosmahlp 3 South, Ranfa 87 Want of tha 8th Prlnalpal MeridUn, County of Arapahoe, Stata of Colorado, non particularly dee Bribed an follows*
COMMENCING at tha oantar of aid Section lit
THENCE N80*3snf*w aloof tha South lino of tha NW1/4 of said Saetioo >1, a distance of 380.8 feet!
THENCE N00*0«44"W a dbtam at 301.34 feat to tha POINT OF BEGINNING! THENCE NS8*38’18*W parallel with aaid South line a distance at MM faati THENCE NOO*04'44*E a datanoa of 33.23 faati THENCE 38I*3S’41*E a datanoa of 30.04 faati
THENCE S00*04'44*w a datanoa at 33.24 foot to tha POINT OF BEGINNING. Contalnlnf 1,782 square fact, more or laaa.
CASED ON Ota MY OUOCNVISION: ''•CATION: NfOirrCNfl
D LANO SUN VC TOR
EXHIBIT B ’
MERRICK A COMPANY
NCVISCO ENGINEERS S ARCHITECTS 10899 E. BETHANY DRIVE DENVER, COLORADO 80222
AANNOVtD
CHCCKCO ORCHARO PLACE 9 - Prmafwnt Utility EaMfiwnt
ON AWN
SUNVCYCO L8U««i (NT~m1 R. 67W .T5S,. SEC. 21. N.W. 1/4
ACTION Wt OATK
SOUTHGATE WATER A SANITATION DISTRICT


SITE DETERMINANTS:
EASEMENTS
tarings ba»«d on fflo a«t Uno of ftw HM
. LINE-MW 1/4-SEC. 21
EAST CALEY AVE.
POINT OF COMMENCEMENT-CENTER SECTION 21, T9S.R.67W. INTERSECTION OF E. CALEY AVE. S 1 ULSTER STREET
EXHIBIT B
MERRICK and COMPANY
OCVIXO ENGINEERS and ARCHITECTS 10895 E BETHANY DRIVE
A^PWOVtO DENVER, COLORADO 90222
CHCCKCO nt, OAAWN Sit */t/K ORCHARD PLACE 9 - PdfiiMliMlil Utility CiMMoant
SUAVCrt0 U“6Tvr,'Tii, SEC. 21. NW. 1/4
ACTION rr OATC g»*-4j09l 1 ~ " \£Ll
SOUTHGATE WATER S SANITATION DISTRICT


SITE DETERMINAN.
-ASEMENTS
A parcel of Und located in th* South half of Lot 29 "A Subdivision of Section 21, Township 5 South, Rang* 67 West” of th* 6th Principal Meridian, County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, being more particularly described as foliowsi
BEGINNING at the Southeasterly oomer of Lot 21 of "A Subdivision of Section 21, Township S South, Range 67 West, Arapahoe County, Colorado”, a recorded subdivision in Book 1, Page 12 of the Arapahoe County Records*
THENCE North 99* 55*16* West along the south line of said Lot 29, a distance of 629.9 feat to the southwesterly corner of said Lot 29)
THENCE North 00* 13*93” East along the west line of said Lot 29, a distance of 23.0 feet* THENCE South 99* 99*10* East along a line 29.0 feet north of and parallel with the South line of said Lot 29 a distance of 600.09 feet to a point of curve*
THENCE along a curve to the left with a central angle of 99*49*00", a radius of 20.00 feet, and an arc length of 31.39 feet to a point of tangent*
THENCE North 00*19*39” East along a tangent line 19.0 feet west of and parallel with the east line of said Lot 29, a distance of 276.96 feet, to a point on the north line of the south half of said Lot 29;
THENCE South 99* 98'41” East along the north line of the south half of said Lot 29 a distance of 19.0 feet to the northeasterly comer of said South half*
THENCE South 00*16*39" West along said east line of Lot 29 a distance of 321.79 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Said parcel containing 20,460.44 square feet, more or less.
PREPARED UNDER BEARINGS BASED ON EAST LINE OF
MY SUPERVISION: THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 21, T5S, R67W
AS BEARING N00*I6 38 E.

EXHIBIT A
(★( 16112 J*J co'pr / MERRICK
Rfv.seo
D«rwy, Colons* • Tot* pawn S0S/7S1-S741
-hEZaEO »/»/#«. E. CALEY AVE. 8 S. ULSTER ST.
: • i a n R/W DEDICATION
°* •' **' R67W,T5S, SEC. 2I, NW I/4
a" * os 9* 0A*E 298-42031 “ 1 LiliL!

» ORv * 107 , J, 78, AMD


SITE DETERMINANTS: AVAILABLE UTILITIES
Water service is available from a 12-inch ductile iron service in East Caley Avenue. Due to earlier plans for development on the site, two 8-inch taps have been made in this street line and service extended to the property line, with gate valves in boxes on the stubs. Southgate estimates average pressure available as 100 psi or better.
Storm sewer also has been extended from 24-inch reinforced concrete pipe in East Caley Avenue to manhole in southwest corner of site.
Sanitary sewer also has been extended from 10-inch PVC line in East Caley Avenue via an 8-inch PVC line to a manhole on-site.
Telephone service has been offered by Mountain Bell from lines and cabinet running along south property line.
Electrical service is available on-site from Public Service Company of Colorado at southeast corner of site.
Natural gas lines also run along south property line and can be tapped as and if required, per PSCo.
UTILITY CONNECTIONS ALREADY LOCATED ON-SITE


SITE DETERMINANTS: AVAILABLE UTILITIES


SITE DETERMINANTS: TRAFFIC ACCESS AND IMPACT
TRAFFIC ACCESSIBILITY AND IMPACT ANALYSIS ORCHARD IX OFFICE DEVELOPMENT
Arapahoe County, Colorado
Prepared for
Bill L. Walters Construction Management, Inc. 5975 South Syracuse Street Suite 107
Englewood, Colorado 80111
Prepared by
Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. 1615 Downing Street Denver, Colorado 80218
November 16, 1981


SITE DETERMINANTS: TRAFFIC ACCESS AND IMPACT
Leigh, Scott 91 Cleary, Inc.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING « TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS
Danvar, Colorado 80218
1815 Downing Straat
(303) 861-3088
November 16, 1981
Mr. Bob Novack
Bill L. Walters Construction Management, Inc. 5975 South Syracuse Street Suite 107
Englewood, CO 80111
Dear Mr. Novack: *
We are pleased to submit herewith, our report of the traffic impact and access requirements associated with the proposed Orchard IX development in Arapahoe County, Colorado.
This study first provides a summary of the existing and proposed roadways in the vicinity of the Orchard IX development. Next, estimates are made of the amount and directional distribution of vehicular traffic likely to be generated. Finally, an evaluation is made of the ability of the future roadway system to accommodate the generated traffic volumes. Where appropriate, recommendations are made for future roadway improvements and access controls.
We trust that our findings and recommendations will assist in the further planning for the proposed Orchard IX development. Please call us if we can be of further assistance.
Respectfully submitted, LEIG" emTT t ntiov Twr
Colorado License No. 4654 REL/KJB/mlc
Ty.mpon.lion Symm, Trwuii Pirtm>, VWnciiW< Accen.Pedoinm * fcocte Plmnm.Tr.fric Ommiom A S.fn,S«Ml n—gi TWIW Igw *
Re: Orchard IX Office Development
By,


SITE DETERMINANTS: TRAFFIC ACCESS AND IMPACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Number
Section ____________________Description
A Introduction 1
B Roadways and Traffic 1
C Estimated Traffic Generation 2
D Distribution of Generated Traffic 4
E Estimated Traffic Volumes 5
F Traffic Impacts 6
G Conclusions 7
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number Description Page Number
1 Estimated Traffic Generation 3
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
F igure Number Description Follows Paqe
1 Site Location and 1979 Traffic Volumes 2
2 Directional Distribution of Generated Traffic 4
3 Distribution of Generated Traffic 4
4 Generated Traffic Volumes 5
5 Generated Traffic Volumes at Site Access Points 5
6 Traffic Impacts 6


SITE DETERMINANTS: TRAFFIC ACCESS AND IMPACT
TRAFFIC ACCESSIBILITY AND IMPACT ANALYSIS ORCHARD IX OFFICE BUILDING, ORCHARD PLACE
ARAPAHOE COUNTY, COLORADO
A. INTRODUCTION
Orchard IX is planned as a 4.14-acre office development located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Caley Avenue and Ulster Street in Arapahoe County, Colorado. A general office structure is planned to be constructed with a total of 130,742 square feet of net leaseable floor area. It will be the ninth structure in Orchard Place, a general office development extending northward to Orchard Avenue.
The developers of the site have retained Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc., to evaluate the access requirements of the proposed development and to determine its traffic impact on adjacent and nearby roadways. This report, summarizing the results of the traffic analysis, first examines the existing traffic situation in the vicinity of Orchard IX. Next, estimates are made of the amount of vehicular traffic and its directional distribution on the surrounding existing and proposed roadway system. Finally, an evaluation is made of the ability of the roadway system to accommodate the future traffic volumes. Where appropriate, recommendations are made for future roadway standards and access controls.
B, ROADWAYS AND TRAFFIC
Orchard IX will have approximately 270 feet of frontage along Ulster Street, a partially improved north-south minor arterial roadway extending from Orchard Avenue, one-half mile to the north, to Arapahoe Road, one-half mile to the south. Both Orchard Avenue and Arapahoe Road are major east-west arterials providing access to 1-25, about one-quarter mile to the east, and to the major residential areas to the west. In addition, the site will have about 650 feet of frontage along Caley Avenue, a major collector roadway presently unimproved east of Quebec Street. Quebec Street


SITE DETERMINANTS: TRAFFIC ACCESS AND IMPACT
is a major north-south arterial roadway located one-half mile west of Ulster Street with four miles of continuity from Belleview Avenue (SH 88) to County Line Road (SH 470).
Several important roadway improvements are planned for the I-25/Arapahoe Road employment center in the vicinty of Orchard IX. These access improvements include:
o paving and widening of Caley Avenue east of Quebec Street to major collector street standards; o paving and widening of Ulster Street south of Orchard Avenue to minor arterial standards; o realignment of Ulster Street onto the Spruce Street alignment at Arapahoe Road; o the Yosemite Street overpass over 1-25;
o paving and widening of Peakview Avenue from Quebec to Yosemite Street to minor arterial standards.
The access improvements listed above will be needed to avoid unnecessary concentrations of generated traffic and to provide for an evenly distributed traffic pattern. Arapahoe County, in cooperation with the area's Metropolitan Districts and the Colorado Department of Highways, is planning many transportation improvements in the area in an effort to keep pace with the expected future developments.
The location of the site is shown in Figure 1 along with 1979 traffic volumes in the vicinity. These volumes were obtained from the Colorado Division of Highways' 1979 traffic counts.
C. ESTIMATED TRAFFIC GENERATION
The proposed construction of the Orchard IX office development on the 4.14-acre site would result in the development of about 130,740 square feet of general office floor area. The estimated generation of vehicular travel to and from the proposed development is shown in Table 1. Based on nationally published generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, it has been estimated that a total of 1,380 vehicle trips will be generated during an average weekday (690 vehicles entering and
2


SITE DETERMINANTS: TRAFFIC ACCESS AND IMPACT


SITE DETERMINANTS: TRAFFIC ACCESS AND IMPACT
Table 1
ESTIMATED TRAFFIC GENERATION ORCHARD IX OFFICE DEVELOPMENT
Arapahoe County, Colorado
Item
Amount
1. Land > Area 4.14 acres
2. Net Leaseable Floor Area 130,742 s.f.
3. Trip Generation Rates
a. Average Weekday (1985) 10.5 trips/1,000 s. f./day
b. AM Peak Entering 1.58 trips/1,000 S.f.
c. AM Peak Exiting 0.30 trips/1,000 s.f.
d. PM Peak Entering 0.31 trips/1,000 s.f.
e. PM Peak Exiting 1.56 trips/1,000 s.f.
4. Trips Generated
a. Average Weekday 1,380
b. AM Peak Entering 205
c. AM Peak Exiting 40
d. PM Peak Entering 40
e. PM Peak Exiting 205
Source for Trip Generation tional Report"; Institute estimates by Leigh, Scott
Rates: "Trip Generation: An Informa-of Transportation Engineers, 1979, and & Cleary, Inc.
3


SITE DETERMINANTS: TRAFFIC ACCESS AND IMPACT
vehicles exiting in a 24-hour period). During the morning peak-hour, about 205 vehicles will enter and 40 vehicles will exit the site. During the evening peak-hour, reversed traffic volumes are expected with about 40 vehicles entering and 205 vehicles exiting the site.
The generation rates indicated in Table 1 should be considered conservative, because, due to significant transit service improvements planned in the immediate area, many of the home-to-work commuter trips — 15 percent or more — could be made by transit in the year 1990 and later. In addition, local circulator transit services to be provided by the three Metropolitan Districts in the area will provide transportation for many local personal, business, and noontime trips.
D. DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRAFFIC
The directional distribution of approaching and departing traffic generated by the proposed development is a function of its geographic location with respect to the balance of the Denver Metropolitan Area, the probable places of residences of the employees, and the future major street system providing access to the site. Figure 2 shows the expected area-wide distribution on the proposed roadway system while Figure 3 shows a more specific distribution in the vicinity of the site. These distributions reflect the combined future expected travel paths for home-to-work travel and travel for such purposes as social/eating/shopping trips by employees and business trips by employees and visitors.
As illustrated, about 32 percent of the traffic would be oriented to and from the north, about 30 percent to and from the west, and about 18 and 20 percent to and from areas east and south of the site, respectively. An estimated 34 percent of the generated traffic would use Ulster Street south of the site for access east and west via Arapahoe Road. An estimated 32 percent of the generated traffic would use Ulster Street north of the site with the majority (18 percent) to the north on 1-25. About 27 percent of the generated traffic will use Caley Avenue west of the site
4


SITE DETERMINANTS: TRAFFIC ACCESS AND IMPACT


Full Text

PAGE 1

ORCHARD PLAC6 NINE SPEC OFFICE BUILDING IN SUBURBIA: COMMODITY, FIRMN ' ESS At-0/0R DELIGHT? An Architectural Thesis presented to the College of Architecture, Design and Planning, University of Colorado at Denver, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Architecture David Michael Metcalf Fa 11 1986

PAGE 2

The Thesis of David Michael Metcalf is approved. Committee Chairperson Principal Advisor University of Colorado at Denver December 1986

PAGE 3

Acknowledgements Preface Introduction Thesis Statement Project Summary Design Issues Architectural Program Owner Criteria Building Type and Size Quality and Image Construction Budget Operating Cost Projections Site Determinants Climate Topography Subsoil Conditions Easements Available Utilities Access Context Zoning Requirements Permitted Uses Minimum Setbacks Maximum Heights Floor Area Ratio Open Space Minimums Parking Standards Traffic and Access Miscellaneous Building Code Allowable Floor Area Maximum Height/Number of Stories Location on Property Exit Requirements Light and Ventilation Toilet Facilities Fire Protection/Life Safety Construction Assemblies Colorado Energy Code Disenfranchised Participants The Community The User Design Documentation Project Description Design Drawings Model Photographs Conclusions Bibliography

PAGE 4

PREFACE

PAGE 5

Each of us is a product of his {or her) time --as the choice of phrasing herewith only serves to demonstrate. A middle-class childhood in the relatively sheltered and stable America of Eisenhower, Howdy Doody and "better living through chemistry" (pre-Timothy Leary) instills a faith in basic truths and fundamental institutions, and an expectation that progress means a better world more than necessarily a different world; the Bomb is a hazy boogyman, Davy Crockett is every Boy Scout's role model, and rock-and -roll, like Communism and Dali, is someone else's rebellion, someone else's fiery dragon. Adolescence is idealism brought to life in John and Bobby and Hartin, the demure innocence of Annette and Frankie's restraint on a beach blanket, the altruism of the Peace Corps, and the Ultimate Truth and honesty of Modern Architecture. Post adolescence arrives abruptly as a crepe-hung riderless horse walking down Pennsylvania Avenue, the debauched promiscuous intentions of Viet Nam, the pragmatism of metal skin simulating the steel skeleton hidden in Code required fireproofing, and the dawning realization on a bloody field in Kent, Ohio that purity and innocence of purpose are a damned poor defense against a frightened used-car salesman holding a loaded rifle. So little wonder that adulthood starts out as an instinctive retreat to self-absorption, as readily evidenced by me-first, materialistic acquisition as by equally egoistical martyrdom for a transient Cause or a self-centered refusal to participate in any more no-win, zero-sum games until the rules get changed to " the way things ought to be. " And som_ewhere along the line, every now and then, some semblance of maturity arises amid the pall of Yuppie surfeit, the instinctive urge for a better life for your progeny, and repeated lessons to the effect that faith may move mountains but never quite manages to remove the garbage. In the dialectic of Hegel, the process described above is generalized as the conflict-resolution system of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Marx posed this in socioeconomic terms as capitalism, communism and socialism; political extremists of every stripe see it as the Establishment, the Rev olution and (the current version of) the New Order . Architecture most recently is experiencing this as Modernism, Post-Modernism and--well, the synthesis of the current architectural dialectic has yet to properly reveal itself. Hegelian philosophy insists that such resolution is inevitable, that balance will be achieved, but it sets no timetables, mandates no definite process, and offers no guarantees as to how permanent such a balance will be. In fact, the "balance" of Hegelian confict resolution is not necessarily a balance in the sense of symmetry, moderation , even compromise, or {most

PAGE 6

especially) stasis. Nor is the process by which synthesis is to be achieved necessarily a clear, linear progression toward a firm conclusion. Rather, the balance of synthesis is that of the high-wire artist, found in a process of constant motion in response to continually varying conditions : absolute stasis is rare, fleeting, even destabilizing and hazardous to continued existence. The only true constant is change, and at any given point in such a process, change may be in different, even opposing, directions simultan eously. Thus the forces tending toward the status quo, the revolution and some form of compromise may co-exist in time and place, waxing and waning in their separate rhythms until coincidence and reinforcement cause one or the other to prevail, at least momentarily--for as Che Guevara recognized, that every revolution contains within itself the seeds of its own counter revolution, incubating them in the heat of its own success, demonstrates the inevitability of continual revolution. The physical universe, as a theoretically "closed" system of energy, is said to be inherently entropical, continuously, inevitably degenerating and "running out of steam." Isolated systems within that universe can be "open" and successfully perpetuating as long as they grow, taking in new energy/ matter from the larger, closed system surrounding it --but even the most efficient such open system must eventually reach the limits of the closed universe, thereby coming up short against entropy at last. The universe of thought and i deas, being non-physical, is not a closed system (theoretically) and therefore is capable of continuous renewal, reformation, regeneration. It is this concept of regeneration --similar to the electronics usage as "amplification by feeding energy from output back into input" --that appears to offer the basis for a self-perpetuating ever improving process for constructive change. This is controlled, positive feedback; it is inductive-deductive reason ing applied to and rein forced by a constantly expanding set of data. It is, closer to our present purposes, that series of progressively larger integers whose ratios ever more closely approximate the irrational mumber representing the Golden Section revered by Pythagoras and Le Corbusier . As a matter of fact, it is the proportion study for Corbu's Le Modulor (see Figure 1) inscribed upon the base of his Marseille block, which most graphically represents the rhythm and repetitive progression of . regeneration. To have meaning and existence, however, such an idea from the nonphysical world must be translated into concrete act ion , which necessitates freezing that constantly-changing idea in one particular state at some given time. Thus its realization is inherently flawed, to the extent that it loses its vital quality of regenerative change. Nevertheless, it is the single most encompassing organizing pr i nciple I have encountered, and it is the basis for my understanding of and approach to the design process in architecture. And like a good homemade stew kept constantly simmering on the stove, it benefits mostly from tasting and consuming, from experimentation and sampling, ever changing subtly from day to day, yet retaining always some fractional flavor and elements of every ingredient ever added to the pot.

PAGE 7

3 s 8 13 Figure 1.

PAGE 8

INTRODUCTION .

PAGE 9

Eight years ago. in June of 1978, I walked away from the drawing board -and "drawing room• discussions of architectural theory and style --and entered the "board room• envirorwnent of design-build construction management. I carried with me Howard Roark's vision of the Architect as Master Builder. capably integrating the detailed craft and sensibilities of the planner. engineer. artist. carpenter. businessman. and philos opher in one "fountainhead" of architectural design knowledge. Academia's emphasis on-and too many students' preference for -debating design theory and experimenting with the latest trending styles. rather than on familiarization with and assimilation of the skills fundamental to a rational. coherent approach to the process of building design. had left me cold, contemptuous and unfulfilled. So I ran off to the "real world" to learn my trade and find renewed inspiration. In short order. I began to appreciate certain realities about the building process. First. the range of materials. equipment and systems available today for building is already too expansive for any single mind to attempt to encompass --much less keep up with -in more than a cursory manner. We live in the era of the "team approach" to building design. with a dozen specialists in discrete but necessarily overlapping disciplines meeting together around a conference table to resolve design questions into one harmonious plan . Reality No. Two is that narrow specialization all too often results in narrow minds with a tendency toward viewing any problem only in terms of their own area of expertise. and often only when a problem obviously falls squarely within the limits of that small world. The Owner knows what his pro forma denands (and he knows what he likes); the Contractor knows how to hold costs to the budget to keep the Owner happy (and to avoid risking his own profit margin); the individual technical consultants arrive with firm pre-judgments as to which structural/HVAC/electrical/sprinkler system is most appropriate to this type project (or they sit nervously around the table. hoping to avoid controversy. ready to produce whatever system first is suggested by somebody--anybody! --else); and the Architect retreats into hawking his current style (assuming he has one handy) or resigns him self to serving as Code specialist and document production coordinator. Resolution of design questions in such an envirorwnent --assuming anything remotely resembling a design process can begin under those conditions -tends most often to resemble a tug-of-war wherein the strongest argument and/or the strongest ego ultimately prevails. by virtue of Owner fiat. the "team" consensus. or dogged force of will. The winner takes the marbles at stake in round, and the next round begins immediately;

PAGE 10

the loser, generally, is the project itself, to the extent that the set of available options most appropriate to the needs of the building is prematurely (even abortively) restricted and the optimal direction of the total design is skewed --or wrenched to and fro, if there is no consistent winner in the struggle. The third reality is that, inevitably, some one member of the team finally assumes leadership. (Some aspire to greatness, some have greatness thrust upon them.) I have seen this contest resolved into leadership by the Owner, by the Architect, and even by the Contractor. The results have varied relative to the personality and experience of the individual leader and the composition of his "followers," but withal the tendencies have been predictable: a building so designed is perceived readily as "the developer's building," "the designer's building," or (God help us!) "the contractor's building," displaying in each extreme the mind-set peculiar to its principal creator through its overall flavor and his degree of control through its unique mix of promiscuously compromised detailing. A " good, all-around, work and pleasure horse" designed by this means may meet the general intention -i.e., "a horse " --but it is 1 ikely to show certain inappropriate or inelegant secondary characteristics. The wild mustang caught free on the range by the owner may have great spirit and fire, but it basically is an unknown quantity with hidden genetic flaws, and even its visible qualities may be lost in breaking the animal to its new owner's requirements . The arch itect's Thoroughbred has beautiful lines and unbeatable speed, but its high-strung nature and delicate constitution brought about from generations of in-breeding make it a risky pleasure mount and no kind of work animal at all. The contractor crosses his favorite Arabian with a pretty little burro he saw driving home one night and prsents the team with a mule tha t i s a strong worker, cheap to feed, and gentle with children, but it will never win any contests for beauty, speed, or cooperation (and reproduction is out of the question.) In the worst case, the Siege Perilous remains unoccupied, and you get a horse designed by committee-but a camel's ability to go for days in the desert without water can only compensate so much for halitosis, a nasty disposition, and a face and form only a mother could love . The concluding reality is that when the Team Approach works effectively, as evidenced by the generally-acknowledged success of its end product, it is because someone introduces and maintains the basic e lements of three ineluctable processes: 1. inductive-deductive reasoning 2 . interpretive communication 3. progressive regeneration The specific techniques comprising each process will vary according to the situation, the cast of players, and the experience and abilities of the instigator; there is no fixed recipe. Knowing these mechanisms is the craft of making team design work; selection, adaptation, balance and timing so as to inspire the synergism of the team effort is the art. Induction is adductive, involv ing observation and analysis of more and more particular facts and individual cases until enough specifics are assembled to evidence a pattern or a tendency which can be generalized as a relatively reliable "known" principle. Deduction is reductive, applying a set or sequence of known principles to a specific unknown variable until the possibilities have been reduced to a "best case. " This tnduct1ve-deduct1ve reasoning process can be as condensed and as derivative as adopting from the beginning someone else's existing criteria-performance matrix (e.g., Figures 2, 3 and 4) and evaluating each level and element of your design with i n those guidelines. It can be as involved and as focused as genera ting your own set of critical principles from an original study of similar buildings which appear to "work" to your satisfaction, and then applying those hypotheses to the particular program and site confronting you. It can even go so far as "zeroing-out" all but the most inescapable givens of culture, structure, et cetera and creating your own language of architectural design from the smallest element to the most intricate rule of org anization or semantics (as witness the pattern language of Alexander and Ishikawa, the seven tnvariables of Bruno Zevi, or any of dozens of other attempts to discover "baste truths" and a rational, scientific process for design such as are surveyed in Emerging Methods in Environmental Design and and Planning, published in 1970 by the MIT Press.) Practical constraints of time and budget, the baste project type, and the peculiar capacities and inclinations of the project team (e . g . , the owner's patience) will combine to determine the complexity of the reasoning process that can be utilized effectively, but the overall form remains inductive-deductive, either overtly or covertly --and therein lies the next danger. Hidden agendas and unstated or untested assumptions can undermine the most rigorously logical reasoning process as readily as diametrically opposing values or viewpoints, left unresolved, can paralyze that process. Communication within the design team requires more than the mere listing of facts or survey of opinions ; effective communication must be complete and uniform to all part i cipants , and that demands active listening, facile interpretation, and arbitrati on, or conflict resolution. Someone must be al ert to the troubled look, the reluctance to comment, the incomplete remark, the weighted phrasing , and the folded arms that usually signify some incip i ent con" • " r frustration: i f the civil engineer merely con-

PAGE 11

Pros and cons of alternative HVAC systems lmpect on Opportunity Ower8ll HYAC ...... llltion. llnlehed Env:ror--11181 .........,.,_ Equipment tor...., ..,.,., .,...... co.e ..... --.. NqUII'ementa ... Flelllblllty recowwy CCif*lmP. 1. Mulll-zone, conet.nt Medium Mec:twnlc8l Superior Low Long Low Low High volume room on 2. Single dud COMtant Medium Low Good Low Long Medium Low High volumew/,..,..._ 3. Single duct VAV Low Low Good Low Long Medium Low Low w/elec. pertm. rM. 4. Single duel VIW Low Low Good Medium Long High Medium Low .,.,... ........... electric ....... 5. Duel duel OONIIInt Medium Low Superior Low Long High Medium High volume I. Duel duel VIN Medium Low Good Low Long High Medium Medium 7. r:-........ ......... ........ Good llldlum Medium Low ..... Low collaydm a.w..reource Low Low Good ..... ........ ........ ..... Medium ......... Figure 2.

PAGE 12

Power, Lighting, Electronic, Communication Systems For Today' s Office Buildings: (PLEC) Distribution Evaluation Summary* Dealp Wire Initial Life Criteria Capacity Ple:dblllty Security Manaaement Aeethetlc• Coote cycle Beet Application Syetems Colli In -floo r G G E G E p E Corporate office with high flexibility and high capacity req uirements. A ccess tRaised) E E F F F p G Corporate office a nd data process i ng Floor ce nt e r with extremely high cabling requ irements . Flat Condu c tor p F p G G F F Renovations where alternative Cable system is not available . Poke -Thru G p p G F G p Off ices which expect little tum-over a n d few rearrangement re quirement s . Floor Boxes p p E G G G p Conference rooms and out-of-the way locations where service requirements d o not change . Mfd . W iring G E NR E G E E Any building hav ing open areas and Sys tems jpower distri accessible ceilings . bution systems only) Hardwiring F p G G G p p App lica tions where electrical cont ractor cannot wa it for MW system components. Non accessible plenum . O verhead For high capacity requ irements Track Systems G G G G p p G data and communication cables must be e ncl osed in a metal racew ay and PLEC system was not designed into build ing . Service P oles G G F G p G G Good system f o r offices in which PLEC distribution systems were an afterthought. Part i t ions p F F F E F F For low capacity req uirement s with good access to service feeds : limited flexibility requ i rements . S urf ace Race way Retro fit applications where extensive p p G G p F F renovation work is not and walls are available . Also for perimeter feed in new construction . Key: E Exc ellent G Good F Fair P Poor NR Not R e levant Figure 3.

PAGE 13

Organizing Performance Criteria for Evaluating the Integration or Systems PHYSIOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIOLOGICAL ECONOMIC NEEDS NEEDS NEEDS NEEDS l'erformance Criteria Specific to Certain Human Senses, in the Integrated System I Ergonomic Comfort Habitability Way finding, Space Conservation SPATIAL Handicap Access Beauty, Calm, Fu net ion a I Functional Servicing Excitement, View Adjacencies 2 No Numbness, FrostHealthy Plants, Flexibility to Dress Energy Conservation THERMAL bite ; No Drowsiness, Sense of Warmth, withe Custom ... Heat Stroke Individual Control . 3 Air Purity; No Lung Healthy Plants, Not No Irritation From Energy Conservation AIR Problems, No Rashes, Closed in, Stuffy Neighbors QUALITY Cancers No Synthetics Smoke, Smells 4 No Hearing Damage, Quiet, Soothing; Privacy. ACOUSTICAL Music Enjoyment Activity, Excitement Communication Speech Clarity "Aii"e" s No Glare, Good Task Orientation, CheerStatus of Window, Energy Conservation VISUAL Illumination, Way-fulness , Calm, IntiDaylit Office lintling. No Fatigue mate, Spacious , Alive "Sense of Territory .. 6 Fire Safety; Struct. Durability, Status/Appearance Material/Labor DUILOING Strength + Stability; Sense of Stability Quality of Cnnst. Conservation INTEGRITY Weathertightness, Image "Craftsmanship" No Outgassing l•crformance Criteria General to All Human Senses, in the Integrated System Physical Comfort Psych. Comfort Priva<.)' Space Conser\'ation Health Mental Health Security Material Conscrv.uion Safety Psych . Safety Community Time Conservation f-unctional Esthetics Image/Status Energy Conservation Appmpriateru.:ss Delight Money/Investment Conservation Figure 4.

PAGE 14

cedes that a surface drainage scheme "can work," because he is uncomfort ably aware of the owner's budget worries and the architect's preference for a compatible site organization, it were better to have explored his doubts in detail at the first site discussion than to discover with the first exchange of preliminary construction drawings that the bird-baths and gully-washers are so obvious and so inescapable that the building has to be raised or re-sited at the eleventh hour. Someone must be ready and able to translate the unmatched jargon of two separate engineers (or an engineer and the owner's financial advisor) so as to establish plainly that they are in fact headed in the same direction (or, more likely, are talking in circles around each other's point.) Someone must be able to see beyond the specialists' habitual tunnel vision, identify sufficient commonality of value or purpose, and co-opt aspects of each viewpoint such that the interest and support of each team member are enlisted. And sooner or later, someone must step inside a deadlocked issue, analyze the opposing forces, and induce movement off dead-center by strengthening one vector, weakening another, or introducing a wholy new factor relating to the conflict at hand but hitherto overlooked or blocked out. This arbitrative aspect of communication enhancement goes beyond mere compromise in the sense of "I'll give up something if you will" or "I'll give in this t1me but you have to give in next time" to create a spirit of mutual striving toward a clearly-stated, continually more defined set of goals. Overall progress, a more or less consistent flow, therefore becomes essential to a team effort--and not simply in terms of settling upon details and finally completing the set of long-awaited construction documents. To establish momentum and maintain energy and enthusiasm among participants, it is critical that progress be perceived as continual refinement of previously accepted concepts or intentions. Each level of detail, each individual choice, must reflect clearly both a derivation from and a meaningful amplification of its successive antecedents. This typically admits in the short term a logic loop of re-examining or re-considering earlier decisions in light of subsequent thinking, but ideally the long-term effect of such loops is to identify the dead-ends stemming from flawed choices and assist in tracing the problem to its source, as well as to demonstrate the validity of sound choices made in the context of an expanding network of reinforcing relationships. Real progress in the course of the healthy design process tends to resemble a spiral, an outwardly expanding system of selections such that origins can be identified, rational growth can be traced, and a conclusion or set of conclusions can be reached, all within the compass of that same system. Keeping these processes working as a gestalt tends toward the concept of team leader as a generalist, whose understanding of the essentials of each special discipline within the team is sufficient to ask the right questions and filter the resulting information for those factors meaningful to the other members of the team and thus most relevant to the project as a whole .. In practice, the Owner rarely has such breadth of knowledge and, in any case, is most interested in "keeping his eye on the bottom line": that is his primary pay-off. The Contractor may have the necessary knowledge, accumulated through long and varied experience, but his Holy Grail remains the profit he expects to make on his investment of nen, equipment, and material in constructing the building, thus rendering his impartial dedi cation to "what is best for the project" highly suspect. The consultants have been criticized sufficiently already for their shortcomings; suffice it to repeat that they are being paid (by whom is irrelevant) solely for their special expertise. This would appear to lead us back to the Architect (who, after all, usually has the least profit motive, substituting ego gratification and professional reputation for the more bankable rewards); he, at least, has the overview albeit not the detailed knowledge of the experts, so he can be counted upon to take the " higher road" and represent the best interest of The Project to produce a sound, useful and harmonious building. That leads us back to the concept of the architect as master builder, if in slightly less god-like form than traditionally envisioned . Architectural design in the developer-dominated team approach is now external to the architect himself, but his cognitive and discriminating function remains central to this necessarily more rational, explicit process. The "black box" effect of value judgments and design choices made in the privacy and inexplicably intuitive recesses of The Master's mind, though still revealing itself in innumerable details large and small, has been transformed into an open, methodical, demystified process less subject to quietly sup pressing those nagging little voices that occasionally insist on noting. with all due respect, that the Emperor is wearing no clothes. At least, this way, the warning arrives before the castle door closes behind the poor man and the paparazzi start shooting. And that leads me back to graduate school in September of 1986, to pick up where I left off but with a better perspective and understanding of where I am headed and how best to prepare myself for my eventual arrival.

PAGE 15

THESIS STATEMENT

PAGE 16

"Height and zoning restrictions produce clear technical solutions for office buildings. The only thing left for architects is •facadomy• --packaging." CHARLES THOMSEN, 3-D INTERNATIONAL "Spec office buildings tend to be gyrated fonns with a visual gimmick that fouls up the net-to-gross floor area ratio." CHARLES GWATHMEY, GWATHMEY SIEGEL ARCHITECTS "The only chance you really have to make architecture in these bui 1 dings is in the space between the car and the front door, and a section change in the lobby." ROBERT SIEGEL, GWATHMEY SIEGEL ARCHITECTS "Innovation comes from solving real problems in the real world. The only meaningful innovation is that which is wanted by somebody." CHARLES THOMSEN, 3-D INTERNATIONAL " Rules should be derived from exceptions." BRUNO ZEVI, The Modern Language of Architecture

PAGE 17

September 2, 1986 SLFTBB Architects, P.C. 123 Tuft Road Front Colorado 80200 RE: Request for Proposal Gentlemen: You are invited to respond to our enclosed "Request for Proposal" dated July 4, 1986 for consideration as the Architect to design a quality, Class A speculative office building on property owned by the Developer in the South Greenwood Plaza office park area near Denver, Colorado. Your proposal shall be predicated upon the following information: 1. Site 4.691 acres on the northwest corner of South Ulster Street and East Caley Avenue, unincorporated Arapahoe County, CO (Location Plan and Site Plan enclosed as Exhibits 1 & 2; Preliminary Soils Investigation, Exhibit 3; Adjacent Street Plan & Profiles, Exhibits 4 & 5; Existing Sleeving & Utility Plan, Exhibit 6; Boundary Survey, Exhibit 7; Topographical Map, Exhibit 8; PBG Zoning for Arapahoe County, Exhibit 9; Covenants for Greenwood Plaza South, Exhibit 10) 2. Building-Projected as a midrise (7 to 9 story), minimum 150,000 sq. ft. (gross), office building accaanodating both single-and multi-tenant floor leasing; structured and surface parking as required by ordinance, but at no less than one car per 275 sq. ft. (gross). Building should fit into speculative lease market reflected by existing buildings surrounding site. 3 . Proposal Requirements -As outlined in RFP, enclosed. 4. ScheduleProposals due by 5:00p.m. MDT, September 8, 1986 Award announced by 12:00 noon MDT, September 10, 1986 Schematic Design presented for Owner approval by OCtober 17. 1986 Design Development complete for final acceptance by December 5, 1986 Construction Begins, February 29, 1987 Occupancy by first tenant, April 1, 1988 5. Contract Form Standard AlA Docu.ent B131 (1979 Edition) 6. Project Team -To be selected by the Owner and Architect prior to execution of a contract. 7. Rejection-The Owner reserves the right to reject any and all proposals for any reason, stated or withheld. All questions, correspondence and your proposal shall be directed to the undersigned as Owner's Project Executive. Sincerely, BSRD, Inc . Juan de los Hombres, Assistant Vice President JDLH/aup

PAGE 18

The kind of letter your secretary handed you this morning with your first cup of coffee 1s a definite good news. bad news classic: the good news 1s that you've finally made the short list for a connerc1al design project over the 40.000 square foot barrier you been knocking on since you went out on your own; the bad news is that it's for a speculative office building. 1n the suburbs no less. and for a local developer who has been voluble in his disdain for the "artsy monuments to ego" erected over the recent years by his more visible competitors. Not that you're so interested 1n designing monuments per se. but you would like to think you can do better than dressing up some financial wizard's latest warehouse for office workers and playing draftsman to his "designer." It wouldn't be so bad if 1t were a downtown high-rise. where the technical challenges would stretch you a little and look good in your brochure. You could even have looked forward to the programming complexities and the need to "express the corporate image" for a suburban company headquarters building on a hard-to-build site that (as they say diplomatically) presents some unique opportunities. But this: what do you do with a build-it-cheap-andlease-it-fast office box on a plain-Jane site? So. reluctantly. you reach for the telephone and tell ol' Juan de los Hombres that you're simply too busy to respond-hahl like hell you do. What you really do is call the man and assure him that you look forward to submitting a design proposal and immediately arrange to visit the specified site and as many of BSRD's similar buildings as you can find. (Not that they're so hard to recognize: most of the red brick and black glass office buildings across town belong to those guys.) And then. out of the clear blue sky. you hear Senor de los Hombres gushing (yes. gushing) about how impressed the Big Man was with that little post office branch you completed last year. and how they've wafted to find the right opportunity to approach you for a design collaboration. and how excited everyone is that your firm is one of the three the Big Man feels can best breathe some imagination and innovation into this new project. He'll be happy to show you around the company's holdings personally tomorrow morning. are you free for lunch? look forward to meeting you. thanks for accepting our invitation. see you at nine. you're quite welcome. ciao-wow. After all that. how can you have been so ready to walk away from such an oppor tunity? Maybe it's time to look at this project with a new perspective. to trash all your preconceived notions and start thinking about the best way to rise to the old challenge of commodity. firmness and delight in what somebody only moments ago was dismissing as --what was the phrase? "just a warehouse for office workers?"

PAGE 19

One week later, the Big Man's arm around your shoulder and a smug grin splitting your face, the job is yours. Champagne is distributed around the room and the Big Man himself ("Call me Hank, son!") is offering a toast •. . "To the architect who had the guts to tell me what I've been doing wrong as well as what I've been doing right over the past eight years and nineteen office buildings; who had the uncommon sense (for an architect) to suggest that materials and building systems be chosen at least in part for their ability to perform several functions in one assembly; who didn't hesitate to state the obvious, that you put the extra cost where it will perform the most vital functions or be most obvious to the senses; who managed to convince me that he really can give me what I want for the money I have to spend by working with instead of for me or against me. Congratulations, and welcome to our Team!" Okay, so you've cooked up a tall order for yourself this time. You've shown something to this guy that makes him believe you can teach and learn at the same time. Now you get to prove it: either this suburban spec office building will demonstrate the ability of your rational design process to find cost-effective ways of organizing basic, off-the-shelf construction technologies into a semantically rich, timeless architecture, or you eat your words and slink back down there with the smarmy stylists who told you that imagination was wasted on a building like this aside from the games you can play with skin, and form, and lobby. Is that what I said I would prove? Really? Well, best to get started, then.

PAGE 20

In this section, a survey will be made of all relative restrictions, requirements, recommendations, preferences and other considerations affecting the design of the building. Format of this survey will include: identification of source pertinent discussion building elements affected A preliminary analysis of each constraint will be attempted simult aneously with each discussion, with graphic indication of relative strength of need shown as follows : not should/preferred Q suggested In addition, each factor analysis will be numbered to facilitate future reference and comparison during the Schematic Design phase to follow programming. ARCHITECTURAL PROGRAM

PAGE 21

OWNER CRITERIA: BUILDING TYPE AND SIZE Owner has developed eight low-rise (two-and three-story) office buildings on properties north and northwest of this site over the past eight years. Due to higher land cost on this site, as well as lesser height restrictions and the nature of recent construction surrounding the site by others, the Owner wants to maximize net rentable area on this site in a mid-rise (sixto nine-story) building, over and above the 127,500 NRSF projection upon which he has based his financial pro forma. Because of increased building density on this site and size limitations of property, Owner expects to provide structured parking on-site. Pro forma assumes separate income from structured parking facility accommodating 383 vehicles, based upon three cars per 1000 NRSF. (At 315 square feet per space, parking structure will approximate 120,645 SF.) As Owner prefers a total parking ratio, surface plus structured, of one space per 275 NRSF, surface parking for 81 vehicles should be provided. (At 305 square feet per space, surface parking will approximate 24,705 SF. ) Primary leasing effort will focus on full-floor tanants, especially those whose space needs do not permit them to seek prestigious full-floor lease in larger office buildings surrounding this site --such buildings having floor plates in the 45,000 to 60,000 square foot range . However, the exigencies of the commercial leasing market in the southeast Denver corridor, especially at present, dictate that typical floor plan be efficiently adaptable to multi-tenant floor layouts, with individual spaces as small as 1000 NRSF. OFFICE BUILDING AREA> 127,500 NRSF PARKING STRUCTURE TO BE INCLUDED PARKING STRUCTURE AREA > 121,000 SF IO \uRF ACE PARKING AREA > 26,ooo sF TYPICAL FLOOR PLATE = 16,000 TO 19,000 NRSF FLOOR PLAN " B5% TO 95% EFFICIENT I I I I I

PAGE 22

OWNER CRITERIA: QUALITY AND IMAGE Owner's previous office buildings have focused on provideing above-average Class A office space for lease at slightly below market rates by emphasis on careful value engineering of construction elements and concentration of cost premiums on top-quality, user-affective features such as lobbies, elevators and HVAC systems. Intentions of exterior architectural form and materials have been modest, trying to build image of solid, workmanlike quality rather than trendy styling. Given the nature of existing buildings surrounding the site on the east (Tuscany Place), west (Carrera Place) and southwest (Cascades), the Owner acknowledges the need for this building to present a stronger image of quality and visibility to avoid getting lost in the crowd as "another one of those little office buildings out around the Denver Tech Center. " At the same time, the Owner remains convinced that his past emphasis on basic value engineering is more important than ever. Therefore, exotic and custom materials, systems and detailing should be minimized in favor of accomplishing esthetic effects by canny organization of standard building components. Owner has indicated several areas and features in building as having been critical in conveying his preferred image in earlier developments : a. main entrance and lobby b. elevator cars and service c. public restrooms d. upper lobbies and corridors e. flexible HVAC zones f. adequate electrical power for tenant needs g. private plumbing readily available to tenants Owner is disinclined to invest in centralized specialty systems--i.e., a so-called "intelligent building" -for this market, especially while technologies for such systems are changing as rapidly as they have been during the past five to ten years . 6 FINISHES = 11COMFORTABLE LUXURY11 NOT 11TRENDY11 1 6 STRONG VISUAL IMAGE FOR BUILDING I 6 ESCHEW EXOTIC OR COMPLEX CONSTRUCTION HIGH-VOLUME OR ATRIUM-TYPE MAIN LOBBY 1 6 CUSTOM ELEVATOR CAR FINISHES AVER. ELEVATOR INTERVAL < 30 SECONDS 1 6 HVAC ZONES 1000 SF 1 6 TENANT POWER 2. 5 WATTS/NRSF 1 6 TENANT LIGHTING 5. 0 WATTS/NRSF EMERGENCY ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

PAGE 23

OWNER CRITERIA: CONSTRUCTION BUDGET Owner has based his financial pro forma upon the following projected construction costs: Office Building @ $55.00 per SF (gross) Parking Structure @ $20.00 per SF (gross) Site Development @ $4.00 per SF

PAGE 24

OWNER CRITERIA: LEASING CONDITIONS Leasing of space in the building will be based upon " Usable Area" and "Rentable Area" as per American National Standard Z65.1-1980. Certain definitions under this Standard have significance relating to the arrangement of major building elements : a. Measurement of both Usable Area and Rentable Area is to the interior surface of the dominant portion of the permanent exterior building wall, which is that surface constituting 50% or more of the floor-to-ceiling height. b. Measurement of Rentable Area includes floor areas which may be occupied by common facilities such as corridors, lobbies, toilets, janitors closets and utility or service rooms. c . Calculation of "Net Rentable Square Feet" for leases will be as follows : RSF NRSFtenant = USFtenant x floor USFfloor These definitions essentially mean that each tenant pays for his actual floor area plus a pro-rated portion of common areas on his floor, such as lobbies, corridors and restrooms. Owner's experience with his existing buildings has shown that varying dimensions from core (or corridor) wall to exterior wall around the floor plate improves the variety of spaces available, thus enhancing flexibility in fitting potential tenants into building. DO NOT RECESS DOMINANT PORTION OF EXTERIOR WALL LOBBIES NEED NOT BE TINY FOR ECONOMY I VARY DISTANCE FROM CORE TO EXTERIOR WALL

PAGE 25

OWNER CRITERIA: LEASING CONDITIONS This booklet describes Slindird methods of meuur ing office buildins Usible Are1, Rentible Arei, Store Arei, and Consrrucrion Area. Usible Area This method the arei of i floor or office suite and is of prime interest to i tenant in rhe space offered by a landlord and in allocating the required to house personnel furniture. The of Usable Are1 on multi-tenant floor can vary over the life of i building u corridors expand and and u floors are remodeled. Usable Area floor can be converted to Renuble by the use c.onversion Area This method measures the tenant's pro rata portion of the entire office floor, excluding elements of the building that penetrate through the floor to below. The Ren:able Area floor i s fixed for the life of a building and i s not affected by changes in corri dor sileS or configuration. This method is therefore recommended for measuring the total income pro ducing area of a bui lding and for use in computing the tenant' s pro rata share of a building for purposes of rent es calation. Lenders, archi tects and appraisers will use Rentable Area in analyling the economic potential of a building. It is recommended that on multi-tenant floors the landlord compute both the Rentable Usable Area for any specific office suite. Store Aru This method measures the ground floor rentable area of an office build i ng for occupancy iS store space. Construction Aru Thi s method of measurement is to be used primuily to determine building cost or value and is not used for leasing purposes except where entire building is leased to il single ) American National Standard Z65. 1-1980 DEFINITIONS 1) "Finished shall me1n will, ceiling or floor surface, including glass, u prepued for tenant use, excluding the thickness of any speci1l surf icing such as furrinsstrips and cupet. 2) Portion " shall mean that portion of the inside finished surface of the outer building will which is 50% or more of rhe vertical floor-to-ceiling dimension meuured 1t the dominant portion. II there is no domin1nt portion, or if the dominant portion is nor verticil, the meuurement for uei be to the inside finished surface of the outer buildins where it intersects the finished floor. 3) "Major Vertical shall mean stairs, shafts, flues, pipe shafts, vertical ducts, and the l i ke , and thei r enclosing which serve more than one floor of the building, bur not include stairs, dumb-"!'aiters, lifts, the like , exclusively serving a tenant occupyins offices on more than one floor . 4) "Office" shall mean the premi ses leased to a tenant for which a musurement is to be com puted. CONVERSION FORMULA Rentable Area Usable Area = Rentable / Usable Ratio ( " RIU Usable Area x R / U Rati•PRentable Area Rentable Area RIU Rat i o =Usable Area

PAGE 26

OWNER CRITERIA: LEASING CONDITIONS The Uuble of office be computed by measuring to the finished of the office side of corridor other walls . to the center of parritions that separate the office from adjoining Usable Areas, and to the inside finished surface of the dominant porrion of the permanent outer building w;alls. American National Standard Z65.1-1980 No deducti ons sh;all be mJde for columns and projec tions necesury to the bu ilding. The Usable Area of a floor shall be equal to the sum of all Usable Areas o_n that floor. • Not e : Anumesslin line u i s the dom i nant portion . See illuttrltions "A" rhrouah " 0 .. .

PAGE 27

OWNER CRITERIA: LEASING CONDITIONS The Rent;able Are;a of ;a floor sh;all be computed by measuring to the inside finished surface of the domi n;ant portion of the permanent outer buildi ng walls , excluding any major vertic;al penetrations of the floor. No deductions shall be made for columns and projections necessary to the building. American National Standard Z65. 1-1980 The Rentable Area of an office on the floor sh;all be computed by mul t i ply i ng the Usable Are;a of th;at office by the quotient of the div i sion of the Rent;able Are;a of the floor by the Usable Area of the floor resulting in the "R/U Ratio" described herein . "Nol e : Auumes alan line IS illu\t rlled i s t he dom i nanr port ion. See i lluurac ions " A " t hrouah "0".

PAGE 28

OWNER CRITERIA: LEASING CONDITIONS The Construction Area of 1 floor shall be computed by measuring to the outside finished surface of per manent outer building w1lls . The Construction Are1 of 1 building sh1ll be the sum of the Construction Area of 0111 enclosed floors of the building, incl ud in g basements , mechanical equipment floors, penthouses, and the like. American National Standard Z65 .1-1980 The number of square feet in a ground floor Store Area shall be computed by"measuring from the build ing line i n the case of street frontages. and from the inner surhce of other outer build in g walls and from the inner surface of corridor and other permanent partitons and to th e center of partitions that separate the premises from adjoining rentible areas. No deduction shall be made for vestibul es inside the building line or for columns or projections necessary to the building . No addition should be made for b01y windows extend ing outside th e building line. ,.. "' ... ... c

PAGE 29

OWNER CRITERIA: LEASING CONDITIONS . . . . ' . American National Standard Z65. 1-1980 ... ,. ' ' t .... • 'r • IT -;;, n---------------f'ln'-------1 FIN. ClG. ___} Illustrates a vertical permanent outer building wall where glass comprises SO% or more of the vertical floor-to-ceiling dimension and, therefore, is the dominant port ion. Points of measurement are shown by the connected arrows. FIN. ClG. ___/ Illustrates a vertical permanent outer build i ng wall where non-glass mater ial comprises 50% or more of the vertical floor-to-ceiling dimension and, therefore, is the dominant portion. Points of measurement are shown by the connected arrows .

PAGE 30

OWNER CRITERIA: LEASING CONDITIONS ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, l' , , I , ,, ,, I American National Standard Z65.1-1980 a putially I permanent ou1er building wall. Points of ue shown by 1he connected arrows. lllustrales a outer building wall. Points of measurement are shown by the connected arrows .

PAGE 31

OWNER CRITERIA: MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS Tenant build-out and move-in is expedited --and disturbance of existing tenants is minimized --by having one elevator serve double duty for passenger and freight service. Such a car would require a deeper car platform and greater weight capacity . In this same vein, Owner prefers to minimize obtrusiveness of bulk deliveries into building. Past problems with injury lawsuits and repair/replacement costs have led Owner's property managers to proscribe decorative tile paving in lobbies and outside entries. Continuing problems with persistent water infiltration through windowwall systems has Owner extremely anxious to avoid similar problems in a taller building. 0 IO ID ONE LONG-PLATFORM ELEVATOR CAR I SECONDARY ACCESS FOR DELIVERIES I NO TILE ENTRY/LOBBY FLOORING I

PAGE 32

SITE DETERMINANTS: LOCATION MAP

PAGE 33

SITE DETERMINANTS: VICINITY MAP ( . llLL ( . I (lillY AV(. SEC. 16 SEC. 17 u * I IYIIACUII If. ( . 11().60 Ill SEC. 20 ( VICINITY MAP :NO SCALI!

PAGE 34

SITE DETERMINANTS: PROPERTY SURVEY AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION (\J r-(\J ..., I I _w io 10 -,.., 0 0 0 z 0 0 S89141"E 635.261 620.26' ---r-------------------------------. .. WEST LINE LOT 28 SW1LY COR. LOT 28 NORTH LINE,SI/2, LOT 28 SOUTH 1/2 LOT 28 s ea'1& " E 600.0&1 EAST LINE LOT 28 • .. IIi z L• 51.55' . ------------;... ___ --R•ZO.OO' -se•Lv. cOR:lOT 2e 2 m r--(\J ,.., -(I) ro -U) • 0 0 (/) .. .., • .., • ME COR, NW V4 SEC 110 TSS, Re7w 0 2 (/) IN ... I I (t: ..1 "--... ._ .. • • (/) "' ...J • 0 ocn • CEN. SEC 21, Tll1 lte7W

PAGE 35

SITE DETERMINANTS: PROPERTY SURVEY AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION lfiAL DESCRIPTION: The South one-half of Lot 28," A S\lklllVI:dnN OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 5 SOIITH, RANf.E F.7 WEST" of the 6th Principal Meridian, County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, beinq additionally described as fallows: COJIIENCING at the center of said Section 21; THENCE north 00'38u east alonq the east line of the NW1/4 of said Section 21, a distance of 15.00 feet from whence the NE corner of the NWl/4 of said Section 21 bears north 00'38• east a distance of 2634.38 feet; THENCE north 89'16" west a distance of 25.00 feet to the SE corner of Lot beinq the TRUE POINT Of REr.INNING; THENCE nOrth 89'16" west alonq the south line of said Lot 28, and 15.00 feet 11orth of and parallel to the south 1 ine of the of the NWl/4 of sairl Section 21 a 1•st. ance of F.35.00 feet to the c;w corner of '.>d; f Lnt 28; THENCf\north 00'53.'.', _ _ edst. alnnq • .hP lintof Lot.. . lf!...;a .of. 321. 72 feE-t to the NW corner of the sout l/2 of sairl Lot 28; THENCE south 89'41" dlonq the north line of the 51/2 of said Lot 28 a distance of 63S.l6 feet to the NF. corner of the S l/2 of sairl Lot 28; THENCE south 00'38" we-;t dlonq the east line of sairl Lot 2R, anrl .''-1.1)0 feet west of and parallel to the east l1ne of the NWl/4 of said Section 21 a of 321.79 feet to theSE corner of Lot 28, beinq the TRUE POINT OF cnntaininq 4.691 acres (204,360 squarP. f ept) more 0r less.

PAGE 36

SITE DETERMINANTS: CLIMATE CLIMATE AND PLANNING WITH EMPHASIS ON DENVER WHAT IS CLIMATE? The ear1h' s climate r s the product olthe sun whrch supplies the energy to set the atmosphere rn motron Climate can be dellned as the collectrve state ot the 3tmosphere lor a toea lion at a grven lime ol day or year . llrs deswoed r n terms ol these statrslical weather vanabtes: temperature . wind , sunstlrne, precrprtalion and cloud co ver . The s tate ol the atmosphere at any m oment lor a give n lo c al ron could also be desc11bed i n ter ms ol energ y , because rtr s the resull ol contrnuous exchanges ol en ergy wrthm liS ell and wrth the surface ol the ear1h. If the surface changes, as when urbanrzalion rep l a ces countrys ide wrth concre te and buildrngs. the mechamsms ol energy are modilred and the climate changes . In D enver the cc mbrnatron ol bwldings. paved surlaces and a" pollu tron has Jllered the local climate The core crry is hotter than the surroundrng count ryside rn summer . Dunng the wrnter a" pollutr o n rnterfe res wrth the recerpl ol solar radiatron II rs that a s moggy day ca n tower the surface a" temperature b y as much as ten degrees F TEMPERATURE Denver area temperatu res lyprly a mrld i ntenor contrnental regron Extre mes ol hot and cold t empe r a ture s lastrng b eyo nd 5-6 days are a The d r urnal tempera tur e r ange be t w e en mght and day rs greater than the wrnter to summe r sw i ng . Tab le I g i ves the mean and e>
PAGE 37

SITE DETERMINANTS: CLIMATE en HEATING AND COOLING CHART, DENVER, COLORADO 0 w V) Ill ui 0 400 800 1000 NORMAL HEATING DEGREE DAYS NORMAL COOLING DEGREE DAYS -SUN ANGLE DATA SOURCE : U . S . WEATHER BUREAU 1941 1970 , DENVER

PAGE 38

SITE DETERMINANTS: CLIMATE PRECIPITATION Denver lies in lhe semi-arid rain shad o w of ihe Rocky Moun lains . Mean annual precip i tation equals t5.5t i nches with the bulk of the moisture coming in lhe spring months . . The w i nter months are normally lhe dri est months. From November to March , the precip i tation usually falls as snow . Heavy thundershowers are not uncommon dur in g the warm summer months. Table II shows Denver's prec i p it ation characteristics . Daily prec i pitat i on amounts greater than or equal lo 0 .10 i nches can be expected on lhe average of 88 days per year and the maximum daily rainfall recorded at Denver i s 3 .55 i nches . Thunderstorms account lor most of the summer pre cipitation , a n d annually the r e i s an average of 41 days w1th thunderstorm occurrences . Snowfall averages 5 9 . 9 inches per year and snow has been reco rded i n every month except July and August. The maximum monthly and maximum 24 hour snowfalls recorded are 39 . 1 i nches and 19. 4 inc hes , respectively . WINO Wind speeds 1n Denver are normally highest in winter and spring and lov:est i n late summer and fall as shown i n Table Ill . Sustained w1nd speeds of 90 m i les per hour wilh gus is lo 120 miles per hour have been re c orded along lhe foothills wesl of Denver . The max i mum recorded surface wind speed at Stapleton International A ir port was 56 mph i n April. 1960 and again i n July , t 965 . The latter i s not , however . a recom mended design wind speed represent a tive of lhe D enver area, since winds a lew feet above the surface or along the foothills might be cons i derably higher . Knowledge of the preva ili ng wind is a grossly over used and not part ic u l arly reveal i ng statistic by itself . For heali n g . ,entilation and air co nd iilo n i ng appl i cat io ns _ 1 1 IS much m ore i mportant to know the var i ous wind directions and w1nd speeds i n r!'lati o n to the outdoor air tempera t ures and those desired temperatures 1n the bu1lding at the time heat1ng, ventilation and a i r conditioning equipment is func TABLE I I '1onth J•n I , .. 1 DAILY , MONTHLY AND ANNUAL PREC I PITATION DATA ! inches ) DENVER , COLORADO Preci t tat ton • Honthlv !'!alll:ir'lum o f with 24-hour > , .n1 inch . I. 44 0 .01 1.02 4 2 3 . 7 .h) 1.66 0 .01 1.01 n 3 I. 21 2. 89 0 . 13 I. 4 A 29 . 2 I. 9) 4 .17 0 .0) 3 . . . 2•. J ---U.ay 2 . 7.)1 0 .06 3. 55 10 1.5 Jun I . 93 4. 69 0 . 10 ) , 16 rc 0 . 1 Jul I. 78 6. 41 0 . 17 2.42 n . n !l, O Au,. I . 29 4.P 0 .06 3.4) A n.o 0 . 0 -1---------------Sop 1.13 4 . h) r< 2 . 44 h 1.9 • 21.3 Oct 1.13 4.17 0.05 I. 71 3 . 31.2 Nov o. ?h 2. 97 0 . 01 I. 29 7 .1 Oec 0 . 4 3 2. At. n . OJ I. J• ]O . A Total 15.51 7 . 31 r c ] . 5 5 58 so. q J9 .I Honthly to tala .ce rounded to the nearest whole day. •Denotes less than one-hal ( . N'Uitlber • o f na:-s wt th Sno"' 1.0 inch •b n n 0 18

PAGE 39

SITE DETERMINANTS: CLIMATE TABLE Ill MEAN AND EXTREMES OF WINDS DENVER, COLORADO Direction Month Mean Wind Prevailing Wind Speed Associated with Speed (mph) Direction Recorded (mph) Maximum Jan 9.2 s 53 N Feb 9 . 4 s 49 NW -Mar 10.1 s 53 NW Apr 10.4 s 56 NW Hay 9.6 s 4) SW Jun 9.2 s 47 s Jul 8.5 s 56 SW Aug 8.2 s 42 SW Sep 8.2 s 47 NW Oct 8.2 s 45 NW Nov 8.7 s 48 w Dec 9.0 s 51 NE Annual 9.1 s 56 NW SOUIC! : U . S . Oep•r-t::ent of Coo.":'lerce,

PAGE 40

SITE DETERMINANTS: CLIMATE TABLE IV AVERAGE HOURLY WIND SPEED (m . p . h.) AND DIRECTION AT DENVER Kouf'lt aln JAN FEB HAR APR !'1.\ Y JUN JUL SEPT OCT NOV DEC Sun'llll.au rt .. :,., , : "''h , ,,., ""h " "''h :; ... "l'h : r Ol>h : : , mph "'b > r """ > . r ; ,,. "''h Oir . Ollh ;, "''h :..v. ; ,, ' t . ; I : . ; I ' ' ' ; ! ' ' ! 'J ! ' , I ' I 1 . 1 I i I l :';J I , i i I i C. ) ; , ! I (.1 . j ' 1.1 I c 1 . : ':. ; I , I 1 . • . 6 l : C J 1.1 I . . . I l.l I E . O I ' = I I ;.1 : ' 4 . 1 I s . I I I ... I I . S . ., I J . J I LE I 6 . ! ; ... I ' ' i . 1 I : . : i ' ' ' ) 0 . 1 , I I 1 . 1 I . . . :i:OO ; 1 . ? ! u I i . e I I ' ; ; I I '!. I I J I , s ' . 6 :a.J I I . J ' . . . ; i . $ I ' . I ; I ' ; ) i . i I ' • . . . ! • . i I , J I ... I . . . 1:.AI i '' I ... I . . . I • ' I I J i '.,,.;. \ ' ) -:.; ' ; . ; 1 . ! . . . t OO I I . S I 1 . 0 ! 1 . 0 I • • I ; , ] I I ; }.• I f •. : 1 . < I 1 . 1 I • I t OO I 1 . 1 ' I l I 1.! I . I 6 , 5 ' ; , ' I i I ! : . .: I ' ' \ 1 . 1 I I I IQ:tlO s 1 , 1 I 1.! I u ! • . . I I ' I . ; , , ' ' ) i I : . t I I ' 1 . • 11:c.G i t . O I .., ; , t . l • • . ! ... • . l lo ( .r ! ' , I ' .i r.; ., ' I 1 . 4 I : .( 1.4 ll:OCi I u 1.[ :'i. E • t . l . • .i. ,. .. [ ' I ' ' ! . ) .! . I ; . • I ; . I ' I ,, ! . 1 ,. ' ; I . . 'i i ,( . . . . . . i , ! : . ( ; ' :.i . . ,, : ; . ,, ,, . . . I . , 3 J 2 .;.;, : .c: • . l : , ( ; J j , ;. J ; ' ; ' ., ' I ' : . . u .. l I .; l . l J . C l : . ( > . S ;,[ I\. . I . . ( I I.C :.i I'); ,, " ; .i .. i ; . ; ,, ' ; .. [ . . . ; , ( & . I to.i. • 0.: 9 . 1 IG. l . • t II I II : .. I'J . . ( "• .. .. ; ; ; , , .;: ' I t . j , , J . l H I O .( • • ; , [ , _ , : . . II. I . . 11.2 ' l;) . i "' I I . ; .' .. 1 . , I .. r .'I ' I ' ' ,r • . l :CIO ,[ I I : , ( 3 . 1 . . i. = l i C . : .! 1? . 1 . . . • .. ' ,, 1 , 1 . , ' . l I , ' . I 1 0:1 I I l ,, 1 . ! " 3 . 1 • , ( • J .. r 9 . ! • ) ; , \ .. I i I ", 6 . 7 I . . . I C .lt 1 . [ l . t 1 00 I 1 . 1 I 6 . 1 J . i , , • ' : • v I I , ' I I ' ! . 1 ' t . l I ; . ? I 1 . 1 t .):l I 1 . 1 6 . 1 I 1 . 1 , , 1 . 1 \ . 1 . 1 : ; I (. . i I I . . . I I I 1 . 1 I : I ) .CO I 1 . 1 I ... l.t I I . C I 1 , 1 ' ' 8 I ) .:i ' ' , _ , I 7 , 1 I 1.: I t . l lltol I I l I 0 . ! I , _ ; I I I Ll ' , ' I : I 0 . I I I 1 . 1 I ' • 1 ! . 00 I 1 . 1 I . . . ' . . . I 0 I Ll I ' i I ; I I l l I . l I • • I 1 . 1 I l . l I . . . C.u S.... tc:e: u . 1 . 1""'" IAcetl-e f \. ' 1,_,. V u : • e l C..•v•t, •-h•p • l e
PAGE 41

SITE DETERMINANTS: CLIMATE TABLE V MONTHLY AND ANNUAL SUNSHINE AND CLOUD DATA .,, , Denver, Colorado Percent of of.l Poss1hle ofa P artly Clou dy tlumber of01 !'1ean Sky Honth Sunshine C lc.1r 0 .1vs O . 'lV!" Clo10dy D•ys Cover (Tenths) J•nu•ry 72 10 10 11 s.s ---february 71 8 9 11 S.8 -Harch 70 8 Apr1l 66 7 -K•y 6S 6 June 71 9 July 71 9 August 72 10 September IJ October 73 I J November 66 11 December 68 11 Total 70 liS •Monthly total s are rounded to the n eare!t day . SOURCE: U .S. Oep•rtment of Comnerce, 1977 . tioning . Tables Ill and IV. used together. may be of some limited use i n this regard . Table Ill presents monthly annual mean and extreme winds at Denver . The annual average w1nd speed i s 9 . 1 miles per hour w1th Apnl having the h i ghest average ( 10.4 mil es per hour) . Because ol the nighllime drainage wind down the South Plane Valley, south is the prevailing wind d i rect i on i n all seasons . During late morning and afternoon hours , north and northeasl w i nds are most lrequenl as shown i n Table IV. SUNSHINE DURATION AND CLOUD COVER Sunshine durat i on is delined as the number ol hours ol sunshine reach ing the surface wh1ch i s i ntense enough to 1 cause distinct shadows . Denver rece 1 ves on the aver age 70 percent of the total poss1ble sunshine through out the year . 10 lJ 6 . 0 10 iJ 6 . 1 12 lJ 6.2 13 8 s.o 16 6 5.0 14 7 4 . 9 9 8 4.4 10 8 4 . 4 9 10 s.) 10 10 S . l 132 118 S . J Annually Denver averages 115 clear days ( 10 to 30 per c ent cl oud c over) . 133 partly cloudy days (30 to 80 percent cloud c over) and 117 cloudy d ays ( 80 lo 100 percent cloud cover) . Table V presents dayt i me solar and cloud data at Denver . SOLAR RADIATION Solar rad ia tion w ith lat1tude and se ason . Incomin g rad i at io n has a value (sola r constant) ol abOut 2 gram calorieS per square c ent ime ter p e r m1nu1e al an angle per pend ic ular to the outer bOunda ry of the atmosphere . The so lar c olle c t or on a Denve r h ous e w ill rece 1ve about half that rate ol ene rgy during an average summer solar day . The depleti on is cause d by many !a ctors i ncludmg r e flectiv ity , cloud cover . o zone . sun ang l e and absorpt io n by the eanh ' s vapo r ous atmosphere . Table VI is a su mm ary o f average s o lar antl rellected sky raa t a uon lor Denver and o tner .... '

PAGE 42

SITE DETERMINANTS: CLIMATE _./ ' I TABLE VI SUMMARY OF AVERAGE DAILY SOLAR AND SKY RADIATION IN LANGLEYS lcal/cm-2/day) Sr .lr 1 un l. u ) I F ' 't . • r \ ! • ' , _ , ... I J i d I Au.• I u, c I Rt.v ... L.tll i. lou I J91} "'ull )t.(J ldl ! "\ I 1<0 'II liS l• Jail.&, C.1 11 f. I I .QO I.I ,IJ Sol \ 100 '15 '00 l0 610 1 .00 \II CranJ Jun.;t I on, CoJo. 110 20\ '00 ':o I 510 6.?0 olO 5.:.) "5 J;o • .., ... c 0 IJ.ohu 1 JO 185 I JIO .:.20 I 5 \6\ bOO 525 <05 21S Ctty , t.::•n•• • !H s )15 4bJ 5 15 \1\ 1 5<0 "0 1 , 5 [I'. lll 11•J ,!0 165 610 . 16 0 460 8r.>\oTISv t II ot, Tea,. I )60 !61 )6\ >'10 I 5B ss; 510 < 10 160 F ort \J,Hth, Totll.lS :no !6\ ISO 'l" 510 515 \10 5\0 I 165 :11J I .?00 29) :•o <90 50 560 160 1<0 1 55 Spok.&ne, . 1 05 1 \ 2d ' J )'\ '95 5 65 \LO )50 210 <10 !.dO I 5 )\ 590 \)0 4 JO ))0 tio u Idee, Color.aJo !00 270 I 400 410 <60 515 110 <60 410 )I\ Den Coloudo• 1:. 0 l 2S I
PAGE 43

SITE DETERMINANTS: CLIMATE I ! Solar Time 4 : 00 a . m . 5:00 a .m. 6:00 a .m. 7:00 a.m. 8 : 00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. 10:00 a .m. 11:00 a . m . 12:00 noon T ABLE VIII EFF E CT O F DATE ON SOLAR ANGLES FOR 40 N L ATITUDE Winter Solstice Equinoxes Summer Solstice Dec. 21 War. 2L/Sept. 21) {June 2 1) Altitude Azimuth Altitude Azimuth Altitude Azimuth -----0 . 0 -121. 3" ------4 . 2 -117. 3" --0. 0 -90.0 14. so -lC9.4" 0. 0 -58 . 7 11.4 -80.2" 26.2 -99.7" s .s• -53.0 22.5 -69. 6 3 7. 4 90. 7" 14.0" -41. 9" 32. 8 -57.3 41.9 -80. 2" 20.7 -29.4" 41. 6" -41. 9" 59 . 8 -6s.s• 25.0" -15. 2" 47. 7" -22.6 69 . 2" -41. 2. 26.5" o.o so. o• o .o 73.4 o .o• TABLE IX SHADOW LENGTHS FOR SELECTED SLOPES AND TIMES lin f e et p er one foot of obstruction I 40 N LATITUDE Level 5% S* 5% N 57. w 57. E Solar Time Ground Slope Slope Slope Slope Winter 10 : 00 a.m. 2. 7 2 . 4 3.0 2.8 2 . 5 Solstice 9:00 a .111. 4 . 0 3.5 4. 7 4. 7 3.5 • Equinoxes 10:00 a.m. 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 9:00 a .m. 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.5 Summer 9 : 00 a.m. 0.9 0 . 9 0 . 9 O .'l 0 . 8 Solstice 8 : 00 a . m . 1.3 1.3 1.3 l.4 1.2 7:00 a . m . I 2.1 2 . 1 2. 0 2. 3' 1.9 * Slope is downward t o the south at a rate o f 5 feet 100 feet of horizonc, -.1 distance. JW TO PLAN WITH CLIMATE m SOLAR ENERGY IN DENVER e f irst step in pla nn i ng w ith climate and solar energy is to nt1ly those parts o l a development project which are sensi ' to weather and climate i nclud i ng solar variations . For • structi on ol a residential unit or pro j ect . or with any deci l ure w ill be a necess ity. Rertr to Tables I , V , VII, VIII, and IX lor relevant Denve r da i d . The cost bene l i t rat io a nd how a planned solar system com pares with con ventional s ystems . will be i mportant. In this regard •t i s imp orta nt to compare projected costs based on the exp ected tile o f the equipment. Solar i s ex pected to become more and more attractive as lossit fuel related

PAGE 44

SITE DETERMINANTS: CLIMATE ---+--170.

PAGE 45

SITE DETERMINANTS: CLIMATE EFFECTS OF SUN SHADES UPON SOLAR HEAT GAIN ON WINDOWS FACING EAST _ , I I I I I ! I _ _ ! 0 "' % ::> I I FACING I ' WEST I n ' ' .!:] ... Ill a: ::> 0 100 FACIHG SOUTH r ! I I I I : , , t 100--------------J: 100-----a:.....' , I I t 1 0 II IJ 1 2 AM l 4 • 7 PM ::> c 0 . , I I .0 II 1l 1 AM J l 4 s • 1 PM 0 j . --r . . -t--: . I -+ . JJ J:ri.'i . . , I t 10 11 ll I J l 4 $ 6 I AM PM 40' NORTH LAT. HEAT GAIN ON UN SHADED WINDOW S --HEAT GAIN WITH SHADES 1111111111 HEAT BLOCKED • Use lighl color lor roofing malerial s1nce a 11gh1 c olored roof w1ll be 60 F cooler 1n lhe sun lhan a dark co lored roof. • Where approp11a1e. square and reclangular bui l d i ngs should be des1gned s i n ce lhey use or,ly 2 : 31he energy ol L or U snapea bU1I01ngs • In Denver wesl w alls 1n pan1cular . exposed lo m e sun . snould De pa1n1ed hgtl l colo r s or shaaea w11tl vege1a11on. • Where poss1ble, ball-lype i nsulal i on shou ld ord i narily be useo . R e ier 10 l he Denver 8U1Id1ng Code , Cnaple r 62 , lor rec ommended lh1ckness of 1nsu1auon . • Bu ildin gs sho u ld be OUIII 10 w11hslana ex1erna1 lo ads &xened lly w1n0 ana snow and nol coll a pse o n accounl ol suuc l ura l la ugu e or ma1e11als aecompos1ng 1 n 111e we a mer • Venl s or lans 1 n lhe a111c or ce1hng anal allo w w a r m a" 10 nse up and oul ol I he house , wh1le or av.•1ng :ool ;houla oe • The bU1Id1ng should nol allow llle penel ral ion of unwanted wind , prec1p11a11on and p ollu1an1s ana . lunher. 11 s hould ma1nta1n a cena1n b alanc e i n exchange of h ea l ana l u r e v11!h me s u rroundings b y mod1ly 1 ng lhe pa ss age o f heal ana me 1r a n s p o n ol mo1sture l hr ough lhe outer skin . • All w i ndows above g r ade should be al a m1nimum double glazed (Refe r 1 0 D e nver 8U1I01ng codes . ) • All exlenor doors and inl e no r d oors lead i ng 10 unheated areas above graae shou l d be wealhers l npped an a Slidin g glass doors shOuld oe double glazed . • The 1o1a1 energy reqUired shou l d be compuled as lhe an n ual e suma l e o BT u s ne:essary 10 ne a l , cool , ana hghllhe proposed reSIOenual OUIIdlng For purposes or lhiS c alcula 11on, me ex1enor wall s should cons1s1 of no mor e lhan lhe equlva l enl o r 20 percen l doors an a W indo ws . (Relerenc e lh c Denver Bu1I01ng Cooe . Chap!er 62 , Senes 1978 . ) • flfeplaces s hould be conslrucled such lhallh elf op era110n Y " ll InCrease h:31 ene rgy Supph.:>d 10 !he hv1ng area In quanuucs grealcr ! han lha l lOS I !hrougn a" excnange our 1ng combus1 1 0n .

PAGE 46

SITE DETERMINANTS: TOPOGRAPHY Site is relatively level in eastern one-third, sloping gradually downward from e ast to west and steepening in slope from middle of site to southwest corner for an overall drop of approximately 25 feet. Western half of site also slopes downward from north to south appro x imately 15 feet. SURFACE PARKING EASIEST AT EAST END AVOID SOUTHWEST QUARTER FOR TOWER I I

PAGE 47

-----0 100 I \ I / I I I I I I I ) I I I I I I / I I I I I I / / / , , I / / / / / // ' I • { I I I I I I / f I I I I I I I I ' / I t __ I ,/ I I / / / / . . 'o-' / UX> FT

PAGE 48

SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS A . G . WASSENAAR. INC. 218 0 !i ! VAI'•.UoO [ SUI T [ SOIL AND FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION FOR: ORCHARD PLA C E NINE NW O F E. CALEY AVENUE AT S. ULSTER S TREE T ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO PREPARED FOR: WALTERS CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 5975 S. SYRACUSE, SUITE 107 ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 8G111 November 13, 1981 Project No. 81782 Q[NY[A COL.OAAOO 8 0222

PAGE 49

SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS A . G. WASSENAA ... INC. Walters Construction Management 5975 S . Syracuse, St . 107 Englewood, Colorado 80111 Attn: Mr. Bob Novack 21.0 S . IYANHOC.. SUrTW S Subject : Soil and Foundation Investigation Orchard Place Nine, NW of E. Caley Ave. at S . Ulster St., Enqlewood, Colorado Project No. 81782 Gentlemen: 60tL AND CONSULTANTS; DllNYil ... COLOftADO .01&2 November 27 , 1981 have completed the soil and foundation investigation for the proposed office building and parking structure to be located at the subject site. Our summary of the data collected during our field and laboratory work, our analysis and our opinions and conclusions are presented in the attached report. The analysis of our investigation is intended to provide the design criteria for the foundation syste m and floor slabs of the proposed structures. The subsoils, in general, consist of 1.0 to 11.5 feet of stiff to very stiff, sandy to very sandy clay and medium dense, very clayey sand which is underlain by firm to medium hard claystone-sandstone bedrock. Hard to very hard claystone-sandstone bedrock and hard to very hard sandstone bedrock was encountered 4.0 to 15. 0 feet below the ground surface. Near practical drilling refusal was encountered in very hard, strongly cemented sandstone in 7 of the 14 test holes at depths of 15.0 to 32.0 feet below the ground surface. No ground water was observed during this investigation. We recommend the proposed structures be founded on straight-shaft piers drilled into the competent bedrock material. Minimum penetration into competent bedrock sho uld be 10.0 feet in the parking structure and 15.0 feet in the office building. We believe the floor slabs for the parking structure can be placed directly on the natural soils if some precautions are taken . We estimate 4.0 to 11. 0 f eet of fill will be required beneath the office building floor slabs . The on-site, more sandy materials are suitable fill material for this use. Using the design criteria and the precautions given in the report, the subject site is suitable for the proposed construction.

PAGE 50

SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS Walters Construction Management Nov. 27, 1981 page two Selected soil samples tested for water soluble sulfates indicate a modified Type II cement is recommended for foundation concrete in contact with the soils. For service areas and fire lanes we recommend a pavement section of two inches of asphalt and six in ches of base course compacted to a density of 95% of standard Proctor density according to AASHTO-r-gg, If you have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We have appreciated the opportunity to pro vide this service for you. Sincerely, AGH/ sen

PAGE 51

SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS Table of Contents Title Purpose --------------------------------------------------------Proposed Structures ---------------------------------------------Site Conditions -------------------------------------------------2 Field Investigations --------------------------------------------2 Laboratory Testing ----------------------------------------------3 Subsoil and Ground Water Conditions -----------------------------3 Eight Story Office Building ----------------------------------3 Parking Structure --------------------------------------------4 Foundation Recommendations --------------------------------------4 Eight Story Office Building ----------------------------------4 Parking Structure --------------------------------------------5 Floor Slabs and E xterior Concrete -------------------------------6 Eight Story Office Building ----------------------------------6 Parking Structure -------------------------------------------6 Structural Fill Soils -------------------------------------------7 Retaining Walls ------:------------------------------------------7 Water Soluble Sulfates ------------------------------------------8 Surface Drainage ------------------------------------------------8 Ground Water and Subdrains --------------------------------------8 C onstruction Excavations ----------------------------------------9 Pavement Thickness Design ---------------------------------------9 Limitations ---------------------------------------------------10

PAGE 52

SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS Attachments Table of Contents --Tcont) Site Plan, Location of Exploratory Borings ---------------Figure 1 Logs of Exploratory Borings -----------------------Figures 2 and 3 Legend & Notes for E x ploratory Borings -------------------Figure 4 Settlement -Swell Test Results ------------------Figures 5 thru 8 Gradation Test Results ----------------------------------9 thru 11 Summary of Laboratory Test Results ------------------------Table 1

PAGE 53

SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS Purpose Foundation Investigation Orchard Place Nine NW of E. Caley Avenue at S. Ulster Street Englewood, Colorado This report presents results of a s o i l and foundation investigation at the site of a proposed ei ght story office building and parking structure to be located northwest of the intersection of East Caley Avenue and South Ulster Street, Englewood, Colorado. The investigation was completed to assist in determining the best type, depth and design criteria for the foundation system of the proposed structures and any special precautions which should be taken. Factual data gathered during the field and laboratory work is summarized on Figures 1 through 11 and Table I attached. Our investiga-tion results and our opinions, which are based upon this investigation and our e x per i ence, are discussed in the following report. Proposed Structures We understand the p roposed structures will consist of an eight story office building and a three level parking structure. Construction materials will consist of precast or cast-in place concret e . The office building will have no basement and the parking structure will be below grade. We assume the maximum interior column loads for the office building structure will be in the order of 1000 kips dead load plus reduced live load and maximum interi or column loads for the parking structure will be in the order of 200 kips dead load plus reduc e d live load. The location of the structures is shown on Figure 1. Our assumed lower floor levels are shown on Figures 2 and 3 attached . If the proposed floor levels vary more than two feet

PAGE 54

SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS from our assumed floor levels we should be notified to re-evaluate our recommendations. Site Conditions The topography at the subject site slopes gently to the southwest with vegetation consisting of natural grass and weeds. There is an existing residence in the southeast corner of the tract. Approximately 8 . 0 feet of fill material is stockpiled above grade in the northeast corner of the parking structure site. There are no bedrock outcrops or bodies of water on or near the site. Fie ld Investigations Subsurface conditions were investigated by drilling 14 test borings at the locations indicated on Figure 1. The were advanced using a four inch dia meter continuous flight auger powered by aCME 55 or Acker AO II drilling r ig. At frequent intervals samples of the subsoils were ta ken u sin g a California sampler which is driven into the soil by dropping a 140 pound hammer through a free fall of 30 inches. The California sampler is a 2.5 inch outside diameter by 2 inch in side diameter device . The number of blows required to drive the sampler into the soils is known as a penetration test. The number of blows required for the sampler to penetrate 12 i nches can be determined and gives an indication of the consistency or relative density of the soils encountered. Results of the pene tration tests are presented on the Logs of E xploratory Borings, Figures 2, 3 and 4.

PAGE 55

SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS Laboratory Testing The samples were returned to the laboratory where they were visually classified and appropriate testing assigned to evaluate the engineering properties of the various soil layers . The laboratory tests included settlementswell tests to evaluate the effects of wett ing and loading on the soils. The results of the settlement-swell tests are presented on Figures 5 through 8. In addition, gradation analysis tests and Atterberg limits tests were conducted to evaluate the grain size distribution and plasticity on samples of the shallow clay and claystone soils. The results of these tests are presented on Figures 9 through 11. Unconfined compressive strength tests were also performed to evaluate the shea r strength of the bedrock materials. The results of these tests and water soluble sulfates are summarized on Table I . Subsoil and Ground Water Conditions Eight Story Office Building (Test Hole Nos. 1 th rough 6) Our test holes in this area i ndicate 1.0 to 9.0 feet of stiff to very stiff, sandy to very sandy clay which is underlain by zero to 8.0 feet of firm to medium hard claystone-sandstone bedrock. Hard to very hard claystone sandstone bedrock and hard to very hard sandstone bedrock was encountered 4.0 to 9.5 feet below the ground surface. Near practical drilling refusal was encountered in very hard, strongly cemented sandston e in Test Holes 1, 3, 4 and 6 at 15.0 to 20.0 feet below the ground surface. No ground water was observed at the time of drilling or eleven days after drilling. A more complete description of the subsoil and ground water conditions for the office building is given on Figure 2 attached.

PAGE 56

SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS BEST FOUNDATION IS CAISSONS I Parking Structure (Test Hole Nos. 7 through 14) Our test holes indicate the subsoils in the area of the parking structure consist of 3.0 to 11. 5 feet of stiff to very stiff, sandy to very sandy clay and medium dense, very clayey, silty sand underlain by zero to 12.0 feet of firm to medium hard, occasionally weathered claystone-sandstone bedrock. Hard to very hard, poorly cemented claystone-sandstone bedrock and hard to very hard, poorly cemented sandstone bedrock were encountered 4.0 to 15. 0 feet below the ground surface. Near practical drilling refusal was encountered in very hard, strongly cemented sandstone in Test Holes 9, 10 and 12 at 22. 0 to 32.0 feet below the ground surface. No ground water was observed at the time of drilling or 7 to 10 days after drilling. A more complete description of the subsoil and ground water conditions in this area is given on Figure 3. Foundation Recommendations In our opinion, the best foundation system for the proposed structures would be straight-shaft piers drilled into the competent bedrock materials. The following design criteria should be observed : Eight Story Office Building a) Piers should be drilled a minimum of 15.0 feet into competent bedrock. b) Piers should be designed for a maximum end-bearing pressure of 50,000 pounds per square foot with a side shear of 3,000 pounds per square foot for the first 15.0 feet of penetration of competent bedrock. Below the first 15.0 feet of penetration a side shear of 5,000 pounds per square foot may be used.

PAGE 57

SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS VOID FORM REQUIRED UNDER GRADE BEAMS I c) A minimum dead load pressure of 10,000 pounds per square foot based on pier cross-sectional area should be used. d) All piers should be reinforced their full length. e ) A three inch minimum of void material should be provided beneath the grade beams between the piers to assu re effective concentration of loads on the piers. f) Concrete should be placed immediately after each pier hole has been cleaned and inspected. g) Portions o f the very hard, strongly cemented sand stone bedrock will be difficult to drill. W e recomment a l arq e crane type drilling rig or equivalent be specified. Parking Structures a) Piers should be drilled a minimum of ten feet into the competent bedrock materials. b) Piers should be designed f or a maximum end-bearing pressure of 35,000 pounds per squa re foot with a side shear of 3,500 pounds per square f oot for that portion of the pier in competent bedrock. c) A minimum dead load pressure of 10,000 pounds per square foot based on pier cross-sec t ional area should be used. d) All piers shoul d be rei nfo rce d their full length. e) A three inch minimum air space beneath grade beams between the piers should be provided.

PAGE 58

SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS SLABS ON STRUCTURAL FILL ACCEPTABLE I f) Concrete should be placed immediately after each pier hole has been cleaned and inspected. g) Portions of the bedrock contain hard to very hard cemented sandstone layers . We believe some of these formations may be difficult to drill for large diameter piers. We suggest that a large drilling rig be used at this site to do the work. The office building will most likely require a heavy crane rig or similar heavy duty drilling equipment. Using the forementioned recommended design pressures we estimate the maximum se ttlement fo r each pier will be less than one-half inch and differential settlement between piers will be in the order of one-fourth inch. Floor Slabs and E xterior Concrete Office Building We estimate that from 4.0 to 11. 0 feet of structural fill will be necessary under floor slabs in the area of the office building . Slabs placed on properly controlled structural fill inthe office building area shoul d be separated from bearing members and moderately reinforced with reinforcement continuous through slab joints. Parking Structure The proposed lower floor level of the parking structure will be supported by sandstone bedrock. No precautions are necessary for slabs placed directly on the sandston e bedrock . If the park ing structure excavation exposes clay stone or claystone lenses as bearing material for slabs the claystone should be removed to a depth of 3.0 feet below top of subgrade and r eplaced with a

PAGE 59

SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBS O I L CONDITIONS suitable structural fill material compacted to 95 p e rcent of Proc t or density. The parking structure excavation should be i n spected by a soi l s engineer t o c o n firm non-e xpansive materials at the t o p o f subgrade. Structural Fill Soils We estimate that from 4.0 to 10.0 feet of structura l fill will be necessary under floor slabs in the area of the office building. Where fill soils are necessary beneath floor slabs and pavements the on-site soils are a suitable fill material. If the more granular on-site soils are used for structural fill in the office b uild ing a re a they sho u ld be p la c e d i n six inch m aximu m loose lifts at above optimum moisture content and compacted to 95 percent of stan dard Proctor density according to ASTM 0698. Prior to placement of fill all existing organic material and topsoil should be removed. Off site materials to be used for structural fill should be tested and approved by a soils engineer before hauling to the site. A suggested guide specification for placement and compaction of structur al fill is attached . Retaining Walls Where retaining walls are necessary they should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressure. This pressure depends upon the type of soil, depth of cut and allowable movement of the wall toward the excavation. If the natural sand soils are used for backfill the retaining walls should be designed for a lateral earth pressure of 50 pcf equivalent fluid pressure plus surcharg e. If c l ean, f ree-draining sand or gravel is use d for retaining wall backfill the walls shoul d b e d esigned for a lateral earth pressure of 35 pcf equivalent fluid p re ssure plus surcharge . A drainage system behind the wall should also be provided .

PAGE 60

SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS Water Soluble Sulfates Laboratory tests on soil samples selected as representative indicate a low to high percentage of water soluble sulfates. The results are shown on Table I. According to published information a Type II cement is necessary for all foundation concrete which will be in contact with or within six inches of the natural soils. We recommend the Concrete Manual ACJ-301 Section 3 . 4.3 be used regarding the water cement ratio and water reducing admixture. Surface Drainage The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the structure has been completed: a) Backfill around the e xterior and interior foundation walls should be moistened and compacted to 95 percent of standard Proctor density (ASTM 0698). b) The ground sur face around the perimete r foundation walls should be sloped to drain away from the structures in all directions. We recommend a minimum slope of six inches in the first 10 feet. c) Roof downs pouts and other water collection systems should discharge well beyond the limits of the backfill. d) Other usual precautions which may be indicated during design and construction . Ground Water and Subdrains Present ground water conditions, in our opinion, will not present a problem for the propose d construction. In the parking structure area at our assumed lower level elevation the subsoils generally consist of pervious sandst one.

PAGE 61

SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS NO PERIMETER BUILDING DRAINS REQUIRED PAVING = . 611 BASE + 211 ASPHALT I We believe, if the ground surface and roof drainage are properly cared for then no subdrains will be necessary. Construction Excavations In our opinion, most of the foundation and utility excavations may be constructed using conventional earthmoving equipment. Some problems are anticipated when drilling into the very hard bedrock, as previously disc ussed . Deep utility excavat ions may require some jack-hammer work or light blasting where strongly cemented sandstone is encountered . Pavement Thickness Design During our field investigation no test holes were drilled in the proposed driveway and f i re lane areas . We anticipate the subsoils in these areas to be similar to the poorest quality s ubsoils encountered in the building areas . Our laboratory tests indicate the sandy clay is the overburden material for which the pavements should be designed. The plasticity index for the clay is in the order of 15. The AASHO Highway Subgrade Classification for all anticipated subgrade materials will range from zero t o 10. These materia l s are considered to range from good to poor f or roadway subgra des. A pavement thickness design consisting of six inches of crushed aggregate base course and two inches of asphalti c concrete in the driveway, fire lanes and p arki n g areas would be acceptable. The subg rade and base course should be compacted to 95 percent, according to AASHTO-T99. Positive dra inage from the asphalt surface will be important.

PAGE 62

SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS Limitations The test borings in this investigation were spaced to obtain a reasonably accurate knowledge of the existing subsoil and ground water conditions for design purposes . Variations in subsoils not indicated by the borings are always possible. If unexpected subsoil conditions are observed during con-struction or if the type, size or location of the structures has changed we should be notified in order to provide additional recommendations. Pier hole drilling and placement and compaction of fill should also be inspected by a soils engineer . If you have any questions concerning this report or the investigation, please call. AGW/sen Attachments

PAGE 63

• TEST HOLE 110. 12 TEST HOLE NO. 13 TEST HOLE e TEST HOLE 110. 10 PROPOSED PARKIN8 ITRUCTU.RE • TEST HOI.( NO. II L . _ TEST HOI.( NO.7 TEST HOLE NO. 8 HOLE NO. 9 EAST e TEST HOLE NO. 6 CALEY A \IE TEST HOLE NO. 4 TEST HOLE NO. !I

PAGE 64

SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS 710 70S 700 ... ... ... ... z 0 69S > ... ...J ... 690 68S 680 67S 670 65S TEST HOLE t-.0. 1 ELEV.S70 2 20/12 T EST HOLE t-.0. z ELEV .S70 2 TEST HOLE t-.0 . 3 ELEV.S700 TEST HOLE t-.0. 4 ELEV.S700 IFFICE TEST t-O....E t-.0. s ELEV.569S FINISHED LOWER LEVEL ELEVATION (PER THI S CFFICEl 2S/12 24/9 20/9 20/12 22/12 35/9 3S/9 28/9 40/6 26/6 50/ S SO/S 50/3 S0/4 46/ 6 SOlS S0/ 4 NOT T O 43/ 3 SCALE BOTTO'l SOlS S0/4 ELEV. 655.5 LOC:S EXPLORATORY BORINGS 46/6 TEST 1-iOL.E t-.0. 6 ELEV.S697 710 705 700 69S 7 / 1 2 690 0/5 665 ... ... ... ... I z !:? > ... ...J ...

PAGE 65

SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS ... ... ... ... z 0 > ... ..J ... T E S T H 8 L E HOLE HCLE HOLE TES T HOLE N0. 7 N0.8 t-IJ.9 N O.IO NO.I! I'.C.12 t-1).13 N0.14 ELEV.S699 ELEV.5700 ELEV.5694 ELEV.5695 ELEV.569 6 ELEV.S694 ELEV. 5 689 705 700 25/6 695 3 019 690 . 1 5 / ( 535 50/5 690 50/2 675 670 5 0/2 665 660 50/3 PARKING S0/ 6 FJN!St LOWER LEV EL ELEVATION (PER THI S OFFICE) ' " ' ' ' ' 151 1 2 2 5 / 6 36/ 5 5 0 / 6 50/5 5 0 / 5 SE:E F I (AJRE 4 FOP AND NOT:OS LihS OF E X!"L0RhT0RY B ORII\-G S FIGURE 3 705 700 695 690 2 a 6A5 680 39.6 665 660 5 ... ... ... ... I z ... c > ... ..J ...

PAGE 66

SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS CLAY, STIFF TO VERY STIFF, SANOY TO VERY SANOY, WITH OCCASIONAL SAN:> LENSES, CALCAREOUS, MOIST, BROWN (CLl SAND, MEDIUM DENSE, VER Y CLAYE Y , SILTY, MOIST, CALCAREOUS, BROWN (SC) CLAYSTONE-SANDSTONE
PAGE 67

SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS .. 0 ..J ..J 3 4 5 6 7 5 4 3 2 1 .. 0 3 A . G . WASSENAAR. INC. SOH .. AND ,-OUNOATIO"" CONSULTANTS Natu:al Un i t Woi ;ht ' 84.8 pel Natural Moisture Content: 13.8 percent t-1-f\-SAMPL OF SA .j()) 0 . 1 I I I : T ' i I : I T I -i l ! I I SAND t CLAYSTDI' 0 . 1 ATE I IL.IU
    " SWE LL :ONSTANr PR BEC AU , ........ , I I I .SEl\TLE!ENT ' I 1\_ ' ' I I ; I /1 t"""""Y NATER ' I l ODED "AL I ( I EASE I !'l PR I I E Ftpc:Jo JrEST HC 1'-E t'P 12 1'1. qs I 9.J O ' 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf Sett l ement-Swell Test Resu Its FIGURE 5 ss .R CF I I 1 06.1 pel 20.5 porcont ! I 151 JF BECA ( ! I I I I I I oN) Bl u:x ssr I I ' 100 100

    PAGE 68

    SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS 3 2 .J .J UJ 3: Ul 1 .. 0 I 11 UJ ,:! 2 1-l!l 3 3 2 3: Ul t "O 11 UJ .J 2 1M SAMPLE 0 . 1 3 OF SAl DY I I i I I I -: I ! SOIL AND f'OUNOATION CONSULTANTS A . G . WASSENAAR. INC. Natu: a t o:w Unit Weight ' 109.7 Natural Mo isture Content = 14. 1 I I I I >-x SWEL j.t.:>E co-1fT AI T P !ES ;u: .......... I I ' I = r--..r--.. E I PIE! I r-I J I WATER I I ADDED I I q u Y paM TES 1-(J E ,.. iEP'Tfi 1 o' 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf I I I Natural Dry Unit We i Qht ' 105.5 Natural MOISture Content: 20.4 I ' I . I I ; I I I ' I I I I i ! I I I I I i L I SWE L h i T A + Pross RE: BE r i 1 QSEhL!fMEN l t BfC ) r--11'-lf:REASE N fRE ; t I I i ATER . I I I EP't 1 .o' i 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRES S URE -ksf SettlementSwell Test Resu Its 6 pel percent ;E = SljRI 100 p e l percent I c1u dA I I ' I i : : ,, 100

    PAGE 69

    SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS 3 2 ...J irl I .. 0 0.1 0 . 1 A . G . WASSENAAR. INC. SOIL. AND ,-QU,..OAT ION C0"'5U L.TANTS Natural Dr 1 y Unit Woi Qht ' 102.3 pel Natural Mo iaturt Content = 22.6 ptrctnt I I I I __..-I--WE L 1"'.8! 1181' vu TTING r--t--i-. J 1-)'--I I> v I I I WATER ...,[ I I J I I i I II ' > l l ' a l ll ' AY f;mriF HO ENo o • ! I : 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf . J I I Natural Ory Un i t We 1qht = 1.0 10 A P P LIED PRESSURE ksf Settlement-Swell Test Resu Its FIGURE 7 lo= I 109.1 pel b-e 100 100

    PAGE 70

    SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS SOIL ANO ,.OUNOAT!ON CONSULTANTS A . G . WASSENAAR. INC. Natural Dry Uni t WliQht ' 104.6 pcf Natural Mo isture Content = 20.4 PI r Cent 3 I I I I 2 _J uJ ]< ({) I / NO N '-' R C :J-lS ANT BEC USE bFI NG .. 0 I ! I } I I " ' I"'" I ADDED ! ( I I ''-!"'"""' I CREJSE IN 3 I ! I I I I I I Jl SAMPL OF M TEST HOL 9_[ 8. . I 0 . 1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE ksf I ! l ! II I I Natural Dry Und Wei9ht ' 105.2 pc f I I Notur o l Mo•sture Content : 17.2 percent 3 I 1 ! i I . 'I I I I j I I 1 I l . I I ' I I ; ' ! I I I I I I I I L ! I I I 1., I , I J II I --s "EL i!N:>ER 1 1 BEC 2 -..f I= w FtrG I ! : I : I i I I [!" I t--l , i . I i I I i '1 I I i i I :l ) . I V I i J r ..WATER ! ! }, I • 1 Jr •rY>Fr> I ' I BE fAU Of NCR ASE .. 0 : I I I I r " i I I I I I I I I I j '' I I i I I I I i I I I I I 1 i ' 1 I I 3 OF CUYS FRC ' I t I I . I SAMPL DSTONE . , T DfPTH 8 0 , I I I I '. , I I I 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE ksf Se!!lement-Swell Test Resu Its FIGLRE 8

    PAGE 71

    SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS • .. ;; ., . .. .. .. .. u .. .. .. " z ;; .. :. .. " .. u .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. u .. .. .. 'U\_ A . G . WASSENAAR. INC. .OIL AND "0UNOATION CONaVL..TANT8 GRADATION TEST RESULTS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS S IEVE ANALYSIS OIAMETIIt Of ltAitTICL[ IN MILLI ... t:T[IIItl )2 :.. 1 • 1 _1. 4 I I I 10 TE! iT t-0.. Nl 2 I 10 DEF TH 24 .0' / so SM> OSTeN SIL Y / 40 (SM) / >ONOI-PLAS IC l( v 20 I I 0 100 v ""I v ....... , 101--1---r 10 TE T t-0.. EN . 4 1 0 DEF TH 4 . p ' >O CL Y , SP BRC WN CLl ! I Ll UID L IMI 40J2 I 4 0 I sof-PL STICI y NDEX 15 0 i I I 20 I I ! 1 0 0 I 100 10 I t o 10 iT Ht1 E Nl 7 I 10 DEF TH 1 . o• I so 5/lJo DSTm ILr I Ll< IHT BF OWN I / I 40 TO REY (SM Nm -PLAS I C I >0 / ! / I 20 _....., 1 0 0 ?W 60 ... """ -tMin 200 " 100 !10 •.o ... "I .. 71l2 I I i 11/2" s .. .. 0 1 0 2 0 0 so .. .. 40: .. so .. .. .. 10 .. u 70: I 0 10 I 00 0 I 0 20 .. 0 so .. .. 40 .. >O "' .. " 10 .. u 70 1 0 10 I 00 0 1 0 10 .. 0 IO"' .. 40: .. so .. .. 10 = u 10: .. 10 10 00 ----rU J STANOAIItO IEA!ll --+-C LEAR SQUAit( O"fNUrMI -f 9

    PAGE 72

    SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS • • ;; .. 4 L • .. u . .. L 0 " ;; .. 4 L .. "' .. u . .. L . • .. .. 4 .. .. "' .. u . .. L 'V\_ A . G. WASSENAAR. INC. a011. .. AND f'OUNOATION CONaUL.TANT8 GRADATION TEST RESULTS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS CLAY C••ett•) TO l iLT hu-,lutle) SIEVE ANALYSIS OIAMfTI" 0# 'AIIITICL[ IN MILLUUTIE.IIIS 12 .01 !L Ill I . . . -I I TE Tt-0. E NJ . 1 I DE TH 1 .0' If 10 SAl DSTOt 5LIGI fiTLY I 5 1 TY, AN 0 L GHT I 40 I 30 8R WN ( Ml 10 / I 0 100 !lOr l j oor----i / 70 TE Tt-0. .E NJ. 1 1 0 DE TH 8 o • SAl mSTD ILT I I 00 I 4 0 y, HT C.l f=Y '<;M ! I I NO! -PLA TIC I ! 0 / ' ro I ' ' 1 0 0 I 100 / 10 v 10 /,/ '10 TE: Ti-01. :e: Ntl 1 DEl o• ,/ I 10 TH 4 50 C L s , -.nv BRo bWN Ia_> 40 .llillJID l ,IMI 27 A I !0 Pl ,TY I I !NDE 8 I 20 I I 1 0 0 Ulw?W ao• ''-*' •• lllllifl "200 100 •so JO .,. "I .. ...... I i 1 1/2' • 5' If: 0 I 0 10 D 10 .. • 40 5 .. 0. .. • • o .. u 10: I 0 • 0 I 00 0 I 0 10 L 0 JO w . 40 .. 00. .. "' 10 .. " 70 • 10 10 I 00 0 I 0 10 .. L 0 10 .. • 40 = .. 50. .. 10: " 10: L 10 to 00 U I STANOAftO J(lltl(l CL.EAit SQUAM 0P'(NUt81 ---1 FIGURE 10

    PAGE 73

    SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS .. .. ;; .. 4 .. .. .. .. "' & .. .. .. z ;; .. 4 .. ; .. u "' .. .. . .. .. .. 4 .. .. .. .. u & .. .. '-U\ A . G . WASSENAAR. INC. a OIL AND ,.OUNDATION CONa UL..TANTa GRADATION TEST RESU LTS HY DROM ETER ANALY SIS S IEVE AN ALYSIS O IAMTt._ OF , A JtTICL( I N IIIIILLIII(T[Jtl 02 . 0 "' • v I • TE ST HO ..E 10. 2 I 1 DE PTH 1 . o I I 10 so 5/l NDSTD SIL iY LI HT C 'lE Y (SM) 1 / • o / >0 NC N-PLA TI tO ./ ! I 0 100 001 I 1 / 101--r-1 0 1-() E 10. 113 I I 1 0 DE P TH 8 . 0 ' •o 5/l NoSTD E BEDR bCK PC bRLv EME NTED' I I 4 0 PLAsfTIC I I S o f--B R PWN, CN I to I 1 0 0 I 100 tO I 1 0 10 TE ST HO E to. 1 I 10 DE PTH 4 o' 1 / s o SA NDSTD 1: SLIG H T L Y }, • o S I T Y , AN TO L GHT ' ; : >0 B R bw N < jM) l : NO i-1-P L A TIC I 1 / I 20 l' 10 ,., 0 2'111r 71w &0-, , .. -, ... " •zoo 100 •so >0 ... " I . . , ... A .. I I 11/2" I co ..... 'I< 0 I 0 t 0 I a ow .. • 0 = .. s I 0 & .. .. 0 .. u 1 o: I 0 t 0 I 00 0 I 0 2 0 .. a 1 0 .. .. 4 0 • .. 0 & .. I 0 : u 70 • .. .. 10 10 I 00 0 I 0 l O " 10 .. .. 4 0 .. so "' .. 10: u 1 0: .. 1 0 to •• 00 TIM f JI[AO I ... ! ---t---U S STlNOUO U O I U ---t-C lUO SOUA O( 0 1'(10 ... 1 -1 FIGURE 11

    PAGE 74

    SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS A . G . WASSENAAR. INC. SOIL AND FOUNDATION CONSULTANTS SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TEST DEPTH P E N ETRATIO N NATIIRII L NATURAL UNCONFINED WATER SOLU B LE SETTLEM E NT S WELL HOLE SOIL TYPE RES ISTANCE M O I S TURE DRY DENSITY C OMPRESSION SULFA TES ( SATUR A TED) (SA TU RA TE D ) NO (feel ) (blows per loot I 1 % ) (PCF) (PSF) (%) 1%) 1%) -------I 1.0 CLAY, SAN:>Y , CALCAREOUp 2 0 / 1 2 13. 8 84. 8 SEE FIGU
    PAGE 75

    SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS A . G . WASSENAAR. INC. SOIL AND f'OUNOATION CONSULTANTS SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TtST DEPTH PENETR IITION NATURAL UNC ONFINED WATER SOLUBLE SETTLEMENT SWELL HOLE SOIL TYPE RESISTANCE MOISTURE DRY DENSITY COMPRESSION SULFATES (SATURATED) (SATURATED) NO (fee I) (blow s pe1 foot) (o/o) f---(PSF) (%) l%) (%) II 18.0 LAYSTONE-SANOSTONE, 50/6 17.4 105.2 FIGlAO B 12 24.0 GCLD BROWN 50/6 0.019 I I ! I I I ! ' I I TABLE I

    PAGE 76

    SITE DETERMINANTS: SUBSOIL CONDITIONS A . G . WASSENAAR. INC. eOIL AND P'OUNDATION CONeULTANTe SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURAL FILL GENERAL The Soil Engineer, as the Owner's representative, shall approve the material, method of placement and compaction and shall give written approval of the completed fill after taking a sufficient number of field density tests to assure compliance with the specific.ationa, MATERIALS Granular material having 100% finer than 6 inches and not more than 40"/o passing a No, 200 &ieve will be satisfactory for fill, provided the plastic index is less than 10. Soils not meeting the above specifications, but proposed for fill should be tested and approved by a soils engineer. PREPARATION OF NATURAL GROUND Vegetation and organic topsoil shall be removed from the fill area, The area to be filled shall then be scarified, moistened if necessary, and compacted in the manner specified below for the subsequent layers of fill. PLACEMENT OF FILL MATERIAL No brush, sod, frozen, perishable or other unusuitable material shall be placed in the fill. The materials shall be d elivered to the fill in a manner which will permit a well and uniformly compacted fill. Before compacting, the fill material shall be spread in approximately horizontal layers not greater than 8 inches thick. MOISTURE CONTROL While being compacted, the material shall contain uniformly distributed optimum moisture for compaction. The Contractor shall be required to add moisture to the materials i n the excavation if, in the opinion of the Soil Engineer, it is not pouible to obtain proper and uniform moisture by adding water to the fill surface. COMPACTION When the moisture content and conditions of each layer spread is satisfactory, it shall then be compacted by an approved method. Compaction shall be at least 95% of maximwn density for fill around the structure and beneath floor slabs and at least 95 % for fill beneath the foundations, Moisture-density tests should be performed on typ ical fill materials to determine the maximwn density. Field density tests must then be made to determine the adequacy of the fill compaction, The compaction standard to be utilized i n determining the maximum density is ASTM D698-66T which requires using 25 blows of a 5. 5 pound hammer dropped 12 inches on each of 3 soil layers in a 1/30 cub i c foot mold,

    PAGE 77

    SITE DETERMINANTS: EASEMENTS Utility easements currently exist on site as a result of an earlier proposal for construction on the property: a. electrical distribution easement at southeast corner of site, totalling 0.019 Acres b. sanitary sewer easements running north-south flanking the middle to the site and connected east-west near the north property line, totalling 0.588 Acres plus 2,820 square feet The sanitary sewer easements can be adjusted with Southgate Sanitation District in the course of project design and determination of site utilities layout. Additional street rights-of-way have been granted to Arapahoe County along East Caley Avenue and South Ulster Street, totalling 0.47 Acres.

    PAGE 78

    SITE DETERMINANTS: EASEMENTS ... 0 .. I "' 0 ;r. >= g .... AOIIIIIISTRATIVE AND DI'RATIIIG PIIACTICES IIDUIITAIII IELL -1'\.tlliC SEIIVICE CDIIPAIIY A:o. w • ..-I'ICO ... UTILITY EASEMENT Tho_..... ........ .......,....,_...,.....ofl One dollar' no OF COLOIIAOO , 160 IHI o.-. Color-.IOlOZ. AND TM MOUNTAIN STATES TElEI'HONE AND TEUGIIAI' .. ... Grlll-.ill-ef_lla.......,_ unto llid Gt.ft-1Nir INI ...._an.....,., to CONtruct. ,...,.._ lnd utiti'Y li,_.,..,.. ftx...,. • ca.rioll. u_, or Ullft.ll in..., operetian of llid 1"-. Glf'W , w.ilr, tcr011 end"-" • ceww • seid ,.,_..., bl.....,. --.u.. _____________ at ________________ _ ill .,. _____ .....:;='---------------------------of Sonlon. ______ _,2:.:1'----------------r-.. ______ .. of mo _ P'ri ...... County of _____ _,to...,r..,e,..pa,.,h"o"'•-----------s ... ofColor-. ___ ... ___ llillllllllho•; , __ • fol-; An ua-t for elaetrie fac111t1 .. aa abovn on d.ravi.Da u.rkacl lzhtbit "A" and hereto -cl• a part thereof. _____ u_• ---------'; . TOft ..... with 1fte ritM: 10 Inter Mid premt.l, IUf'W'Y , ConltNC't, meinuin, Gl*'lft, ,...,., reptec. , c:omrol end WI leid util itY IW. and rel.eled fi•NI'II and .-wica, Md to ,......,. oO;eca interfwi"l indudint tN trimrftint of ,,.. end 8nd COII1Nr whh me r i ghr to ute 10 much of !he adiointn, .,..,..._ of Gr.mot dllolrint .,,......int. conttNCtion mein.,._, ,...,, ,..,...., .. or,....._.,.,, of a.aid utility liNt ..:I rNc.d f ixtu,. 8ftd dftica.• mey be tiQUired to e-mit lhl ..,.lion of sundlrd utility eonttNCtlon or '"'*' FNid'linery , tnd me ritht to Plf"mtt 11\e i nnallation of the flcilitia of eft\ wn':":u':t .:;':,i;:. .":'."::..:: ,_,-rltioft b the Gt.tw llhllll ln no ..,.,, i nc:lur* lht "-'' to erte1 or c-.-to bt etW:tlld eny buildi,. or -"'" .-. In ... of lho -•-toftMI ....... in •antld ...... . =::: W: The wortl of tnu.lliftt Mid lines .nd releted f lxtu'" and dlwicel INII bt dane wilh QN; the ani .. r .. theiiJI! rftUWJd to i11 orifiMI . . -: . . / . t : < ) . Grenuw IN6I indudllhe P'ur-' end IN femlntne . / i -,... . Sitnodthlt 15th doyof March EnglO!WQgd Colgrado BQ!I! STATE OF COLORADO County ol Arapahoe • . The foregoine i nruument •• before tm March ___ ..;.... _____ . 11 __ 82_...,. Bill L. Walters

    PAGE 79

    SITE DETERMINANTS: EASEMENTS LEGAL DzScl.lPTlON U'IUJTY LUUOHT An ut!Uty .... ment located In the NW V4 of Section %1, TOWJI8llp 5 South, 87 West of the lth Principal Meridian, County ol State ol Colarado, . more u foDo-. COMMENCING et the eenter of Mid Section 21, WHENCE the Center Wen V11 comer of Mid S.etlon 21 burs Nat• 55'11"W a dllltanee of uu.n fMt, THENCE NII"05'33"W a dllltanee of107.51fnt to the POINT OP BEOIHHING on the northerly Une ofl!al CalaJ Av....,.. THENCI Not" 04'44"1 a ciWtanee of15.00 fMt, THENCI su• 55'11"1! patallel with Mid .-tllerly llna a dlstanee ol 51.43 fMt to a point on a eurve on the ..twly line ol South Ulatw str"" THEHC! alone Mid ..terly line alone the are of Mid eurve to the richt, • ehorcl which beaiW SU"1r04"W a ciWtanee of 24.50 f"t, a eentral anpe of n 31'22", a racllua ot JO.ot fMt, a dllltanoe of H..JI f"t to a point ol . tanpnt on Mid ntherly line of !at CalaJ A•-.eJ THENCE alone aid tqent Nlt".55'111"1f alone Mid northwly Une a dllltanee of 40.07 t .. t to the POINT OP BEGINNING. 0 . 011 aerea, more PRUII.RD UND[II . Jlt[ YIKO UPII
    PAGE 80

    SITE DETERMINANTS: EASEMENTS ORCHARD PLACE 9 POINT OF BEGINNING g PARCEL NO. I 0 • 40.00'. 1mU; N! COil. NW I . . ..: II) a:: "' ... II) J ::;) en PARCEL NO . I CONTAINS 0.011 ACf MORE OR LESS (816 SO. F'tl. 2. BEARINGS BASED DH THE EAST LIN OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC.21, AS BEARING NOO"I6 ' 38"E EXHIBIT A MERRICK r . • T.....,_ lalrl147 • .., ,011.. JIOf IS/l111WIOO ORCHARD PLACE 9 P.S.CO. EASEMENT .

    PAGE 81

    SITE DETERMINANTS: EASEMENTS EASEMENT D E E D THIS INDDffUJ.!, owdo chis doy of , 198 Bill L. Wtl\MI , F irst Part; and SOUTHGATE Oi.STR:CT. A rapahoe aftd Doua l. u Counciea, Colorado. a quasi-municipal corp0U1tion, p,,rcy o! the Second Part: lll'nESSEIH: WHEREAS, the Party of the First Part i.1 the owner of the hereinafter df'sc r f : c d l o .nds, WHEREAS, the Party of the Second Part has constructed and no w opt:r-'tes .u,-: :r ... . nt.Hns. a sanitary a ewe r syste• w ithi n its boundaries 11nd h Gt:sl:-ous of t.h e ,,.., .. by the construction ""d m a intenance of outfall 1tnts and f111ciltttes unCer .-nd acroaa the lands of the Party of the F irst Part; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the IUft of One Ooll.u ( 51.001 anc1 otht r l!-OOd and v11luable considerations . paid by Party of the Second PAr t . rect'tpc of wh1:h t s hf'rcby acknowledaed by Party of the f irst PArt. the of the rtru ht.rt":n l!!rants. bAraa int, sella end conveya to the Party of th• SeconC PArt. H 11o ':.u. Lr"sors and ass tgns, a perpetual eaaeraent and riahc of w a y for the consr ructi:H . . rt:mova l and rephceaent of sanitary sewer lines. manhohs ana n . ;;:('!.. : i'<::ilicus of such she and capaci t y as necessary or requ1red b y the P"rtY cf r t !.'"cond fare, though, over And across the f ollow ina parcel of lAnd s:: .... :... :\tng and be1na i n the County ofArapahoe and Sti\te of Color"do. to wi:: See attached exhibit A 7:'1, ,,bove described parc e l is shovn on " map, " of which 1s Att.ache d ;,, ... ,.:c. ""<.. maoe a part hereof. !T IS HEREBY HUn.JALLY convenated And ,.,_reed and betwt:en pilrtit:s ;-.( :-. u o llovt: The P11ny of the Second Part s hall ' And the c:-f 1r, over. throutrh ana acros• thr ,,hC'vt described p ro?en.y for .. n y .. ; for the tull en;ovment ol odh r r•e;ht of occup .. nc\ or u!le jHC \'lOt-d ; , , ,,._r"LI,. Th t o( the riru Pare sh.1ll c.Jnsrruct or pl.ace struc;.ure-re:mpor:lr\ ' or permant'nt. or pi.1nt ;\ny \JOoC y pl.-.nt. "no .. . 1 n y ktnd. on any pout of thl" ,,bov<' d c-sc r tocd rtRht-of-wA\. '\m; such pi.'lcf'"'' n t or. tla . tOC'NI.. UC'SCribed After thr dAte of thu agr.-.renc my bt-by the-P.\rty t•f till .>'(DOl. I 'Mt wu.hout I i."lbt.l ity for d.lwMges .1rh1,.. there I ran. , ,f r c r construction of any •ewer line or ltncs .-.s hcrrtn.1bove ... rft'rrC'd ... t o• ;:,ncr:.J s..:rf.,cr of the t;round, except ,, s accomOO\ ' P<"rt'' of the S•cond Part sh<"l i be rt'mnwd from tht ,1[ : : t< ,('l;.;o rxpt'nSt' (' , j ch'-' rArty o f th<' Stcond P.tn. The Pr.rty of ch(' S rcono r ., n . ._ .. , .. :. :, ... for , , pf'rtod of one yr1 H followtng conurucr1on which tnvolvC't! ,. f ci.( ,_urL1ct' of the around. the Pilrty of the St.!cond Pi\rt wlll m .. tnr•un the sur-.ce ,.o\.: ton qu,,Jity of the soil by correcttns any settling or suoudtng thAt . u "' re-sult of the work done by the Party of the Second P11rt. Party of the rirst Pare hAs r et-"tncd chc rtght to the undisturht'd .: . .; "'ccupancy of th• sub;ecc 1nsof"r as us• ... nc occup;oncy as . .. .... 1th "nd not 1mp•1r Any ar11nt heretn ana axcf'pt AS h eretn : ,,, .. ... \.., fl:";")V: df"c! • ... p ar:\ o f Second PAr : rn;n pr.Jrr :-. .•.: ;r(. own Anc ,.xcrctsf'

    PAGE 82

    SITE DETERMINANTS: EASEMENTS t:le nghts 1 n the sub;ecc property ,as here1n provided ( o r 1r. .Jrl.le:-; c to the Party of c h e Second a dominant easei'Dent for the exer:Uf' thr Party o f Secane! Pare's functions and chat the exercile of any ri&hts i n che s ub;e•:t property oche r than chose retained by the Party of the First Part should be w i :.h !r: the sound CLsc retlon of the Party of the Second P•rt. The Parry of the Second Pl':"t aar-aea l('t pcrmu and authorize such other uses of the sut.. j e c t prope:-: y , not reserved ln r ar:y o! t h e First Part, as will not imp.air the P arty of the Sec.Jr. d Pa:--t's dntainant :-i:hts. u p o n the pay,.ent of reason•ble comp ensation co the Par:y ot Second r.,r: and upon such reason•ble cerma, limic"acions and conditions •• t h e Party of :nc S ( !:onC Part sh•ll find r easonably necessary to protect its ribht of :-:.-:-..:; .\ncv of the subject property for the purpose of the P.:rty of t h e Set end Part undue or unnecess•ry injury to or of the esr11te rttlinad by r ,trrv o f the f irst P•rt. fl. l n case the P•rty of the Second Part sh11ll abandon i:s r l g h:s herein .;:-. 1 r . 1('C and ce•se to use the same, right, title and lnterest her e;.:nd e r o! the . . r : ' of the Second Part shall ceasf' and terminate, and .1l l rights .,{ the Party r-: : ht-S C!'cond P.1rt so •b•ndoned shall cease and terminate. and th• rartv of the ?.Ht shall hold said premises, as the sam e may then fru fr:-n . the riahts ,;:.:.nConcd ,,nd shall own all material and structures of the o f !..he Second i .1:-t "''bAnooned, b u t nothina herein shall be construeC .;'1 • .• of any interest deri ved hereunder •nd not b : ht-f'Arty of .< ran at the tiru of the •bandonment of t h e Party ":If t l :f' 5f'.:n nc! Part's : :,eo P arty of the f irst Part warrants that it has ful l :--1pht and 1.-.wful : c :nAKe the srant herein.above contained, .and anC -'p.r ees ro defend :11 .. F.1:-:" o f theo S e c ond Part in the exercise of its rights hereunder <'S-'lnst •ny a r . tts title to the l.and involved or its right to llftake the! gr•n l'lert'!:inabove .-C'Ir:t • t nec. 6 . Each and .-v e q one of the b enefits 11nd bur dens s hall t n u r(' tt'l ;ln C b e btndtng upon the respectt V t resprt"sent attves. <'lC:r.tnts::ra::o':"s, successors and asstgns o( thr pllrths hereto . Unless spechl provisions are .-.u•ched here::o , ::.heo a \. c v c . t n d {-,reiJOir. the whole •greem ent b etwee n the parties and n o ;.dCt:acr:.l i c r diff•rer.: .,. - • . :--cprc5>entation, pro•ise or aareement shall b e btndlnFo n o1n y of rh• parti•s :-.'-rc:. .deb respect to the subj e c t matter of thi s instrument. lo tnt extent th.at provisions attached hereto .are in conflict wur , .ani n r hf' r c;--ovisions t; .. t:::. !-o.::r. p r o visions shall control and s upersed e other :.er n . provi ,,,._ :. It\ WITNESS WHEREOF, the-parties hereto h"ve execu::cd tnt' Wlthtr: o: l:'i{' ci, H ' an
    PAGE 83

    SITE DETERMINANTS: EASEMENTS um.:n JAaiiDT .... IIWllt filiUS ....... S1 • A I!CiltJ -••t "-ted Ia tile JIW 1/t o6 IMtiGa 21, TOWIIIIIIIp I loutll, aup t T -ol tile ltll frlllljpM IUridiM, c-tJ o6 AnpebDe, State o6 CCIIandD, -,.u..lartr ........ followa ' COMIUJICDIO at tile _.. o6 IUS a..tlaa 211 'l'IDIICI .... ll'lrW ... tile ..aa 11M fll tile JIW lU ol IUS leoUoa 11 a ,.._olllll.ftfWII THDC3 JIII•N..-.a.-..-f/6 &It THIIIICI 1111'1 ... .-1IHIII tile -till 11M ol tile JIW 1/t oliUd S..U. 11, a...._ o61M.N f•t .. tile TaU& POIIIT o• 88GIJIJIDIO, TlmiiCI _......., 1111'1 ... 11H111 tile_. 11M o6 tile JIW 1/t oliUd leetiaa Sl, a clat&Me o6 M.OI TBUCI NM•N .... a...._ o6 llut TIIDCI •'11 .. a...._ o6 ..... te.la TldlfCI ........... a ...._ fll 111M ta.t te t111a TaU& POIIIT o• UQDIJQIIG; -c-a ..... --.-.--. EXHIBIT A 8 T O AT{ SOUTHGATE a SANITATION DISTRICT J'Q R .. 3107 1 l / 7e i•MO . . t .

    PAGE 84

    SITE DETERMINANTS: EASEMENTS ORCHARD EXHIBIT A ............ IOell8 E. .THAHY DIW! SOUTHGATE WATER 6 SANITATION DISTRICT 'OitM ) 1011 ) / 7 1 ) WMO CENTER SEC. 21 T.5S,R : 67W INTERSECTION OF E. CALEY AlE. a S . IL5TER ST . FOUfC) N0.4 REBAR SET ft MAPliHOE co. RANGE lOX. r

    PAGE 85

    SITE DETERMINANTS: EASEMENTS EASEMENT D E E D THIS INDENnlR!:, .. do this doy of , 191 Bill L. Walter• , ;;rc;c;rche Firat Part; and SountCATE s.ulltAt16ii .:$T R:CT. Arapahoe and Douala• Count iaa, Colorado. a quas L-•unic ipal corporat t on , : 1ny o f t h e Second Part: WI'DESSEDI: WHEREAS, t.hf' Party of the first Part is the owner of the hereinafter df'sri r . c d l.1 n ds, ""a WHEREAS, thf' Party of the Second Part has constructed •nd now .,, .. : nt : .1ns a s.anitary aewer s ysca• within its boundarhs 11nd u o f 1 h e uu .. by the construction And r ... lntan•nce of outfall l i nf'i •nd Cac ihties u nder and acr011 the landl of the Party of the first Pare: NOW, THEREFORE, in conaidaration of the of One Do llotr ( S 1 .00 t and •lht r ,cod and conaidarationa, paid b y Party of the Second P ;ut. rec• 1pt • f whi:h u he-r e b y by Party of the First PArt, the of the First htrto:=' ttrants, t:;,uaains . !'ells and conveys co the Party of the s.,cond PArt. and assiana , a perpetual easai'Hnt and riaht of wa y for the construc . . r.\Odr. ten.tnce. rt: I'IH)val and replacefHnt of Jantcary tewer linet, manholct'\anct \ :.;:(:: : -.c i !uus of such she and capacity aa necessary or requi red the Pilrry : r:-:t Part, thouah. over and across the follo...,ina describwd p•rcel of land . ;, ing and belna in the County of Arapahoe and StAte of Color111do, to .' 1 : See attached exhibit B .:"\ , , bove described parcel i s shown on a raap , " copy o f whic h u " .. ,.: r :r.a a e • p.t r t hereof. IT r s HEREBY MUTUALLY convenated And by and p arties The Pt•rt:-" of the Second Part sh•ll hav• ""d exercis• the o f 1n!"re s s , .... 1r. t.., over. thr o u(l h ana .-cross thf' olht'vt-described tor ... n y ... , ..... "lt:l I o r the tull enjoyment o f oL h , r r q ;ht or o r u;e ?rt'VlOed : . . .. : :. ' Th• Part y of the r irst Pan shall noo cons r r uct o r place s t te:mpo r A r y or permanent. or pi.1n1 ' ' " Y tree:. 1o1oot!y p lant. ana nurs.t'ry ..... : .on y ktnd, on p .Ht o f chti\bCIVC' dC'SCriDcd Anv s u::h plac.- • n: Of , ..• OCM. UC"scri bcd after thr d..ue of thu a grt"fftent bt-rmo""CC the-P an:y :!I• !., r t Without 1 i.1bi 1 i c y for d.-wM(tH .aruirc the ref run . :,!ccr consc ructton o f a n y se1o1er line or-l1nC's as ht:rl"tn :lbove rrltorrC"d 1 n• ;:. nt:n.l surL1Ct' o f the c xccpr as nt:<.C!<>s .,rdv mod it 1c d to Hccomooa r c ;:1:-! sh.111 be r-estored, as n<.•arh <4; mA\' n:.;cuwhlv bC', to t h<' gr. 1Uc : . ..: t•n:::: : u n l t "''5 1 n irMwdti\tcly pr 1or t o . c.o n5 tructJon. sh.1ll b e : rcpl.tcct! tv.Ht d .1n d , , g r iculrurAl -':'Ci\5, .1nd , , n , ('. lrth fr.Jm ••• OJ,.;; :!a P"rt'' o l thto Second P•rt s h ,,)) bc nmov r d ( rom the ,,c • . (":,• t 'l':Olnsc-d Po11rty of thc S t cond P.•rt. T h e Party o f th(' S.-cono Pllrt ., .. :1 .. 1:. : l p•nod of one yet'l r followtng construct i O n which 1nvolvc:: : r i .• surt .... of t n c ground, the P•rty o f the St:cond Par: w ill m .. J n r . u n tt. e sur face ;. , ..• t 1on . 1nd qu.,IH!-' of the soil b y correct1ng any settling or subsid1n' thAt n(cu:-.lS ,, rl"5 ult of the work done by the Party o f the S econd PArt. T hl• Party of the f1rst Pare has ret-'lne d t:h< n ght co the u n d isturbed .:"CCupan c y of t:he SUbJeCt prop•rtv itS use And occuo,1ncv lS :.. : .. !tr.: .nth llnd oocs not t mpa i r hcretn c.or .:11n c d And exc • p t 1:1 • • • ... !->\' ilr..,v: CtoC. of the S econd m . , y pr.lr l"r l o w n .-n c

    PAGE 86

    SITE DETERMINANTS: EASEMENTS the rights Lft the subject pcopett.! as herein provided for ir: orde:-!"C. to the Party of the Second Part a doainant. eaaa .. nt for the axercl.lf' e f tt'tr Party o t Second Part's functiona and that the exarcile of any riahta i n tba tubje : t properi:J ocher than thoea retained by the Party of the Firat Part should be vith ir. the aound Olscretion of the ,_.rty of the S e cond Part. the Party of the Second Par t •araaa to penut and authortaa auch other uses of the subj ect prope:-:y, not r t sarvad in of the Tirat Part, aa will not i,.pair the Party of the Secor.d PArt' s d.,.tnant right s . upon the pa)'lNnt of reasonable corapensation to the Par: y ot the Second F .u: and upon such raaaon.able ter•a, li•it.ationa and condittona a& t h e Party of t n<-Sf' cond Part shall find reasonably necessary to protect its riaht of of the subject property for the purpose of the P.:rty of t h e Second Part . :::nout un.due or injury to or o f the ascate r e to1ined by ;.he r.1rcy of the f irst Part. b. l n c•se the P•rty of the Second Part ab3ndon i : s rights herein .:.. ,r.tt'C ! and cease to u1e the same, all riaht, title and interest of the :' . • rt, o( the Second Part shall cease and tenlinate, .1ll nahcs of the Party ('f :h( S r cond Part so shall cease and ch,. of the ?"irs: ?.u c shall hold said pre .. tses, as the sa .. ruy chen be. fret' fron: t h e rtahc.s st. ,.,:..;,nduncd and shall ovn all .. aterial and structures of the o f SecOnd i •:"'t s:. Abandoned, but nochtna herein shall ba construed . u wrork!.n,.; f:>rfeiture .. :,.,.,nd Lnment of any interaet derived hereunder and not t::" c.htof ::;( St-con c r an at the tiru of the abandofWent of the of S ttC')nd Part' s . ! Th • Party of the' First Part warrants that it has ful l :-ipht lawful .. ut:.,-:'1:-it ' ;c1 :n111k e the arant hereinabove contained, and promises Aitrees co defend r . nf' f ;l:-:y of thr Second Part in the exercise of its riahts hereunder ll(lainst any ocfec: lr. its titl • to the land involved or its r iahc to \ftlake the ar&nf hereinabove c or.ti\ t nec!. 8 . Each and every one of the: benefits and burdens of thh ,.@ if"em..:-n:-t n u r c to anr representat ion. pro•ise or aareement shall be on .1ny o f t h e parties .,..llh respect to the subject raatter of this instrument. lo tn' ••ten t that S!Ject., i provisions attached hereto are in conflict wirn an;-()th•r c rovis tons ... special provis ions shall control and supersede o c h c:r !.el"n . :>r proviIr\ WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executc:d cnr Witlur. o: t:"l(' d. n anC year f irt above written.
    PAGE 87

    SITE DETERMINANTS: EASEMENTS c ifou COMMPCINO at the--, ....... .-. THPCI Nat• Sl'lr1f ......... A.. ..... ...._ ol 201.71 THPCI MM• 14'44"1 a TBIIICI Mat• 11'1r1f THPCI MM• 14'44"1 THUCI 11 .. 11'41"LL--TBIIICI ... h' Aa utJIJtJ -.m kMated Ill the Jf1fl/4 ol a.tioa tl, To...t.lp I South, .... IT •• ol tile tttt ......,.. .. ......_ C:O.tr ol .,........ ltate ol CGiandD, ....... COMMPCINO at the ..ur ol -.r a.tioa Ill THPCI Mat•srtrw ..... tile lloutll IIIIa tl tile MWl/4 ol 8lid lelltlaa tl, a .-.w-ol Sn.t THPCI M ... h'44"W a*-ol JOlM feet to the PODIT OP DODfiiDCO, THPCI Nat•srtrw ,..a.l wlttt Mid lllltll IIIIa a...._ ttl 11.11 THPCI MM• 04'44 .. a*-ttl SLIS fMtl THPCI lit• 11'41 .. a*-ttl 11.01 fMtl THPCI St .. 14'44"W a dll'-ttl JLU feet to the PODCT Of UODOfDfO. COIIUinlnf l,Ttt ....,_ fwt, •, DUIIO_UW_ EXHIBIT 8 • __ .. MERRICK a COMPANY R(YI.D ENGINEERS 8 ARCHITECT'S 1011511 E. KTHANY ORIVE -D DENVER, Cl)LORADO 10222 CHIC•lD rr . ;112 J•l 011&-OR04ARO PLACE 9 -'' NW" lA iH-42081 ........ r ....... T I "'!"'Z ACT.. ll&tt SOUTHGATE WATER a SANITATION DISTRICT

    PAGE 88

    SITE DETERMINANTS: EASEMENTS Slr!50'41"! 1r cw 1 /11 COilr""., EAST CALEY AVE. \ 0 210 40 10 POINT" OF COMMENCEMENT C!NT!R S!CTION 21, t:eS, R.CTW . INT!RSECTION OP: !. CALEY AV!. a S. ULSTER STR!ET SOUTHGATE WAT!:R a SANITATION DISTRICT

    PAGE 89

    ASEMENTS WIST LINE LOT 2 1 SOUTH 1/2 LOT 28 i :.-51 :=: ' ,, t SW'l.. Y COfll. •• 10.00' .. -..... "''.,; LOT 21 , ...... ,... eoo..o.. L • I I . M ' ... : • -------------------------eount u• LDT •u LDT ..... 00 E . CALEY AVE. ... ... -......... . ....... LEGAL D!IICB.IPT101f A paroel of land loQtecl In tile South hUt ot Lot 21 "A SUbdiYI8Ioft ot Section U, Towlllhlp s Soutll, ..... IT W•t" ol tile lUI l'rtDelpU llerldlaa, Coun!J ol ol Colorado, beq IDON follono B!QIJQftlfQ at tile Sout'-taftJ _,_ ol Lot 21 ol "A SUbdiYI8Ioft ot Seot1oa 21, Townlhlp S Soutll, ..... IT We.t, AnpaMe C..IJ, Coklndo", a -.led llllldiYimon Ia Book 1, P ... U ot c-tJ---TBDCB lfortll 11 SS'll' W.t Uoar tile -at liDa oiiUd Lot 21, a cll8'ol IU-1 f•t to tile -uno_., oliUd Lot 21J TBBJfCB North 00'S3" z..t Uoar tile w.t line oliUd Lot 21, a dl8ol 25.1 fee!J TBBJfCB llouUI 11 51'11' z..t aJonr a 1lna 21.0 t•t nort11 ol ud parallel wiUI tile louttlliDa ot llid Lot 21 .... _ ol ...... flit to. point ol ......... TBDC! aJonr a Cllrl'l to the 1att wiUI a -tnl ...... ol 11 """'• a ....... ol 20.00 f11t, and .,. are o1 u.u f11t to a poJat o1 TBBJfCB Nortll 00"11'3r z..t aJonr a w.-t liDa lU f•t ••t ol and panllal wiUI the -t line olllld Lot 21, a '*ol 2TI.II f"t, to a polat .., the norUillna ol Ula -.UI lla1f ol llid Lot 211 TRDC! llouUI tl"se•u• I!Mt aJonr t11e IIOI'tllllna ot t11e -.u. hUt ot aid Lot 21• '*ot U.O f11t to Ula .-u-tariJ """*' olllld llouUI Mlf1 TR!!ICB Sovtll OO"lnr W.t ..... llid 1lna ot Lot 21 a '*ot 321.71 flit to tile PODIT OP B!OIIflfllfQ. Said paroel eontalnJnc 20,4 ... 441q111N f .. t, IDON or 1PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVIS ION: BEARINGS BASED ON EAST LINE OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECT ION 21 , TSS, R67W AS BEARING N00"1 0 '38"E • . ... . . . -... .... . . EXHI B I T A ........... MERRICK I;(V•SEJ j;9:1 ...... .:,.,_DI.I{"t(O T.....,_ _,.,..,., _ ,.E:"E J I-WI •IN/•r. ... . ... E. CALEY AVE. 8 S . ULSTER ST . R/W DEDICATION FCO'-.. ".•!:0 .::• • • • " ' R S7W , T,S, SEC . 21, NW 114 :..c.• t ....... ,, . . I'' . . . ... I . .... .. I • I

    PAGE 90

    SITE DETERMINANTS: AVAILABLE UTILITIES Water service is available from a 12-inch ductile iron service in East Caley Avenue. Due to earlier plans for development on the site, two 8-inch taps have been made in this street line and servi c e e x tended to the property line, with gate valves in boxes on the stubs. Southgate estimates average pressure available as 100 psi or better. Storm sewer also has been extended from 24-inch reinforced concrete pipe in East Caley Avenue to manhole in southwest c orner of site. Sanitary sewer also has been extended from 10-inch PVC line in East Caley Avenue via an 8-inch PVC line to a manhole on-site. Telephone service has b een offe red by Mountain Bell from lines and c abinet running along south property line. Electrical service is available on-site fro m Public Service Company of Colorado at southeast corner of site. Natural gas lines also run along south property line and can be tapped as and if required, per PSCo. UTILITY CONNECTIONS ALREADY LOCATED ON-SITE

    PAGE 91

    SITE DETERMINANTS: AVAILABLE UTILITIES I \ 'KIM"' :>1.6?15 '-----lRII"\= IJJ l!..ll/, (w .)OUT: Sl.>H UJ M . H . :ii:OfXJ-A 3 ------1'-l'V. (1.1. ) 11J = %SZ . oo 0 100 IIJ\1. (w."}w:r-=-.r.,o 1"1\/. (f. ) = 80

    PAGE 92

    SITE DETERMINANTS: TRAFFIC ACCESS AND IMPACT TRAFFIC ACCESS IBILITY AND IMPACT ANALYSIS ORCHARD IX OFFICE DEVELOPMENT Arapahoe County, Colorado Prepared for Bill L . Walters Construction Management, Inc. 5975 South Syracuse Street Suite 107 Englewood, Colorado 80111 Prepared by Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. 1615 Downing Street Denver, Colorado 80218 N ovember 16, 1981

    PAGE 93

    SITE DETERMINANTS: TRAFFIC ACCESS AND IMPACT Lei&h, Scott ll Cleuy, Inc. TWANSPOIITA T10N PLANNING a TWA"IC !NCINUliNC CONSULTANTS November 16, 1981 Mr. Bob Novack Bill L. Walters Construction Mana9ement, Inc. 5975 South Street Suite 107 Englewood, CO 80111 tai50..WU..O...,Colondo .,,. 1:103)111 Re: Orchard IX Office Dear Mr. Novack: • We are pleased to aubmi t herewith, our report of the traffic impact and access requirements associated with the proposed Orchard IX development in Arapahoe County, Colorado. This study first provides a summary of the existing and proposed roadways in the vicinity of the Orchard IX development. Next, estimates are made of the &JIIOUnt and directional distribution of vehicular traffic likely to be generated. Finally, an evaluation is made of the ability of the future roadway system to accommodate the generated traffic volumes. Where appropriate, recommendations are made for future roadway improvements and access controls. We trust that our findings and recommendations will assist in the further planning for the proposed Orchard IX development. Please call us if we can be of further assistance. Respectfully submitted, Robert E. Leigh, P.E. Colorado License No. 4654 REL/IUB/mlc

    PAGE 94

    SITE DETERMINANTS: TRAFFIC ACCESS AND IMPACT Section A B c D E F G Table Number 1 Figure Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Description Introduction Roadways and Traffic Estimated Traffic Generation Distribution of Generated Traffic Estimated Traffic Volumes Traffic Impacts Conclusions LIST OF TABLES Description Estimated Traffic Generation LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Description Site Location and 1979 Traffic Volumes Directional Distribution of Generated Traffic Distribution of Generated Traffic Generated Traffic Volumes Generated Traffic Volumes at Site Access Points Traffic Impacts Page Number 1 1 2 4 5 6 7 Page Number 3 Follows Page 2 4 4 5 5 6

    PAGE 95

    SITE DETERMINANTS: TRAFFIC ACCESS AND IMPACT TRAFFIC ACCESSIBILITY AND IMPACT ANALYSIS ORCHARD IX OFFICE BUILDING, ORCHARD PLACE ARAPAHOE COUNTY, COLORADO A. INTRODUCTION Orchard IX is planned as a 4.14-acre office development located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Caley Avenue and Ulster Street in Arapahoe County, Colorado. A general office structure is planned to be constructed with a total of 130,742 square feet of net leaseable floor area. It will be the ninth structure in Orchard Place, a general office development extending northward to Orchard Avenue. The developers of the site have retained Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc., to evaluate the access requirements of the proposed development and t o determine its traffic impact on adjacent and nearby roadways. This report, summarizing the results of the traffic analysis, first examines the existing traffic situation in the vicinity of Orchard IX. Next, estimates are made of the amount. o f vehicular traffic and its directional distribution on the surrounding existing and proposed roadway system. Finally, an evaluation is made of the ability of the roadway system to accommodate the future traffic volumes. Where appropriate, recommendations are mad e for future roadway standards and access controls. B. ROADWAY S AND TRAFFIC Orchar d I X will have approximately 270 feet of frontage along Ulster Street, a partially improved north-south minor arterial roadway extending from Orchard Avenue, one-half mile to the north, to Arapahoe Road, one-half mile to the south . Both Orchard Ave nu e and Arapahoe Road are major east-west arterials providing access to I-25, about one-quarter mile to the east, and to the major residential areas to the west. In addition, the site will have about 6 50 feet of frontage along Caley Avenue, a major collector roadway presen t l y unimproved east of Quebec Street. Quebec

    PAGE 96

    SITE DETERMINANTS: TRAFFIC ACCESS AND IMPACT is a major north-south arterial roadway located one-half mile west of Ulster Street with four miles of continuity from Belleview Avenue (SH 88! to County Line Road (SH 470!. Several important roadway improvements are planned for the I-25/Arapahoe Road employment center in the vicinty of Orchard IX. These access improvements include: o paving and widening of Caley Avenue east of Quebec Street to major collector street standards; o paving and widening of Ulster Street south of Orchard Avenue to minor arterial standards; o realignment of Ulster Street onto the Spruce Street align-ment at Arapahoe Road; o the Yosemite Street overpass over I-25; o paving and widening of Peakview Avenue from Quebec to Yosemite Street to minor arterial standards. The access improvements listed above will be needed to avoid unnecessary concentrations of generated traffic and to provide for an evenly distributed traffic pattern. Arapahoe County 1 in co-operation with the area's Metropolitan Districts and the Colorado Department of Highways 1 is planning many transportation improvements in the area in an effort to keep pace with the expected future developments. The location of the site is shown in Figure 1 along with 1979 traffic volumes in the vicinity. These volumes were obtained from the Colorado Division of Highways' 1979 traffic counts. C. ESTIMATED TRAFFIC GENERATION The proposed construction of the Orchard IX off ice development on the 4.14-acre site would result in the development of about 1301740 square feet of general office floor area. The estimated generation of vehicular travel to and from the proposed development is shown in Table l. Based on nationally published generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers 1 it has been estimated that a total of 11380 vehicle trips will be generated during an average weekday <690 vehicles entering and 2

    PAGE 97

    SITE DETERMINANTS: TRAFFIC ACCESS AND IMPACT .. ii 0 ... • :; 8 Quincy A•• 25. 1 0.1 11. 0 3 . 1 NOTE : Volu"'•• lllown In Tllou .. nde of Velllclea SOUIIICE : Colorado Dl•lalon of Hlellwaya, 1171 Tralllc Count Map . c • .. • % llld • 0 • L ArapahO• County Airport fleure 1 Site Location and 1979 Traffic Volumes

    PAGE 98

    SITE DETERMINANTS: TRAFFIC ACCESS AND IMPACT Table 1 ESTIMATED TRAFFIC GENERATION ORCHARD IX OFFICE DEVELOPMENT Arapahoe County, Colorado Item 1. Land Area 2. Net Leaseable Floor Area 3. Trip Generation Rates a. Average Weekday !1985) b. AM Peak Entering c. AM Peak Exiting d. PM Peak Entering e. PM Peak Exiting 4. Tri p s Generated a. Average Weekday b. AM Peak Entering c. AM Peak Exiting d. PM Peak Entering e. PM Peak Exiting Amount 4.14 acres 130,742 s.f. 10.5 trips/1,000 s.f./day 1.58 trips/1,000 s.f. 0.30 trips/1,000 s.f. 0.31 trips/1,000 s.f. 1.56 trips/1,000 s.f. 1,380 205 40 40 205 Source for Trip Generation Rates: "Tri p Generation: An Informational Report"; Institute o f Transportation Engineers, 1979, and estimates by Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. 3

    PAGE 99

    SITE DETERMINANTS: TRAFFIC ACCESS AND IMPACT vehicles exiting in a 24-hour period). During the morning peak-hour, about 205 vehicles will enter and 40 vehicles will exit the site. During the evening peak-hour, reversed traffic volumes are expected with about 40 vehicles entering and 205 vehicles exiting the site. The generation rates indicated in Table 1 should be considered conservative, because, due to significant transit service improvements planned in the immediate area, many of the home-to-work commuter trips --15 percent or more --could be made by transit in the year 1990 and later. In addition, local circulator transit services to be provided by the three Metropolitan Districts in the area will provide transportation for many local personal, business, and noontime trips. D. DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRAFFIC The directional distribution of approaching and departing traffic generated by the proposed development is a function of its geographic location with respect to the balance of the Denver Metropolitan Area, the probable places of residences of the employees, and the future major street system providing access to the site. Figure 2 shows the expected area-wide distribution on the proposed roadway system while Figure 3 shows a more specific dis-tribution in the vicinity of the site. These distributions re-fleet the combined future expected travel paths for home-to-work travel and travel for such purposes as social/eating/shopping trips by employees and business trips by employees and visitors. As illustrated, about 32 percent of the traffic would be oriented to and from the north, about 30 percent to and from the west, and about 18 and 20 percent to and from areas east and south of the site, respectively. An estimated 34 percent of the generated traffic would use Ulster Street south of the site for access east and west via Arapahoe Road. An estimated 32 percent of the generated traffic would use Ulster Street north of the site with the majority (18 percent) to the north on I-25. About 27 percent of the generated traffic will use Caley Avenue west of the site 4

    PAGE 100

    SITE DETERMINANTS: TRAFFIC ACCESS AND IMPACT "' .. ii 0 "' • 0 8 LEGEND : Dr Crook Ad .. • ... • , 0 Cou11tr LillO .... !t---i • • 0 >-; c 0 -;, • c lollovlow Ad ; • c • .. • :z: lnwerneee ; • .. 0 • L Arapahc Count Alrpor Figure • Par coni of Approaching ond Deporting Trofllc Directional Distribution of Generated Traffic Orehor• IX

    PAGE 101

    SITE DETERMINANTS: TRAFFIC ACCESS AND IMPACT ;; u • Z> • ::0 Orchard lid OL: ,. F • • :a .. .. . .. u .. Ill Maplewood Awe ------1------' I I il :I "'' ....... ' \ \ I l I I I --•• .. ! i • . 0 >-I •• __ / ... _...., __ Arapahoe Rd LEGEND : \ ,1 .. ' / ' Jill"'---::)'0; .;; • u .. Ill ;; • c 5 12• • l'orcont of Approachlno and Oopartlno Traffic I Flour a 3 Distribution of Generated Traffic Orcllar• IX

    PAGE 102

    SITE DETERMINANTS: TRAFFIC ACCESS AND IMPACT for access to Quebec Street, with about 15 percent of Caley Avenue and 11 percent north of Caley. An estimated 10 percent of all vehicular trips are expected to take place within the Greenwood/DTC Activity Area bounded by Quincy, Yosemite, Arapahoe and Quebec Street. E. ESTIMATED TRAFFI C VOLUMES When the total number of vehicle trips expected to be generated, given in Table 1, is applied to the estimated distribution patterns of Figure 3, daily and peak-hour traffic volumes can be calculated for the surrounding roadway system. The results of these calculations are shown in Figures 4 and 5, which illustrate average weekday traffic and peak-hour traffic volumes associates with the development. Based on the proposed development plan for Orchard IX, it has been estimated that about 480 of the 1,380 average weekday generated vehicle trips will use Ulster Street south of Caley Avenue to access the site. On Ulster Street north of Caley Avenue, about 430 average weekday vehicle trips are estimated. About 380 vehicles per day will travel Caley Avenue west of the site for access to Quebec Street. About 150 and 210 vehicle trips per day are e stimated on Quebec Street north and south of Caley Avenue respectively. Figure 5 shows a more specific distribution of generated traffic volumes in the immed iate vicinity and at the development access points. The peak-hour volumes shown generally amount to about 18 percent of the average weekday traffic volumes. The greatest turning movement volumes are anticipated at the Ulster Street/Caley Avenue intersection which will probably warrant traff i c signalization as development continues in the surrounding area. The estimated traffic to b e generated by this development should present no unusual or unmanageable traffic impact or traffic congestion problems. 5

    PAGE 103

    SITE DETERMINANTS: TRAFFIC ACCESS AND IMPACT lW 7& Orchard Rd • • "' .. .!& .. • -111/11 ""i6 1111 111/& IT 01..2a0 uo 10 ; ... • ... • 5 tll/26 .. 211/6 7& 116 15/1 T T C30/15 105 11/30 "'i"li5 1"i'' I!.!LU 216 2111 Maplewood A•• -------1------I' 0/156 1111/10 1110 lTir ;, :• .,, I ; • 16/fi .lLU 45 46 • 115/70 :; 240 10/6 30 ....... ' \ \ I I I I 11110 I 30, ..... '\ \ ' ' , ' --30/& /. I l!ffi!l 10/80 210 •o 15/10 40 ;; • i • . 0 > 30/& 111'tso .105 j.lln" am 31ori: lEGEND : ; • ... ,. • ; • c :; 15110\ 3"6 701110 AM Peak-Hour Tralllc I I"M l"aak-Hour Tralllc Fleur• • 1i'ii'ii'""" A•arae• Weekday Tralllc Generated Traffic Volumes e ............... w ,.., ......... .-I"W" •• .... u n ................ -•••

    PAGE 104

    SITE DETERMINANTS: TRAFFIC ACCESS AND IMPACT No Ieete 10/1111 111/10 LlGlND : ;; qwl w • • 111/11 4T" .lL1! 411 IO!J AM Peek-Hour Trelflc I I'M Peek-Hour Trelllc TD"T • Avent• Weekdey Trelllc flture II Generated Traffic Volumes at Site Access Points ee11eret•• loy Oroll••• U et '""

    PAGE 105

    SITE DETERMINANTS: TRAFFIC ACCESS AND IMPACT F. TRAFFIC IMPACTS The traffic impact of the Orchard lx development is illustrated in Figure 6 in which generated average weekday traffic at full development is shown as an increment of total 1990 estimated average weekday traffic. In addition, a comparison is made between total traffic volumes and projected roadway capacities considering improvements that are expected to take place by.l990. In this analysis, the Year 1990 was selected to evaluate im pacts because transportation improvements, including possible transit improvements, can be more easily visualized and full development o f the site and muc h of the surrounding area will have already occurred. The estimates of 1990 traffic volumes and capacities are based on a review of several of the important development projects in the vicinity and planned and proposed future roadway improvements. The total magnitude of office and commercial development in the area bounded by Arapahoe Road, Quebec Street, Orchard Avenue and I-25 is very large. Therefore, it is imparative that the area's street system improvements be scheduled to coincide with the planned office and commercial developments. The schedule of roadway improvements adopted by the Greenwood South Metropolitan District will achieve this goal. The most significant traffic impact of the proposed developmen t by 1990, measured in terms of total traffic, would be on Caley Avenue between the site and Quebec Street. Along this section of roadway, the traf f i c generated by Orchard IX would constitute about seven percent of the total roadway traffic volume by 1990. The next greatest traffic impact is estimated to occur on Ulster Street between Caley Avenue and Arapahoe Road where development traffic w ill constitute about five p ercent of the total roadway traffic volume by 1990. In all other instances, the development traffic accounts for less than five percent of the total projected traffic on the area roadways. 6

    PAGE 106

    SITE DETERMINANTS: TRAFFIC ACCESS AND IMPACT 0 .1/23.0/211. 0 0 .3/34.0/40. 0 Orchard lid 0 . 11211 .0/40. 0 0 .1/1 T .0120. 0 0 .4/13.0/20. 0 ;; u 0 .2/11. 11/211 . 0 • .Q • ::0 0 0 .1/10.0/20. 0 ____ _. ____ 0.4/11.0/211. 0 ' \ \ ;; ! i • • 0 >-I 0 .11/11.0/20. 0 I I ' I 0.1/11.0/30.0-/ 0.2/11.0/211. 0 o .1114.013o. o I , Poakvlow Avo -7-0 .2/21.0/21i. O I \ ' ' Arapahoe lid 0 .2/21.0/211. 0 ' ,. ;; • u .. ., ; / --0 .2/30.0/311. 0 ;; • c 5 \ ,; ,.,. ; Flguro I Traffic Impact f'ropoood Dovoloplllollt of Orcllard IJ: LEGEND: 0 ,111.117.11,. Oo11orotod Avorae• I 1110 Total I 1110 Dally Wookday Traffic Avoraeo Wooklllor Traffic lloalllwor Copocltr

    PAGE 107

    SITE DETERMINANTS: TRAFFIC ACCESS AND IMPACT G. CONCLUSIONS Based on the foregoing analysis, the following conclusions may be made concerning traffic access requirements and traffic to be generated by the proposed Orchard IX development: 1. The 4 .14-acre Orchard IX addition to the Orchard Place development will be part of the major Greenwood South employment area. At full development, it could generate as many as 1,375 vehicle-trips on an average weekday and 245 vehicle-trips during both the morning and evening peak hours. 2 . The most significant foreseeable traffic impact resulting from full development of Orchard IX will be on Caley Avenue between the site and Quebec Street. It is estimated that along this section of Caley Avenue, traffic generated by Orchard IX will constitute about seven percent of the total traffic on the roadway by 1990. 3. The three access points proposed to serve this development, two along Caley Avenue and one along Ulster Street, will allow for relatively uncongested traffic flow to and from the development. Future traffic volumes at the Caley Avenue/Ulster Street intersection are likely to warrant traffic signalization. 4. Several important roadway improvements are planned for the Greenwood South employment center in the vicinity of Orchard IX. These access improvements will be needed to avoid unnecessary concentrations of generated traffic and to provide for an evenly distributed traffic pattern. Arapahoe County, in cooperation with the area's Metropol-. itan Districts and the Colorado Department of Highways, is actively planning for transportation improvements in the area in order that they keep pace with the expected future developments. 7

    PAGE 108

    SITE DETERMINANTS: TRAFFIC ACCESS AND IMPACT as many as 1,375 vehicle-trips an average weekday and 245 vehicle-trips during both the morning and evening peak-hours. 2. The most significant foreseeable traffic impact resulting from full development of Orchard IX will be on Caley Avenue between the site and Quebec Street. It is estimated that along this section of Caley Avenue, traffic generated by Orchard IX will constitute about seven percent of the total traffic on the roadway by 1990. 3. The three access points proposed to serve this development, two along Caley Avenue and one along Ulster Street, will allow for relatively uncongested traffic flow to and from the development. Future traffic volumes at the Caley Avenue/Ulster Street intersection are likely to warrant traffic s ignalization. 4. Several important roadway improvements are planned for the Greenwood South employment center in the vicinity of Orchard IX. These access improvements will be needed to avoid unnecessary concentrations of generated traffic and to provide for an evenly distributed traffic pattern. Arapahoe County, in cooperation with the area's Metropolitan Districts and the Colorado Department of Highways, is actively planning for transportation improvements in the area in order that they keep pace with the expected future developments. 7

    PAGE 109

    SITE DETERMINANTS: CONTEXT Site is part of Greenwood South Metropolitan District in the Greenwood Plaza South office park development , which --along with the Denver Technological Center immediately northeast, across Interstate 25 --is the fastest-growing commercial office area in the metropolitan Denver market. Site is essentially transitional: most existing buildings to the north are two-and three-story structures, including the eight-building Orchard Place complex with which this project is (loosely) grouped; newer buildings east and southwest of site are six-and seven-story structures. Related low-rise buildings to the north generic red brick and black glass spec ulative buildings rather plain in elevation and plan, while buildings east and west are marble-clad, strongly articulated architectural design statements , and the building to the southwest is a large, rambling, exposed-aggregate precast sculpture. Site to the south across East Caley Avenue is unplanned at present but is zoned Mixed Use P.U.D. and undoubtedly will be developed as a mid-rise structure approaching maximum height and floor area permitted due to rising value of land and adjacent construction. Site occupie s relatively higher ground in th e area, favorably oriented to views of Rocky Mountains to the west and southwest --views which are not blocked seriously by existing buildings in those directions --at least, not above the expected first floor level of this building. Existing building to the north can be counted upon to provide some shielding of pedestrian levels on this site from predominant northerly winter winds. PRIMARY VIEWS TO WEST & SOUTHWEST I

    PAGE 110

    •

    PAGE 111

    ZONING REQUIREMENTS: CLASSIFICATION Property is in unincorporated Arapahoe County and is zoned B-1 Planned Unit Development, which permits the developer an opportunity to write his own zoning definitions. Practically, however, development of adja cent properties and approval process for e arlier proposal on this site have served to identify basic requirements and limitations expected by County --and Greenwood S outh Metro District --from any future development.

    PAGE 112

    ZONING REQUIREMENTS: PERMITTED USES Permitted uses include: Administrative and professional Offices, including c onsulting service offices, design profession offices, medical and dental offices, insurance and investment offices. Pharmacies will be permitted, provided that eighty percent of the gross lea sable floor area shall be used for the preparation and sale of prescriptions or trade drugs. Day care activities will be permitted within the principal building. Limited con venience businesses and serv ices shall be permitted as an acces s ory use within the building for the convenience of tenants. Such businesses and services shall not advertis e to the general public or have any exterior si gnage. Uses permitted as accessory uses are as follows, but not limited to: barber and beauty shops, print shops, tobacco shops, newsstands, travel agenci es. SIGNIFICANT RETAIL PROHIBITED I

    PAGE 113

    ZONING REQUIREMENTS: MINIMUM SETBACKS FROM STREETS Minimum Building Setba cks s hall be: a. 225 feet fro m South Ulster Street r i ght-of w a y b. 2 5 feet fro m E ast Caley A v e nue right-of-way EAST END PERMITS NO BUIDING CONSTRUCTION

    PAGE 114

    ----------t------------L... t"'IIJIMLW\ 1 J --,-\ _ _:Jt_ ____ • • -+------------\_ .. -----------------/00

    PAGE 115

    ZONING REQUIREMENTS: MAXIMUM HEIGHTS Maximum Building Heights shall be: a. 110 feet to the top of the parapet wall of the building b. 124 feet to the top of the elevator/mechanical penthouse I MAXIMUM 9 STORIES WITH 12'-0" FLOORS HEIGHT LIMITS FAVOR ROOFTOP MECHANICAL

    PAGE 116

    . C< _ I -------------------

    PAGE 117

    ZONING REQUIREMENTS: FLOOR AREA RATIO AND OPEN SPACE Maximum Floor Area Ratio shall be: 1.0 Goals currently set by the County and Greenwood South Metro District in concert are 40 percent open space for development densities approaching the maximum F.A.R., including open space in street rights-of-ways taken from property, NET BUILDABLE AREA< 108,073 SF I

    PAGE 118

    ZONING REQUIREMENTS: PARKING STANDARDS County and GSMD encourage developers to meet open space goals by suggesting that parking densities be held to under 1/300 NRSF, in view of long range plans calling for expanded public transit within the area, including local shuttle bussing.

    PAGE 119

    ZONING REQUIREMENTS: TRAFFIC AND ACCESS Street plans with increased rights-of-way for East Caley Avenue and South Ulster Street already have been implemented, including construction of traffic islands in streets and curb cuts on this site. Basic limitations are: a. South Ulster Street Right and left hand in and out at northeast corner of site b. East Caley Avenue Right and left hand in and out just west of middle of south property line c. East Caley Avenue Right only in and out at southwest corner of site Indications have been made to the Owner that this traffic access plan could become more restricted if future studies reveal problems with i nhibited flow or unusual accident rates around the site, but that access is unlikely to be eased for any reason. SITE ACCESS ALREADY FIXED I

    PAGE 120

    ZONING REQUIREMENTS: TRAFFIC AND ACCESS _____ ....._,.. c::===::::::::::::::;:::::::::;::::::======::::J

    PAGE 121

    ZONING REQUIREMENTS: MISCELLANEOUS GSMD has adopted a Master Plan for standards t o b e followed in develop ing landscaping and pedestrian walkways in the Dist rict. GSMD encourages landscaped , pedestrian-oriented development of southeast corner of this site, in keeping with character of intersection treatment and acknowledging open-area development of southeast corner of intersection (Fiddler's Green Park and Amphitheater) and northeast corner (sculpture garden approach to Tuscany Place.) Site Lighting shall be restricted to fixtures 30 feet or less in height and directed downward to minimize glare . Light fixtures are to turned off no later than 11:00 P.M. each night, except as required for se curity. Building Identification Signage shall be limited two single-faced signs, located at site entry drives, with nominal dimensions not to exceed three feet by seven feet (twenty-one square feet face size) and mounting height not to exceed five feet above grade . Signs may be interior lighted, using low-intensity bulbs . No billboards shall be permitted on the site. Ground-level service facilities such as trash enc losures, transformers, or mechanical equipment shall be screened from view in an attractive manner in character with primary building materials. Roof-top mechanical equipment shall b e screened from v iew in an attractive manner in character with primary building element s . Landscaping shall utilize plant materials selected for their adaptability to the local climate and their drought-resista n t characteristics, and shall be designed in harmony with GSMO Master Plan . All landscaped areas will be sprinklered, using an automati callyt imed system.

    PAGE 122

    ZONING REQUIREMENTS: MISCELLANEOUS Greenwood Plaza South Preliminary Master Plan for Discussion September 16, 1983 Introduction The Greenwood Plaza South Sidewalk and Identity Master Plan is composed of two large scale drawings which illustrate the general design concepts for: 1 . Proposed Walkways, including sidewalks and recreation walkways . 2. Proposed Identity Landscape Treatments The Master Plans illustrate the general locations of six components. Policies and Design Guidelines for each component are contained in the following sections: Section Perimeter Landscape Treatments Section 2 Entry Treatments Section 3 Street Trees Sect ion 4 Street-Side Walkways Section 5 Median Landscape Treatments Section 6 Open Space Corridors and Recreational Walkways Policy statements and Design Guidelines are tools for understanding and imple menting the Master Plan components. Policy statements explain the design concept, purpose, and function of each component. Design Guidelines deliniate how the policies for each component will be implemented and include construction standards for each element the poli cy requires. NOTES 1. "Existing" and "New" Development In this document the term "Existing Development" refers to property which has been "built out" as of November 1, 1983. All other development areas, including unbuilt portions of developing properties, are referred to as "New Development". 2. R ight of Ways R . O.W. limits along roadways vary and must be verified prior to street-side planting or construction.

    PAGE 123

    ZONING REQUIREMENTS: MISCELLANEOUS II 1 • Caley I i 11 Peakvlew : 1 .. PERIMETERS SECTION 1 PERIMETERS .! "' 5 Orchard LEGEND E:3 GSMD Boundary _[i]_ Sign & Identity Feature _ E:3_ Re(ttwlg Dogwood • . Quebec St • ..Trees • .E3 Arapahoe, Yosemite & -pre hard . St. Trees!... _ t . See Section 3 Street Trees Arapahoe W no scale f2.lJ.l: " Perimeters" are the edges of the district which interface with major public roadways. Two treatment policies are suggested for perimeters; 1. The district boundary along Interstate 25. 2. All other district boundaries including E. Orchard Ave., S. Quebec St., E. Arapahoe Rd. and S. Yosemite St. The purpose of perimeter landscape treatment is to present a bold and identifiable edge to the district and to mainta i n a consistent envoronmental quality within the project by creating a visual continuity around the perimeter . 1-25 landscape treatment shall be a low and continuous band of shrubs punctuated by large evergreen trees, used as accents, around the Greenwood Plaza South sign and the Greenwood South Metro. District identity feature (see Landscape Master Plan for locations). Landscape treatment along E. Orchard Ave. , S. Quebec St., E. Arapahoe Rd. and S. Yosemite St. shall consist of double rows of large deciduous trees of a designated species for each street. 1 1

    PAGE 124

    ZONING REQUIREMENTS: MISCELLANEOUS Design Guidelines A . 1-25 l. Planting -A double row of Redtwig Dogwood, 5 gal. containers; 4 ft. on center spacing. Pines as a backdrop for Greenwood Plaza South sign and identity feature. 6 foot height min. (species, quantities and spacing-to be determined). 2 . Signage Large scale, quality materials facing south. 3. Identity Feature -Greenwood Plaza South logo, large scale, visible from northbound and southbound lanes (type of sculpture element to be determined) . 4. Installation and Maintenance -by District B. E. Orchard Ave., S. Quebec St., E. Arapahoe Rd. and S. Yosemite St. ... 1. Trees, See Section 3, Street Trees 2. Installation Existing Development -by District New Developments -by Owner 3. Maintenance -Existing and New Development -by Owner 1 L..aT' . -,ec.noo-l t --. • . . . :.:-----=-........ .... --• . 1 -2

    PAGE 125

    ZONING REQUIREMENTS: MISCELLANEOUS Orchard -I I LEGEND I GSMD Boundary I1J Entries to Greenwood I I Caley 0 .. .D .. ::J 0 ------_ 2 .. ENTRANCES _ SECT! ON 2 ENTRIES .! , 5 Plaza South _ Arapahoe \J./ no scale Pol icy : The purpose of entry improvements for Greenwood Plaza South are to develop a "gateway image" and to establish a project character and identity. Entrances shall be enhanced by the use of quality signage, ornamental lighting, large shade trees, and landscaped medians. Six entry locations shall be improved including : 1 . S . Syracuse St. at E . Orchard Ave. 2 . S. Quebec St. at E. Orchard Ave. 3 . E. Caley Ave. at S. Quebec St . . . 4. E. Peakview Ave. at S. Quebec St. 5 . S . Ulster St. at E. Arapahoe Rd. 6. E. Peakview Ave. at S. Yosemite St. 2 -1

    PAGE 126

    ZONING REQUIREMENTS: MISCELLANEOUS Design Guidel ines A. -Guidelines concern ing placement, size, logo, materials and TTghffilg (to be determined following a detail design study). B. Lighting-Guidelines concerning types of lighting, heights, placement and installation to be determ ined following a study by consultant. C . Trees 1. Species -all entries same species and spacing 2. Density double rows, triangular spacing at 40 ft. on center 3. Size -3" caliper (min.) 4 . Planting maintain sight lines 30 ft. from corners, plant 4 ft. from curb (min. ) . D. Installation and Maintenance -by District 2 -2

    PAGE 127

    ZONING REQUIREMENTS: MISCELLANEOUS 3 STREET _ TREES _ _ SECTION 3 STREET TREES Orchard LEGEND E:3 GSMD Boundary f ....... , Species lto .be determined! " E31 " E3 f-J " Arapahoe \J..) no scale Policy: When Greenwood South Metro. District is totally developed , all major streets shall be bordered, on both sides, by large deciduous trees. The district shall require new developers to install street trees of a particular species and to plant a spec ific number of them within 40 feet of the curb. Developers may meet this requirement by arranging trees in patterns which are complimentary to their site's landscape plan. Street trees are i ntended not only to edge and canopy streets, but also to shade walkways. 3 1

    PAGE 128

    ZONING REQUIREMENTS: MISCELLANEOUS ......... uwn...., 0 ...... '-"* • 3 2

    PAGE 129

    ZONING REQUIREMENTS: CELLANEOUS Street Tree Design Guidelines 1. Species 2 . Density 3 . S ize 4. Planting 5. Grouping -(to be determ ined for each street detail design studies) the equivalent of one tree per 4D 1 ineal feet of frontage. Trees shall be planted with i n a 40 foot zone behind the street curb. -3 inch caliper (mi n .'), ball and burlap, specimen quality -25 feet on center (min. ) 40 feet on center (max. ) -4 feet from curb or s i dewalk (min.) to be completed within go days (during growing season) of c ompletion of building construction Bluegrass, see Design Guidelines Section 4 , Walkways -( i f desired) -3 per group (min.) and odd numbers for groups greater than three 6 . Installation-Existing Development : by District New Development : by Owner 7 . Mai ntenance -Existing and New Development: by Owner -In street R.O.W.: by Owner SQt.!f >l 3 -3

    PAGE 130

    ZONING REQUIREMENTS: MISCELLANEOUS • 3 4

    PAGE 131

    ZONING REQUIREMENTS: MISCELLANEOUS 4 . WALKWAYS SECTION 4 WALKWAYS Orchard LEGEND E:3 GSMD Boundary f .. ... 1 Proposed Street-Side _jWalkways Arapahoe north no scale Policy: Greenwood South Metro. District shall upon completion, have a con tinuous street-side walkway system . A network of walkways will connect all parts of Greenwood Plaza South and tie into adjacent, existing, and proposed walks. Walks will also connect building entries with proposed bus stops. An internal recreation walkway system is also planned. See Section 6 Open Space Corridors and Recreat ion Walkways. 4 -1

    PAGE 132

    ZONING REQUIREMENTS: MISCELLANEOUS Design Guidel ines A. Street-Side 1. Detached from curbs-Eight foot (min.), 25 foot (max.) except at intersections and entry drives. 2. Hori zonta 1 Alignments: Walk s can parallel street curbs or meander . Meandering walks shall have smooth and continuous curves and avoid small or sharp changes of direction. 3 . Safety -All walks to meet Federal Handi cap Standards 4. W i dth -8 feet 5. Mater i al Concrete, 4 inch re i nforced slab, 1 i ght broom finish. Other mater ials must be approved prior to installation. 6 . G rades -Walks must be graded to drain any surface runoff and have a 41 max. vertical slope or shall not exceed the grade of adjacent streets. Cross slope if needed, 31 max. 7 . Drainage-Trench drains w i th solid covers are required in walks at points of concentrated surface runoff. 8. Planting-Bluegrass sod with irrigation, between curbs and walks . Trees : see Design Guidel i nes, Section 3, Street Trees . g , I nstal lation and Mai ntenance a. Walks, bluegrass, and' irrigation on "Existing Developments " : Installed by District; Maintained by Owner b. Walks, bluegrass, and irrigation on "New Development s " : I n stalled and Maintain e d by Owner 10. Recreation Walk Guidelines see Sect ion 6 Open Space Corridors and Recreation Walkways .... 'f'e,D N •ee-..-.. I!IIW. -....... L.I&o _ _.. 4 -2

    PAGE 133

    ZONING REQUIREMENTS: MISCELLANEOUS 5 _ MEDIANS SECTION 5 MEDIANS Orchard LEGEND E3 GSMD Boundary E::=I .. Type A Median , ....... 3 Type B _ •Median I ! __ Type C Median 1 I Existing Landscaped Medians \..!) no scale Policy: Landscape improvements in Greenwood South Metro. D istrict medians are designed to form the backbone of a landscape theme for Greenwood Plaza South. The plantings and materials are formal and bold and are meant to carry a character theme through the District. To ensure driving safety, the landscape design allows for clear visibility of oncoming traffi c from all intersections and turning points. On the ends of medians, large high branched, deciduous trees will be used to allow good visibility. In the centers of medians, where cross visibility is not a problem, small ornamental trees will be used to provide a striking visual impact . 5 1

    PAGE 134

    ZONING REQUIREMENTS: MISCELLANEOUS Design Guidelines A. Landscape Materials ie: Large Trees, Ornamental Trees, Shrubs, Groundcovers and flowers -species, spacing, and sizes (to be determined in detail design phase). B . Materials for Planters and Paving-Type, size, color, and finish (to ' be determined in detail design phase). C . Ornamental Lights 1. Placement-Ends of medians at intersections and entries, fnumber to be determined) . 2. Installation -(detail to be determined in detail design phase) 0. Installation and Maintenance, all medians improvements -by District. 5 2

    PAGE 135

    ZONING REQUIREMENTS: MISCELLANEOUS I Orcttard LEGEND E3 GSMD Boundary [EI Corridor [2] Future Corridor & Walkway Direction Arapahoe 6 OPEN . _ SPACE _ CORRIDOR & I RECREATION WALKWAY W no scale SECTION 6 OPEN SPACE CORRIOORS AND RECREATION WALKWAYS Pol i cy : An internal public open space shall provide a unique amenity for Greenwood Plaza South, it will include a recreation walk/jogging path and a "Vita Course" activity circuit. The recreation walk will connect major public areas in the district and tie into adjacent recreation walkways. The jogging path and "Vita Course" fitness circuit will offer a variety of recreation activities for office workers throughout Greenwood Plaza South. 6 -1

    PAGE 136

    ZONING REQUIREMENTS: MISCELLANEOUS I Design Guidelines A . Easements 1. Existing and New Developments land owners along the proposed recreation walk alignment will be asked to grant easement for improvement by the District as walkways, jogging paths and/or "Vita Course" stations. 2. Open Space Width -New Development 30 ft. width, 15 ft. from each owner along property lines unless an owner presents a work able alternative which is contiguous with walk alignments on adjacent properties. B. Walkway 1. Materials -(to be determined following a detail design study) 2. Width (to be determined following a de.tail design study) 3. Grades -(to be determined following a detail design study) C. Jogging Path 1. Materials (to be determined following a detail design study) 2. Width -(to be determined following a detail design study) 3 . Grades -(to be determined following a detail design study) D. Planting 1. Grass Kentucky Bluegrass through open space excepting shrub planting beds (per individual owner's plans). 2. Trees One large shade tree min. per Vita Course station and/or seating area. E. Seating Materials 1. Benches -Types and materials (to be determined) F. Vita Course 1. Layout 200 to 250 yard spacing 10 station and/or 20 station loops 2. Base Platforms a . Size (to be determined following a detail design study) b. Materials -(to be determined following a detail design study) c . Finish -(to be determined following a detail design study) 3. Signage a . Location -(to be determined following a detail design study) G . Installation and Mai ntenance Existing and New Development -by District 6 -2

    PAGE 137

    ZONING REQUIREMENTS: MISCELLANEOUS 6 -3

    PAGE 138

    ZONING REQUIREMENTS: MISCELLANEOUS SECTION 7 LIGHTING Policy: Streets and walks within Greenwood South Metro. Oistrict should be adequately lighted for safety and convenience at night by pedestrians,and motorists. Oesign Guidelines To be determined following a study by Transplan Associates, Inc.

    PAGE 139

    BUILDING CODE: ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREAS

    PAGE 140

    BUILDING CODE: MAXIMUM HEIGHT/NUMBER OF FLOORS

    PAGE 141

    BUILDING CODE: LOCATION ON PROPERTY

    PAGE 142

    BUILDING CODE: MINIMUM SEPARATIONS

    PAGE 143

    BUILDING CODE: EXIT REQUIREMENTS

    PAGE 144

    BUILDING CODE: LIGHTING AND VENTILATION

    PAGE 145

    BUILDING CODE: TOILET FACILITIES

    PAGE 146

    BUILDING CODE: FIRE PROTECTION/LIFE SAFETY

    PAGE 147

    BUILDING CODE: CONSTRUCTION ASSEMBLIES

    PAGE 148

    COLORADO ENERGY CODE

    PAGE 149

    CASTLEWOOD FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT: FIRE & SAFETY STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS

    PAGE 150

    DESIGN DOCUMENTATION

    PAGE 151

    CONCLUSIONS

    PAGE 152

    BIBLIOGRAPHY