Loading...
5A - Consideration of Site Review #LUR2004-00066 to allow for an addition to the existing single famCITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: November 4, 2004 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of Site Review #LUR2004-00066, to allow for an addition to the existing single family residence at 1502 Cascade Avenue that results in a building height of 39.4 feet. Applicant: 7ack Rudd, Architect Owner: Morrissey Family Revocable Trust REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Planning Deparhnent Peter Pollock, Planning Director Elizabeth Hanson, Acting Land Use Review Manager Brent Wilson, Presenter OBJECTIVES: 1. Hear Applicant and Staff Presentations 2. Hold Public Hearing 3. Planning Boazd Discussion - is the request consistent with key issues? a. Is the building height, mass, scale, orientation and configuration of the addition compatible with the existing character of the area? 4. Planning Board takes action to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. STATISTICS: Proposal: An addition (1,120 s.f.) to the existing single-family residence at 1502 Cascade Avenue. The proposed height for the addition is 26.5 feet. The resulting overall building height proposed is 39.4 feet. There aze no other requested variations to the land use regulations. Location: 1502 Cascade Avenue Size of Tract: 12,560 squaze feet Zoning: Low Density Residential - Established (LR-E) Comprehensive Plan: I,ow Density Residential, Area I Floor Area Ratio: 0.4 s:\plan\pb-itetns~tnemos\bw1502_Cascade_bw AGENDA I1'EM # SA Pa¢e# 1 KEY ISSUE: Is the building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration of the addition compatible with the existing character of the area? BACKGROUND: Site Context and History 1502 Cascade is located west of Broadway and east oFChautauqua Park in the University Hill neighborhood {see vicinity map in Attachment B). This quiet, low density residential neighborhood contains a mix of established residences and newer, larger homes. The existing hame is 3,049 square feet in size and has a 918 square foot detached garage. The subject parcel is 12,560 square feet in size. The lot exceeds the minimum 7,000 square foot lot size for the LR-E zone district. The standard setback requirements for a principal building on this property are 25 feet (fro-it and rear yards), five feet minimum (side yard) and fifteen feet minimum (total side yard - combined). The accessory building setbacks are a minimum of 55 feet (front yard) and a minimum of three feet for the side and rear yard setbacks (with zero side and rear setbacks possible with a maintenance easement from the neighboring property owner). The maximum by-right building heights are 35 feet for principal buildings and 20 feet for accessory buildings. One off-street parking space is required for each single family dwelling unit. Project Description The applicant is proposing a 1,120 square foot addition on two levels (560 s.f. per level) to add a new kitchen, mud room, sitting room and expanded family room. The proposed addition will be required to comply with the City's buildin~ codes, the Green Points program and the s:lplanlpb-items~nemos11502_Cascade_bw AGENUA ITEM # SA PaQe# 2 The Proposed Additioit is Located Between the House a~td Garage. International Energy Conservation Code. The addition is designed to be compatible with the existing Tudor style of the existing home. This will be the home's first addition since its original construction in 1928. The existing building complies with all setback standards. The proposed "breezeway" connection between the principal and accessory building is permitted under Section 9-3.2-23, Boulder Revised Code. ANALYSIS: Planning staff reviewed this application for compliance with the applicable Site Review criteria. Staffls analysis of the criteria is included as Attachment A. The key issue identified by staff is described below. Is the building height, mass, scale, orientation and con6guration of the additiou compatible with the existing character of the area? The current home is 39.2 feet tall, as measured per the definition of "heighY' provided in the B.R.C.: "Height" means the vertical distance from the lowest point within twenry-five feet of the tallest side of the structure to the uppermost point of the roof. The lowest point shall be calculated using the existing natural grade. The tallest side shall be that side whose lowest exposed exterior point is lower in elevation than the lowest exposed exterior point of any other side of the building. Although the proposed addition is lower in height (26.5 feet) than the existing structure, the "lowest point within twenry-five feeY' of the structure will be moved downhill as a result of the expanded footprint, causing the "heighY' of the building to increase by 0.2 feet. The resulting overall building height proposed is 39.4 feet, as measured per Section 9-3.2-3, B.R.C. The critical Site Review criteria that apply to this application aze found in Section 9-4-11(i)(2) (e), Boulder Revised Code. This section requires that the "height, mass, scale, orientation and configuration of the addition be compatible with the existing chazacter of the azea," and that "the height be in general proportion to the height of existing buildings in the immediate area." Additionally, the building should present an attractive streetscape and minimize the blocking of views from adjacent properties. HeiQ,ht, Mass, Scale The proper[y slopes downhill from west to east. There is a fall of approximately twelve feet across the lot. The proposed addition lies between two existing structures and will be lower in height than the existing roof ridge for the home. As demonstrated on the proposed site plan, the southerly half of the lot will be maintained as landscaped open space. The applicanYs plan demonstrates compliance with the City's solaz access ordinance. Exterior lighting will be required to comply with the City's "Outdoor Illumination" ordinance. s:\plan\pb-items~memos\1502_Cascade bw AGENDA TTEM # SA Paee# 3 As mentioned previously, the proposed height of the addition will be 26.5 feet. Given the location of the existing home on this site, there does not appear to be an altemative location for the proposed improvements that would better mitigate height concerns. Staff believes the proposed height, mass and scale of the structure are compatible with the established neighborhood character. Views The homes and streets in the immediate vicinity are heavily landscaped and many mature trees exist that are substantially higher than the home at 1502 Cascade (see photo from previous page). The proposed addition lies between two existing structures and will be lower in height than the existing roof ridge for the home. The homes on the west side of the property benefit from a minimum of 6-8 feet of additional height due to the neighborhood's topography. The proposed addition is within the same basic footprint and view plane of the existing structures on the lot and will not impact views from the east towazds the foothills. The applicant is proposing a 51 foot setback on the south side of the lot. This provides a substantial view comdor for residents to the east and west. Please refer to the proposed site plan for details. Attractive Streetscave The proposed addition is consistent with the existing architectural style of the home and with the existing neighborhood character. The proposed addition is set back from the existing northem wall plane, which helps to articulate the north fa~ade and reduce the apparent mass from the street perspective. There are existing mature street trees along both street frontages and additional street trees may be required per Section 9-33-3, Boulder Revised Code. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS: Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject property and signs posted on the property. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-2, B.R.C. 1981 have been met. Copies of written correspondence from neighbors have been included as Attachment D. All of the feedback received expresses support for the proposal. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff finds that the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the Site Review criteria (see Attachment A). The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration of the addition aze compatible with the existing character of the azea, and the proposed addition will minimize the blocking of views to neighboring properties. Therefore, staff recommends Planning Boazd approve Site Review #LUR2004-00066, incorporating this staff inemorandum and the attached Site Review Criteria Checklist as findings of fact, along with the following recommended condition of approval. s:\plan\pb-items~memos\1502_Cascade_bw AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee# 4 RECOMMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development is in compliance with the applicants' plans dated June 14, 2004, which are on file in the City oFBoulder Planning Department. Approved By: ~ ~~~~ Peter Pollock, Director Planning Department ATTACHMENTS: A: Site Review Criteria Checklist and DRC Comments dated September 3, 2004. B: Vicinity Map C: Applicants' Proposed Plans and Written Statement D: Correspondence Received s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemosV 502_Cascade_bw AGENDA ITEM # SA Paae# 5 ATTACHMENT A SITE REVIEW CRITERIA CHECKLIST (I) Criteria for Review: No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that: (1) Boulder Vallev Comprehensive Plan: (A) The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds that the concept plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). Specifically, staff considered the BVCP policies listed below. Policv 2.30 - Desian That Respects Existina Character. Residential, commercial, and industrial development and redevelopment shall be encouraged to follow sound and innovative land use planning. The goals are to provide a livable built environment and, through the judicious use of landscaping, materials and human scale, to respect the character of the surrounding area. Policv 2.36 - Enhanced Desian for Built Environment. Through its policies and programs, the City shall encourage or require private sector efforts toward quality architecture and urban design. Design guidelines will be developed as a tool for new development and redevelopment. The desired context and chazacter of existing neighborhoods and business districts will be considered. (B) The proposed development shall not exceed the maximum density associated with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation. Additionally, if the density of existing residential development within a three hundred foot area surrounding the site is at or exceeds the density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, then the maximum density permitted on the site shall not exceed the lesser of: (i) The density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or, (ii) The maximum number of units that could be placed on the site without waiving or varying any of the requirements of Chapter 9-3.2, `Bulk and Density Standards." Not Applicable; no new residential units proposed; existing density is consistent with the BVCP. s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bw1502_Cascade_bw AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee# 6 (2) Site Design: Projects should preserve and enhance the community's unique sense of place through creative design that respects historic character, relationship to the natural environment, and its physical setting. Projects should utilize site design techniques which enhance the quality of the project. In determining whether this subsection is met, the approving agency will consider the following factors: (A)Open space: Open space, including, without limitation, puks, recreation areas, and playgrounds: (i) Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional; (ii) Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit; (iii)The project provides for the preservation of natural features, including, without limitation, healthy long-lived trees, terrain, significant plant communities, Uueatened and endangered species and habitat, ground and surface water, wetlands, riparian areas, and drainage areas; (iv)The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project and from surrounding development; (v) The open space provides a buffer to protect sensitive environmental feahues and natural areas; and (vi)If possible, open space is linked to an area- or city-wide system. Private useable open space area is available on the site and adequate open space would remain after construction of the proposed accessory building and additions. (B) Landscapine: (i) The project provides for aesthetic enhancement and a variety of plant and hard surface materials, and the selection of materials provides for a variety of colors and contrasts and the preservation or use of local native vegetation where appropriate; (ii) Landscape design attempts to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to important native species, plant communities of special concern, threatened and endangered species and habitat by integrating the existing natural environment into the project; (iii)The project provides significant amounts of plant material sized in excess of the landscaping requirements of Sections 9-3.3-2, "Landscaping and Screening Requirements" and 9-33-3, "Landscape Design Standards." (iv)The setbacks, yazds, and useable open space along public rights-of-way aze landscaped to provide attractive streets capes, to enhance architectural features, and to contribute to the development of an attractive site plan. The proposed landscape design contributes to the development of an attractive site plan and enhances the appearance of the property. s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\bw1502_Cascade_bw AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee# 7 ~C) Circulation: Circulation, including, without ]imitation, the transportation system that serves the property, whether public or private and whether constructed by the developer or not: (i) High speeds are discouraged or a physical separation between streets and the project is provided; (ii) Potential conflicts with vehicles aze minimized; (iii)Safe and convenient connections accessible to the public within the project and between the project and existing and proposed transportation systems are provided, including, without limitation, streets, bikeways, pedestrian ways and trails; (iv)Altematives to the automobile aze promoted by incorporating site design techniques, land use pattems, and supporting infrastructure that supports and encourages walking, biking, and other altematives to the single- occupant vehicle; (v) Where practical and beneficial, a significant shift away from single- occupant vehicle use to alternate modes is promoted through the use of travel demand management techniques; (vi)On-site facilities for external linkage are provided with other modes of transportation, where applicable; (vii)The amount of land devoted to the street system is minimized; (viii)The project is designed for the types of traffic expected, including, without limitation, automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians, and provides safety, separation from living areas, and control of noise and exhaust; and (ix)City construction standards are met, and emergency vehicle use is facilitated. No changes to the pedestrian or vehicular circuiation patterns on or adjacent to this site are proposed in this application. (D) PaTking: (I) The project incorporates into the design of pazking areas measures to provide safety, convenience, and separation of pedestrian movements from vehicular movements; (ii) The design of pazking areas makes efficient use of the land and uses the minimum amount of land necessary to meet the parking needs of the project; (iii)Parking areas and lighting aze designed to reduce the visual impact on the project, adjacent properties, and adjacent streets; and (iv)Pazking azeas utilize landscaping materials to provide shade in excess of the requirements in Section 9-3.3-12, "Pazking Area Design Standards." The existing off-street parking exceeds the minimum standards. Parking spaces are withan an enclosed garage. s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\bw1502_Cascade_bw AGENDA ITEM # 5A Paee# 8 (E) BuildinQ Design, Livabilitv, and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed Surrounding Area: (i) The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configwation aze compatible with the existing character of the azea or the chazacter established by an adopted plan for the azea; (ii) The height of buildings is in general proportion to the height of existing buildings and the proposed or projected heights of approved buildings or approved plans for the immediate area; (iii)The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent properties; (iv)If the character of the area is identifiable, the project is made compatible by the appropriate use of color, materials, landscaping, signs, and lighting; (v) Buildings present an attractive streetscape, incorporate architectural and site design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale, and provide for the safety and convenience of pedestrians; (vi)To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned public facilities; (vii)For residential projects, the project assists the community in producing a variety of housing types, such as multi-family, townhouses, and detached single-family units as well as mixed lot sizes, number of bedrooms, and sizes of units; (viii)For residential projects, noise is minimized between units, between buildings, and from either on-site or off-site extemal sources through spacing, landscaping, and building materials; (ix)A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation, safety, and aesthetics; (x) The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids, minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems; (xi)Cut and fill are minimized on the site, the design of buildings conforms to the natural contours of the land, and the site design minimizes erosion, slope instability, landslide, mudflow or subsidence, and minimizes the potential threat to property caused by geological hazazds. Proposed building additions are compatible with the existing site and character of the area. The height, location, and design of the building have been designed to minimize the shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent properties. Please refer to the staff analysis in the Planning Board memorandum for additional details. (F) Solaz Siting and Construction: For the purpose of ensuring the maximum potential for utilization of solar energy in the city, all applicants for residentia] site reviews shall place streets, lots, open spaces, and buildings so as to ma~cimize the potential for the use of solaz energy in accordance with the following solar siting criteria: s:\plan\pb-items\cnemos\bw1502_Cascade_bw AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee# 9 (I) Placement of Open Space and Streets: Open space azeas aze located wherever practical to protect buildings from shading by other buildings within the development or from buildings on adjacent properties. Topography and other natural features and constraints may justify deviations from this criterion. (ii) Lot Lavout and Buildin Sg irinQ: L,ots are oriented and buildings aze sited in a way which maximizes the solar potential of each principal building. Lots are designed to facilitate siting a structure which is unshaded by other nearby structures. Wherever practical, buildings are sited close to the north lot line to increase yard space to the south for better owner control of shading. (iii)Building Form: The shapes of buildings are designed to m~imize utilization of solar energy. Buildings shall meet the solar access protection and solaz siting requirements of Chapter 9-8, "Solar Access." (iv)Landscapin¢: The shading effects ofproposed landscaping on adjacent buildings are minimized. The shadows cast by the proposed addition will not impact neighboring properties as they fall within the applicant's properry and the street right- of-way. The applicant has provided a shadow analysis which demonstrates compliance with the Ciry's solar access ordinance. s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bw1502_Cascade_bw AGENDA ITEM # SA Pa¢e# 10 ~'~'~". ~ ~ DATE OF COMMENTS: CASE MANAGER: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: COORDINATES: REVIEW TYPE: REVIEW NUMBER: APPLICANT: CITY OF BOULDER LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS September 3, 2004 Brent Wilson Morrisey Residence 1502 CASCADE AV N01 WO6 Site Review LUR2004-00066 Jack Rudd, Architect DESCRIPTION: SITE REVIEW FOR HEIGHT MODIFICATION: To allow of addition including kitchen and expansion of family room in basement. REQUESTED VARIATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Building height in excess of 35'. I. REVIEW FINDINGS Application meets all criteria; item scheduled for Planning Board decision on Thursday, November 4'", 2004. II. CITY REQUIREMENTS Fees Please note that 2004 development review fees include a$125 houriy rate for reviewer services following the initial city response (these written comments). Please see the P&DS Questions and Answers brochure for more information about the hourly billing system. Legal Documents An updated title commitment or attorney's memorandum to within 30 days of current will be required. Also, piease submit proof of authorization to sign on behalf of the Morrissey Family Revocable Trust. Julia Chase, City Attomey's O~ce, Ph. 303-441-3020. III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS Building and Housing Codes No issues - Steve Brown Utilities The applicant is advised that at the time of building permit application the following requirements will apply: a. The applicant will be required to provide an accurate proposed plumbing fixture count to determine if the proposed meters and services are adequate for the proposed use. b. Water, wastewater and storm Plant Investment Fees and service line sizing wiil be evaluated. c. If the existing water and/or wastewater services are required to be abandoned and upsized, all new service taps to existing mains shall be made by city crews at the developer's expense. The water service must be excavated and turned off at the corporation stop, per city standards. The sewer service must be excavated and capped at the property fine, per city standards. CITY OF BOULDER Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-4413241 • web boulderplandevelop.net Address: 1502 Cascade Ave. pyg~glt~lll#~P891#~ Zoning Per Section 9-3.3-23, Boulder Revised Code, the width of the breezeway (measured from the outside edge of the supporting columns) shall not exceed six feet and each eave, measured from the outside edge of the supporting columns to the fascia, shall not exceed eighteen inches. This would allow for a total width (eave-to-eave) of 9' - per the submitted drawings. IV. NEXT STEPS Since the application involves a request for building height in excess of 35', the final decision on this application will be made by Planning Board on 11/04/04. V. CITY CODE CRITERIA CHECKLIST Please refer to Section 9-4-11, Boulder Revised Code. Address: 1502 Cascade Ave. Ayenaa ~em # ~ aag~ ~1Q2- ATTACHMENT B Citv of Boulder Vicin NR-E` Location: 1502 Cascade Ave ~r~. ~ r~ ~ Project Name: 1502 Cascade Ave o,~~~ ~ Revlew Type: Sife Revlew Q (~ ~TH Tne irrormatim depctea m mis map is proNded Review Number. LUR200400066 asg~h~~a~~~~~ent~c~o~~,y Tr~c~~e«~~u~~ prwitles rowaRanty, ecpressetl or implietl, as m Applicant: Jack Rudd 1 inch equals 200 feet ~eattu2tyaMlarromplz[aiessdtMiNrrmahnn cortalnetlhereon. s:\plan\pb-items~nemos1bw1502_Cascade_bw AGENDA ITEM # SA Page# l3 ATTACHMENT C ~lorrissey Residence 1~02 Cascade Avenue Written Statement A. STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP The property at 1502 Cascade Avenue. is owned by The Morrissey Family Revocable Trust 4-06-01 This is a simple living trust. The beneficiaries and trustees are Donald and Georgina Morrissey. ^ The Morrisseys reside in the house at 1502 Cascade Avenue with their two children, Liam (7 years) and Anna (4 years). B. PROJECT t7BJECTIVES ^ The original house was constructed in 1928. There have been numerous interior "improvements" to the house over the years, but the house has not been expanded. As a result, many of the interior spaces are awkwardfy configured, small, and do not reflect either good design or the needs of a contemporary family. qgentla Item #_ S~ . _ t'age#~ Jack Rudd - Architect 1121 broadway boulder colorado 80302 1502 Cascade Avenue Front View • The owners' objective is to build a 1,120 square foot addition on two levels (560 s.f. per level) to provide facilities and spaces that will enable a modern family to inhabit the house comfortably. The addition is to be located on the east end of the existing residence and is design to be in harmony with and respectful to the existing 1928 Tudor-style house. • The owners will be providing new landscaping design and performing landscaping maintenance. • The addition/remodel will include the following improvements: o Add new kitchen and sitting room on main level o Add new entry/mud room and expand existing family room at ground level o Replace existing steam heating system to increase energy efficiency o Replace existing electrical system for efficiency and safety o Improve existing master bathroom, powder room o Replace existing plumbing piping o Replace selected windows for energy efficiency ri i * ~~ i`;\,; ~ ,. 3 ..\. ~ ~.-'-` . ~ ~ r----~ North Elevat~on Sketch Proposed Addition C. PROJECT ISSUES The owner's have submitted for a building permit. All aspects of the project have been approved with the noted exception of a non-conforming existing building height and the formulaic increase in this height by the location of the proposed addition. No other issues have been identified as obstacles to the project as designed and submitted. The following information is based on site data provided by Flatirons Surveying: • The height of the existing house, as defined by ciiy of Boulder criteria, is 39.2 feet. The location of the proposed addition will change the base reference point for this measurement, thereby increasing the formulaic height of the existing building to 39.4 feet. Agende Item q Sfl __ Page #/~__ Jack Fudd - Architect 1 721 broatlway boulder colorado 80302 existing garage proposed addihon ex~sting iesidence • The theoretical increase in height amounts to two-tenths of a foot or 2.4 inches. This represents an overall increase of Yz% of the existing building height per the height calculation formula. • It is important to note that the real, or actual, heiqht of the existinq buildinp will not be increased as a result of the addition/remodel. The addition is well within the established height criteria and does not impact the height of the existing house. Site topography will not be altered in such a way that the existing building height will be increased per the formula. • The existing house was constructed in 1928, over a half-century before the current height ordinance was enacted. The non-conforming height is, quite obviously, unintentional. • The Tudor style of the house dictates steep roof slopes. The steep roof slopes do make for high roof lines. • It is our understanding the planning staff has no ability to grant administrative variances for issues related to building height. East Eievatrwa Proposed AddRion Agenda Item q ~~_ __ Page #~ JackRudd-Architect 1127broadway bouldercolorado80302 D. REQUEST for VARIANCE The owner has worked with city staff to define the issues and contracted with Flatirons Surveying Inc. to provide accurate site and building height data. This data has been used to bring objective definition to the issue The owners' request for a height variance for the project is based on the following information: • The formulaic increase in height is minimal, if not negligible. As noted above, the 2.4 inch increase represents a Yz% overall increase in height. • The formulaic increase in height does not represent a perceived increase in height. Neither the existing roof nor the site topography will be altered as a result of the addition. There is no view of the property from which the existing building height will be perceived as increased. • In his building permit review memorandum of July 21, 2004, the senior planner, Mr. Brian Holmes, stated, "I agree that it (the height increase) appears to be by inches not feet, but that fact is a strong argument for why the increase should be approved through the Site Review...". While this statement may not be construed as an endorsement for approval of the variance, it does highlight the realities of the height issue. • The nature of the addition will actually mitigate the perceived height of the building by providing a new, smaller scaled, architectural element to balance or harmonize the height of the East elevation. The design for the addition addresses the existing building with respect and intentionally provides the offsetting architectural element to mitigate the scale of height. • It has been suggested that moving the location of the addition would not change the formulaic "low poinY' of the property by which building height is measured and, therefore, skirt the issue of non-conforming heights of the existing house. The plan of the existing house precludes this approach. There is no rational alternative location for the addition. • This will be the first addition to the house since the original construction in 1928. The owners' intent is to make the house live-able for a modern family. The design reflects a very respectful approach to the proposed addition. We feel the existing house is a"cornerstone" house of the neighborhood, defining an architectural proportion and presence that is rarely experienced in current architectural design. The approval of this variance will be instrumental in extending the life and usefulness of this beautiful residence. ~ ~ry Agande ttem # Sf! pag~ ~ i'~ Jack Rudd - Architect 1 721 broadway boulder colorado 80302 PreliminarySketch ProposedAddition E. DEVELOP~l9ENT SCHEDULE The owners would like to begin construction as soon as the permit is approved. An optimal starting date is the end of this year, 2004, or the early part of next year. As noted above, there were no other building permit issues raised during the review process. F. SPECIAL AGREEMENTS, CONVEYANCES, RESTRICTIONS There are no special agreements, conveyances, restrictions, or covenants that will govern the maintenance or continued use of the property. There are no public facilities, such as parks, associated with the property. Jack Rudd - Architect 1 121 broadway boulde~~!`t5"N'bIY'~~a~SQ~o-~-~a~~ ~~ - Existing West Elevation (non-conforming height) ATTACHMENT D August 23, 2004 Planning Boazd %Brent Wilson P. O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306 Dear Board Members: Regarding the application for the addition to the property at 1502 Cascade, we would like to go on record as supporting the proposal as requested. We are long time residents in this neighborhood and find the proposal in no way detrimental. We hope you will approve it as it stands and allow the height as proposed. Yows trul -°/a,~,~i ~ ' ,~~''~-/ ~ !~. 0'~~~. ~ Fa~A. Peterson R. J. Peterson 763 16'~ St 303 447 9300 Agenda Item # _~ Page #~ ~~ W , Ul~ C OM~ sarryvant-xull ~) I~II AUG 3 1 2004 1515 Baseline ~~ ~~ Boulder, CO 80302 August 29, 2004 City of Boulder Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway Boulder, CO 80306 Dear Sirs, I am writing in support of the project under review at 1502 Cascade Avenue (Review # LUR2004-00066). I share the alley with the owners of this property, and as a daily passerby, I feel that my opinion on this matter should carry some weight. If my understanding of this review is correct, this procedure was triggered because the technically defined height of the existing structure will be increased by 2.5" due to the addition, and the existing height already exceeds the mandated 35 foot limit. However, the existing shucture will not be modified in any way to increase its altitude, and the added structure will actually be lower in height than the existing structure. The height increase in question is actually a legal fiction, created by lowering the bottom point from which the height is measured, as opposed to raising the upper point. I hope this appears as silly to you as it does to me. The proposed addition will have little visible impact from the alley or from the street, as it will be obscured by the garage on the one hand, and by tall vegetation and a fence on the other. I see no reason to delay this proposal any further. incerely~ / n~ ~-~~~'~ B Vant-Hull 303-447-0387 pgenda ilem N 5~1 _ Page ~.~. Brent Wilson - Re: 1502 Cascade Ave. Morrissey property proposed addition From: Elizabeth Hanson To: Gibbons, Scott Date: 9/3/2004 4:16 PM Subject: Re: 1502 Cascade Ave. Morrissey property proposed addition CC: Wilson, Brent Scott, Thanks for your e-mail. I have forwarded it to Brent Wilson, who is the case manager for this application. If you have any questions about the project, please contact Brent at 303-441-4012 or wilsonb ci,boulder.co.us. Liz Hanson Acting Land Use Review Manager City of Boulder Planning and Development Services 303-441-3287(phone) 303-441-3241 (fax) »> "Scott Gibbons" scottgibbons@earthlink.net> 9l3/2004 1:33:27 PM » Liz, I have lived across the street from the Morrissey residence since 1991. I have seen the plans for the proposed addition to the property and understand the issue regarding height. My wife, Cheryl, and I concur that the addition wouid be welcome and improve tlte property. The real height, of course, would not change and the new portion of the building would actually diminish the perceived height of the existing roof. I don't find the existing height to be probiematic, not to mention it has been that way for many decades. The fact that the whole issue of height as measured will increase only by inches and the actual height remains the same is further support of approving the addition. Please let them do what they want with their property. The design is very thoughtfuliy done and appropriate. Sincerely, Scott Gibbons 765 15th St. 303.447.3394 Agenda Item # _ sf~ Page~ ai _ file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settines\wilsbl\Local%20Settin~s\Temn\('.W}00001_HTM 9/'i/~0f14