CO - Boulder: City Council Meeting Materials

Get alerted when your passions are being discussed in Boulder and more for free

Issues discussed this meeting include:

Get Alerts On New Meetings
Sign Up

City Council Meeting Materials

2415 5th St 10600 1 2449 5th St 7600 1

430 Maxwell Ave 9200 3 RHL-0001544 424 Maxwell Ave 11600 3 RHL-0001543 402 Maxwell Ave 4400 3 RHL-0001542

2442 4th St 4500 3 RHL-0002342 2436 4th St 6600 1 2430 4th St 4600 2 RHL-0002340 2424 4th St 4900 1

Totals SF Per Dwelling Unit Neighborhood 499,500 120 4162.5
Tagged Passions:neighborhood

3
Attachment C - Management Plans, Good Neighbor Policy, Church Parking Agreement, Sustainability Statement

Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 451 of 1314 Parking(Management(Plan((PMP)( 5/07/2018 (
Tagged Passions:church, policy, sustainability, and parking

In evaluating the parking situation for The Academy on Mapleton Hill, it is important to take into consideration all of the different anticipated users for such parking. These users include:

Tagged Passions:parking

1.
Academy residents

No additional detail provided

2.
Academy employees

No additional detail provided

3.
Academy guests and deliveries

4.
Electric car share program vehicles

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:program and electric

5.
Academy vehicles

No additional detail provided

6.
Church parking

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:church and parking

7.
Public Parking on Weekends

Church(Parking.
Tagged Passions:church and parking

With respect to church parking needs, the agreement we have reached with the church sets forth the following parking needs:

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:church and parking

1.
Eight permanent spaces available to the church 24/7, 365 days per year.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:church

2.
An additional 37 spaces available to the church after 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday evenings.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:church

3.
A total of 90 spaces (inclusive of the 45 spaces referenced in 1 and 2, above) available to the church from midnight Friday night to midnight on Sunday night. Church currently only has partial access to 85 spaces. Church has been monitoring and historically been using only these 85 spaces, even though additional space may have been available on the site.

Tagged Passions:church

In our most recent discussions with the church, they have indicated that they would prefer to have all of the underground spaces that we make available to them located in a single garage. And, given the close proximity of the south elevator in Building C to the ADA access for the church, The Academy on Mapleton Hill and the church have agreed that the optimal underground parking garage for the church to use is the garage under Buildings C and D. The church is confident that its parishioners and guests can be educated about the access to this garage being off the southwest corner of the surgery center s parking lot. On Saturdays and Sundays, the church will have the primary use of the 68 spaces located under Buildings C and D. On Saturdays and Sundays, the church will also have the use of 15 of the 16 surface parking spaces located on what would be Drive B and 7 of the surface spaces on the south side of what would be Drive A. For the 8 spaces that are dedicated to the church 24/7, we will designate 8 surface spaces on the east side of Third Street extended. For the 45 spaces to be made available after 6:00 p.m., the church will utilize 15 of the 16 surface parking spaces on Drive B (extended) together with 30 spaces under Building C. The final part of our agreement with the church allows the church to request 90 spaces for up to four evenings per month, provided that there is not a conflict with The Academy s activities and parking needs on those particular evenings. For those four evenings per month, the parking will be handled in the same manner as parking will be handled on Saturdays and Sundays. The attached spreadsheet specifies the exact spaces to be reserved for the church for these various times, as well as all of the other parking uses.

Academy(Resident(Parking. In determining how much resident parking is to be provided, we need to determine the percentage of Academy residents that will have their own car at The Academy on Mapleton Hill. At The Academy near Attachment C - Management Plans, Good Neighbor Policy, Church Parking Agreement, Sustainability Statement Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 452 of 1314 Chautauqua, we have 31 garage spaces and 4 surface spaces used by the occupants of our 45 independent residences and 7 assisted living residences. Rarely do assisted living residents own a car. The 35 garages and surface spaces for 45 independent residences translates to 77.8 of independent residences being occupied by residents with a car. For our purposes, we are assuming that roughly 85 of the independent residences at The Academy on Mapleton Hill will be occupied by residents with a car. With 93 independent residences, we need to provide 81 garages for residents, assuming that none of them will park in surface spaces or on the adjoining neighborhood streets. We are allocating those garage spaces as follows: Building A: 46 residences 50 spaces for Building A residents and 10 spaces for employee car share automobiles to be shared by residents living throughout our campus. Building B: 18 residences 18 spaces for Building B residents, 6 spaces for Annex L residents and 2 spaces for Building M residents. Building C: 42 skilled nursing residences no garages for residents as this population will not be driving.
Tagged Passions:transportation, church, disability, streets, policy, annexation, sustainability, neighborhood, and parking

Building D: 10 secure memory care residences _ no garages for residents, as this population will not be driving.

No additional detail provided

Buildings F and G: 8 residences 8 garages for Buildings F and G residents.

Building H: 2 residences 2 attached garages for Building H residents. Building J: 6 residences 6 attached garages for Building J residents.

Building L: 6 residences no garages in Building L. As noted above, these residents will park in Building B.

Buildings R1 R7: 7 residences 7 garages for Building Residents. In the aggregate, there are 93 independent residences and 99 garages for these residences resulting in 100 of these residences having a garage space with a few additional overflow spaces. Warm(Water(Therapy(Pool(Users

Tagged Passions:Utility, parks, utility, and water

Based on historic numbers it is anticipated 6_8 users throughout the day will be using the Warm Water Therapy Pool. The hours of operation will be between 12:00 pm and 4:00 pm. So on average we will have a parking demand of 2 spaces per hour, which we feel can completely be accommodated with the current Rehab/Subacute Operations allocated parking spaces. The public use will further be limited to a maximum of 10 appointments per hour as to control parking demand throughout the day.

Academy(Employee(Parking. We will encourage alternative modes of employee transportation through such incentives as EcoPasses and indoor bicycle parking coupled with employee shower facilities. Also, we expect to have a significant number of siblings and couples who work and commute together to The Academy on Mapleton Hill. That has been the case at The Academy near Chautauqua where our sibling and married couples have always exceeded 10 percent of our total employee base. The peak employee count will be during weekdays. That count should be approximately 80 employees. To be conservative, we need 79 garage spaces for those 80 employees. On weekends, the daytime employee census should peak at approximately 50 employees and we have allocated spaces for each, as can be seen in our parking matrix. At night, the employee census should drop to a peak of approximately 48 employees and we have allocated spaces for each. In order to not over park our site, we plan to accommodate the church s high weekend parking requirements in two basic ways. First, employees will utilize the 16 surface spaces in the Building L lot, Attachment C - Management Plans, Good Neighbor Policy, Church Parking Agreement, Sustainability Statement Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 453 of 1314 which are reserved for employee parking. We will mandate that our employees park in that lot on weekends first using all 16 spaces. The other 32 employees that could potentially need parking spaces on the weekend will park as outlined in the attached spreadsheet. Although our employee census should be even lower on weeknights than it is on weekends, our available parking increases because the church only has the use of 30 of the 72 parking spaces located below Buildings C and D. That leaves many parking spaces for employees, guests and special events. And, during weekdays, when our employee census is at its highest, we also have the right to use all 79 parking spaces below Buildings C and D to easily accommodate those extra weekday employees. Academy(Vehicle(Parking. The Academy anticipates having two hybrid automobiles, one large van and one pickup truck with a snowplow. The van will be parked in the large surface parking space immediately west of Building D because it will require too much vertical clearance to be able to be parked underground. The other three vehicles will use 3 of the excess spaces below Building A. Academy(Car(Share(Parking. The Academy will be implementing a vibrant and successful electric car sharing program for Academy residents who are willing to forego bringing their own vehicle. Not only will such participants have the use of a car for far less money than it would cost them to own and maintain their own vehicle, they will also not be charged the garage rental fee that will be charged to residents who insist upon bringing their own vehicle. We believe that this program can and will be successful, but we don t have a track record we can point to in this regard. Accordingly, we are not allocating any parking savings to the car share program at this time. But, if we can succeed in having one electric car for every three or four participants in the car share program, the number of parking spaces saved could become substantial. In such event, we could rent more spaces to the church and potentially rent spaces to Mt. Sanitas hikers if such an approach would be acceptable to the City after it conducts its pending analysis of the Mt. Sanitas usage and parking study. For purposes of this parking analysis, we have assumed that we will have 10 electric vehicles that are shared by Academy residents. These 10 vehicles will be parked in the garage below Building A. To be conservative, our analysis assumes that each automobile in the car share program will only serve one resident whereas, in reality, each shared automobile will likely serve 3 or 4 residents. Academy(Visitor(and(Guest(Parking(and(Deliveries. After giving priority to all of the other parking needs referred to above, the amount of parking available for visitors and guests will vary depending upon the day of the week and the time of day. The attached spreadsheet illustrates the following amounts of visitor/delivery parking being available at the following times: Weekdays 65 spaces Weeknights 62 spaces Weekends 25 spaces
Tagged Passions:Utility, utility, transportation, church, policy, appointments, Bicycles, Electric Vehicles, rental, sustainability, clearance, water, historic, program, electric, events, incentive, bicycles, and parking

In addition, we have the commercial loading dock available in the southwest corner of Building A for more substantial deliveries.

Weekend(Parking(Available(to(the(Public Applicant will provide 20 parking spaces available to the public Saturday and Sunday. These spaces will be provided in the existing surgery center parking lot. They will be signed and posted as being public spaces Saturday and Sunday, and private surgery center parking Monday Friday. Attachment C - Management Plans, Good Neighbor Policy, Church Parking Agreement, Sustainability Statement Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 454 of 1314 Page 1 of 3 Mapleton)Parking)Analysis )of) Spaces Weekdays Residents Church Employees Academy Vehicles Deliveries )Guests

Tagged Passions:church, commercial, policy, boating, sustainability, and parking

Surgery Patient Parking Description)of)Parking)Spaces

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:parking

Building A (includes*10*car*share* spaces)

Identification*of*spaces 77 50

0
18 3 6

0
A156198 A33677

A1638 A106148 A20629 A30632 A469 Building B 31 26 0 0 0 5 0

Identification*of*spaces B16118 B14628 B12F13H) B29F31

Buildings C D 78 0 0 47

0
31

0
Identification*of*spaces

C136168 C19646 7 tunnel8 C16128 C176188

No additional detail provided

D12619 D16118 D20625 Buildings F G 22 8 0 14 0 0 0

Identification*of*spaces F86118 F167 F12618 F19622 Building H 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 Buildings J 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 Building L6 Surface 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 Building M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Buildings R 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 Surface Spaces 6 Drive B 15 0 8 0 0 7 0 Identification*of*spaces P6613 van parks in pull6out space
Tagged Passions:parks

P1658 P146 15

No additional detail provided

Surface Spaces 6 Drive A 16 0 0 0 0 16 0

No additional detail provided

Identification*of*spaces P166 31 Surgery Center South Parking Lot 34 0 0 0 0 0 34 Subtotal 304 99 8 95 3 65 34 Totals

Check 304 Attachment C - Management Plans, Good Neighbor Policy, Church Parking Agreement, Sustainability Statement Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 455 of 1314 Page 2 of 3 Mapleton)Parking)Analysis )of) spaces Weeknights Residents Church Employees Academy Vehicles Deliveries )Guests

Tagged Passions:church, policy, sustainability, and parking

Surgery Patient Parking Description)of)Parking)Spaces

Building A(includes*10*car*share* spaces) Identification*of*spaces 77 50

Tagged Passions:parking

0
18 3 6

0
A156198 A336

76 A1638 A106148 A20629 A30632 A469 Building B 31 26 0 0 0 5 0

Identification*of*spaces B1631 Buildings C D 78 0 30 16

0
32

0
Identification*of*spaces

C16168 C196

C226248 C366 418 7 tunnel

C176188 C426 468 D16D25 Buildings F G 22 8 0 14 0 0 0 Identification*of*spaces

F8611 F1678 F12618 F19 6 22

Building H 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 Buildings J 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 Building L6 Surface 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 Building M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Buildings R 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 Surface Spaces Drive B 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 Identification*of*spaces P1615 van parks in pull6out space
Tagged Passions:parks

Surface Spaces 6 Drive A Identification*of*spaces

No additional detail provided

16
0 0 0 0 16 0 P16631

Surgery Center South Parking Lot 34 0 0 0 0 0 34 Subtotal 304 99 45 64 3 59 34 Totals Check 304 Attachment C - Management Plans, Good Neighbor Policy, Church Parking Agreement, Sustainability Statement Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 456 of 1314 Page 3 of 3 Mapleton)Parking)Analysis )of) spaces Weekends) Church Employees Academy Vehicles Deliveries )Guests

Tagged Passions:church, policy, sustainability, and parking

Surgery Patient Parking Description)of)Parking)Spaces

Building A(includes*10*car*share* spaces) Identification*of*spaces 77 50

Tagged Passions:parking

0
18 3 6

0
A156198 A336

76 A1638 A106148 A20629 A30632 A469 Building B 31 26 0 0 0 5 0

Identification*of*spaces B1631 Buildings C D 78 0 68 0

0
10

0
Identification*of*spaces

C1637L8 C456 468D1678 D126268 7Tunnel C386448 D8611 Buildings F G 22 8 0 14 0 0 0 Identification*of*spaces

F8611 F1678 F12618 F19 6 22

Building H 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 Buildings J 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 Building L6 Surface 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 Building M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Buildings R 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 Surface Spaces Drive B 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 Identification*of*spaces P1615 van parks in pull6out space
Tagged Passions:parks

Surface Spaces 6 Drive A Identification*of*spaces

No additional detail provided

16
0 7 0 0 9 0 P25631 P16624

Surgery Center South Parking Lot 34 0 0 14 0 0 34 Public 20 Subtotal 304 99 90 82 3 30 0 Totals Check 304 Attachment C - Management Plans, Good Neighbor Policy, Church Parking Agreement, Sustainability Statement Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 457 of 1314 Page 4 of 3 Attachment C - Management Plans, Good Neighbor Policy, Church Parking Agreement, Sustainability Statement Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 458 of 1314

Tagged Passions:church, policy, sustainability, and parking

Boulder sanitarium historical assessment

Tagged Passions:historical

Contents I. HIstorIc overvIew 2 II. sIte sIgnIfIcance 10 III. structures 12 Iv. recommendatIons 27 v. references 31

Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 459 of 1314 Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 2
Tagged Passions:historical, historic, and preservation

I.
HISTORIc OvERvIEw

introduction The Boulder Sanitarium, and later the Boulder Memorial Hospital, were extremely influential as health centers for the growing City of Boulder. The Sanitarium was a renowned facility with ties to John Harvey Kellogg and other notable individuals, and Boulder Memorial Hospital provided health care services for a half century. The site s rich history began in the late 1890 s. early beginnings In 1893 John Fulton, an elder in the Seventh Day Adventist Church, was in Boulder seeking to improve his health in the fresh air of the Rocky Mountains (Clemons, 1958). Fulton evidently was so impressed with the health benefits of the area that he contacted fellow church member John Harvey Kellogg, and urged him to establish a sanitarium in Boulder. In addition to his grain and cereal company, Kellogg was an enthusiastic advocate for healthy living. At the time he received Fulton s letter, he was the superintendent of the Battle Creek Sanitarium in Michigan. Among other treatments for sickly guests at his sanitarium, Kellogg recommended sunlight, fresh air, exercise and healthy eating (Pettem, 2006). Kellogg heeded the advice of Fulton, and in 1894 the Boulder branch of the Sanitarium was established in a house on University Hill, near 13th and Euclid (Austin, 1945). The fledgling Boulder Sanitarium had expanded to two private homes by 1895. Still, this additional square footage was insufficient for the growing patient demand. 1895-1899 In 1895, the General Conference Association of Seventh Day Adventists appropriated money to purchase and develop roughly 90 acres of land on the Northwest corner of 4th Street and Mapleton Avenue (Clemons, 1958). The first structures on the site were the brick veneer West and East Cottages. The West Cottage was finished in August of 1895, and the East Cottage followed a couple months later. The main five-story brick building was completed in July of 1896, and the powerhouse, laundry and bakery building were completed around the same time (Clemons, 1958). While bricks were sourced from Eugene Austin s Brick Company (near present day Casey Middle School), much of the stone for building foundations was sourced from on-site materials (Austin, 1945). It was quickly discovered that the draft for the powerhouse was insufficient with the original smokestack. So, construction crews built an underground brick flue 62 up the hill to the west of the powerhouse and constructed a new 40 smokestack at the new spot (Austin, 1945). A bakery was also built inside the powerhouse, which soon became the Colorado Food Company. The Food Company manufactured cereals and food for the Sanitarium, and later for commerical sale. 1. Construction on the main building, 1895 2. Looking northwest from Mapleton Avenue, 1896 Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 460 of 1314 Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 3

Tagged Passions:materials, church, health, university, superintendent, streets, education, purchasing, services, historical, hospital, history, historic, healthcare, facility, construction, preservation, seniors, and sale

I.
HISTORIc OvERvIEw

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:historic

3.
Looking southeast across the complex and early Boulder

No additional detail provided

4.
The main building fronted Mapleton Avenue, and additional structures were built northwards following the topography, 1906

1900-1909 The Boulder Sanitarium became a popular destination to receive treatments that included dieting, exercise, massage, hydrotherapy and electrotherapy (Clemons, 1958). Guests were also encouraged to enjoy the fresh cool climate of Boulder and to hike the trails along the foothills to the west of the Sanitarium. The facility expanded quickly. By 1906, seven new cottages had been built in a line to the north of the East and West Cottages. A laboratory was also built just to the north of the East Cottage to allow for expanded testing services. Already it was clear that the Sanitarium leaders desired an orderly development of the site, with buildings framing open space. New structures also tended to follow the topography, ensuring ease of movement between different buildings. By 1907 Kellogg s influence on the Sanitarium was minimal. He was expelled from the Adventist Church in this year and focused his efforts instead on the Battle Creek Sanitarium while also serving on the Michigan State Board of Health from 1911 to 1917 (Schwartz, 1970).

Seven new cottages were added to the north of the existing Sanitarium buildings Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 461 of 1314 Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 4
Tagged Passions:church, health, services, development, trails, historical, diet, historic, environment, facility, preservation, and Development

I.
HISTORIc OvERvIEw

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:historic

5.
Looking northeast from the foothills over the new southern wing addition, 1919

1910-1919 Up until this point, it had been the Boulder Sanitarium s mission to accept all types of patients. As of the late 1900 s, however, the Sanitarium began to de-emphasize the treatment of tuberculosis because the presence of the highly contagious patients tended to scare away other potential patrons (Boulder-colorado Sanitarium, 1939). Simultaneously, the facility began to take on a greater array of health services. In 1919 a new wing was added to the main building. It extended south and its construction necessitated the removal of two semi-circular porches which had been prominent features on the original building (Clemons, 1958). The new wing housed surgical patients, the operating room, a new laboratory and a pharmacy. Three additional cottages were built to the west of the line of cottages built in 1906. Additionally, it was around this time that the smokestack was torn down and moved near its original location adjacent to the powerhouse.

Tagged Passions:health, services, pharmacy, facility, and construction

6.
The second row of cottages was built in a way that framed a rectangular open space, 1918

By 1918, the Sanitarium had added three new cottages and the second smokestack from 1896 had been removed

Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 462 of 1314 Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 5
Tagged Passions:historical, historic, and preservation

I.
HISTORIc OvERvIEw

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:historic

7.
Looking northeast from the foothills over the complex, 1927

1920-1929 By 1922, nine additional cottages were added to increase patient capacity, along with a furniture storage building. The Sanitarium site also expanded significantly northward during this period. Much of this northward expansion was due to the growth of food production on site. Although the Sanitarium generally advocated for a vegetarian diet based on grains, a dairy barn and two hen houses (for eggs) were constructed on the north end of the site as well as a greenhouse and ice house (Sackett, 2005). Since its creation, the Boulder Sanitarium under the direction of Mr. Kellogg had been manufacturing much of its own cereal and granola products needed for the dietary component of treatments (Pettem, 2010). However, the bakery on the grounds of the Sanitarium became its own distinct entity called the Colorado Sanitarium Food Company as early as 1897 (Shurtleff and Aoyagi, 2014). The Colorado Sanitarium Food Co. experimented with health foods, and even received patents for breakfast cereals in 1913 (US Patent Office, 1913). The Food Company also experimented with peanut butter (Pettem, 2010). By 1912 the Food Company was distributing its food products to a health food store in Denver that also had outlets in other cities (Shurtleff and Aoyagi, 2014). 8. A new row of cottages was built to the west of the main building, and the Colorado Food

Tagged Passions:expansion, health, commercial, diet, and growth

Company expanded its facilities with a dairy barn and hen houses to the north

Notable additions in 1922 included: -Furniture Storage Building -Third iteration of the smokestack made of iron -Cottages (which would later become Cottage A) Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 463 of 1314 Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 6

Tagged Passions:historical, historic, and preservation

I.
HISTORIc OvERvIEw

9. Aerial view of the Sanitarium c.1939 1930-1939 A significant addition to the Sanitarium grounds during this period was a dormitory building for the nurses who worked in the facility. The three-story brick dormitory was built in 1930 up the hill on the west side of the site (Clemons, 1958). Other additions included the garages built to the north of the furniture storage building, and the fourth iteration of the smokestack. The Sanitarium s trend towards becoming a more modern and mainstream health facility accelerated under the leadership of the medical superintendent Dr. H.A. Green, who served from 1910-1939. In this time period, the Sanitarium gained recognition as a quality health facility from the American Medical Association, the American College of Surgeons, the Colorado State Board of Nurse Examiners and the Educational Department of the General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists (Boulder-Colorado Sanitarium, 1939). The late 1930 s seem to be a time when the Sanitarium was taking on its new identity as a hospital, even before the name change occurred.

Tagged Passions:health, university, superintendent, recognition, hospital, historic, healthcare, and facility

10.
Numerous additions were made to the Sanitarium site in this time period

By 1931, major additions inlcuded: -Garages -Fourth and final iteration of the smokestack, made of concrete -Cottage A created -Nurse dormitory Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 464 of 1314 Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 7

Tagged Passions:historical, historic, and preservation

I.
HISTORIc OvERvIEw

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:historic

11.
New construction replaces the original Sanitarium building, 1957 12. New construction replaces the original Sanitarium building, 1957

1940-1959: a time of change By 1957, the Boulder Sanitarium had made a full transition to the Boulder Memorial Hospital. The change in name reflected the complete move away from holistic medicine and health foods towards a modern hospital. One of the most visible aspects of this change was the complete demolition of the original main 1896 Sanitarium building. Only the southern wing that had been added in 1919 was left (Sanborn Map 1962). An entirely new hospital was built during this time period. The remaining southern wing was mirrored with a larger wing to the east, and a central wing connected the whole building together. While many of the other buildings on the site remained at this point, the two original 1895 West and East Cottages were also demolished. The hospital s change in identity is further evidenced by the closing of the Colorado Sanitarium Food Company around 1945 (Shurtleff and Aoyagi, 2014). The strict vegetarian diet also began to lose emphasis,

Tagged Passions:health, demolition, diet, hospital, healthcare, and construction

and patients were given the choice of what type of meal they wanted to eat (Sackett, 2005). The bakery facility on the site had become a service and maintenance building by 1962. Also, the dairy and poultry facilities were demolished and replaced by the Seventh Day Adventist Boulder Jr. Academy (Sanborn Map, 1962).

Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 465 of 1314 Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 8

Tagged Passions:historical, historic, facility, and preservation

I.
HISTORIc OvERvIEw

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:historic

13.
Looking southwest at the new hospital wing, c.1969

1960-1979 As Boulder continued to grow, so did the Boulder Memorial Hospital. The main building continually added square footage with additions in 1962, 1967, and 1971. By 1974, however, Boulder Community Hospital had grown to nearly twice the size of Boulder Memorial. And by 1978 Boulder Community had taken over as the principle provider of emergency and obstetric services in Boulder (Boulder Community Health, accessed June 2015). Even after the demolition of the original cottages and main building, the site still retained its principle southern entrance. 14. The construction of the new hospital facility required a complete demolition of the original main Sanitarium building, 1962 The following structures appear on the Sanborn maps beginning in 1962 : -New powerhouse -Cottage B -Cottage C -Cottage D Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 466 of 1314 Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 9

Tagged Passions:health, demolition, services, historical, hospital, historic, healthcare, facility, construction, emergency, and preservation

I.
HISTORIc OvERvIEw

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:historic

15.
Looking northwest towards the main building 16. Looking south towards the main building

No additional detail provided

1980-Present In 1980, Boulder Memorial underwent a significant expansion, which included the demolition of the old southern wing that had existed since 1919. This expansion marks the demise of all historically significant elements of the main building. Boulder Memorial and Boulder Community functioned for a period of years as a team and the two hospitals shared services. Boulder Memorial focused on rehabilitation and pediatrics, while Boulder community supplied obstetric and emergency services (Sackett, 2005). Changes in the insurance industry and ever-growing population eventually made competition inevitable and by the mid 1980 s the two hospitals no longer shared services. However, due to in part to its location and facility constraints, Boulder Memorial soon found that it would be better suited moving elsewhere in the county instead of trying to compete with the growing Boulder Community facility (Sackett, 2005). After nearly 100 years as a Seventh-day Adventist health facility, the Boulder Memorial Hospital Campus was sold to Boulder community Hospital in 1989 and renamed the Mapleton center. The Boulder Memorial organization then moved to Louisville, where the Avista Adventist Hospital was established in 1990. The Mapleton Center was operated for a number of years primarily as a

sports medicine facility and an outpatient rehabilitation facility. Following expansions and moves to other locations, Boulder Community Hospital found that they no longer needed the facility. The property was sold to Mapleton Hill Investments, LLC. in 2014. Currently on the property, there are 9 remaining buildings, the smokestack, and a portion of an old stone- wall along the southern portion of the site fronting Mapleton Avenue. These remaining buildings and structures will be discussed further in Section III.

Tagged Passions:expansion, health, property, investment, demolition, services, hospital, sports, insurance, healthcare, facility, and emergency

summary The Sanitarium site achieved historic significance during its early years as a sanitarium and while it was associated with John Harvey Kellogg. Although Kellogg s influence was minimal after 1907, the period of significance is from 1895 through 1939. It is during this time that it was associated with noteworthy persons and events in the health and nutrition industries. A second phase, which has some historical interest, dates from 1940 through 1945, at which point the Colorado Sanitarium Food Company ceased operation. But in general this was a time during which the sanitarium functions declined. It is difficult to justify considering this time as historically significant.

Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 467 of 1314 Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 10
Tagged Passions:health, nutrition, historical, historic, preservation, and events

II.
SITE SIGNIFICANCE

No additional detail provided

17.
Looking northeast from the fooothills, 1895 18. Colorado Food Company Dairy Barn, 1930

No additional detail provided

significance for health, wellness and natural foods Since its creation in 1895, the Boulder Sanitarium has always been associated with healthy living. Although the site and its structures have changed constantly over the past century, they have all been oriented towards human wellness. In the first period of its history, roughly from 1895 to 1939, the Sanitarium was a holistic healing facility. Through these practices and through its patron J.H. Kellogg, the Boulder Sanitarium was closely linked to the holistic health trends of the late 1800 s and early 1900 s that were popularized and spread in part by the Adventists. The Colorado Food Company that was associated with the Sanitarium was very significant because in addition to simply providing healthy food for the facility, it received patents for multiple breakfast cereal products. In addition to a healthy diet, doctors at the Sanitarium recommended lots of sunshine, fresh air and exercise to its patients. This is part of the reason

why Boulder was such an ideal site for the Sanitarium. It s no stretch to say that the values of the Boulder Sanitarium and those who found recovery there are not all that different from the healthy lifestyle values that characterize Boulder today. As the Sanitarium shifted away from Kellogg s holistic treatments, the built environment had to transition as well. Although the complete demolition of the original Sanitarium building in 1957 was an unfortunate loss of history, the new Boulder Memorial Hospital was needed to accommodate medical services for a growing city. And through its growth and eventual sale to Boulder Community Hospital, the site continued to provide health and wellness services for its community. Clearly, the Sanitarium had a hugely significant impact on early Boulder s values regarding health and wellness. Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 468 of 1314 Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 11

Tagged Passions:health, demolition, services, historical, diet, hospital, history, historic, Conservation, growth, environment, healthcare, facility, preservation, and sale

II.
SITE SIGNIFICANCE

19. Development of the Sanitarium site tended to follow the topography north-south. Generally, buildings that were occupied by guests and patients were farther up the hillside with a better view. Utility and storage buildings were located lower down the hill.

Tagged Passions:Utility, utility, development, and Development

organization of the site In its early years, the Sanitarium site appears to have reflected an organizational pattern that was influenced by its relationship to the foothills and the general topographic contours descending the hillside. It also was influenced by the connection to the developing Mapleton Hill area, along Mapleton Avenue itself. The original main building was oriented to face Mapleton Avenue and was connected by a semi-circular driveway, which in time was identified by stone pillars. As new buildings were constructed, they extended the site northward, first with some larger cottages, and then with rows of smaller frame cottages. These appeared to follow contour lines along the hillside, probably to facilitate easy walking between these structures and the main building. As buildings were added, they often formed clusters with informal courtyards of outdoor space. The more utilitarian buildings were located at the northern end of the site. Gardens were located along the northern and eastern edges of the site. Trees were planted to shade the cottages and a large grove appeared to the south and east of the main building. These probably provided shaded areas for walking and sitting. Some early photographs show some seating and even some shade structures in these areas. Evidence of these organizational patterns only exists in archival materials. Today, the site is substantially altered and does not convey its character from the period of significance.

56 00 55 60 54 80 Buildings occupied by guests and patients Utility and storage buildings Sanitarium Site c.1922 Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 469 of 1314 Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 12
Tagged Passions:Utility, plant, materials, trees, utility, historical, historic, and preservation

III.
STRUcTURES This section evaluates each structure that remains on the old Sanitarium site. None of them are original to the initial phases of construction in the 1890 s.

structure date built quick notes 1 Smokestack 1920 s Structure is somewhat deteriorated

Tagged Passions:construction

2
Stone wall 1920 s Only a fragment of the wall remains

3
Furniture Storage c.1922 Building is very deteriorated

4
Cottage A c.1922; moved in 1931 Building has some alterations

No additional detail provided

5
Nurse Dormitory 1930 Building has minimal alteration

6
Garage c.1931 Building is very deteriorated

7
Cottage B Between 1931 and 1962 Building has some alterations

No additional detail provided

8
Cottage C Between 1931 and 1962 Building has substantial alterations

9
Cottage D c.1940 Building has minor alterations

10
Powerhouse 1957 Building has major alterations

No additional detail provided

11
Main Building 1957-1984 Building has had over 10 additions since 1957

No additional detail provided

1
2

3
4

5
6

78

9
10

11
Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link

Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 470 of 1314

Tagged Passions:historic and preservation

20.
Looking south at the smokestack. 21. The current smokestack is made of re- enforced concrete and lined with brick

Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 13

Tagged Passions:historical

III.
STRUcTURES

No additional detail provided

1.
smokestack The current concrete stack is actually the fourth iteration of the powerhouse smokestack. Originally, the iron smokestack was located adjacent to the powerhouse building but was moved almost immediately in 1896 after the builders found that the original stack did not provide adequate ventilation. It was then moved roughly 60 feet away higher up the hill and was built of iron. By 1922 the second smokestack was demolished and the third iron stack was built back down the hill, adjacent to the powerhouse. Based on the 1931 Sanborn insurance map it appears that this third smokestack was actually demolished sometime in the mid 1920 s. The fourth and final iteration of the smokestack was built just south of where the third stack sat. Unlike the previous versions, this smokestack was built of re-enforced concrete and lined with brick.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:college prep and insurance

historical significance U.S. Department of Interior Criteria for Evaluation Association with an event? Yes, it is associated with the early health,

Tagged Passions:health, historical, and events

natural foods and wellness movement in the area.

Association with a person? No, built after Kellogg s period of influence

Embodies distinctive design/ construction of the period?

No, the current concrete smokestack does not resemble the original iron stack Informational potential? No
Tagged Passions:construction

City of Boulder Criteria for Evaluation Historic significance? Yes, the smokestack was built in mid

1920 s during the Sanitarium period Architectural significance? No, the current concrete smokestack does not resemble the original iron stack Environmental significance? No, surroundings and area have changed greatly integrity U.S. Department of the Interior Criteria for Evaluation Location? No, although the current smokestack has existed in its current location since the mid 1920 s, this is the fourth different location of the smokestack since 1895
Tagged Passions:historic and environment

Design? Yes, structure does retain basic design features Setting? No, much of the site around has changed Materials? Yes, structure appears to be made of original 1920 s

concrete with some repairs Workmanship? Yes, structure is intact with minor modifications Feeling? No, structure does not convey a historical feeling Association? No, much of the relationship with the greater site has been lost Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 471 of 1314 22. A portion of the stone wall appears to be original to the 1920 s construction. The left picture dates to c.1929. Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 14

Tagged Passions:materials, historical, historic, construction, and preservation

III.
STRUcTURES

No additional detail provided

2.
stone wall A fragment of a stone wall runs along the southern end of the site, fronting Mapleton Avenue. It appears to reflect periods of construction in the late 1920 s when the Sanitarium shifted its main entry to allow for easier automobile access. Some portions of the current wall appear to be original to the 1920 s construction, but the western-most extension of the wall appears to be more recent and is distinguishable by a change in the rock form, mortar pattern and wall height.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:transportation and construction

historical significance U.S. Department of Interior Criteria for Evaluation Association with an event? Yes, it is associated with the early health,

Tagged Passions:health, historical, and events

natural foods and wellness movement in the area

Association with a person? No, built after Kellogg s period of influence

Embodies distinctive design/ construction of the period?

No, stone work is distinctive but does not exemplify any particular style Informational potential? No
Tagged Passions:construction

City of Boulder Criteria for Evaluation Historic significance? Yes, the wall was built during the

Tagged Passions:historic

Sanitarium period Architectural significance? No, the wall is only a fragment of its

No additional detail provided

original extent Environmental significance? No, the wall is only a fragment of

its original extent and has lost its association with the rest of the site integrity U.S. Department of the Interior Criteria for Evaluation Location? Yes, structure is in original location Design? No. As a fragment of the original design, character is not retained Setting? No, much of the site around has changed Materials? Yes, structure retains most original materials Workmanship? Yes, structure is original with minor changes Feeling? No, structure is only a fragment of the original wall Association? No, structure is only a fragment of the original wall and

Tagged Passions:materials and environment

has lost the relationship with the greater site

Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 472 of 1314
Tagged Passions:historic and preservation

23.
The furniture storage building has been substantially changed since its original construction.

Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 15
Tagged Passions:historical and construction

III.
STRUcTURES

3. furniture storage building The small storage building to the northwest of the powerhouse was constructed c.1922 for the purpose of storing unused furniture. The building has substantially deteriorated and is currently used for storage and as a workshop.

historical significance U.S. Department of Interior Criteria for Evaluation Association with an event? No, it is not particularly relevant to the

Tagged Passions:historical and events

overall Sanitarium history Association with a person? No, built after Kellogg s period of

influence and not particularly relevant to the overall Sanitarium history
Tagged Passions:history

Embodies distinctive design/ construction of the period?

No Informational potential? No
Tagged Passions:construction

City of Boulder Criteria for Evaluation Historic significance? No, although date of construction is

c.1922, the building is not particularly associated with events on the site Architectural significance? No, does not exemplify any particular architectural style and does not have artistic merit Environmental significance? No, surroundings and area have changed greatly integrity U.S. Department of the Interior Criteria for Evaluation Location? Yes, building is in original location Design? No, building does not retain basic design features Setting? No, much of the site around has changed Materials? No, building retains almost no original materials Workmanship? No, building structure has had additions and modifications Feeling? No, building does not convey a historical feeling Association? No, much of the relationship with the greater site has been lost Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 473 of 1314
Tagged Passions:materials, historical, historic, environment, construction, preservation, and events

24.
The two ends of cottage A were most likely built separately around 1922 and moved to their current location and connected around 1931. However, they clearly resemble the cottages built on the Sanitarium site in 1906.

Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 16
Tagged Passions:historical

III.
STRUcTURES

4. cottage a The cottage building that sits in between the nurse dormitory and the powerhouse was most likely constructed as two separate buildings, but connected and moved to its present site around 1931. The two cottages that make up the ends of the buildings were likely built around 1922. They do, however, bear a striking resemblance to the cottages built around 1906. The roofing, windows and doors appear to have been replaced fairly recently. However, the siding and window details appear to be original.

historical significance U.S. Department of Interior Criteria for Evaluation Association with an event? Yes, it is associated with the early health,

Tagged Passions:health, historical, and events

natural foods and wellness movement in the area

Association with a person? No, these cottages were built after Kellogg s period of influence

Embodies distinctive design/ construction of the period?

Tagged Passions:construction

Yes, although the building does not exemplify any particular architectural style, it is consistent with early Sanitarium cottages

Informational potential? No

City of Boulder Criteria for Evaluation Historic significance? Yes, the two original cottages are the

same design as those built in 1906 Architectural significance? Yes, the two original cottages have a
Tagged Passions:historic

unique architectural style that was found in early Sanitarium cottages

Environmental significance? No, surroundings and area have changed greatly integrity U.S. Department of the Interior Criteria for Evaluation Location? No, buildings are not in original location Design? Yes, building retains basic design features Setting? No, much of the site around has changed Materials? Yes, building retains some original materials Workmanship? Yes, although building has been added to Feeling? Yes, building conveys a historical feeling Association? No, much of the relationship with the greater site has been lost Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 474 of 1314

Tagged Passions:materials, historical, historic, environment, and preservation

25.
The nurse dormitory retains its original brick and architectural features. The only major change is the addition of the elevator shaft which can be seen as the slightly redder brick tower feature.

Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 17
Tagged Passions:Cell tower, historical, and cell tower

III.
STRUcTURES

No additional detail provided

5.
nurse dormitory The nurse dormitory was built in 1930 to house nurses who had previously been living in other buildings on-site or off-site in the surrounding neighborhoods. The three-story brick building stands intact today and is by far the best preserved building on the site. The only major change to the building is the addition of an elevator shaft on the front of the building. The building retains most of its original construction materials except for doors and the addition of storm windows.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:materials, neighborhood, and construction

historical significance U.S. Department of Interior Criteria for Evaluation Association with an event? Yes, it is associated with the early health,

Tagged Passions:health, historical, and events

natural foods and wellness movement in the area

Association with a person? No, built after Kellogg s period of influence Embodies distinctive design/ construction of the period? No Informational potential? No

Tagged Passions:construction

City of Boulder Criteria for Evaluation Historic significance? Yes, associated with historic events,

has distinction in the development of the community of Boulder Architectural significance? No, does not exemplify any particular architectural style Environmental significance? No, immediate site is relatively intact but greater site has changed greatly integrity U.S. Department of the Interior Criteria for Evaluation Location? Yes, building is in original location Design? Yes, building retains basic design features Setting? No, immediate site is relatively intact but greater site
Tagged Passions:development, historic, environment, events, and Development

has changed greatly Materials? Yes, building retains most original materials Workmanship? Yes, building structure is original Feeling? Yes, building conveys a historical feeling Association? No, much of the relationship with the greater site has

been lost Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 475 of 1314

Tagged Passions:materials, historical, historic, and preservation

26.
The garages have deteriorated greatly and have not retained their original building materials.

Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 18
Tagged Passions:materials and historical

III.
STRUcTURES

No additional detail provided

6.
garage The garage building to the northwest of the furniture storage building was constructed c.1931. The building still has the 8 separate garage bays it was built with, but the building has deteriorated substantially.

No additional detail provided

historical significance U.S. Department of Interior Criteria for Evaluation Association with an event? No, it is not particularly relevant to the

Tagged Passions:historical and events

overall Sanitarium history Association with a person? No, built after Kellogg s period of

influence and not particularly relevant to the overall Sanitarium history
Tagged Passions:history

Embodies distinctive design/ construction of the period?

No Informational potential? No
Tagged Passions:construction

City of Boulder Criteria for Evaluation Historic significance? No, although date of construction is

c.1931, the building is not particularly associated with events on the site Architectural significance? No, does not exemplify any particular architectural style and does not have artistic merit Environmental significance? No, surroundings and area have changed greatly integrity U.S. Department of the Interior Criteria for Evaluation Location? Yes, building is in original location Design? Yes, building retains basic design features Setting? No, much of the site around has changed Materials? No, building has lost most original materials Workmanship? No, building structure has changed Feeling? No, building does not convey a historical feeling Association? No, much of the relationship with the greater site has been lost Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 476 of 1314
Tagged Passions:materials, historical, historic, environment, construction, preservation, and events

27.
Cottage B resembles a 1950 s single-family home built in the post-WWII modern architectural style.

Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 19

Tagged Passions:historical

III.
STRUcTURES

No additional detail provided

7.
cottage b Cottage B is located directly southeast of Cottage A. The building was constructed in the 1950 s. The brick work and architectural style are reminiscent of post-WWII modern architecture for single family homes. The front porch has been altered more recently to accommodate wheelchair access.

No additional detail provided

historical significance U.S. Department of Interior Criteria for Evaluation Association with an event? No, built after the Sanitarium time period Association with a person? No, built after Kellogg s influence Embodies distinctive design/ construction of the period?

No, brick work and architectural details are somewhat characteristic of the 1950 s but do not exemplify any particular design style Informational potential? No
Tagged Passions:historical, construction, and events

City of Boulder Criteria for Evaluation Historic significance? No, the building is not associated with

the Sanitarium period Architectural significance? No, does not exemplify any particular
Tagged Passions:historic

architectural style and does not have artistic merit

Environmental significance? No, surroundings and area have changed greatly integrity U.S. Department of the Interior Criteria for Evaluation Location? Yes, building is in original location Design? Yes, building retains basic design features Setting? No, much of the site around has changed Materials? Yes, building retains most original materials Workmanship? Yes, building structure is original with minor changes Feeling? No, building does not convey a historical feeling Association? No, much of the relationship with the greater site has been lost Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 477 of 1314

Tagged Passions:materials, historical, historic, environment, and preservation

28.
Cottage C appears to have newer windows and roofing materials.

Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 20

Tagged Passions:materials and historical

III.
STRUcTURES

No additional detail provided

8.
cottage c Cottage C is located just to the west of Cottage B, and was also constructed between 1931 and 1962. The building somewhat resembles a simple and boxy post-WWII style and was most likely built in the 1940 s. The windows and roofing appear to have been replaced more recently.

No additional detail provided

historical significance U.S. Department of Interior Criteria for Evaluation Association with an event? No, built after the Sanitarium time period Association with a person? No, built after Kellogg s influence Embodies distinctive design/ construction of the period?

Tagged Passions:historical, construction, and events

Yes, architectural details are characteristic of post WWII modern style

Informational potential? No

City of Boulder Criteria for Evaluation Historic significance? No, the building is not particularly

Tagged Passions:historic

associated with the Sanitarium Architectural significance? No, the building does not strongly

exemplify any architectural style Environmental significance? No, surroundings and area have changed greatly integrity U.S. Department of the Interior Criteria for Evaluation Location? Yes, building is in original location Design? Yes, building retains basic design features Setting? No, much of the site around has changed Materials? No, windows are replaced Workmanship? Yes, building is mostly intact Feeling? No, building does not convey a historical feeling Association? No, much of the relationship with the greater site has been lost Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 478 of 1314
Tagged Passions:materials, historical, historic, environment, and preservation

29.
Cottage D has a unique flagstone construction with interesting variations in parapet height.

Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 21

Tagged Passions:historical and construction

III.
STRUcTURES

No additional detail provided

9.
cottage d Directly northwest of the main building, Cottage D is a small flagstone building constructed in 1940. The roof line features an interesting variation in parapet heights. The windows appear to be original, although the awnings and porch are newer.

No additional detail provided

historical significance U.S. Department of Interior Criteria for Evaluation Association with an event? No, built after the original Sanitarium and

Colorado Food Company time period Association with a person? No, built after Kellogg s period of
Tagged Passions:historical and events

influence Embodies distinctive design/ construction of the period?

Yes, stone work and architectural details are distinctive Informational potential? No
Tagged Passions:construction

City of Boulder Criteria for Evaluation Historic significance? No, the building is not particularly

Tagged Passions:historic

associated with events on the site Architectural significance? Yes, the building has a unique flagstone

construction and has interesting variations in parapet height. Environmental significance? No, surroundings and area have changed greatly integrity U.S. Department of the Interior Criteria for Evaluation Location? Yes, building is in original location Design? Yes, building retains basic design features Setting? No, much of the site around has changed Materials? Yes, building retains most original materials Workmanship? Yes, building structure is original with minor changes Feeling? No, building does not impress a historical feeling Association? No, much of the relationship with the greater site has been lost Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 479 of 1314
Tagged Passions:materials, historical, historic, environment, construction, preservation, and events

30.
The current powerhouse building is completely different than the original structure. The walls openings, roof and materials are all different.

Tagged Passions:materials

31.
A part of an older stone foundation is still is exposed on the northeast corner of the building.

Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 22
Tagged Passions:historical

III.
STRUcTURES

No additional detail provided

10.
Powerhouse Although some of the foundation of the powerhouse building may be original from the initial construction in 1896, the current powerhouse only dates back to 1957. various additions and demolitions have taken place and the current structure bears little resemblance to the 1896 powerhouse. The old stone foundation is only visible on the northeast corner of the building.

Tagged Passions:demolition and construction

historical significance U.S. Department of Interior Criteria for Evaluation Association with an event? No, built after the original Sanitarium and

Colorado Food Company time period Association with a person? No, current iteration of powerhouse was built after Kellogg s period of influence Embodies distinctive design/ construction of the period? No, the building does not exemplify any particular architectural style or building period Informational potential? No
Tagged Passions:historical, construction, and events

City of Boulder Criteria for Evaluation Historic significance? No, the current iteration of the

powerhouse is very different from the early sanitarium iterations, and no longer has any of the food company facilities Architectural significance? No, the building does not strongly exemplify any architectural style Environmental significance? No, surroundings and area have changed greatly integrity U.S. Department of the Interior Criteria for Evaluation Location? Yes, building is roughly in the original location Design? No, building does not retain basic design features Setting? No, much of the site around has changed Materials? No, building retains only some original materials Workmanship? No, building structure has been changed and added to Feeling? No, building does not impress a historical feeling Association? No, much of the relationship with the greater site has been lost Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 480 of 1314
Tagged Passions:materials, historical, historic, environment, and preservation

32.
The main building exemplifies the constant change that has taken place on the Sanitarium site. The current building has had more than 10 additions just since 1957. None of the original Victorian-style Sanitarium building remains.

Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 23
Tagged Passions:historical

III.
STRUcTURES

No additional detail provided

11.
main building The main building has undergone massive changes and numerous additions since its original form in 1896. Nothing remains of that original Victorian Style building. The current structure dates primarily from 1957- 1984, although there have been a few minor additions since. The building had to change continuously to evolve with the changes in the medical services the facility provided.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:services and facility

historical significance U.S. Department of Interior Criteria for Evaluation Association with an event? No, retains no association with the original

sanitarium Association with a person? No, built after Kellogg s period of influence Embodies distinctive design/ construction of the period? No, current building is a patchwork of different architectural styles Informational potential? No
Tagged Passions:historical, construction, and events

City of Boulder Criteria for Evaluation Historic significance? No, the current hospital building bears no

Tagged Passions:hospital, historic, and healthcare

resemblance to the original sanitarium Architectural significance? No, the building does not strongly

exemplify any architectural style Environmental significance? No, surroundings and area have changed greatly integrity U.S. Department of the Interior Criteria for Evaluation Location? No, building is not in original location Design? No, building is a patchwork of different architectural styles and currently the oldest section of the building only dates back to 1957 Setting? No, much of the site around has changed Materials? No, building retains only some original materials Workmanship? No, structure has been added to Feeling? No, building does not impress a historical feeling Association? No, much of the relationship with the greater site has been lost Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 481 of 1314
Tagged Passions:materials, historical, historic, environment, and preservation

33.
The current hospital is a patchwork of different construction 34. Since 1957, the main building has had over 10 major additions

Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 24
Tagged Passions:historical, hospital, healthcare, and construction

III.
STRUcTURES

11. main building contd. The additions and changes to the main Sanitarium/Hospital building are a perfect reflection of the changes in the health care services provided by the facility over the years. The original building had an expansive wrap-around porch/balcony and early additions gave the building a gymnasium and worship space. By the 1920 s, the Sanitarium was beginning its transition to a more traditional hospital with the southern wing addition that created space for an operating room and surgical patient beds. By 1957, the transition to Boulder Memorial Hospital was essentially complete with the demolition of the rest of the original Sanitarium building. Through the 1980 s the changes and additions have been nearly constant. Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 482 of 1314 Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 25

Tagged Passions:health, demolition, services, historical, hospital, historic, healthcare, facility, and preservation

III.
STRUcTURES 1900 1918 1922 1957

1984 2015 11. main building contd. The following graphics show the evolution of the main building. The graphics are based on historical Sanborn insurance maps and building plans. Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 483 of 1314 Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 26 III. STRUcTURES general conclusions The Sanitarium site has existed as a health care facility for more than a century. However, the remaining buildings on the site do not hold a strong association with each other or with the historical Sanitarium period. More than anything, the Sanitarium s history is characterized by constant change and evolution that was necessary to accommodate changing health services. Because of this history, the current Sanitarium site is a patchwork of different building styles and materials from many different decades of construction. Additionally, many of the structures that once gave the Sanitarium site an orderly development pattern along its north-south axis have been lost. While some individual resources might have enough historical significance and integrity to warrant being retained, they all lack integrity of setting. Thus, the current site and buildings have very little relation to the general place characteristics of the historic site. Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 484 of 1314 Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 27

Tagged Passions:materials, health, public safety, services, development, historical, insurance, history, historic, facility, construction, preservation, and Development

Iv.
REcOMMENDATIONS

No additional detail provided

considerations of historic significance at the sanitarium In considering the potential for landmarking of individual features at the Sanitarium site, it is important to apply best practices in evaluating them for significance. This includes applying the criteria for significance, AND considerations of the seven aspects of integrity, as defined by the National Park Service. The concept is that, while many properties may have historical or environmental associations, they will not always retain sufficient integrity to convey that significance. This is a fundamental principle, which is important to uphold in a local preservation program, to assure that the program is perceived to operate at an objective and professional level and that it draws a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest - 9-11-1. - Purpose and Legislative Intent, Historic Preservation, Boulder Municipal Code

It is with this consideration in mind that these recommendations are put forward. general recommendations We do not recommend establishing a historic district or nominating resources as historic landmarks. However, some resources could be retained on the site as feasible, and could be candidates for adaptive reuse. An interpretive program would be the most effective way to convey the history of the site. A combination of fixed signage and mobile technology could be used to allow the public access to historic photos, oral histories and other information. The interpretive plan could also utilize a healthy heritage walk component that would incorporate the nearby network of hiking trails. Because the trails were always part of the healthy lifestyle promoted by the Sanitarium doctors, users could exercise while also learning about the site s history. Markers could be placed on these trails to help people visualize how the site evolved. In summary, an interpretive program would allow the site flexibility to continue evolving to suit its planned new uses, while celebrating the heritage of the Sanitarium period. Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 485 of 1314 Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 28
Tagged Passions:signage, parks, property, Technology, advertising, trails, historical, technology, history, historic, program, environment, and preservation

Iv.
REcOMMENDATIONS sPecific recommendations for treatment of existing site resources

No additional detail provided

Resource Is it Significant? Recommended Treatment for the Resource

1
Smokestack No Consider removal. Although visually prominent, it has lost all surrounding context and the structure may be a long-term maintenance liability with no re-use potential.

2
Stone wall No Although it is only a fragment of the original stone wall, and does not retain integrity as a historic resource, consider incorporating it into a new landscape design.

Tagged Passions:buildings and grounds and historic

3
Furniture Storage Building

No Lacks integrity. Document building and remove.

4
Cottage A Yes Retains integrity. Consider for adaptive re-use. Relocation is an option because the structure has been moved before.

No additional detail provided

5
Nurse Dormitory

Yes Retains integrity. Consider for adaptive re-use in place

Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 486 of 1314 Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 29
Tagged Passions:historical, historic, and preservation

Iv.
REcOMMENDATIONS 6 Garages No Lacks integrity. Document building and remove.

No additional detail provided

7
Cottage B No Lacks significance. Document building and remove.

No additional detail provided

8
Cottage C No Lacks significance. Document building and remove.

9
Cottage D Yes Consider for adaptive re-use in place

10
Powerhouse No Lacks significance. Document building and remove.

Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 487 of 1314 Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 30

Tagged Passions:historical, historic, and preservation

Iv.
REcOMMENDATIONS 11 Main

Building No Lacks significance. Document building and remove. Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 488 of 1314 Prepared by Winter Company, July 2015 BOULDER SANITARIUM - Historical Assessment 31

Tagged Passions:historical, historic, and preservation

V.
REFERENCES historical information Austin, Earl. (1945). Early Days of the Boulder-Colorado Sanitarium. Accessed from the Boulder Public Library Carnegie Branch for Local History.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:historical, history, and library

Boulder-Colorado Sanitarium. (1939). Brief History of Boulder Colorado Sanitarium. Heritage West, Item 90956, http://heritagewest.coalliance.org/items/show/90956 (accessed June 26, 2015).

Tagged Passions:history

Boulder community Health. Boulder Community Hospital History. https://www.bch. org/about-bch/bch-history.aspx (accessed July 6th, 2015).

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:health, hospital, history, and healthcare

Clemons, J. H. (1958). History of the Boulder Colorado Sanitarium. A.A. Paddock collection of the Boulder Historical Society.

Pettem, Silvia. (2010). Boulder-Colorado Sanitarium at Mount Sanitas drew health- seekers. Daily Camera, http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_14165816 (accessed June, 2015). Sackett, John. (2005). John Sackett s Oral History in the Maria Rogers Oral History Program. Boulder Public Library. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. (1906, 1910, 1918, 1922, 1931, 1962) Sanborn Map Company. Accessed from the Boulder Public Library Carnegie Branch for Local History.

Tagged Passions:health, historical, insurance, history, program, and library

Schwartz, R. W. (1970). John Harvey Kellogg, M.D. Southern Publishing Association, Nashville, TN.

No additional detail provided

Shurtleff, William and Aoyagi, Akiko. (2014). History of Seventh-day Adventist work with Soyfoods, Vegetarianism, Meat Alternatives, Wheat Gluten, Dietary Fiber, and Peanut Butter 1863-2013. Soyinfo Center, presented at the General Conference of Seventh Day Adventists.

United States Patent Office. (1913). Annual Report of the Commissioner of Patents, US Patent Office. historical PhotograPhs All historical photos are from the Boulder Public Library Carnegie Branch for Local History, except for the photo with caption number 13: Boulder Memorial Hospital Opens New Section. (April 8, 1969). Central Union Reaper, Lincoln, Nebraska. vol.38, no.14. Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 489 of 1314 The Boulder-Colorado Sanitarium was founded in 1893 after John Fulton urged Dr. J. H. Kel-logg, superintendent of the Battle Creek Sani- tarium in Michigan, to open a location out west.

Tagged Passions:telecommunications, superintendent, Telecommunications, union, historical, hospital, history, historic, healthcare, library, and preservation

In 1895, construction began on the Sanitarium site. A grand, five story brick building with multi-story wrap-around porches had 60 patient beds. Two cottages were built north of the main building, and had 14 rooms each. The same year, the powerhouse, bakery, laundry building and barn was built. The brick came from the Austin s Brick Company, which was located near Casey Jr. High.

John Fulton was the first superintendent of the Sanitarium. Dr. Katherine Lindsay was a consulting doctor. A Nurse s School operated at the Sanitarium from 1896 until 1945. The Sanitarium promoted health and well-being, and stressed health education, natural remedies, hydro- therapy, massage, rest, exercise, diet, electric treat- ment and spiritual guidance for mental health. The Sanitarium initially welcomed all patients, but did not accept tuberculor patients due to fears of contagious diseases.
Tagged Passions:health, superintendent, education, services, mental health, diet, electric, and construction

Meals were strictly regulated and served in Dining Hall, which was located on the 4th floor of the main building. The room, which could accommodate 100 people, was ornately finished, with oil paintings decorating the ceiling and walls and had expansive views of the Flatirons. Much of the food was ground and made on site. Dr. Kellogg, of the Kellogg brand, promoted whole grains and a variety of cereals.

1900s: Between 1900 and 1904, seven frame cottages were building in a row. The cottages housed nurses and later maternity patients. Additions to six of the seven cottages were constructed between 1910 and 1918. In 1919, a three story wing was added to the south- west corner of the main building. Three additional cottages, each with a side porch, were constructed west of the row of small cottages.

Tagged Passions:arts and Fossil Fuels - Oil

In 1930, the Nurses Home was constructed on the northwest portion of the site. The three-story, brick building provided year-round housing for staff, who had previously lived off-grounds during the winter months. The building was later used as a Senior Center.

The bakery continued to produce food through the 1960s, and the building next to the smokestack also housed a grocery. The landscaped gardens allowed patients to spend hours outdoors, as prescribed by their physician. In the 1940s, two additional dwellings were construct- ed: a stone duplex and a Minimal Traditional frame cottage. In 1945, the Nurses School closed, and was absorbed by Union College in Nebraska and Porter Hospital in Denver. In the 1950s, the Sanitarium expanded and became the Boulder Memorial Hospital. At that time, the main building, powerplant/bakery, and the majority of the cottages were razed. The new building boasted the most modern medical facilities, Surge-o-Matic operating tables, push button self-service, and pillow speakers that could pipe in services from the near-by church. The brochure also notes the construction of a tunnel between the main building and powerhouse, 16 ft un- derground and several hundred feet long that can also be used as a shelter in case of civil defense emergency.
Tagged Passions:church, university, buildings and grounds, education, services, grocery, union, hospital, healthcare, construction, emergency, and housing

In 1989, the facility became the Mapleton Center of the Boulder Community Hospital.

Tagged Passions:hospital, healthcare, and facility

City of Boulder, Historic Preservation Program, 2014. Information compiled from the Cornerstone Dedication Ceremony speech by Mrs. J.H. Clemons given March 4, 1958; Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps; photographs; Newsletters from the Carnegie Library for Local History.

Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 490 of 1314
Tagged Passions:insurance, history, historic, program, library, and preservation

Boulder Community Hospital - Mapleton Center Former Boulder-Colorado Sanitarium Site

Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, c.1959 Frame Dwelling, 1940s Brick Dwelling, 1950s Stone Duplex, 1940 Frame Duplex, 1900s Storage, 1920s Storage, 1920s

Tagged Passions:hospital, insurance, and healthcare

1
5 2

6
3

7
4

No additional detail provided

8
1 5

6
7

8
2

3
4

Attachment D - Historic Assessment by Applicant and City Staff Historic Preservation Brochue Link Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 491 of 1314 Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Program Mapleton Hills Development Boulder, Colorado Prepared for:
Tagged Passions:development, historic, program, preservation, and Development

Rubicon Development 1035 Pearl Street, 205

Boulder, Colorado 80302
Tagged Passions:streets, development, and Development

Attention: Mr. Michael Bosma

Job Number: 16-0011 September 21, 2016 Attachment E - Geotechnical Report Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 492 of 1314

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Purpose and Scope of Study ...................................................................................... 1 Proposed Construction ................................................................................................ 1 Site Conditions ............................................................................................................ 3 Geologic Setting .............................................................................................................. 3 Subsurface Exploration ............................................................................................... 5 Laboratory Testing ...................................................................................................... 5 Subsurface Conditions ................................................................................................ 6 Seismic Classification ................................................................................................. 8 Radon ........................................................................................................................... 9 Geotechnical Considerations for Design ...................................................................... 9 Drilled Pier Foundations ............................................................................................... 14 Shallow Foundations .................................................................................................... 19 Structural Floors .......................................................................................................... 22 Slab-on-Grade Floors .................................................................................................. 23 Foundation Walls ......................................................................................................... 26 Mechanical Rooms/Mechanical Pads ........................................................................... 27 Retaining Walls ............................................................................................................ 27 Lateral Earth Pressures .............................................................................................. 29 Water Soluble Sulfates .................................................................................................. 32 Soil Corrosivity .............................................................................................................. 32 Project Earthwork ........................................................................................................ 35 Excavation Considerations ........................................................................................ 42 Utility Lateral Installation ............................................................................................ 44 Surface Drainage ...................................................................................................... 47 Subsurface Drainage ................................................................................................. 51 Pavement Sections ....................................................................................................... 54 Exterior Flatwork ........................................................................................................... 60 Closure ....................................................................................................................... 63 Locations of Test Holes ..................................................................................... Figure 1 Logs of Test Holes ................................................................................... Figures 2 7 Legend and Notes .................................................................................... Figures 8 9 Locations of Geologic Sections ........................................................................ Figure 10 Geologic Sections ................................................................................... Figures 11 14 Axial and Lateral Capacity Reductions .................................................. Figures 15 16 Typical Underdrain Details ..................................................................... Figures 17 19 Summary of Laboratory Test Results ................................................................ Table 1 Summary of Soil Corrosion Test Results .............................................................. Table 2

Attachment E - Geotechnical Report Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 493 of 1314
Tagged Passions:Utility, utility, beach, ports, water, stormwater, and construction

Mapleton Hills Development Boulder, Colorado

Job No. 16-0011 GROUND Engineering Consultants, Inc. Page 1
Tagged Passions:services, development, and Development

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY

This report presents the results of a subsurface exploration program performed by GROUND Engineering Consultants, Inc. (GROUND) for the proposed construction of the Mapleton Hills development located near the intersection of Mapleton Avenue and 4th Street in Boulder, Colorado. This study was conducted in general accordance with GROUND s proposal number 1603-0353, dated March 7, 2016 Field and office studies provided information regarding surface and subsurface conditions, including existing site vicinity improvements and groundwater. Material samples retrieved during the subsurface exploration were tested in our laboratory to assess the engineering characteristics of the site earth materials. Results of the field, office, and laboratory studies for the proposed development are presented below. This report has been prepared to summarize the data obtained and to present our conclusions and opinions based on the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions encountered. Design parameters and a discussion of engineering considerations related to construction of the proposed development are included herein.

Tagged Passions:materials, streets, services, development, program, construction, and Development

It should be noted that environmental consulting was not part of GROUND s scope of services for this project. Rubicon Development should retain an environmental consultant as appropriate to provide services such as identification of hazardous materials that may be present, preparation of a materials management plan, etc.

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION We understand that proposed construction will consist of an assisted living development consisting of ten structures. Several of the structures are planned to have below-grade levels for parking. Development of the site will include significant grading including large cuts into the hillside slopes on the west of the site. Structure loads for the proposed buildings were unavailable at the time of this report preparation but are assumed to be moderate. Additionally, paved surface parking areas, internal private drives, and underground utilities are also planned. Two separate retaining walls are also planned to be constructed at the west of Building B and northeast of the Wellness Center complex. Attachment E - Geotechnical Report Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 494 of 1314

Tagged Passions:Utility, materials, utility, services, development, grading, hazardous materials, environment, construction, Development, and parking

Mapleton Hills Development Boulder, Colorado

Job No. 16-0011 GROUND Engineering Consultants, Inc. Page 2
Tagged Passions:services, development, and Development

According to the provided Site Review Submittal, dated August 1, 2016, the following table provides the approximate existing and final grades for the proposed buildings with their approximate cut/fill depths. Please refer to Figure 1 for the Client-assigned building number and location of each building. These cut/fill depths should be re-evaluated once final grading plans are developed.

Building Approximate Lowest Level Floor
Tagged Passions:grading

Elevation (feet)

Approximate

Maximum Cut/Fill * (feet)

A and A East(shared garage) 5500 -5 to -35 A West 5512 -8 B 5514 -4 to -41 C 5512 +2 to -23 C Basement 5500 -10 to -20 D 5500 +5 to -10

E
Basement (east half) 5500 -0 to -12 E (west half) 5512 -0 to -15

F 5500 -2 to -10 G(existing power building) 5500 +3 to -3 H and J(shared garage) 5492 -4 to -11 I 5489 -3 to -9 K 5510 +1 M 5540 -1 to -13 Cottage 1 5494.5 +2 Cottage 2 5493.5 +2 Cottage 3 5492.0 +0 Cottage 4 5491.0 +1 Cottage 5 5489.0 +4 Cottage 6 5488 -2 Cottage 7 5487 +2 Cottage 8 5503 +7 Cottage 9 5555 +2

If proposed construction, including the anticipated site grading, differs from that described above, or changes subsequently, GROUND should be notified to re-evaluate the information in this report. Specific tenant requirements for corporate facilities were not provided for our review. Any requirements should be provided which may result in modifications to the parameters provided herein.

Attachment E - Geotechnical Report Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 495 of 1314

Tagged Passions:rental, grading, and construction

Mapleton Hills Development Boulder, Colorado

Job No. 16-0011 GROUND Engineering Consultants, Inc. Page 3 SITE CONDITIONS At the time of our subsurface exploration, the project area supported several structures including a former hospital, a power/boiler building which served the hospital. Three structures on the order of 1,000 square feet in footprint area were located to the immediate west of the power building. Two garage buildings were noted to the northwest of the power building. A large portion of the site was in use as paved parking and drive lanes. There was a utility tunnel starting at the south west portion of the power building and traveling southwest to the hospital. Additionally, underground utilities were located throughout the site. Topographically, the project site falls steeply from the west to the east at varying slopes ranging from in excess of 40 percent near the west portion of the site to less than 5 percent on the east portion of the site. The project site is bordered by 4th Street to the east, a residential development to the northeast, Mapleton Avenue to the south and open space to the west and northwest. GEOLOGIC SETTING Published geologic maps, e.g., Colton (1976)1 depict the site as underlain largely by deposits of Pleistocene to Holocene Colluvium (Qc), Verdos Alluvium (Qv) and Louviers Alluvium (Qlo). A portion of that map showing the site and its vicinity is provided below. The surficial units are depicted as underlain by a series of lower to upper Cretaceous formations including the Dakota Sandstones (Kd) the Carlisle Shale, Greenhorn Limestone and Graneros Shale (Kcg) and the Pierre Shale (lower and middle members, Kpl and Kpm). Alluvial (stream-laid) deposits in the area such as the Louviers and Verdos Alluviums consist of sands, gravels, cobbles and boulders. The local colluvium ( slope wash deposits) typically range from sands to clays, depending on the source rock.
Tagged Passions:Utility, utility, streets, services, development, travel, hospital, healthcare, Development, and parking

1
Colton, R.B., 1976, Geologic Map of Boulder-Fort Collins-Greeley Area, Colorado, U.S. Geological Survey,

Miscellaneous Investigations Series I-855-G. Attachment E - Geotechnical Report Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 496 of 1314

Mapleton Hills Development Boulder, Colorado

Job No. 16-0011 GROUND Engineering Consultants, Inc. Page 4 The Dakota Sandstone is a hard, relatively resistant unit that supports the ridge on the western margin of the site. The other formations are primarily shale with subordinate limestones and sandstones that generally are less resistant to erosion, but still over- consolidated and dense. The shales commonly are moderately to highly expansive. Locally the sandstone beds also can be resistant to excavation. The bedding (layering) of the bedrock formations dips (tilts) to the east-northeast at the site and in the surrounding area. In the western quarter of the site the beds dip steeply with dip angles approaching vertical. Eastward across the site, the beds dip progressively less steeply. Attachment E - Geotechnical Report Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 497 of 1314
Tagged Passions:services, development, and Development

Mapleton Hills Development Boulder, Colorado

Job No. 16-0011 GROUND Engineering Consultants, Inc. Page 5 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION The subsurface exploration for the project was conducted in April, 2016. A total of twenty-eight (28) test holes were drilled with a truck/track-mounted, continuous flight power auger rig to evaluate the subsurface conditions as well as to retrieve soil and bedrock samples for laboratory testing and analysis. Of these, eighteen (18) test holes were drilled within the proposed building footprint limits, eight (8) test holes were drilled within/near the preliminary proposed retaining wall locations, and the remaining two (2) test holes were drilled within the proposed pavement areas. Four proposed test holes (B-1, B-2, B-8 and B-9) were not drilled because an area in the eastern portion of the project site was removed from our scope. The foundation/wall test holes were drilled to depths ranging from approximately 15 to 40 feet below existing grade and the pavement test holes were drilled to depths ranging from approximately 9 to 10 feet below existing grades. A GROUND engineer directed the subsurface exploration, logged the test holes in the field, and prepared the soil and bedrock samples for transport to our laboratory.
Tagged Passions:transportation, services, development, and Development

Samples of the subsurface materials were retrieved with a 2-inch I.D. California liner sampler. The sampler was driven into the substrata with blows from a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. This procedure is similar to the Standard Penetration Test described by ASTM Method D1586. Penetration resistance values, when properly evaluated, indicate the relative density or consistency of soils. Depths at which the samples were obtained and associated penetration resistance values are shown on the test hole logs.

The approximate locations of the test holes are shown in Figure 1. Logs of the exploratory test holes are presented in Figures 2 through 7. Explanatory notes and a legend are provided in Figures 8 and 9. The test hole locations were professionally surveyed by others for location and ground surface elevation at the time of drilling. LABORATORY TESTING Samples retrieved from our test holes were examined and visually classified in the laboratory by the project engineer. Laboratory testing of soil and bedrock samples obtained from the subject site included standard property tests, such as natural moisture contents, dry unit weights, grain size analyses, swell-consolidation testing, unconfined compressive strength testing, and liquid and plastic limits. Water-soluble sulfate and Attachment E - Geotechnical Report Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 498 of 1314
Tagged Passions:Utility, materials, utility, property, water, and procedure

Mapleton Hills Development Boulder, Colorado

Job No. 16-0011 GROUND Engineering Consultants, Inc. Page 6 corrosivity tests were completed on selected samples of the soils as well. Laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM protocols. Results of the laboratory testing program are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Beneath the asphalt paving, 2 to 10 inches2 in thickness, or topsoil3, 3 to 6 inches2 in thickness, the test holes generally consisted of fill, native sands and gravels, and native clays. These materials extended to depths of about 2 to 34 feet below existing grades. We interpret the native soils to be colluvial ( slope wash ) soils interbedded with alluvial (stream-laid) deposits of the Verdos and/or Louviers Alluviums. The soils were underlain by bedrock consisting of clay shales (with locally interbedded sandstones) and limestones that extended to the depths explored.
Tagged Passions:materials, services, development, program, and Development

We interpret the shales and local sandstones to be materials of the lower member of the Pierre Shale, the Niobrara Shale and, in the westernmost portion of the site, the Carlisle Shale and/or shale beds within the Greenhorn Limestone. These dominantly shale formations are not differentiated on our logs or in this text.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:materials

We interpret the limestones to be Greenhorn Limestone. This unit crops out locally near the western margin of the site and was encountered at various depths in several of the test holes.

The dip of the bedrock units beneath the site result in different bedrock units underlying the surficial soils across the site. The variation in dip angles both west to east and north to south across the site make forecasting materials and depths with precision difficult. Interpreted, generally west to east, cross sections providing an overall sense of this bedrock geometry are provided in Figures 10 14. The cross sections should not be relied upon, however, to provide precise depths to a given material type, etc. Fill soils were identified in some of the test holes and are likely present elsewhere on site. Delineation of the complete lateral and vertical extents of the fills at the site, or their
Tagged Passions:materials

2
Note that these thicknesses are approximate; thicknesses of these materials are difficult to estimate in

Tagged Passions:materials

small diameter test holes. 3 Topsoil as used herein is defined geotechnically. The materials so described may or may not be suitable

for landscaping or as a growth medium for such plantings as may be proposed for the project. Attachment E - Geotechnical Report Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 499 of 1314
Tagged Passions:materials and growth

Mapleton Hills Development Boulder, Colorado

Job No. 16-0011 GROUND Engineering Consultants, Inc. Page 7 compositions, was beyond our present scope of services. If fill soil volumes and compositions at the site are of significance, they should be evaluated using test pits.
Tagged Passions:services, development, and Development

It should be noted that coarse gravel, cobbles, boulders, and similarly sized fragments of debris are not well represented in small diameter liner samples collected from 4-inch diameter test holes. Therefore, such materials may be present even where not called out in the material descriptions herein.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:materials

Fill consisted of fine to coarse sands and gravels with clay and scattered construction debris. They were non- to medium plastic, loose to medium dense, slightly moist to wet, and brown to black in color.

Sandy Clays were dry to moist, low to medium plastic, stiff to very stiff, and light brown to red-brown in color, with local caliche and iron oxide staining. The sand fractions were fine to medium. Sands and Gravels were fine to coarse with local clay, low to medium plastic, medium dense to very dense, dry to wet, and brown to red- brown in color. Caliche was noted locally, as was iron oxide staining. Weathered Clay Shale was medium to highly plastic, weathered, slightly moist, and pale brown to gray in color. Iron oxide staining was common. Clay Shale was medium to highly plastic, hard to very hard, dry to slightly moist, and pale brown to gray to black in color. Iron oxide staining was noted locally. Sandstone beds and lenses were present locally, as well. Weathered Sandstone was fine grained, clayey, low to medium plastic, moderately hard, moist, and gray in color. Iron oxide staining was noted commonly. Sandstone was fine grained, clayey, low to medium plastic, very hard, moist, and gray in color. Iron oxide staining was noted commonly. Limestone was finely crystalline, thinly to moderately bedded, very hard, slightly moist, and white to pale yellow to pale green in color. Shale beds were present locally. The limestone was very resistant and recovery from the samplers driven into it (on which the description above was based) generally was very poor. Attachment E - Geotechnical Report Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 500 of 1314

Tagged Passions:poverty and construction

Mapleton Hills Development Boulder, Colorado

Job No. 16-0011 GROUND Engineering Consultants, Inc. Page 8 Groundwater was encountered in some of the test holes at depths ranging from approximately 10 to 29 feet (elevations ranging from 5,476.1 to 5,528.8 feet) below existing grades at the time of drilling and at depths ranging from approximately 3.9 to 23.6 feet (elevations ranging from 5,532.2 to 5,481.5 feet) below existing grades in several of the test holes (B-17, B-22, W-4, W-6, W-7, B-10) when measured approximately 37 to 38 days following drilling. Groundwater levels can be expected to fluctuate, however, in response to annual and longer-term cycles of precipitation, irrigation, surface drainage, nearby rivers and creeks, land use, and the development of transient, perched water conditions.
Tagged Passions:Utility, utility, services, development, watershed, water, stormwater, and Development

Swell-Consolidation Testing of samples of the on-site materials encountered in the project test holes indicated a potential for both heave and consolidation. (See Table 1.) Swells ranging from approximately 0.4 to 5.1 percent and consolidations ranging from approximately 0.6 to 2.1 percent were measured at various surcharge loads.

SEISMIC CLASSIFICATION Based on extrapolation of available data to depth and our experience in the project area, we consider the site likely to meet the criteria for a Seismic Site Classification of C according to the 2015 IBC classification (Table 1613.5.2) except in areas of relatively deep fills such as near Test Hole W-6 where a Site Classification of D is indicated. If, however, a quantitative assessment of the site seismic properties is desired, then sampling or shear wave velocity testing to a depth of 100 feet or more should be performed. Utilizing the United States Geological Survey s Seismic Design Maps Tool (http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php), the project area is indicated to possess an SDS and SDl values tabulated below. Site Classification SDS SDl C 0.191 g 0.067 g D 0.255 g 0.094 g Attachment E - Geotechnical Report Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 501 of 1314

Tagged Passions:materials

Mapleton Hills Development Boulder, Colorado

Job No. 16-0011 GROUND Engineering Consultants, Inc. Page 9 RADON Radon is a naturally occurring, colorless, odorless, radioactive gas that can cause lung cancer according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Radon collected in an enclosed structure, therefore, can represent a potential hazard. Radon accumulation is not a hazard that can be mitigated by geotechnical measures, however, and testing for the possible presence of radon gas prior to project construction does not yield useful results regarding the potential for future accumulations.
Tagged Passions:services, development, environment, construction, and Development

Radon collects typically in basements, crawl spaces or other enclosed portions of buildings constructed in areas underlain at relatively shallow depths by granitic crystalline and/or gneissic bedrock. The likelihood of encountering radon in concentrations exceeding applicable health standards on the subject site, underlain by sedimentary bedrock, is significantly lower. It cannot be excluded, however. Additional information regarding radon and radon-resistant building design can be obtained from the EPA (e.g., www.epa.gov/radon) as well as from local building and/or health departments.

Radon testing should be performed in the proposed buildings, after construction is completed. However, we understand that incorporating sufficient ventilation and other measures into a structure to address radon accumulation during construction typically is significantly less costly than installing them after construction has been completed. Therefore, the architect should consider the potential for radon accumulation in the proposed buildings and incorporate mitigative measures into the design, as appropriate. GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR DESIGN

Tagged Passions:health and construction

Geotechnical Risk Variable geotechnical constraints on design and construction were recognized across the roughly 11-acre site. These include the following:

Tagged Passions:recognition, risk, and construction

Where underlying the proposed buildings at shallow to moderate depths, the shales comprising the bulk of the bedrock were significantly expansive. We estimate that a structure bearing directly on the shales at the site likely would experience post- construction vertical movements on the order of 5 inches. Lateral movements will be realized, as well. Movements of this magnitude can damage both the proposed buildings and nearly all other improvements.

Attachment E - Geotechnical Report Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 502 of 1314
Tagged Passions:construction

Mapleton Hills Development Boulder, Colorado

Job No. 16-0011 GROUND Engineering Consultants, Inc. Page 10 The relief across the site, together with the proposed grading entailing cuts up to approximately 41 feet in depth and fills up to approximately 7 feet will yield strongly differential support conditions unless mitigated. Prior grading at the site also resulted in significant depths of existing, undocumented fill soils that were as deep as about 14 feet in some test holes. All of the un- documented fill soils should be excavated and replaced as properly compacted fill.
Tagged Passions:services, development, Immigration, grading, and Development

Eight existing structures on the site are planned for removal or relocation. This also will result in additional fills that should be replaced with properly compacted fill and that likely will include construction debris. Although outside the scope of our services, the possible presence of asbestos or other hazardous materials in the buildings to be demolished should be considered.

Together, the presence of several generations of fill, likely of strongly differential thickness at least across some buildings, will result in likely total and differential settlement of shallow foundations and slab-on-grade floors of 2 to 5 inches which also will be damaging. The limestone underlying the western portion of the site at shallow depths (at greater depths farther to the east) was very hard and resistant, as were local beds of sandstone within the shales. Although these materials provide good bearing support, in general, additional efforts by the contractor will be needed to excavate them or advance drilled piers through them.
Tagged Passions:materials, beach, services, ports, hazardous materials, construction, and settlement

The conclusions and parameters provided in this report were based on the data presented herein, our experience in the general project area with similar structures, and our engineering judgment with regard to the applicability of the data and methods of forecasting future performance. A variety of engineering parameters were considered as indicators of potential future soil movements. Our parameters and conclusions were based on our judgment of likely movement potentials, (i.e., the amount of movement likely to be realized if site drainage is generally effective, estimated to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty) as well as our assumptions about the owner s willingness to accept geotechnical risk. Maximum possible movement estimates necessarily will be larger than those presented herein. They also have a significantly lower likelihood of being realized in our opinion, and generally require more expensive

Attachment E - Geotechnical Report Item 5B - 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 503 of 1314

Tagged Passions:risk, stormwater, and performance

Mapleton Hills Development Boulder, Colorado

Tagged Passions:development and Development

[ See More ]
Council Map

Welcome!

Monitor up to five cities and counties and get alerts when they plan to vote on topics you're passionate about.