HomeMy WebLinkAbout5 - Information ItemsT4: CENTRAL RECORDS
FROM: ~ - /)/a~'v~~~ ~~-r~~
(Name/ Boa •d Or Commi on)
PLEASE add these items to Meeting Packet of:
~.1~iL~.~i ~s, a~1
(Date of Meeting)
1431 Balsam Avenue ' ~
Boulder, CO 80304
March 17, 2001
To Whom It May Concern:
T am the parent of two children (ages three and five) currently attending Harmony
Preschool. I am aware that Jennae Sevvom, Director of Harmony, has applied to the City
of Boulder for a permit to expand and improve the existing facility at 3990 15th Street. I
am writing to exprass my strong support for this expansion.
Harmony Preschool is a neighborhood preschool. It is a valuable resource to the North
Boulder community. While the school draws students from all parts of the Boulder area,
the vast majority of the students reside in close proximity to the scl~ool. As a result,
parents are frequently able to utilize alternate modes of transportation (i.e. walking,
biking, taking the bus) in transporting their children to and from Harmony. A large
number of parents do this on a regular and consistent basis.
Personally, I live approximately 1.5 miles from Harmony. Weather and schedule
permitting, my children and I take the SKIP bus to Harmony. When we do drive, we
carpool with a neighbor whose child also attends Harmony. I would like to emphasize
that we are the norm- not the exception at Harmony.
Harmony Preschool is a perfect example of what the City of Boulder promotes in terms
of being a neighborhood based resource that is easily accessible to local residents.
Because Harmony parents can and do utilize alternate transportation, the traffic impacts
to the neighborhood are greatly minimized. Even at the busiest times of the day (drop
off and pick up times), the parking lot at Harmony is frequently just.about empty!
T would also like to emphasize Ms. Sewom's awareness of, concern for and sensitivity to
any Harmony related traffic and parking issues. She has always made the parking
policies at Harmony perfectly clear both verbally and in writing. There has never
been any question in my mind as to when, where and how parking is permitted. As the
Director of Harmony, Ms. Sevvom has always been extremely vigilant on this issue and
as parents, I like to think that we try to serve as positive role models for our children- we
follow the rules!
I am especially supportive of the proposed expansion of Harmony in light of the fact that
no increase in enrollment wiil be involved. This is an opportunity to make an excellent
program even better with absolutely no negative impact on the neighborhood.
Approving the proposed expansion of Harmony would be totally consistent with the
stated goals, policies and objectives of the City of Boulder. I urge you to approve this
expansion.
Sincerely,
~~~~
Lisa Hammond
Also supported by:
~~ ~ ~
Sawyer Hammond (Age 5) and Wili Hammond (Age 3)
~\\, ~~~,~ ,
~w~~~)
REVISED
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONS ON CURRENT CASE
LUR2001-00003 Description: USE REVIEW: Use Reviewto enlarge the Harmony Preschooi approximately
994 square feet in order to provide addtional mechanical and storage space.
And a parking reduction of 38% to provide five (5) parking spaces where eight
(8) parking spaces are required.
1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with
atl approved plans dated April 5, 2001 and on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department. Further,
the Applicant shall ensure that the preschool use is operated in compliance with the following
restrictions:
a. No increase in the number of students or staff.
2. The Applicant shall not expand or modify the approved use, except pursuant to Subsection
9~4-9(9), B.R.C. 1981.
3. 7he Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions contained in the Planning Board
Disposition for Jennae and Hossein Sevvom, owners of the Harmony Preschool (Use Review
#UR-94-12) dated July 28, 1994. The conditions of UR-9412 are shown in Attachment I.
4. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a revised parking layout
acceptable to the Planning Department that may include r~striping of the spaces and relocation of the
bicycle rack.
5. Prior to scheduling the final inspection for the addition, the existing building and the addition must
meet all of the requirements of the building code in effect at the time of the building permit application.
6. 7he Appiicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with
the ApplicanYs written statement dated February 2, 2001 and attached plans dated April 5, 2001
(Atfachments C and D) on file with the City of Boulder Planning Deparhnent
7. The Applicant shall comply with the traffic and paricing management plan provided by ihe
Applicants and approved by the Planning Department on March 29, 2001 (Attachment E).
8. The City must be notified within 30 days if any change occurs in the parking artangement with the
church directly on the north side of Quince Avenue (as shown on the vianity map attached as
Attachment B).
CONDITIONS ON RELATED CASES IN SAME PROJECT
Case Number: LUR2001-00003 Address: 3990 15TH ST
Description: USE REVIEW: Use Review to enlarge the Harmony Preschool approximately 994 square feet in order
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NOTICE OF DISPOSITION
You are hereby advised that the following action was taken by the Planning Department based on the standards and
criteria of the Land Use Regulations as set forth in Chapter 9-4, B.R.C. 1981, as applied to the proposed
development.
DECISION: Approved with conditions
DESCRIPTION: USE REVIEW: Change of use to allow an interior design and furnishings company
where a health club tenant currently exists through prior use review. No physical
changes to the building.
LOCATION: 2005 PEARL ST
COOR: N03W05
APPLICANT: TIM BORST
OWNER: SFP REALTY LTD.
APPLICATION: Use Revlew, Case # LUR2001-00004
ZONING: MU-X (Mixed Use-Redeveloping)
CASE MANAGER: Don Durso
VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT: NO; the owner has waived the opportunity to create such right
under Section 9-4-12, B.R.C. 1981.
FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, SEE THE FOLLOWING PAGES OF THIS DISPOSITION.
Approved on: ril , 200 L5"~~~'~ (/ ~
By:
Pe er Potlock, lanning Director
This decision may be appealed to the Planning Board by filing an appeal letter with the Planning Department within two
weeks of the date of approval. If no such appeal is filed, the decision shall be deemed final fourteen days after the
date above mentioned.
Appeal to Planning Board expires: April 17, 2001
IN ORDER FOR A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION TO BE PROCESSED FOR THIS PROJECT, A SIGNED
DEVELOPMENT AGREFMENT AND SIGNED
MYLAR PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITH DISPOSITION CONDI710NS AS
APPROVED SHOWN ON THE MYLAR PLANS, IF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS NOT SIGNED WITHIN
SIXTY (60) DAYS OF THE FINAL DECISION DATE, THE PLANNIG BOARD APPROVAL AUTOMATICALLY
EXPIRES.
Pursuant to Section 9-4-8 of the Land Use Regulations (Boulder Revised Code, 1981), the appiicant must begin and
complete Use Review, Case # LUR2001-00004 within three years from the date of finai approval. Failure to "substantially
complete" (as defined in Section 9-4-8) the development within three years shall cause the development approval to
expire.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all aspects of the
applicanYs written statement and approved plans dated February 2, 2001 on file in the City of Boulder Planning
Department.
The Applicant sha(I comply with ali previous conditions of previous reviews #Si96-15, UR96-15, UR97-15, and SI00-04.
Address: 2005 PEARL ST
MEMORANDUM
Apri14, 2001
TO: Planning Board
FROM: Don Durso, Staff Planner
SUBJECT: 2005 Pearl Street Use Review
Attached please find a copy of the final approved Use Review and Planning Department Notice
of Disposition for 2005 Pearl Street. Staff has found the request to meet all Use Review
requirements.
The original use review approval (UR96-15, which was a Planning Boazd approval) approved a
13 % parking reduction, with the requirement that any replacement of tenants, even tenants whose
use is an allowed use in the zoning district, would have to undergo a use review for staff to
determine whether the proposed use was proper, considering that there is a parking reduction on
the site. This staff level approval allows the replacement of the Body Balance Health Club with
Timberline Studios, an interior design and furniture sales company to occupy 4540 square feet of
the total 19,9440 square feet on the site. Staff believes that the characteristics of the proposed
use are less impactive than the existing approved health club use, and therefore approved this
application.
Subsequent to the original approval, the applicant has added residential structures to the site, and
reduced the amount of commercial square footage. With the reduction of commercial square
footage on the property, there now will be a 7% (three spaces) parking reduction, instead of the
13%a.
The final call-up date for this item is April 17, 2001.
S:~PLAN\Users\DURSDI \USEREV~DD2005peadPBcallupcoversheet.wpd
Dr, and Mrs. Robert A. Hannagan
~ 3783 Wonderland Hill Ave.
Boulder, Colorado
80304
March 27, 2001
Dear Mr. Mike Randall, Boulder Planning Department,
Re: Review #: LURZ000-00018
We are writing with regards to the Macgillivray Subdivision at 3737 Broadway.
We have lived here since 1972 and have enjoyed being a neighbor of the property that is
now attempting to be annexed to the city.and subdivided into three separate lots. We have
always felt secure that the appearance and position of the houses in the neighborhood
would never substantially change. By annexation into the city, the owner will be able to
change the property into a personal enclave of trophy homes.
If allowed to proceed, whether it is registered as a historic landmark or not, the
historic nature of the Maxwell Mansion and properiy will.be at least compromised if not
ruined. If ever there was a case of an individual fouling their own nest for pure profit and
bad taste, this may be it. The property would seem to have even more value and
significance if left "as is." The owner could probably profit more by selling to buyer
who could appreciate the historic significance of the mansion, the acres of natural
landscaping and its remarkable view of the city and mountains.
Since this property is directly above Maxwell Lake, have the environmenta(
impacts and wildlife/wetlands considerations been addressed? How much fertilizer will
be washed into the lake from the new houses? Instead of developing two home sites, how
about the city buying the lots and c~eating a mini-pazk for the use of all the citizens of
Boulder?
We are opposed as concerned neighbors and citizens to the annexation request.
Thank you for your consideration.
, `
~ /
/ ~ ~ - (~ :~..~ ~r ;.~~~,., ~,.~,,_
, ,_
Ro d Chrisrine Hannagan
January 22, 2001
To: Mr Mike Randall, Case Manager
RE: LUR2000-00018
Subdivision and Annexation of 3737 Broadway
FROM: Dr. Geoffrey Heron, M.D. and Joan R. Carroll
Andrew, Ted and Sam and Harry
Residents of 835 Linden Ave; Boulder, Co 80304
Dear Mr. Randall,
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of our concerns regarding the
planned annexation and subdivision of the Maxwell House property
located at 3737 Broadway.
Currently we are directly opposite that site off Linden Ave. From our
home, we are currently able to look out our back door and see the dense
trees and foliage resulting in the hilltop view of the Maxwell House. One
can imagine that the house itself from our perspective is the hilltop
mansion fronting the old Maxwell farm. It is historic in architecture and
conveys the sense of times gone by. The trees and shrubbery to the south
on the hill between our home and the mansion are dense and somewhat
unkempt, contributing to the sense of an "original" site in Boulder.
Our concerns are many:
(I) What will the planned subdivision mean for the historic
character of the mansion as it now stands? Will it simply be surrounded
by new millennium mansion homes which will undo its historic
character? (Why isn't it designated an historic site in its own right in
the first place?).
Page two - Maxwell Annexation
Proposal
(2) What will happen to the southern hiliside which now houses up
to eight deer, red fox and coyotes? How many of the existing trees will
be torn down and what will repface the natural habitat of the hillside?
(3) We have serious concern that the so-called access gravel road
will become a main thorough-fare to that property and completely
destroy the natural character of the park as it now exists. What
covenants can in practice prevent this from becoming so?
(4) Who will work to oversee that the historic character of the
property is maintained? As it now stands, it is. a mansion surrounded by
a large lawn and rock walls which establish it's historic proud look.
What will happen to that character of the property in the face of this
new building of homes? Will we no longer see the mansion but modern
houses as a fortress to an old and majestic site? Our view, which feels
like a priviledge to us, will be forever impacted.
(5) Will this have the ability to impact the use and covenants of
the park that lies between us and the Maxwell Mansion? Can someone
follow this plan with another that encroaches further on the naturalness
of this special location? Does it set a precedent for further requests for
one more subdivision/annexation/building project?
(6) How will this planned proposal impact property value? Part of
the value and charm of our location is that it is located under the
historic Maxwell Mansion with all of it's charm. What will happen if
hillside homes take away this habitat and old, original flavor? This
parcel is the last remnant of an historic era in our county's history.
What can we do to work towards, retaining that visual and historic
character, rare in our area, for our community?
Page 3 - Maxwell Annexation
Project
We appreciate any responses or direction that you might have for us as a
family. We are united in our concerns and our children are also eager to
do what they can to help preserve the character and history of our unique
and special site. We appreciate your sending us such a comprehensive
notification of the proposed changes. We would like to be informed of any
further steps that we can take to oppose this proposal and it's certain
impact on the nature of the this historic and scenic location.
Sincerefy,
~' '
/~~~ ~~I~C~L'~r' /G~'i~d~,.~,~
~ Heron, M.D. ~~oan R. Carroll Ted Hgron/ Andrew Varnes
`~~~J
~ ~~~
Sam Varnes Harrison Varnes
1191 Crestmoor Drive
Boulder, Co. 80303
18 Mazch 2001
/ City of Boulder Planning Board
1739 Broadway
Boul@er, Co. 80302
Boulder City Council
Municipal Building
Boulder, Co. 80303
Deaz Members of the Planning Board and the City Council,
Once again the question of how Boulder will support its Shelter for the Homeless is
before the Planning Board and the City Council. Once again the public has the
opportunity to voice its opinions. Once again many of us will prefer not to think about
this issue, hoping that someone else will take caze of it or - better yet - that it will simply
go away.
The decisions taken now by the Planning Board and the City Council will provide the
basis on which Boulder will deal with a homeless population which can oniy increase,
granting the ever-widening gap between rich and poor. I feel concerned at what appears
to be a]ack of official support for the very capably run Shelter and the people it serves. It
seems a few people have had - and continue to have - an impact on decisions out of
proportion to their numbers and their points of view.
I believe that as responsible citizens we aze obliged to acknowledge and respect people
who are less fortunate than we are. I also believe that when this does not happan our
elected officials have a duty to lead us in the way we should go, not by segregating
"undesirables," but by finding a way to incorporate these people into the fabric of
community life. The Shelter staff seams to me to be doing a wonderful job under very
dif~;rn,lt c~nditinns, Shelter staff annears t~_be knqwl.edgeah~e ~bout what can be done -
and how - and to be doing it in spite of a lack of official recognition and support.
I hope each member of the Planning Board and the City Council is listening to the
proposals Shelter staff recommend and taking them very seriously. I also hope each of
you will find it possible to support decisions that will benefit the whole community, not
merely its well to do upper class.
Sincerely,
~~~ ~ A~t'.R.c.r~~c.~/
Patricia Lisensky 0