HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmarks Board - Meeting Handouts - 10/4/2006
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO / M
Office of the City Attorney `
Municipal Building
1777 Broadway !
Post Office Box 791
Boulder. Colorado 80306 +
Telephone (303) 441-3020
Facsimile (303) 441.3859 ,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT: Roles and Responsibilities of the Planning Board
DATE: September 28, 2006
I have been asked to spend a few minutes with you at your October 4, 2006 meeting to discuss
the roles and responsibilities of the Planning Board. The purpose of this discussion is to help the
Landmarks Board in its preparations for an upcoming joint meeting with the Planning Boards
scheduled for late October.
As recycling is always encouraged in Boulder, I have attached some material that I used as part of
a Planning Board Training Session that I did in 2004 for your information. At the meeting, I will
provide a brief overview of the Planning Board's place in Boulder's governmental structure.
You will notice that I have some of the B.R.C. 1981 citations in [brackets] below. The bracketed
citations are from the old code. I updated the citations to cite to the new code, and the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan, as amended through the 2005 five-year update.
I know your time is precious. If you find yourself in a bind for time, I'd suggest that you skim
Sections III and VI of the outline. I formatted the titles of those 2 sections in bold so they will
stand out for you.
I encourage you to bring your questions and look forward to seeing you on Wednesday.
K:\PLPB1M-PLANNING BOARD RESPONSIBILITY YPB DOC
A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF HISTORY
AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY OF
BOULDER PLANNING BOARD
1. INTRODUCTION
Below is a few of the highlights of Boulder=s authority to engage in land use activities
and a brief history of zoning. It does not come close.to becoming a comprehensive discussion of
the evolution of zoning and planning in Boulder.
fl. HOME RULE CITY. Boulder is a home rule city. It derives its power under Art. 20, Sec.
6 of the Colorado Constitution.
There are two kinds of Cities in Colorado. Statutory and Home Rule
A. Statutory Cities have only those powers explicitly or impliedly given to them by
state statute. If there is not an explicit or implied grant of power, then the local
government cannot engage in that activity.
B. Home Rule Cities derive their regulatory power under Art. 20, Sec. 6 of the
Colorado Constitution. A municipality choosing home rule has the power to
create its own charter, ordinances, and laws to extend to all of its local and
municipal matters, including zoning and subdivision.
C. Limitations on Home Rule Cities.
1. Which Laws Apply? The laws of a home rule city may only supercede
state law when the matter in question is of local concern. The Courts and
the Legislature generally divide governmental matters into three
categories:
a. Matters of purely local concern
b. Matters of statewide concern
c. Matters of mixed local and statewide concern.
2. Following the Law. Home rule cities are required to follow its adopted
laws and procedures as it relates to land use matters, or the act may be
invalidated.
3. State Law Gap Fillers. Unless and until a home rule city adopts a law to
the contrary of a state law on the subject, the City is bound by the state
laws.
III. Boulder Elects a Home Rule Charter.
A. 1917. City Adopts a home rule charter, specifying a city manager - city council
K:\PI.PB\M-PLANNING BOARD RESPONSIBILITY YPB,DOC
form of government. Charter sets up a Parks and Planning Department, with the
following responsibilities and duties:
1. Developing a Abroad and comprehensive plan. @ The language of the
original charter appears to geared more to plans for public infrastructure,
such as the water and sewer utilities, parks, streets, and other necessary
municipal buildings.
2. It was to make recommendations regarding implementation of plans.
3. If given City Council authorization, it was responsible for the control
height, design, appearance and location of building as and the division of
the city into building districts or zones.
4. It was required to review the plans of other departments.
5. Pass upon all donations, gifts, sale devises of land or any other matters that
affect the physical appearance of the city or any of its parks or public
places.
6. Review plans public improvements for conformity with plans.
7. Review subdivision plats and annexations.
8. Oversee expenditure of funds from the permanent park fund.
B. 1951 - Charter Amendment. Planning components of the Charter related to the
planning functions were amended. A group called theACitizens Committee to
Review the Boulder City Charter@ recommended that parks and planning
functions be split out in the Charter. The Committee noted that AThe importance
of the planning function for the proper development of Boulder is so great that the
committee is very definitely of the opinion that the Planning Department should
be reorganized so that it can give all of its attention to major planning activities. @
1. Planning Board Created. As a result, a separate department of Planning
was created. The Planning and Parks Commission was changed to a
Planning Board.
2. Board of Zoning Adjustment was created to take over the time consuming
appeals cases that the commission had formerly heard.
3. Parks Construction and maintenance. The Director of Public Service took
over had responsibility for park construction and maintenance. The
current structure of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board was added to
the Charter in 1961.
IV. STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT. Boulder has a City Council - City Manager form
of Government.
A. The City Council sets the policy direction for the City. The City Council has three
employees that serve at its pleasure and answer directly to it: the City Manager,
3
City Attorney, and the Municipal Court Judge. The City Council also appoints
citizens to a number of Boards and Commissions. The authority and charges of
the various Boards and Commission are set by the City Charter and the City
Council.
B. The City Manager is the chief administrative officer of the City. Most all of the
City staff report to the City Manager.
C. The City Attorney, is the legal advisor of the City Council, Boards and
Commissions, City Manager, and prosecutes violations of the Boulder Revised
Code in the Municipal Court.
D. The Municipal Court Judge presides over the municipal court and has the
responsibility to hear, try, and determine violations of the City Charter and the
ordinances of the City of Boulder.
V. THE BUSINESS CONDUCTED AT PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS
A. Meeting Decorum. All meetings of the Planning Board are open to the public.
The meetings should be carried out in a business like manner, but need not have
the formality of the U.S. Congress or a trial-like setting. In general, the business
of the board takes the form of two types of activities, quasi-judicial and legislative
or quasi-legislative activities.
B. Rules Applicable to the Board. The general rules concerning the Board are those
contained in Chapter 2-3 of the Boulder Revised Code of 1981. A copy of this
chapter is included in Attachment A. The critical rule is that four affirmative
votes are required for any action of the Planning Board. Thus, contrary to the
usual rules of parliamentary procedure, an absolute majority is required for action,
and if members are absent, it may be necessary to re-hear a matter when it is
possible for the entire board to vote. This makes it particularly critical that Board
members attend every meeting, if at all possible, in order to give applicants a fair
opportunity for an affirmative or otherwise final decision.
C. Procedural Rules. The Planning Board has adopted the following rules to guide its
meeting:
1. Procedural Rules of the Planning Board of the City of Boulder, Colorado,
effective June 11, 1987.
2. City of Boulder Planning Board Hearing Guidelines. This rule is generally
copied on the back side of each meeting=s agenda; and
3. Quasi-judicial Hearing Procedures
KVITMM-PLANNING BOARD RESPONSIBLLITY.YPB.DOC April 3, 2004
4
D. Charter and Code Provisions Applicable to Board Procedures. The general
provisions of the code, reflecting City Charter " 74, 75 and 76, provide for
election of officers for the Board by the Board, minutes and summaries, taping of
meetings, application of Robert=s Rules of Order, unless the Board adopts other
rules of the procedure, and a prohibition on abstentions. Subsection 2-3-1(f),
B.R.C. 1981, and the Planning Board=s rules specifically provides that if a
member of the board or commission is present but refuses to vote, the member=s
vote AShall be recorded in the affirmative. @ The only exception is if a member
did not attend or if a member was excused under the conflicts of interest chapter,
Chapter 2-7, B.R.C. 1981.
VI. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PLANNING BOARD.
A. What is a Quasi-Judicial Decision? A quasi-judicial decision requires an action
by the board that is adjudicative in nature. Under the constitutional principals of
due process of law, the Board is required to:
1. Consider a set of facts that are presented to them in the context of a
hearing; and
2. Apply the criteria and standards that have been adopted by the City
Council and codified in the Boulder Revised Code.
B. Procedures. Quasi-judicial hearings are a specific form of process required
whenever a public hearing is required for the application of standards set forth in
the code to a particular factual situation. The Planning Board has adopted
guidelines for both public hearings and for quasi-judicial procedures. These
documents, together with Robert=s Rules of Order provide the basic foundation to
address procedural and evidentiary issues at such hearings. Quasi-judicial
hearings may give rise to an appeal to district court under the Colorado Rules of
Civil Procedure Rule 106(a)(4). Appeals under this Rule are tried in court
pursuant to the record that was made before the approving authority. Therefore, it
is important to establish the factual basis for a decision during these public
hearings.
C. Due Process Requirements. The, general provisions of which board and
commission members should be aware include specific notice requirements:
testimony must be taken in the form of a public hearing through the presentation
of oral and documentary evidence; specific evidentiary; and findings of fact and
conclusions of law must be written.
D. Ex parte Contacts. Board members are required to disclose the substance of all
material contacts outside of the hearing dealing with the subject matter of the
decision on the hearing record. Further, that an opportunity should be given for
5
comment at the hearing if the material is to be considered in any way by the
Board. This is currently not a practice in many Planning Board proceedings. It is
something the Board may want to consider doing before acting in its quasi-
judicial capacity.
The Office of the City Attomey recommends that board and commission members
avoid all such Aex parte@ discussions outside of quasi-judicial hearings in order
to avoid any kind of appearance of impropriety. AEx parte@ means discussion of
the issues with another person without notice to all parties of interest. In the
alternative, it is recommended that careful notes be kept of any communications
which cannot be avoided so that they can be disclosed in detail. It is
recommended that such disclosure be made whether or not the board or
commission member intends to actually rely upon the communication, so that no
allegation to the contrary can. ever be made.
E. Quasi-Judicial Responsibilities. The common items that require that Board
decisions in the context of a quasi-judicial hearing include:
1. Direct Review, Appeal, Call-up, or Referral of a Use Review, Sections 9-2-
7 [9-4-3] and [9-4-9] 9-2-15, B.R.C. 1981.
2. Direct Review, Appeal, Call-up, or Referral of a Site Review, Sections [9-
4-319-2-7 and [9-4-11] 9-2-14, B.R.C. 1981.
3. Hearings to determine compliance with Use Review and Site Review
approvals, Section [9-4-7] 9-2-11, B.R.C. t98L
4. Individual rezoning, Section [9-2-3] 9-2-18], B.R.C. 1981.
5. Appeal or Call-up of a .Subdivision approval, Section [9-5-7(f)] 9-12-11(f),
B.R.C. 1981
6. Appeal or Call-up of a Board of Zoning Adjustment interpretation, [9-3.6-
2] 9-2-3(b), B.R.C. 1981.
7. Many actions under the residential growth management system, Chapter 9-
14, B.R.C. 1981 are required to be approved by way of a quasi-judicial
decision.
a. To grant more than 40 allocations to a development, [9-6-3(c)] 9-
14-2(c);
b. In order to exceed granting 1/4 of the allocations in any quarter,
Section [9-6-5(b)] 9-144(b);
C. Appeal of a city manager decision to revoke an incomplete
application, [9-6-6(g)] 9-14-5(g);
d. Hearings to impose sanctions on developments that violate the
residential growth management ordinance, Section [9-6-8(e)] 9-14-
7(e);
e. Hardship appeals that result in the failure to use the residential
growth management allocation, decisions to allow banking of
K:\PL. MM-PLANNING BOARD RESPONSIBILITY YI'B.DOC April 3, 2004
6
allocations; Section [9-6-9(h)] 9-14-7(h); and
f. Appeals of city manager decision to not grant exemptions under
Section [9-6-10(a) or (b)] 9-14-8(d).
8. An applicant appeal of a staff decision regarding appurtenances on
buildings above the permitted height, Section [9-3.2-5(a)(5)] 9-7-7(a)(6),
B.R.C. 1981.
9. Appeal of a staff denial of an accessory dwelling unit, Section [9-3.4-
12(c)(3)] , Owner=s Accessory Unit, Section 9-3.4-13 (c)(3), or a
Cooperative Housing Unit, Section [9-3.4-18 (b)(4)], 9-6-3(b)(9), B.R.C.
1981.
10. Call up of city manager decisions regarding uses allowed in Zone 2 of the
Airport Influence Zone, Section [9-11-6(c)] 9-3-10(e)(3), B.R.C. 1981.
11.
12. Referral, appcal or call-up a city manager review of a wetland permit,
Section [9-12-7], 9-3-9(f) B.R.C. 1981.
F. What is a Legislative Decision. The legislative or quasi-legislative (hereinafter
Alegislative@) activities of the Board involve the adoption of public policies.
These decisions are prospective in application.
G. Different Standard for Due Process. These actions are not considered to require
the extensive procedural protections that are given to individual members of the
public for quasi-judicial hearings. The reason for this is that the public process
involved in making legislative decisions itself addresses many fairness concerns,
because of the large number of persons affected, the openness of the process, and
the degree to which the City Council is directly accountable to the public through
the electoral process. Consequently, legislative actions are not subject to the quasi-
judicial hearing requirements.
H. Common Legislative Responsibilities of the Planning Board. The Planning Board
acts as both an approving authority and as an advisory authority. Generally, the
Planning Board advises the City Council. Some examples of legislative activities
include:
1. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Approving Authority.
Pursuant to the intergovernmental agreement with Boulder County, the
Planning Board has a an approval function, as one of the necessary
approvals for two body approvals (City Council and Planning Board) or
four body approvals(City Council, Planning Board, Board of County
Commissioners, County.
2. Approving authority on resolutions and administrative rules adopted
pursuant to its rule making authority.
3. Subcommunity plans and area plans. The BVCP states that the Planning
Board is an approving authority for subcommunity and area plans. See,
K TUMM-PLANNING BOARD RESPONSIBILITY.YI'B.DOC April 3, 2004
7
BVCP ' IV.A..
4. Master Plans - The Planning Board is an advisory authority on master
plans.
5. Code Changes and Zoning Map. Advisory authority on amendments to
Title 9, B.R.C. 1981 and general revisions to the zoning map.
6. Annexations. Advisory Authority on Annexations.
7. Concept Review Advisory authority to the applicant with comments
associated with review and comments [9-4-10] 9-2-13, B.R.C. 1981.
8. Advisory Authority to City Council on land use implications of Historic
Districts. Section 9-11-6(e), B.R.C. 1981.
9. Advisory authority on comments associated with the vacation of
right-of-way. Section 8-6-10(b), B.R.C. 1981.
10. Advisory authority on the acquisition and disposal of park land. City
Charter Sections 162 and 163.
11.
K:TLPBWI-PLANNING BOARD RF,SPONSIBILITY.YPB DOC April 12004
s
ATTACHMENT A
CITY CHARTER AND CODE REQUIREMENTS
RELATED TO THE PLANNING BOARD
Charter provisions:
See. 65. Administrative departments.
The following administrative departments are hereby created:
(a) Department of public works;
(b) Department of finance and record;
(c) Department of parks and recreation;
(d) Department of public safety; and
(e) Department of planning.
Upon the recommendation of the city manager, the city council may by ordinance create
additional administrative departments. (Amended by Ord. No. 1632 (1951), ' 2, adopted by electorate on
November 6, 1951. Further amended by Ord. No. 5575 (1993), ' 1, adopted by electorate on November 2,
1993.)'
Department of Planning
Sec. 74.Planning board.
There shall be a city planning board which shall consist of seven members appointed by the city
council. The appointive members shall be qualified electors of the city, shall not hold any other office
under this charter except as provided in Section 84A, shall serve without pay, and shall be removable by
the council for cause.
The council shall remove any appointive member who displays lack of interest, or fails, upon due
notice, and continuously for three months, to attend meetings of the board without formal leave of
absence. (Amended by Ord. No. 1632 (1951), ' 4, adopted by electorate on November 6, 1951. Further
amended by Ord. No. 2728 (1963), ' 1, adopted by electorate on November 5, 1963.)
Sec. 75.Term of officeBvacancies.
The tern of office of each board member shall be five years. The council shall fill all vacancies.
The board shall have power to make rules for the conduct of business and shall keep accounts
and records of its transactions. (Amended by Ord. No. 1632 (1951), ' 4, adopted by electorate on
1. Subsection (d) of this section should also have been amended by Ord. No. 1753 (1953), ' 1(b), adopted
by electorate on November 3, 1953, which created the department of recreation.
November 6, 195 1. Further amended by Ord. No. 2728 (1963), ' 1, adopted by electorate on November 5,
1963. Further amended by Ord. No. 5575 (1993),' 1, adopted by electorate on November 2, 1993.)
Sec. 76.Organization and procedure of planning board.
The board shall choose a chair, a vice chair, and a secretary who may or may not be a member of
the board. If not a member, the compensation of the secretary, if any, shall be fixed by the council. If a
director of planning has been appointed, the director may be designated as secretary. The board shall
have regular meetings once a month, and special meetings may be called at any time by the chair and two
members. Four members shall constitute a quorum, and an affirmative vote of at least four shall be
necessary to authorize any action of the board. (Amended by Ord. No. 1632 (1951), ' 4, adopted by
electorate on November 6, 1951.)*
Sec. 77.Director of planning.
A director of planning, who shall be qualified by special training and experience in the field of
city planning, may be appointed on a part-time or full-time basis by the city manager and shall be
removable by the city manager. The director of planning shall he the regular technical advisor of the
board and shall have administrative direction of the planning department. The director may be designated
as the secretary of the planning board and authorized to perform other necessary functions. (Amended by
Ord. No. 1632 (1951), ' 4, adopted by electorate on November 6, 1951.)*
Sec. 78. Functions.
The planning department shall:
(a) Prepare and recommend to the city council a general plan, with necessary maps, plats,
charts, and descriptive and explanatory materials, for the physical improvement and development of the
city, including therein,
(1) The general location, character, and extent of streets, bridges, parks, waterways, and
other public ways, grounds, and spaces;
(2) The general location of public buildings and other public property, within and
without the city limits, including watersheds, water systems, reservoirs, sewer and drainage systems,
facilities for the sanitary disposal of garbage and other wastes, airports, vehicle parking facilities, and all
other public properties and facilities necessary for the proper development of the city;
(3) The general location and extent of public utilities, including public transportation
facilities, whether publicly or privately owned;
(4) The removal, relocation, widening, extension, narrowing, vacation, abandonment, or
change of use of existing or future public ways, grounds, spaces, buildings, property, or utilities;
(5) An adequate and equitable system of financing public improvements;
(b) Review the general plan periodically and recommend to the city council desirable
K WLPB\h1-PLANNING BOARD RESPONSIBILITY YI'B.DOC April 3, 2004
10
amendments and additions to the plan;
(c) Submit annually to the city manager, not less than sixty days prior to the date for submission
of the city manager's proposed budget to the city council, a list of recommended capital improvements to
be undertaken during the forthcoming six-year period; ,
The list shall be arranged in order of preference, with recommendations as to which projects
shall be completed each year. Each list of capital improvements shall be accompanied by a six-year
capital budget indicating estimated costs and methods of financing all improvements;
(d) Prepare and recommend to the city council a zoning plan dividing the city into building
districts or zones and regulating the uses of land and the height, area, bulk, and uses of public and private
buildings and structures;
(e) Prepare and recommend to the city council minimum housing ordinances, building codes,
and other measures necessary to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of the city;
(f) Prepare and recommend to the city council regulations governing the process of land
subdivision;
(g) Exercise control over all public improvements in accordance with the provisions of Section
80;
(h) Exercise control over platting, opening, and annexing subdivisions in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 81 and 82;
(i) Cooperate with other governmental planning agencies on all planning matters affecting the
city;
0) Encourage proper planning by all departments of the city, request necessary assistance from
other departments, and integrate, to the extent possible, the planning activities of other departments into
the general plan of the city; and
(k) Within its budget appropriations, contract when necessary with city planners and
other consultants for technical services. (Amended by Ord. No. 1632 (1951), ' 4, adopted by electorate on
November 6, 1951.)
Sec. 79.Notice of pending plans or ordinances.
Any officer or department whose duty it is to prepare ordinances and resolutions relating to the
location of any public improvement, which may be considered by the planning board a part of the
comprehensive plan B including specifically the location of any public building, or the location,
extension, widening, enlargement-ornamentation, or parking of any street, boulevard, alley, parkway,
playground, or other public grounds, or the vacation of any street, or any other alteration of the city plan
of streets and highways, or the location of any bridge, tunnel, or subway, or of any surface, underground
or elevated railway or public utility, or any ordinance relating to housing, building codes or zones B
shall, prior to the submission to the proper board or officer of the municipality of the ordinance or
KAPUBVVI-PLANNING BOARD RESPONSIBILITY YPB DOC April 3, 2004
11
resolution required to be adopted before such proceedings are instituted, give notice to the board of the
pendency (before the officer or department) of proceedings with reference to any of the above matters.
(Amended by Ord. No. 1632 (1951),'4, adopted by electorate on November 6, 1951.)
Sec. 80.Improvements to conform with plan.
Whenever the planning board shall have made a general plan of the municipality or of any
portion thereof in accordance with Section 78 of this charter, no public improvement shall be authorized
to be constructed in the city until approved by the board; provided, that in case of disapproval, the board
shall communicate its reasons to the council and to the director of that department which has control of
the construction of the proposed improvement; and the council by majority vote shall have the power to
overrule such disapproval. If the reasons for disapproval are not given to the council and to said
department director within twenty days after the plans for the public improvement are submitted to the
board, such plan shall be deemed to be approved by the board. (Amended by Ord. No. 1632 (1951), ' 4,
adopted by electorate on November 6, 1951.)
Sec. 81.Approval of plats.
All plans, plats, or replats of lands laid out in building lots and streets, alleys, or other portions of
the same intended to be dedicated to public use or for the use of purchasers or owners of lots fronting
thereon or adjacent thereto, and located within the city limits shall be submitted to the planning board
and be approved by it before such plans or plats shall be recorded. And no such plan or plat shall be
entitled to record in any public office unless the same shall bear thereon, by endorsement or otherwise,
the approval of the board. The disapproval of any such plan, plat, or replat by the board shall be deemed
a refusal of the proposed dedication shown thereon. The approval of the board shall be deemed an
acceptance of the proposed dedication but shall not impose any duty upon the city concerning the
maintenance or improvement of any such dedicated parks until the proper authorities of the city shall
have made actual appropriation of the same by entry, use, or improvements; and owners and purchasers
shall be deemed to have notice of the published plans, maps, and reports of the board affecting such
property within its jurisdiction. (Amended by Ord. No. 1632 (1951), ' 4, adopted by electorate on
November 6, 1951.)
Sec. 82.Admission of subdivision.
All plans and plats of tracts or additions sought to be annexed or admitted to the city shall be first
submitted to the planning board for approval. (Amended by Ord. No. 1632 (1951), ' 4, adopted by
electorate on November 6, 1951.)
Sec. 83. Reports of department.
The department shall make annual reports to the council upon the request of the council. A
representative of the board shall have a right to appear before the council to make its recommendations
and shall be given due hearing. (Amended by Ord. No. 1632 (1951), ' 4, adopted by electorate on
November 6, 1951.)
Sec. 84.Height limit.
K:IPLPB\f-PLANNfNG BOARD R1-SPONS1BfLETY.YPB DOC April 3, 2004
12
All buildings and other structures throughout the city shall be limited to a height not exceeding
fifty-five feet. This height limit shall not apply to spires, .belfries, cupolas, or domes not used for human
occupancy, nor to silos, parapet walls, cornices without windows, antennas, chimneys, ventilators,
skylights, or other necessary mechanical appurtenances usually carried above the roof level so long as
they do not take up more than twenty-five percent of the roof area, nor to light poles at government
owned recreation facilities, nor to light and traffic signal poles in the right-of-way, nor to service and
transmission line electrical utility poles. "Height" means the vertical distance from the lowest point
within twenty-five feet of the tallest side of the structure to the uppermost point of the roof.
The purposes of this height limitation are to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of
the community; to secure safety from fire, panic, wind turbulence, and other dangers; to provide adequate
light and air to abutting properties and the neighborhood; to prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid
undue concentration of population; to prevent the encroachment of privacy; to lessen traffic congestion in
the streets; to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and
other public requirements; to insure personal safety by encouraging intensive use at the sidewalk level; to
encourage the most appropriate use of land; to conserve and enhance property values; to preserve the
integrity and character of established neighborhoods; to preserve scenic views of the mountain backdrop,
which are a unique asset to the community and provide a distinctive character and setting for the city and
which provide an attraction to tourists, visitors, and students of the University of Colorado; and to protect
a public investment of over $3,000,000.00 in the mountain backdrop.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section 84, the following provisions shall apply
solely to that portion of the area known as Boulder Crossroads which is delineated by (i) the northern
boundary line of Arapahoe Avenue, (ii) the southern boundary line of Canyon Boulevard as extended
eastward to 30th Street, (iii) the eastern boundary line of 28th Street, and (iv) the western boundary line
of 30th Street:
Subject to approval through the development review process, Aheight@ shall be defined as the
vertical distance measured from the federal emergency management agency=s flood protection elevation
at 28th Street of 5,288 feet, as determined in accordance with the North America vertical datum of 1988,
to a plane above such elevation. (Amended by Ord. No. 1219 (1929), ' 1, adopted by electorate on
November 5, 1929. Further amended by Ord. No. 1632 (1951),' 5, adopted by electorate on November 6,
1951. Repealed by Ord. No. 2392 (1961),' 1, adopted by electorate on January 31, 1961. New section 84
added by Res. No. 24a (1971), ' 2, adopted by electorate on November 2, 1971. Amended by Ord. No.
5220 (1989), ' 1, adopted by electorate on November 7, 1989. Further amended by Ord. No. 6013 (1998),
'2, adopted by electorate on November 3, 1998).
Sec. 84A. Board of zoning adjustment.
There shall be a board of zoning adjustment with such powers, jurisdiction, and authority as the
city council shall by ordinance provide relating to zoning matters. The membership, terms of office,
method of appointment and all other matters relating to the board of zoning adjustment shall be as the
city council shall by ordinance provide. (Added by Ord. No. 1632 (1951), ' 6, adopted by electorate on
November 6, 1951. Amended by Ord. No. 3513 (1969), ' 1, adopted by electorate on November 4, 1969.)
Sec. 84B. Disposition of park properties.
K:\PLPB\NI-PLANNING BOARD RESPONSIBIUTY.YPB DOC April 3, 2004
13
(Added by Ord. No. 1632 (1951), ' 7, adopted by electorate on November 6, 1951. Repealed by
Ord. No. 2392 (1961), ' 1, adopted by electorate on November 6, 1961.)
Sec. 162. Disposal of park properties.
Park lands may be disposed of by the city council, but only upon the affirmative vote of at least
four members of the parks and recreation advisory board. An advisory recommendation, which shall not
be binding on the council, shall be obtained from the planning board prior to the disposition or lease of
park lands. (Added by Ord. No. 2392 (1961), ' 1, adopted by electorate on January 31, 1961. Amended
by Ord. No. 5574 (1993), ' 1, adopted by electorate on November 2, 1993.)
Sec. 163. Acquisition of park land.
The council may acquire park land for the city, provided that the council shall not make any
expenditure of money for the purpose of acquiring park lands without first securing a recommendation
from the planning board and the parks and recreation advisory board. Provided, however, that the council
can act without such recommendations if said boards fail to submit their recommendation to the council
within thirty days after request therefor is made by the council. The recommendations of the said boards
shall not be binding on the council except that the recommendation of the parks and recreation advisory
board concerning expenditures from the permanent park and recreation fund shall be binding on the
council pursuant to Section 161 of this charter. (Added by Ord. No. 2392 (1961), ' 1, adopted by
electorate on January 31, 1961.)
KAPUMI-PLANNING HOARD RESPOi 1SIBILITYMB DOC April 3, 2004
14
Code requirements related to Planning Board procedures.
2-3-11 Planning Board.
(a) The City of Boulder Planning Board consists of seven members appointed by the city council for
five-year terms.
(b) The secretary of the board may be a member of the board or may be the city manager.
(c) Four members of the board constitute a quorum. An affirmative vote of at least four members is
necessary to authorize any action of the board.
(d) The chair and at least two members may call special meetings.
(e) The board's functions are those established in the charter, this code, and other ordinances of the
city, including without limitation:
(1) To review and approve or disapprove changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive
Plan;
(2) To review and recommend to the city council regarding proposed historic districts as
prescribed by Subsection 10-13-5(e), B.R.C. 1981;
(3) To review and recommend to the city council regarding the city's capital improvements
plan; and
(4) To perform all the functions prescribed by Title 9, Aland Use Regulation, @ B.R.C.
1981.
Ordinance No. 4803 (1984).
City of Boulder
Landmarks Preservation Board
Park Central Building
1739 Broadway
Boulder, CO
RE: New Residence
429 Spruce Street
Bruce & Cody Qreck, applicants
Dear Sir or Madam,
I/We have met with the applicants and have reviewed their application for a new
residence to be built at 429 Spruce Street. Based on our discussions and a review of the
application its attached documentation, I/we support the Oreck's proposal for a new
residence.
Sincerely,
Signature Signa ur
C
Name (printed) Name (printed
UC (2
Address Address
Date Date
Feedback Request Regarding Garage Construction
From: Penny Normann
2529 6'h Street
Your response regarding construction of a new garage/studio to replace a deteriorating shed at the back of my property
would be greatly appreciated. There will be a public meeting on Wednesday, September 6 after 6 p.m. at 1777 Broadway
with the Landmarks Advisory Board regarding this issue and I am trying to get neighborhood feedback before then.
Please check one and feel free to comment. There is a mail slot on the porch if you don't mind returning this later.
I believe the structure should be preserved.
Comments:
I believe demo and new construction should be allowed.
Comments: K ' j
a
No opinion. ; b
I look forward to sprucing things up! Thank-you for your time. f r~
`t dd rresS l ~/l~Jlk S
CACiucu r t ~0v~ VQ-,"-
Feedback Request Regarding Garage Construction
From: Penny Normann
2529 6"' Street
Your response regarding construction of a new garage/studio to replace a deteriorating shed at the back of my property
would be greatly appreciated. There will be a public meeting on Wednesday, Sept=boF-6. afer 6 p.m. at 1777 Broadway
with the Landmarks Advisory Board regarding this issue and I am trying to get neighborhood feedback before then.
Please check one and feel free to comment. There is a mail slot on the porch if you don't mind returning this later.
I believe the structure should be preserved.
Comments:
t ! I believe demo and new construction should be allowed.
•t
Comments: _ tl\c jet r I 1)11\ h 6UP. ~t a 104 e M{ 1 M c a~ ~4 P~2
t-L ~~t G C ~(e t h 66 ZX , i f /1 1` C ct d >7 e
LL) C? ± ,rr l rY l Gc S i C r C= l el k ~65 S L - 2 SO t ^ . -
P-
L nee rYK&nil oC uc1 ~ C`'e
~ ~
~y0 opinion. i~. 4'1e
1 WCL~ ~"r~ ci -PCl rs U 1 I n°q CG ~C
I look forward to sp ucin tllinas LIP' • -ha k-vou for your tin f~
I~ N,5C nAAa~ nkS
a t2
In C rt~t ► iltl 0 1ccr cs- Lc a 5 u , t~ C~ c t~ I
C k GI r✓ L a S l Ut U
From: Penny Normann
2529 0' Street
Your response regarding construction of a new garage/studio to replace a deteriorating shed at the back of my property
would be greatly appreciated. There will be a public meeting on Wednesday, September 6 after 6 p.m. at 1777 Broadway
with the Landmarks Advisory Board regarding this issue and I am trying to get neighborhood feedback before then.
Please check one and feel free to comment. There is a mail slot on the porch if you don't mind returning this later.
I believe the structure should be preserved.
Comments:
I believe demo and new construction should be allowed.
Comments: fj S !J-- 3LI t, if i U R! T11 U 1`•10-1 <%jjGO2-}vu 0 /+t-ryl? _
r J~ i 4F I+"d Crrh1 L~gd- U1-~II,f fr y Gyf+2 S 'S!`, 0 TS /F V G~Qf
1 t-r*Pl 141d L~
~1CF~4t'L Wl~iJ~
No opinion. 6V" ""LO 4111'
a%J~Vt # C-O 30
I look forward to sprucing things up! `thank-you for your time.
~ se `nc~~~ V1 ~ add>rc'SS ~1~✓1kS 1. ~I~VI
Feedback Request Regarding Garage Construction
From: Penny Normann
2529 Oh Street
Your response regarding construction of a new garage/studio to replace a deteriorating shed at the back of my property
would be greatly appreciated. There will be a public meeting on Wednesday, September 6 after 6 p_m. at 1777 Broadway
with the Landmarks Advisory Board regarding this issue and 1 am trying to get neighborhood feedback before then.
Please check one and feel free to comment. There is a mail slot on the porch if you don't mind returning this later.
I believe the structure should be preserved.
Comments:
f'-
r j
V I believe demo an4 new construction should be allowed. r.
Comments:
~ r
V
No opinion.
v
I look forward to sprucing things up! Thank-you for your time.
reeuuacK nequesi Mega[ uIII guaIagc%-uu,uuciiuu
From: Penny Normann
2529 6`' Street
Your response regarding construction of a new garage/studio to replace a deteriorating shed at the back of my property
would be greatly appreciated. There will be a public meeting on Wednesday, September 6 after 6 p.m. at 1777 Broadway
with the Landmarks Advisory Board regarding this issue and l am trying to get neighborhood feedback before then.
Please check one and feel free to comment. There is a mail slot on the porch if you don't mind returning this later.
I believe the structure should be preserved.
Comments:
I believe demo and new construction should be allowed.
Comments: r4 -7-t} t S 1. et t 1 vYJk ~ c-
-4v Lr7S`/ _~L4~~ ~rld'z-~ FLs•c- G/L~'Si`~7~~.,1.Fi'~
(l ( ~ ~ L`'tt. Cry t<~ J~->ZLIa.n.l Ltl t 1' t ~
No opinion-J Ccs.~rcu2r} ¢u~'
I look forward to sprucing things up! Thank-you for your time. v~ ~tve_ n 7
Feedback Request Regarding Garage Construction
From: Penny Normann
25296 1h Street
Your response regarding construction of a new garage/studio to replace a deteriorating shed at the back of my property
would be greatly appreciated. There will be a public meeting on Wednesday, September 6 after 6 p.m. at 1777 Broadway
with the Landmarks Advisory Board regarding this issue and I am trying to get neighborhood feedback before then.
Please check one and feel free to comment. There is a mail slot on the porch if you don't mind returning this later.
I believe the structure should be preserved.
Comments:
1
i believe demo and new construction should be allowed.
Comments:
t.JJ. `ri t 6Z C.t
,(j-ett C c~ Gr C~f~ tGZfr
CULL" tc,
No opinion. CL
I look forward to sprucing things up! Thank-you for your time.
t
Feedback Request Regarding Garage Construction
From: Penny Normann
2529 6`1' Street
Your response regarding construction of a new garage/studio to replace a deteriorating shed at the back of my property
would be greatly appreciated. There will be a public meeting on Wednesday, Member 6 after 6 p.m, at 1777 Broadway
with the Landmarks Advisory Board regarding this issue and I am trying to get neighborhood feedback before then.
Please check one and feel free to comment. There is a mail slot on the porch if you don't mind returning this later.
i believe the structure should be preserved.
Comments:
believe demo a env cofclruc ion should be a I w r
comments: _ ~tlt~~' ~l?L~iCt/ yt(ff ~~e$etr+~~`"t~( q64 1S
b'~ t, f~1 ~,►f~uUt,~__~x1s~~' .~r~/t_r e~~CuSIJC
Gf C3 - - e G. [ J~ wj `:"l. -V`VL# v 3t L.J
~ee
No opinion.
5ZO O^CO IV-J &AJC
1 look forward to sprucing things up! Thank-you for your time. 303 -Lf Lf 3
Feedback Request Regarding Garage Construction
From: Penny Normann
2529 6`t' Street
Your response regarding construction of a new garage/studio to replace a deteriorating shed at the back of my property
would be greatly appreciated, There will be a public meeting on Wednesday, September 6 after 6 p.m. at 1777 Broadway
with the Landmarks Advisory Board regarding this issue and I am trying to get neighborhood feedback before then.
Please check one and feel free to comment. There is a mail slot on the porch if you don't mind returning this later.
I believe the structure should be preserved.
Comments:
believe demo and new construction should be allowed.
Comments:
l~S c~y-rv[. /J.
r~
No opinion. 5- 3 rJ Con c. - •`B-
~VIJtcle.q CIO
I look forward to sprucing things up! Thank-you for your time.
I t~~b~ tt/tG~Ul~ ~t~V V ut~ ~r >ddims
Feedback Request Regarding Garage Construction
From: Penny Normann
25296 Ih Street
Your response regarding construction of a new garage/studio to replace a deteriorating shed at the back of my property
would be greatly appreciated. There will be a public meeting on Wednesday, September 6 after 6 p.m. at 1777 Broadway
with the Landmarks Advisory Board regarding this issue and I am trying to get neighborhood feedback before then.
Please check one and feel free to comment. There is a mail slot on the porch if you don't mind returning this later.
I believe the structure should be preserved.
Comments:
' f.
t/ I believe demo and new construction should he allowed.
Comments: ~ y L AI410~,2/ ~r4 J--_ -X i?- C/l-rsJl~_[!c✓1✓•rry
? fL e,1 x3 .C rt 7 t; vV - -ru i~ t,,J q 4? &lfjs~ 44, r ,g ~✓ltr
-i~ 1"'' i>2 ert tZ tJ Ly tov_~-_A~ SAC 1r4Ge_vI _GU Xd~f ~[G~°•'/
C.~tc~~ ku yc•,J
No opinion. WC;Vr/ll~JW af
Itu'Antm-
I look forward to sprucing things up! Thank-you for your time.
t~nClL),dU_ t~oLv- v~tnrti~ ~.ddrr~ss _T tnkS
Feedback Request Regarding Garage Construction
From: Penny Normann
2529 6'h Street
Your response regarding construction of a new garage/studio to replace a deteriorating shed at the back of my property
would be greatly appreciated. There will be a public meeting on Wednesday, September 6 after 6 p.m. at 1777 Broadway
with the Landmarks Advisory Board regarding this issue and I am trying to get neighborhood feedback before then.
Please check one and feel free to comment. There is a mail slot on the porch if you don't mind returning this later.
I believe the structure should be preserved.
Comments:
JI believe demo and new construction should be allq~ved._
Comments: TLY41 / ( _r yt.~~1 f-/ /c' t, Tl1✓} f~ _ r'` vV ci-)_! -lf_
1 1 1 r F. g~-/r , ,Z ~ z Iz. Att. wtiG~r,,ri: _
I-C
'v OA %C•AIlE-co-S>r§ t~tr~~+3
No opinion. t it-Njfr- (Zt✓Y
I look forward to sprucing things up! Thank-you for your time. I
Feedback Request Regarding Garage Construction
From: Penny Normann
2529 6"' Street
Your response regarding construction of a new garage/studio to replace a deteriorating shed at the back of my property
would be greatly appreciated. There will be a public meeting on Wednesday, September 6 after 6 p.m. at 1777 Broadway
with the Landmarks Advisory Board regarding this issue and I am eying to get neighborhood feedback before then.
Please check one and feel tree to comment. There is a mail slot on the porch if you don't mind returning this later.
I believe the structure should be preserved.
Comments:
I believe demo and new construction should be allowed.
Comments: A,1. L!.~EJ f
No opinion.
1 look forward to sprucing things up! Thank-you for your time.
l1>1C~t,~cJ~.~ ~o~tr v~tnn.c °t- zotd~es S - ~C~kS
Feedback Request Regarding Garage Construction
From: Penny Normantt
25296 Ih Street r;c
ss-,3 ~`11 ~,j
C-b
Your response regarding construction of a new garage/studio to replace a deteriorating shed at the back of my property
!
would be greatly appreciated. There will be a public meeting on Wednesday, September 6 after 6 p.m. at 1777 Broadway
with the Landmarks Advisory Board regarding this issue and 1 am trying to get neighborhood feedback before then.
Please check one and feel free to comment. There is a mail slot on the porch if you don't mind returning this later.
I believe the structure should be preserved.
Comments:
I believe demo and new construction should be allowed.
Comments: a.~2
~WU~TS t~ vin r (~.~5
px-L L_ 6 LAJ 2 ► ST GNU 0, L V r KY~- r
a.._ No opinion.
1 look forward to sprucing things up? Thank-you for your time.
h lc
t'tc z ~•n ~c~ c u,zwV _ >C{ r~ t~r~5 57 tAL>
Feedback Request Regarding Garage Construction
From: Penny Normann
25296 h Street
Your response regarding construction of a new garage/studio to replace a deteriorating shed at the back of my property
would be greatly appreciated. There will be a public meeting on Wednesday, September 6 after 6 p.m. at 1777 Broadway
with the Landmarks Advisory Board regarding this issue and I am trying to get neighborhood feedback before then.
Please check one and feel free to comment. There is a mail slot on the porch if you don't mind returning this later.
I believe the structure should be preserved.
Comments:
I believe demo and new construction shQLdd be allowed. i
Comments: t y F l'C 4U 5'tZ'~ i t~ (tfi t~ C V { c1 .
O, t.14 bt- C k.-- c "-"x )k u iAtt..V s
~'tr~ b' Lv r `FC t t 4 E~{(6_v ` lCT T VL t✓ (fit"~-
`~C°~ ~ t~ vac' s t t t'[Ca14 l eL0 t~, ~X4'LCC~
No opinion.
I look forward to sprucing things up! Thank-you for your time.
~tc~~ ~ AC & I\G'vvV_ * zd d r ~°s s tn~„k ~
JIM L O G AN
A R C H I T E C T 5
October P, 2006
From: Jim Logan Architects
Re: Landmark Application for a new residence at 429 Spruce Street, Boulder, Colorado
Response to Staff recommendations, Agenda item 6B
We are pleased that staff is recommending approval for the requested new construction at
429 Spruce. We would ask the board to reconsider some of the requested conditions of
approval
1. We believe that that window areas and shapes are consistent with the district in
both size and pattern. We would also like to note that this is a new building being
built at the edge of the district in 2006 and as such should have different criteria
than contributing buildings. The glass area shown is in part derived from a desire
to incorporate passive solar gain as an energy source and to provide daylight to
the rooms to lower the use of electrical lighting during the day. We are including
as an attachment pictures of numerous dormers in the district with a group of .3
double hung windows.
2. We are enclosing a possible redesign of the garage roof edge that we hope could
be approved if the board agrees with staff that the eave should be a more
traditional form.
3. We have submitted color samples, roofing samples, and were informed that a
brick submittal was not necessary. We are'facing a time deadline in that we need
to complete all concrete work and backfill before the ditch is turned on in the
spring and we would be grateful if the board could' approve this project with
specific conditions as required so a landmark alteration certificate could be issued
-without the need for further meeting with the design review committee.
We are also enclosing copies of our correspondence with the neighbors and will bring
originals to the meeting. All the neighbors contacted by the Oreck's were in full support
of the project. as submitted. We would appreciate it if this response could be forwarded to.
the board prior to the meeting.
Thank You
Jim Logan
1455 YARMOUTH AVE. STE 114 • 60ULDER, CC) 80104 (0 301 449 3274 • fax 301 417 1781
tTnwcw+ -wos- y tnw
.rtor,cm ..c
ua mwr ue wrt+w
war.nur uniw.o ~Ra~
wu .m ~ anx..m.
oeaaRC, o~ onnns ~
wnan ni rrotrnr
we®o= or rm.~
uon[Ri /-G
W
0
s'
~m
A
V r
b
-lit
FF
J-- I
~.j L ~ t t rr
Y
I I - 1.• -1
Pl.
K Al
U <
1 t. o
-Al
V/ aN
JQ
v' co 00
N
0
Ni
SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE. 1 /8r = I,-00
f r I
s
u
n
n
o ~ n
o o m
Y~ T ~ I
JL i i
- - - r .LLB ~ ~`1 L_ ~ ~ ~ -
Y. J ~ 0
o~
~O
= M
mm
N
0
r*i
WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1 /8' = 1'-0" ~4
ORECK, BRADLEY, CRIGHTON, ADAMS & CHASE
A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
COLORADO= LOUISIANA.
THE WILLARD BUILDING ENEIIGY CEN-TRE
2045 BROADWAY 1100 POYnRAS STREET
SUITE 700 SUIT£ 1440
BOULDER. COLORADO 80302-5202 NEW ORLEANS. LCUISIANA 70163-1480
(303-444-2993) TELEPHONE (504-525.8001) TELEPHONE
(303.444-3441) FACSIMILE (504-525-8018) FACSIMILE
October 2, 2006
City of Boulder
Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
Municipal Building
1777 Broadway
2nd Floor
Boulder, CO 80306
Re; 429 Spruce Street
Dear Board Members;
In connection with our application to construct a house at the above referenced address
within the Mapleton Historic District, my wife Cody and I met with and obtained the
support of the following neighbors:
Deborah Magaldi
413 Spruce (neighbor to the immediate west of 429 Spruce)
• Ms. Magaldi fully supports the proposed plan and signed a letter of support, a
copy of which is attached.
John Helson
420 Spruce (neighbor across the street to the immediate south of 429 Spruce)
• Mr. Helson fully supports the proposed plan and signed a letter of support, a copy
of which is attached.
Cindy Carlisle and Baine Kerr
413 Spruce (neighbor two houses to the west of 429 Spruce)
• Ms. Carlisle and Mr. Kerr fully support the proposed plan and indicated that they
would send a letter of support directly to the Board.
Michael Higuera
2041 5th Street (neighbor across the street and to the east of 429 Spruce)
• Mr. Higuera fully supports the proposed plan and can be contacted, if necessary,
to confirm his support.
Mr. Justin Gold
409 Spruce (neighbor 3 houses to the west of 429 Spruce)
• Mr. Gold fully supports the proposed plan and can be contacted, if necessary, to
confirm his support.
David and Catherine Moll
327 Spruce (neighbor at the north-east corner of Spruce and 4th)
• Mr. and Mrs. Moll fully support the proposed plan and indicated that they would
send a letter of support directly to the Board.
AL :::L
Bruce I Oreck
Applicant 429 Spruce Street
IUiUcitUUU 1s:14 1IAA AU344OIlUZ ORCHARDHOUSE ~ Q02
City of Boulder
Landmarks Preservation Board
Park Central Building
1739 Broadway
Boulder, CO
RE: New Residence
429 Spruce Street
Bruce & Cody Orcck, applicants
Dear Sir or Madam,
I/We have met with the applicants and have reviewed thcir application for a new
residence to be built at 429 Spruce street. Based on our discussions and a review of the
application its attached documentation, Ilwe support the Oreck's proposal for a new
residence.
Sincerely,
nt 1
Signature ` Signature
Name (printed) Name (printed)
r-Address Address
1
t
Date r -T- Date
luiuz/-'UUO 10:1J VAA JUJ44VJ.1y1 U1<C1iAXllHUUD}; 10003
r.
City of Boulder
Landmarks Preservation Board
Palk Central Building
1739 Broadway
Boulder, CO
RE: New Residence
429 Spruce Street
Bruce & Cody Oreck, applicants
Dear Sir or Madam,
I/We have met with the applicants and have reviewed their application for a new
residence to be built at 429 spruce Street. Based on our discussions and a review of the
application its attached documentation, Uwe support the Oreck's proposal for a new
residence.
Sincerely, l~l
Signature Signature
Name (printed) Name (printed)
Address Address
ZD ~z:(_~
Date Date
David and Catherine Mall
327 Spruce Street
Boulder, CO 8032
City of Boulder
Landmarks Preservation Board
Park Central Building
1739 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80306
October 3, 2006
RE: 429 Spruce Street, Boulder
As a neighbor of the applicant, it is our honor to enthusiastically and
wholeheartedly support the plans submitted by Bruce and Cody Oreck for 429
Spruce Street in Boulder.
We have resided on Spruce Street for nearly 10 years, and have seen a wide
variety of projects completed in our neighborhood in that time. In our opinion, no
home has done a better job of fitting into the character of the historical
surroundings than the proposal for 429. Moreover, we applaud the ecologically-
sound approach taken by the applicants, and believe that this is a heroic effort to
balance the historic context of Spruce Street with an environmental ethic. We
prize both our past and our future highly, and we urge the Committee to
recognize the thoughtfulness applied to both the historically-appropriate
architecture, and environmentally-responsible design.
In closing, we completely support the plans for 429 Spruce Street in Boulder.
This is the kind of home we would like in Boulder broadly and in our
neighborhood specifically.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely yours,
David and Catherine Moll
ALl_ 1101, SE SH10",VARE IN THE
MAPLLTO I HISTORIC' DISTRICT
"Ar
r` •
~I
- • 4 Iµ..-. 2 awl
s. i
411 Spruce (2 houses down)
802 Spruce
I
Jr,'
f,<
i'
P
imam
L~
l~l~~~l ~l 111
1_It_, I -V_14-c~1E=1b 1 • 4~~ NHL! ILr t~IJI'Il'It!'a.C 1. l 1 I 1-. tiles
w
m7
o ~.,C*'
VakkAj-l IS
4,v ate= S
•g- s
WVI- t`
cr~
JO
~I 1
f ''AAar 1rN
cz~ CUA cilt
f J-7
Jj
'u viol -~A
TOTAL P.02
. IVU.Y
James Hewat - landmark alteration
From: "Judy Stone" <judystone@comcast.net>
To: <hewatj@bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: 9/22/2006 3:54:10 PM
Subject: landmark alteration
These comments are regarding the property of 2529 6th, that is requesting a 2car garage and
studio building
I would prefer that the scale of this addition be as small as possible to fit the character of the
existing house. I question the "studio".. What is the intended use? Will there be bathroom and
utilities installed? Is the intended use as an added living space? Or for possible rental at a later
date?
I feel that the zoning should remain intact for this property and no alteration should be given.
Otherwise, what is the point of the historic zoning at all? It seems that far too many of these
alterations are being given.
Thank you for keeping these comments on file.
, and confidential. I will be out of town for the meeting
Judy Stone
624 Concord
fileWCADocuments and Settingslhewa.j I\Local Settings\Temp'-' 00005.HTM 10/4/2006
rabc i vi
James Hewat - Re: Landmark Alteration 2529 6th St. (HIS2006-
00169)
From: "Matthew Muir" <m2muir@earthlink. net>
To: "James Hewat" <HewatJ@bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: 9/21/2006 2:51:55 PM
Subject: Re: Landmark Alteration 2529 6th St. (HIS2006-00169)
Thanks James and here are my comments:
A 600+ sq.ft. two-car garage-studio sounds big to me, especially since it would be directly adjacent to our
property via the Maxwell-Concord alley we share. Alternatively, the property owner is my new neighbor and
feel awkward commenting since 1 would like inidividuals to enjoy reasonable freedom to remodel. I know that
other neighbors have erected similar structures but it seems as if another two-car garage would be
disproportionate to the lot and the related structures and, therefore, would change the character, views, and feel
of the alley. I'm reluctant to add that general considerations of consumption and sustainability make me wonder
about such large additions though, again, this seems nosey of me. Anyways, thanks for the opportunity to
comment.
Matt Muir
531 Maxwell Ave.
80304
Original Message
From: James Hewat
To: m2muir@earthlink.net
Sent. 9/21/2006 11:57:36 AM
Subject: Re: Landmark Alteration 2529 6th St. (HIS2006-00169)
Deat Matt:
Yes, you can send comments to this address and also have the
ooportunity to comment during the public hearing on October 4th.
Thanks,
James
"Matthew Muir" <m2muir@earthlink.net> 9/21/2006 11:24:30 AM
Hi James-
May I make comments to this address regarding the subject line
application?
file://C:\Documents and Settings\hewai 1\Locai Settings\Temp\GW }00005.HTM 10/4/2006
David and Catherine Moll
327 Spruce Street
Boulder, CO 803Q
City of Boulder
Landmarks Preservation Board
Park Central Building
1739 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80306
October 3, 2006
RE: 429 Spruce Street, Boulder
As a neighbor of the applicant, it is our honor to enthusiastically and
wholeheartedly support the plans submitted by Bruce and Cody Oreck for 429
Spruce Street in Boulder.
We have resided on Spruce Street for nearly 10 years, and have seen a wide
variety of projects completed in our neighborhood in that time. In our opinion, no
home has done a better job of fitting into the character of the historical
surroundings than the proposal for 429. Moreover, we applaud the ecologically-
sound approach taken by the applicants, and believe that this is a heroic effort to
balance the historic context of Spruce Street with an environmental ethic. We
prize both our past and our future highly, and we urge the Committee to
recognize the thoughtfulness applied to both the historically-appropriate
architecture, and environmentally-responsible design.
In closing, we completely support the plans for 429 Spruce Street in Boulder.
This is the kind of home we would like in Boulder broadly and in our
neighborhood specifically.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely yours,
n
David and Catherine Moll
October 2, 2006
Mr. James Hewat
City of Boulder
Re: Public Hearing for New Construction of Proposed Residence at 429 Spruce St.,
Boulder, CO
Dear ,lames,
Last Thursday Cody Oreck presented to me plans for the above referenced property.
From what I saw, there has been a great deal of attention to detail and creativity put into
this environmentally conscious design. I appreciate the nod to traditional architecture
with the gables and porch yet it does not try to mimic an old building, blending a
contemporary statement with historic sensitivity without looking contrived. This
particular block, a relatively new addition to the Mapleton Hill Historic District, is
somewhat transitional in nature so in my opinion a more creative interpretation is not
inappropriate.
I'm sure there are a number of details to be addressed and know that the Landmarks
Board will do a conscientious and thorough job of that but overall, as a resident with an
adjacent property, I support the plans.
I may be reached for any comments or questions at 303.250.5173.
Sincerely,
Y -1
c
e a , Felin agaldi
413 Spry ce St.
Boulder, CO 80302
i
I
125'-G° SCO17 COBUMN
& ASSOCIATES
- ~.eCIflTSCrs
2100 Y....
lru..
9ott17
i - 9~uw{r, CO 10782
Poo 307.IN,1777
Yu 701.1U,01{l
m
I
I J~
I I
~ u
I 1 ~
EXISTING HOUSE c V
1 E)CSTING SHED
a
TO BE RELOCATED W ( Y N
TO BE ED PATIO i I E Z N REMOVED L
PROPOSED GARAGE L, i
27,•5. 1 I
-77
A i / EXISTING SHED
, ' m tJ ~I
' }F/ / (NEW LOCATION)
~ / I PROPERTY LINE
1
lror iy.
EX-STING Q4 HIGH
FENCE • REMOVE SECTION
FROM S.W. PROPERTY
CORNER TO HERE
I SHED Wt PROPERTY
II LINE
f
ALLEY now W.
µ
~~dp va
1
NORTH SITE SITE PLAN
SCALE 1 = 10' ` '
21' .T
a
S,~ 12 0 3:12 PITCH
h SCOTT COHURN
I 3.12 PI TCA-
CCFMEH AEC~e _ _ & ASSOCTATTS
ARClilTECI'S
i i 2100 Ir... !„m
" 9wnD
Doa,or! CO 10107
Ira lOS.I IS.f SD!
421 305.119.0111
I TWO CAA - - - - .
GARAGE
I ~ .I I
• I
712 PITCH PICOF SLOPE
N
3:12 PITCH it C
n i a
(2) • 8070 CH DOORS 2il
~ I 4-
_
1'n e'•a 2'-0' 1'•
8'•D' b 3 3'a
PROPEAIY LINE C 0 N
NORTH Ncar E
GARAGE PLAN ROOF PLAN Z
SCALE t18• = 1'-0 SCALE 1M"= 1'-0'
12 c"
I
h
12 1 I I I I ~
71 III l T70STING SHED I I II l
~l ® I II III (RELOCATED)_~
7 11, "n,~~I Ii III 1 II Tkil
11 ; lly
b
I 1 1
u
i
i. 'I ~ I I I' I l iI I i " to
RN
;^J I I ~ - - L1_l III ~ I t
I I ~ JJIJI
Lt tt
;I ~I ~~',I•~•~ lip! !ill ~~I' I I,~'~ ,I, . 1. ~ ~ 3'~ I ~ ~ , ,I I I , I ; ~ ~
SOUTH ELEVATION ALLEY1AEW NORTH ELEVATION •
SCALE 118• - ra SCALE 118' - r-,V ASPHALT COMPOSITION
SHINGLES TO MATCH
EbST1NGHOUSE
_ I II
I, L• fl : ~ I l i y I I I 'U' STYLE GUTTER
IL " lV~il II II , Ih
1X8 FASCIA BOARD
u I T ® lilt ILII ~~~Tl~im ! ' 'I
will il~ J1~1 ~I Ibii Iii ,pllT~li111 'I I~ ~~I;
1 X8 BOARDS
I i I+ I I I I 10 TRIM
I I II II l 1 ' 1: E)OSTING SHED BEYOND
III I IIi ;I'
°°STTNGSHED
I ` I ,~I ~ I' 1p~~ I~ I I I I I I I
NEW CONC.
n 1 FOUNDATION P
p f I ~ I, l~ Ii I ~
I !1
Jil
41 l[; WOOD SIDING & TRIM
EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION
00STTNG
SHED ELEVATIONS WEST ELEVATION
SCALE 1I8' - 1'-0' SCALE 1/81 . 1'-a
^ Z-(ISTING SHE:
(RELOCAT'c0)
I
lI J _ III1 I I ; ~ a
- f1 J J//{ y SCOTTCIDBURN
1 ' ~ III
I
AiIULl CF.IJ
' OPTION A
a:'.2 PITCH 3maa~a co 40303
P. 303.11].0[{3
SOUTH ELEVATION ALLFrv[w EAST ELEVATION P. 343.443.143
~muwau.uwm1
SCALE 1(B" = v-o, SCALE l,8'- V-0"
o
12
EXISTING SHED
(RELOCATED(
I
i I.
i •
1
' ~ II ~ ~ I I I~I 'I s
y. Pl I IT.
n
EZ
OPTION 6 y
LLL
M c
z
SOUTH ELEVATION ALLEY NEW EAST ELEVATION
SCALE 1/8'- 1'-0' SCALE 1/8'- 1'-0'
( Y
IJ-
12
12 G ( I l{ 1 I
7~ l' I~ U if EGSTINGSHEO
(RELOCATD
I
~r+- ~Of
Mim 111 ~~,l I 111
I
II I 'f1 r l~' ~ ~ ►
.I
I ►
l 1 1111!4+, 1
OPTION C fill Illillill 1
ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION ALIEY.VIEW 7.12 PITCH EAST
SCALE 1/8'- l'-a SCALE 1/3'- rd
NEW GARAGE _
12
3u 1 r Ir Ii III
EXISTING SHED 'q p li~l I t i
ELOCA
1. I I'.
3+w~ 3r
1 I i, {I tlI
I _ a.lr lFr. „ I ull
I - 1 1 ~ ~ I
- - i
- I
t
ir, I 'I'I~ I
I
~I I II
Al'
OPTIOND 1-I
8:12 PITCH
SOUTH ELEVATION ALLEY MEW EAST E TLEVATION
SCALE 1/8'- IW SCALE 1)8'- V-7
I