HomeMy WebLinkAbout7E - Annexation #LUR2000-AZ005, 3737 BroadwayCITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: April 5, 2001
Agenda Item Preparation Date: March 23, 2001
AGENDA TITLE:
Public hearing and consideration of annexation #LUR2000-AZ005, a 9,207 squue foot enclave
located at 3737 Broadway. Initia] Zoning to ER-E (Estate Residential-Established), current
zoning in the county is RR (Rural Residential).
Applicant: Bart Macgillivray
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Planning Department
Peter Pollock, Planning Director
Robert Cole, Director of Project Review
Mike Randall, Planner II, Case Manager
OVERVIEW:
The Planning Board is being asked to consider the annexation of an undeveloped county
enclave located adjacent to (and a part o~ the property at 3737 Broadway. The Board must
determine if the proposal meets the applicable State annexation requirements and the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policies for annexation. The Planning Board is also being
asked to determine if the initial zoning of Estate Residential - Established (ER-E) is
appropriate.
Staff recommends approval of this proposal based on a finding that it meets applicable
annexation criteria and that ER-E zoning is appropriate for the site.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos~mr3737broadannex,wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7E Paee # 1
STATISTICS:
Proposal: , Annexation #LUR2000-AZ005 and Initial Zoning to ER-E
Project Name: 3737 Broadway Annexation
Location: 114 mile west of Broadway and south of Wonderland Hill Avenue
Size of enclave: 9,207 square feet
Current Zoning: Boulder County Zoning, RR (Rural Residentia])
Comprehensive Plan: Low Density Residential, Area IiA
BACKGROUND:
The property known as the James P. Maxwell house, at 3737 Broadway, was originally annexed
to the city in 1962. Although held in the same ownership, the subject strip of land (see the
vicinity map, Attachment A) was not included in the original annexation. In 1969 the land
bordering the west side of the subject site was annexed, thereby creating an unincorporated
enclave. The area sLUrounding the subject site has seen considerable development over the years
with the subdivision of Wonderland Hill and Linden Pazk. The unannexed site is not a separate
divided lot from the larger annexed part of the property; together; the single parcel contains
approximately 80,481 square feet (1.847 acres).
KEY ISSUES:
1. Does the request comply with applicable State annexation requirements?
2. Does the request comply with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)
policies for annexation?
3. Is the requested zoning, ER-E, appropriate for the site? What is the development
potential of the site?
4. What is tUe status of landmarking the historic Maxwell House?
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos~mr3737broadannex.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7E Paee # 2
ANALYSIS:
Does the request compiy with applicable State annezation requirements?
Staff finds that the requirements of Article 12, Colorado Revised Statutes, Annexation, are met.
No land held in identical ownership, will be divided into separate parts or parcels by this
annexation (although at this time the ownership of the land is divided by city and county
jurisdiction). Annexation would bring all of the land which is currently under single ownership
within the city. The owners of 100 percent of the property have signed the annexation petition
(Attachment B). The subject property is at least one-sixth contiguous to the city limits. No part
of the annexation area has been part of an annexation proceeding to another municipality within
the last twelve months, and the annexation will not result in the detachtnent of area from any
school district.
In accordance with State law (Section 31-12-106), the city has the option of annexing the subject
property unilaterally since the property has been an enclave for three years; however, the city may
not impose any terms or conditions. If acting unilaterally, the city would probably choose to
establish zoning with minimum development potential.
FindinFS:
A. The annexation request is in accordance with the State statutes.
2. Does the request comply with the Bouider Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)
policies far annexation?
The property is located within Boulder Valley Planning Area IIA. Area IIA is identified by the
BVCP as the area of immediate focus for annexation to the city. Because the parcel is located
within a fully urbanized area of the city, adequate municipal water, wastewater, and other
community services are currently available to the property. Consequently, no new community
investment in the infrastructure is required to provide urban services.
Annexation of this parcel is consistent with the applicable policies of the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan:
Policy 1.20(bl
Annexation of existing substantially developed areas will be offered in a manner and on
terms and conditions which respect existing lifestyles and densities, and the city will expect
these areas to be brought to city standards only where necessary to protect the health and
safety of the residents of the subject area or of the city.
FindinQS:
B. The proposed annexation of this enclave completes the incorporation of all parcels
in this area. Annexation of the property brings into the city all land owned by the
s:\plan\pb-items~memos~mr3737broadannex.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7E Paee # 3
applicant and subjects the entire property to development review by the city. Full
utility services already exist to the one home on the property.
C. Staff has determined that the property was erroneously left out of the 1962 ancl
1969 annexations. Annexation at this time will correct this error and incorporate
all parts of the undivided properry.
Policv 1.20 (c)
In order to reduce the negative impacts of new development in the Boulder Valley, the city
shall annex Area II land with significant development or redevelopment potential only on
a very limited basis. Such annexations will be supported only if the annexation resolves
an issue o£ public health or provides a specia] opportunity or benefit to the city.
FindinQS:
D. The enclave does not have any development potential, so this policy does not apply
(see zoning considerations bedow).
3. Is the requested zoning, ER-E, appropriate for the site? What is the development
potential of the site?
The BVCP land use designation for this site is Low Density which is consistent with the proposed
zoning. Additionally, the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan (NBSP) sets forth the recommended
land uses. No changes for the area of the subject parcel are proposed. The NBSP established
development guidelines for the area as follows:
Develop building size limitations for the area to preserve and enhance neighborhood
character;
Preserve environmental features and avoid development in high hazard flood areas;
Preserve rural/semi-rural character in this area wiCh a very low density land use pattem.
The enclave is not developed with any principal use but does have one accessory structure which
is a garage about 400 square feet in size. The enclave does not have direct frontage on a street.
The site is held in common ownership and is not legally divided from the adjacent larger parcel
which is incorporated in the city. Without street frontage the enclave does not have development
potential on its own.
The larger, incorporated part of the property is zoned ER-E (see note below) and has some
development potential today. Based on existing street frontage of 81 feet, the incorporated
property might have potential for two separate lots (with minimum 30 feet street frontage each).
The enclave portion of the site, while adding area, does not increase street frontage and, therefore,
no additional development potential is added with annexation. The following factors will make
it difficult to form new lots: steep slopes, limited street frontage, the siting of the existing home,
s:\plan\pb-items~rnemos~mr3737broadannex.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7E Paee # 4
and the odd shape of the property. The properry owner has submitted an application for
Preliminary Subdivision Plat which the staff is reviewing.
(Note: The bulk of the incorporated property is zoned ER-E; however, according to the Official
Zoning Map, a small portion of the site is zoned LR-D. After a review of the original legal
descriptions of the prior annexations and initial zonings, staff has determined that the LR-D zone
is a clerical error which only appears on the most recently adopted zoning map and will be
corrected in accordance with Section 9-2-3(d)(2).)
FindinQS:
E. Initial Zoning of ER-E (Estate Residential - Established) is consistent with the
NBSP and BVCP land use designations, as well as the surrounding zoning in the
area.
F. The enclave does not have any development potential, it does not increase the
development potential of the larger incorporated parcel beyond that which already
exists today. Annexation of the enclave brings all of the property under one
ownership into the regulatory control of the city.
4. What is the status of landmarking the historic Maxwell House?
The subject site is a part of the property known as the "James A. Maxwell House," an important
historic home which does not yet have landmark status. Since the actual location of the historic
home is not on the subject annexation site, the staffhas suggested to the owner that an application
for landmarks is strongly recommended but not a condition of approval for this annexation.
STAFF REVIEW AND COMMENT
The staff Design Review and Comments of February 2, 2001 are attached as Attachment C.
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS:
Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners
within 300 feet of the subject property and a sign posted on the property for at least 10 days. All
notice requirements of Section 9-4-2, B.R.C. 1981 have been met. Correspondence from neighbors
and others has been attached as Attachment D. Their primary concems are for the historic
Maxwell House and the future development potential of the site.
STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION:
Staff finds that annexation of 3737 Broadway complies with applicable State annexation
requirements and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan policies related to annexation. Also,
staff finds that the ER-E zoning is appropriate for the site.
s:\plan\pb-items~tnemos~mr3737broadannex,wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7E Paee # 5
Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Board recommend approva] to the City Council
of the Annexation LUR2000-AZ005 for approximately 9,207 square feet located at 3737 Broadway
with. an initial zoning of Estate Residential - Established (ER-E), incorporating this staff
memorandum as findings of fact, and using the following recommended conditions of approval.
RECOMMENDED
OF APPROVAL
1. Prior to first reading of the annexation ordinance, the Applicant shail:
a. File an application, and pay the applicable fees, for inclusion in the Boulder
Municipal Subdistrict and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District;
b. Sell any Silver Lake Ditch water rights associated with, or appurtenant to the
Subject Property.
c. Pay the applicable Flood Control Plant Investment Fee of $1,816.50.
2. The Applicant shall convey drainage from the site in a manner that does not adversely
affect abutting property owners.
Approved By:
~- n.
U
Peter Pollock, Planning Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A:
Attachment B
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Vicinity Map
Annexation Petition
DRC Comments dated February 2, 2001
Correspondence
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos~mr3737broadannex.wpd AGENDA ITEM ~F Paee # 6
ATTACHMENT A
~
--~
~~
-•- ' --
,o
ATTACHMENT A
VICINI'fY MAP
~
N
,
~C
~
i
MapLlnk
City of Boulder GIS
The mo~mmm~aeo~n.e on tlm m~C u
proeided u fr~PFiul ~eprtuMa~an od}'.
The4n olBouldrr~narJanorvnmp,
rrvRwd m ~mvliM, u m ~M rtmun•
,~am, o~~vi.~. ,m~n. ~~m,mu~a~
nea Ln
r-
~
-''-l
I r~ r
~ u
~
~
Q
~
~
o a
~
m
I ~
~
Agenda Ifem A ~E _Page # _L_._.
MACGILLIVRAY ANNEXATION
~uiexation Proposal ATTACHMENT B
1 petition.ilie City o1~13oulder to aiiiiex 9,207 square feet of
Boulder Couuly laud to the a~ljoiuiug 1.G acre site already witl~in
the Cily of Boul~er. I liave owned ti~e two parcels since 1989 aiid
Il~ey liavc bcen under il~c sanie otvuership since at least.1906.
'I'he Bouldcr county site is not a~urposeful enclave but an
oversiglil creale~l wl~cii tl~c original auuexations occurred in 1962
aiul 19G8.
In support of this petition, the undersigned state(s) and allege(s) as follows, to wit:
1. That it is desirable ancl necessary that the above described territory be annexed to
the City of Bouldec _
2. That petitioners are landowners of one hundred percent (100%) of the territory,
excluding slreets and alleys, I~erein proposed for annexation to the City of fsoulder.
3. That no less than one-sixtl~ of the aggregate external boundaries of tlie above
descriUed territory hereby petitiuned to the City of Bouider is contiguous to the city
limits of the City of Boulder.
4. Tl~at a community of interest exists between the aaove described territory and the
City of Boulder, And that lhe same is urban, or will be urbanized in the near future,
and further that the saicl ten itory is integrafed or is capable of being integrated in the
City of Boulder.
5, That in establishing the t~uundaries of the above described territory, no land held
in identical ownership, wl ietf~er consisting of one tract or parcel of real estate or two
or more contiyuous iracts or parcels of real estate, has been divided into separate
parts or parcels withou! tl ~e written consent of the landowner or landowners thereof,
except and unless sucli tracts ar parcels are already separated by a dedicated
street, road or other public way.
6. That in establishing the boundaries of the above described territory, no land held
in identical ownership, wlietf ierconsisting of one tract or parcel of real estate or two
or more contiguous tracls or parcels of real estate comprising twenty acres or more
wl~ich, together with tlie l,uildings and improvements situate thereon, t~ave an
assessed valuation in excess of $200,000 for ad valorem tax purposes for the year
•next preceding the filiny uf the within petition for annexation, has been included
within the above.
7. Th~t the above described ierritory does not include any area wfiich is the same or
substantially the same area in which an election for an annexation to the C'rty of
Boulder was held within the iv~elve monihs preceding the filing of this petition.
Agenda Item #_ L~Page ~ _1___-
8. That the above described territary does no# include any area included in another
annexation proceeding involviny a city other than the City of Boulder.
9. That at least four copies o( an annexation map setting forth with reasonable
certainty a written leya! descriptiun of tlie boundaries of the arAa proposed to be
annexed, a delinealion of tf~e outer boundaries of the above de~~ribed territory, and
tlie locatior, of each ownershij~, tract andlor the boundaries and the plat numbers
of plats and lois and bloclcs, the portion of the boundary contiguouswith the existing
City Limits of the City of f3oulcler. ~3nd ihe dimensions of said contiguous boundary,
ail upon a niaierial and of a s+ze suitable for recording or filing with the City Clerk of
the City of [3oulder, and ilie dimensions of said contiguous boundary, all upon a
material and of a size suit~able for recordirig or filiny with the City Clerk of the City
of E3ouider, accompany, I~ave been atlached hereto and hereby constitute a part of
fhis petition.
10. That the above described ferritory is not presently a part of any incorporated city,
city and county, or town.
11. That the above area described will (not) result in the detachment of area from any
schaol district and the attachment of the same to another schooi district (and the
resolution of sct~ool board of the district ta which the area will be attached approving
ttiis annexation reyuest).
~ -~
~
~ r
~ u
~
,
Agenda Item N 7~ Page H 9
ATTACHMENT C
- CITY OF BOULDER
LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMEN7S
DATE OF COMMENTS: February 2, 2001
CASE MANAGER: Mike Randall (303) 447-4919
PROJECT NAME: Macgillivray Annexation
LOCATION: 3737 BROADWAY
COORDINATES: NO6W07
REVIEW TYPE: Annexation / Initial Zoning
REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2000-AZ005
APPLICANT: BART MACGILLIVRAY
DESCRIPTION: Review of Revisions: Annexation of an enclave comprised of a single parcel
(approximately 44' X 200' ) near Maxwell Lake. Initial zoning to ER-E.
Chapter A REVIEW FINDINGS
A. The enclave is the result of an error and should have been included in the prior annexations of surrounding
property.
B. The enclave does not constitute a developable site because:
1. The site has no street frontage;
2. The site does not meet minimum lot area (15,000 s~ for the proposed ER-E zone;
3. The stte is not separated by ownership or fegal subdivision from the adjacent parcel.
C. Annexation is desirable in order to bring the enclave into the City.
D. The application meets all criteria; minor documentation corrections must be submitted prior to scheduling a
public hearing before the Planning Board.
Staff finds that the application meets all Annexation and Initial Zoning review criteria. Planning Board makes a
recommendation to the City Council which is the decision making authority for this application. Prior to the application
being scheduled for a Planning Board meeting, minor documentation corrections addressing the comments below must be
submitted. Please file THREE (3) copies of the corrected application within 90 days to Planning and Development
Services. Following receipt of complete and accurate corrections, the Planning Department will schedule this item tor a
Planning Board hearing.
The city review team for this application are available to meet with you to discuss the findings, assist in resolving
outstanding issues, and discuss the next steps for the application. Please contact your case manager to set an
appointment.
II. CITY REQUIREMENTS
Drainage
As a condition of annexation, the applicant is required to convey drainage from the site in a manner which does not
adversely affect neighboring properties. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121.
Fees
Prior to first reading of the annexation ordinance, the applicant shall pay the following Storm Water and Flood
Management Utility Plant Investment Fees (in accordance with B.R.C. Section 11-5-7): $1,861.50
Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121.
Miscellaneous •
1. The applicant will be required to record a"Recognition of Prescriptive EasemenP' for the Silver Lake Ditch Company
which has no defined width, but is considered what is reasonable and necessery for the ditch company to access,
operate, and maintain the ditch.
2. As a condition of annexation, the property owner shall deed over his lwo shares of Silver Lake Ditch stock to the city.
Scott Kuhna, 303-4413121. ~~)
Agenda Item N 7` Page q_/1~
Plan Documents
Conform the annexation legal description and map of the enclave parcel with the surrounding legal descriptions ot prior
annexed land to assure that there are no gaps or enclaves remaining. Mike Randall
Utilities
As a condition of annexation, the property owner(s) shall complete the attached petition(s) for inclusion of said property in
the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, and pay all applicable fees on land and
improvements for inclusion of this property in the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, prior to the scheduling of
second reading of the annexation ordinance. The petition for inclusion into the Municipal Subdistrict must be completed on
the "blue" form.
The executed petition(s), payment check, and site/utility plan ('if applicable), shall be mailed or delivered to the City of
Boulder Planning and Development Services Center, Development Review Section-Utilities, P.O. Box 791, Park Central
Building, 1739 Broadway, Boulder, Coiorado, 80306. Check is to be made payable to the Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District.
Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121.
III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS
Fees
1. Upon annexation, this property will be subject to a Storm Water and Flood Management Utility monthly fee based on
current rates as described in the Boulder Revised Code, 1981. Scott Kuhna, 303-4413121.
2. Due to the age of the existing structure, this annexation is not subject to a Development Excise Tax per Section 3-8-
3(b) of the Boulder Revised Code.
Housing
The provision of affordable housing or contributions in-lieu will not be conditions of the annexation. Future development of
the parcel must meet Inclusionary Zoning requirements at that time.
Landmarks
1. It is strongly recommended that the owner apply for Landmark Designation of the historic Maxwell house, accessory
buildings, and property, and seek the advice and recommendation of the Landmarks Board prior to proceeding with
the subdivision of the site.
2. The Maxwell House was determined eligible for landmark designation in a 1986 inventory. It has both architectural
and historic significance, and is associated with James P. Maxwell. The owner should file an individual landmark
application for the property. The application should include the entire property and all associated resources, including
but not limited to the main house, all outbuildings, the driveway approach from Broadway and other important
landscape features.
3. Landmark designation does not preclude the construction of new buildings; however, if the property were listed, new
buildings would be subject to review and approval by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board. Deon
Wolfenbarger, 303-441-4497.
Lot Layout
1. Variations of standard development requirements wiil not be recommended for the future development of land within
or outside of the enclave parcel.
2. Annexation of the enclave parcei will not be conditioned on any development plan.
Mike Randall
Neighborhood Comments
(Please refer to the Review and Comments for the Preliminary Plat.)
Agenda Item q 7~' Page #_11_
Utilities
No outstanding utility assessments have been identified for the subject property. Scott Kuhna, 303-441-3121.
Zoning
The appropriate zone for the enclave parcel being annexed ER-E. That portion of the property (outside of the annexation
area) indicating LR-D is a result of a mapping error (the error occurred when the map was changed from hand drawn to
computer graphic) and will be corrected in accordance with Section 9-2-3(2). Mike Randall
Next Steps
Submit 3 copies of the corrected Annexation Map and project description with corrections as indicated above, The
application will be scheduled for Planning Board as soon as the Board agenda permits.
Agenda Item W_7~ Page #.~.
ATTACHMENT D
DAVID G. HILL
Attorney at Law
1900 Fifteenth Street
Boulder, Colorado 80302
Phone: (303) 546-1300
Facaimile: {303) 449-54Z6
January 12, 2001
Mr. Mike ltandai.i
City of Boulder Building
Services Center
1739 Broadway, 3`a Floor
P. O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80302
Dear Mr. Randall:
I wish to express the concerns which my wife and S have with
respect to the MacGillivray Subdivisic,n. My wife and I live just
to the west of the proposed subdivision. Our home is 3772
Wonderland Hill Avenue, and our loL abuts the MacGillivray
property.
We have many comments about the proposed annexation and the
resultant subdivision, as followe:
First. the MacGillivray Aroperty is the si.te of the historic
James P. Maxwell mansion, carriage houses and circular drive. Mr.
Maxwell was one of the leading citizens of early-day Boulder. He
built the first road, a toll road, up Boulder Canyon to the mining
districts. He was a founder of the First National Bank, now part
of Bank One. He subdivided Mapleton Hill, and constructed the
Silver Lake Ditch to supply domestic water to Mapleton Hill and the
area north of Linden Avenue and beyond.
Mr. Maxwell built the mansion in the late 1800's in the golden
oak style of that day. It included a circular drive to the west of
the house, two carriage houses, a chicker. house and a noteworthy
Agenda Item ti_ ~c .Page # -l3
Mike Randall
City of Boulder Building Services Center
January 12, 2001
Page 2
barn. The house, the circular drive and the carriage houses remain
as part of the property. The barn, which was a noteworthy Dutch-
design structure, was remodeled into a home on Wonderland Hill
Avenue. The stone walls of the old chicken house are an amenity on
our property.
The Maxwells were distant relatives of mine. My grandfather
once visited the home in the 1920's and later described its then
glcry to Y~e at ~ome length.
The structures on the property should be landmarked and
preserved as part of Boulder history. The subdivision of the
property will very negatively impact the historic characteristics
of the property.
Our second concern is congested traffic in and out of the
subdivision. Exit onto Wonderland Hill involves three homes
exiting through one drive onto an already busy street. The exit
would be just east of our house.
Finally, one or more of the three homes will undoubtedly be
extremely close to our lot, in marked contrast to the present open
character of the neighborhood.
We earnestly ask your rejection of this proposal.
Sincerely,
g~-~. ~/~
David G. Hill
' Agenda Item H_. 7E Page #_1 ~__
rv inc r~ai iuau ..~ ~n i, i u--- _ .: . r,a~
Andrew D. Frankiin
3761 Moffit Court
Bouider, CO 80304
January 11, 2001
Mike Randall
City of Boulder, Building Services Center
1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor
Boulder, CO 80306
Re: MacGillivray Subdivision
Dear Sir.
I am writing to comment on the proposed MacGillivray subdivision. My house is
directly east and adjacent to the Maxwell house. I have spoken with Mr.
MacGillivray about his intentions with respect to the proposed subdivision
and am concerned about one of his intended building sites on the subdivided
property. As I understand his intentions, he would build one house (for
himself) directly west of the Maxwell house so as to overlook Maxwell lake
below. I have no particular concem with the builiJing of a house on this part
of his property.
However, the other building site would be south and slightly west of the
Maxwell house. I believe this site runs over or across the S(Iver Lake ditch
antl could cause disruption in the flow of water through the ditch. My main
concern, however, it that this site is awfully close to what I believe is
Boulder County open space. This open space property is near Mauwell Lake, and
serves as a part time sanctuary for geese, deer, and other wildlife. I feel
that having a house built so close to this open space would change the nature
of the property in and around the lake and could have negative impact on the
wildlife. I and my family enjoy having the wildlife in our Iives and would
not like to see any development make the area around the lake less desireable
as wildlife habitat.
Another question related to this proposal is whether all of Mr.
MacGillivrays property is within the city and therefore under the
jurisdiction of the city Building Services Center. Mr, MacGillivray told me
that part of his property is in the county, not the city and that he is
seeking to have the county property annexed Into the city. But the reason
this property is still in the county is related to the fact that it is
adjacent to the county open space. I suspect that the county has always
thought of this property as part of the open space. All of this is to say,
that the county would be losing open space'rf the annexation is approved. I
do not wish to see a reduction in the amount of county open space.
Finally, a house built on that site would intertere with our views to the
foothills from our house and our yard. I don't know if this fact carries much
weight with the planning board, but I feel compelled to whine about (t anyway.
Thank you for your consideratlon of these comments. I would very much like to
be informed of any decisions in thls matter or of any Planning Board hearings
that may be scheduled.
Sincerely,
Andrew D. Franklin
~~ Y43 -z~~3~~-)
30 `3 5,~j$ _ 40~ t (w~
Agenda Item q_~Page k ~_
1 u~U 1 W
Mike Randall - MacGillivray Subdivision: Review Number LUR2000-00018
~..~.,....
From: "Robert Feder" <rtfeder@earthlink.net>
To: <RandallM@ci.boulder.co.us>
Date: 1/18/2001 6:29 PM
Subject: MacGillivray Subdivision: Re~iew Number LUR2000-00018
Memorandum
To: Mike Randall
City of Boulder Building Services Center
From: Robert Feder
543 Linden Park Drive (Lot 19, Linden Park)
Boulder, Colorado 80304
Re: MacGillivray Subdivision:
Review Number LUR2000-00018
Date: January 17, 2001
The putpose of this memo is to summarize and confirm several of the issues and concerns I have raised with you, in our
telephone conversations over the past week, in connecrion with the referenced subdivision proposal.
We have lived at 543 Linden Park Drive, along the westerly boundary of Maxwell Lake Park, since 1989. We spent a
great deal of tune and effort, over the course of cnany years, working with the City of Boulder's Parks and Recreation
Departrnent, Parks and Recrearion Advisory Board, and City Council, in connection with issues related to impacts on this
"natural area" park created by adjacent residential uses and improvements. While the City's primary focus on Maxwell
Lake Park during that tune concerned physical encroachments across the boundaries of private lots into parkland, we
believe that, in order to be consistent with the policies articulated by the City in connection with such encroachments, the
current MacGillivray subdivision application should be reviewed in terms of its potenrial adverse impacts on Maxwell
Lake Park.
Maxwell Lake Park is defined by the boundaries of homes along Linden Avenue to the south, Linden Park Drive to the
southwest and west, and Wonderland Hill Avenue to the north. Along each of these streets, the long-established homes
create a relatively conrinuous urban edge, a roughly even band of homes set back from Maxwell Lake. Along
Wonderland Hill Avenue, large homes loom over the park above a fairly steep slope, above the Silver Lake Ditch.
However, the park is buffered by the deep back yards which descend from these homes to the Silver Lake Ditch.
The residential subdivision proposed by Bart MacGillivray would, by converting [he historic backyard of the Maxwell
House to two "flag" view lots, substanrially alter both the neighborhood which defines Maxwell Lake Park and the
character of the park itself -- now a nual enclave in sight of, but buffered from, the ring of surrounding homes. The two
additional residential lots Mr. MacGillivray has proposed contemplate two potentially sizable homes set into the steep
slope directly above the Silver Lake Ditch. The sense of wooded privacy now enjoyed by the many neighborhood
residents and other Boulder citizens who visit Maxwell Lake Yark -- to walk around the pond, to fish, ro read and to think,
could be lost.
In addition, the subdivision as proposed would inevitably alter the Mstoric landscape defined by the landmark-quality
Maxwell House, which sits on a commanding promontory and encourages viewers to imagine the surrounding land as part
of the original Maxwell place.
In short, the subdivision proposal, which would squeeze an enclave of "Flatirons view lots" onto the steep hillside just
above Maxwell Lake, represents poor land planning. The proposal does not justify exempting the landowner from any
minimum road frontage or other requirements that apply to residential bts in the applicable ER-E zone, making an
exception to the current City policy discouraging the creation of new "flag" lots, or pemutting the degradation of steep
slopes, which in this case are directly above and adjacent ro City parkland managed as a"nahual area."
In addition, since the proposed subdivision also requires the annexation by the City of a portion of the MacGillivray
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00OO1.HTM. pggndaltemk 7~ °ageri ~~?
.+c~.. .. v.
property, particular attention should be given to the requirement of SecHon 9-2-5(b) of the City's land use regulations,
which mandates that °[n]o annexation of land to the city shall create an unreasonable burden on the physical, social,
economic or environmental resources of the city.., In annexations of hillside areas, the City Council may impose
conditions designed to mitigate the effects of development on lands containing slopes of fifteen percent or greatec.."
Cenainly the project as proposed represents an unreasonable burden on Maxwell Lake Park, one of the premier (if least
well-known) environmental resources of the City of Boulder.
It appears that there is, however, a reasonable oppommiry for Mr. MacGi]]ivray to realize the economic potential of his
large, his[oric property, consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, preservation of the natural and
open space values of Maxwell Lake Park, protection of the historic viewshed surrounding the Maxwell House, anrl
consistent with current zoning and land use requirements.
Specifically, it appears that one additional homesite might be defined generally within the line of homes along
Wondedand Hill Avenue that define the northerly boundary of Maxwell Lake Park. This new house could be sired, for
example, along the top of the promontory beriveen the historic Maxwell House and the historic garage structwes which
flank the drivaway entrance from Wonderland Hill Avenue, and could be tnade subject ro reasonable building footprint
and other requirements to ensure consistency with the established surrounding neighborhood.
Altematively, the one additional homesite which can be supported by the MacGillivray property's 81 feet oFfrontage on
Wonderland Hiil Avenue could be sited to the north/northeast of the existing Maxwell House. This, too, could be
accomplished in a manner consistent with the traditional development pattern of the Wonderland Hill neighborhood,
which has favored the relatively danse clustenng of homes and preservation of broad coaidors of open space bounded by
well-defined ribbons of homes.
I would be happy to discuss with you further any of the ideas and concems expressed in this memo. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on the proposed MacGillivray subdivision.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert T. Feder
543 Linden Park Drive
Boulder, Colorado 80304
(303)939-8729
rtfeder~eart4link.net
Agenda Item #_ /.C-Page # _L-.
file://C:iWINDOWSiTEMP\G W) 00OO1.HTIv1
MiKe Kanpall - Ke: MacGillivray Subdivision . . pag~ y-„
~'-----`--~~ --`--J------------`-------~-
From: Mike Randall
To: Bradley, Cate
Date: 2/5/01 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: MacGillivray Subdivision
Last week Russ attended our review committed (DRC) meeting and iY was determined that there was no
requirement for "dedicating" additional park area. However we did specify that the appiicant should
contact the Parks Dept. and discuss how this might be accompiished. If the 10 feet is important to the
park then something should be negotiated with the owner such as payment, dedication in lieu of fees,
donation, etc. I am not sure if an easement over a private lot is desireable since the existing 10' is
dedicated.
At this time the applicant is required to submit a revision of the application addressing all comments of the
City. We expect that a revision will be submitted by February 19th.' Please call me to discuss, thanks.
Mike Randall, 4919.
»> Cate Bradley 01/30/01 02:06PM »>
Ken asked me to iet you know that the Parks and Recreation Department would support the dedication of
a ten-foot section of land connecting Wonderland Hill Ave. to Maxwell Lake Park along the western
boundary of the MacGillivray property as part of tlte subdivision agreement. We would prefer a dedication
of land as park property in order to create a combined 20 foot wide public access corridor in conjunction
with the existing ten foot dedication to the west of the MacGillivray property. If a dedication is not possible
an easement would be our second choice. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns; I wiil be
out of the office until Mon. 2/5. Thanks.
Agenda Ilem N~~,~-Page H ~~ -
rage 1 ot 1
Mike Randall - The MacGillivray Subdivision
From: "robert luneburg" <robertj110@hotmail.com>
To: <RandallM@ci.boulder.co.us>
Date: 1/21/2001 6:13 AM
Subject: The MacGillivray Subdivision
Mr. Randall: I am writing this from Conakry, Guinea, West Africa where I am on short term
assignment for the U.S. Government. I live with my faznily at 549 Linden Pazk Drive, Boulder. The
back of my property and all of our decks and terraces and many of our picture windows face the
Maxwell Lake Park, for which we have a tremendous respect and affection. It is with a sense of near
panic that I read of the proposed subdivision and possible construction on property above that lake. I
thought the area was stable. I do not know what discretion you have but please do what you can to
preserve the integrity, both geographical and visual, of the Maxwell Lake park as it now stands. I
would certainly hope that at least no regulations, codes, policies etc. be benUinterpreted to favor
future construction. Thank you very much for your consideration. Robert J. Luneburg
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at ht~t ://exnlorer.msn.com
Agenda Ilem ri 7E Page ~~
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } 00002.HTM
1. ag~ , . ..
Mike Randall - Re: LUR2000-00018
From: Barry McInnes <bjm@cdc.noaa.gov>
To: <RandallM@ci.boulder.co.us>
Date: 1/29/2001 1020 AM
Subject: Re: LUR2000-00018
Thanks Mike -1 appreciate your mail information. 1 will keep an eye on the
procedings,
cheers batry
->Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:02:01 -0700
->From: "Mike Randall" <RandallM@ci.boulder.co.us>
->To: <bjm@cdc.noaa.gov>
->Subject: Re: LUR2000-00018
->Conrent-Disposition: inline ,
->Coment-Transfer-Encoding: Sbit
->X-MIMH-Auwconverted: ffom quoted•printable to 86it by cdc.noaa.gov id
fOTH2Ug16624
_>
->Mc Mclnnes:
->Your comments are welcome at any time including at any Public Hearing that may
take place. The date is so that we can inform the applicant of any concems you
and your neighbors may have which we (staff) have no[ covered. No portion of
the sice to be annexed or subdivided is at this time on City park land. The
parks department is considering what, if any, needs they have for additional
park area and will be making recommendations soon. Severel of the neighbors
share your concems and have raised questions about the Landmark status (it is
mt wrrently registered), the views of and ftom the property, and whether the
proposed subdivision of Ihe property conforms to standard reguletions. All of
these areas will be addressed by staff and open for discussion at a Public
Heanng. The heanng'may take piace April 5 but this has not yet been set
(eadieNla[er is possible). I have your e-mail on file and you will be
inCormed.
_>
->Mike Randall (RandallM@ci.bouldecco.us)
_>
-»» Barry Mc]nces <bjm@cdc.noaa.gov> Ol/25/Ol IO:SOAM »>
->Hi,
->I would like to find out more ahout this annexation.
_>
•>I missed the Jan V cu[ off dace for comments, but would like to make sure
that
->iTannexation goes ahead then ihe trees in front of the property along the
->channel would not disappear, to improve the view for the oumers ?'
_>
->I would like ro find out the affect on this P&R area in fomt of the annextion
->part of Maxwell Lake area ?
_>
->thanks barry
_>
'>"_"
->Ba~ry Mc ]nnes
->Email: bjmQcdc.noaa.gov
->Phone:303-4976231 FAX: 303-0977013
->Smail: NOAA-CIRES COC, Mail Code: R/CDCI
-> 325 Broadway, Boulder CO 803033328
-~-'--'-
_>
_>
Barry Mc Innes
Email: bjm@cdc.noaa.gov
Phone: 303-4976231 FAX: 303-4977013
Smail: NOAA-CIRES CDC, Mail Code: R/CDCI
325 Broadway, Boulder CO 60303-3326
Agenda Item R_1_~ Page k_~_
file://C:\WINDO W S\TEMP\GW } 00002.HTM
CARL A. WORTHINGTON AIA ASLA
and Asaociates
a~ckiuttun
ur6aa ~esigrt
planning
MEMORANDUM
To: Mike Randall
From; Cazl Worthington
xte: 3737 Broadway Annexation / Replat
Review # LUR 200U-OOD18
Aate: 1,16.01
Mike:
Thanks for sending the base map info for the application. We are vcry interested in this
application, as we live across the street (for 8 years) at 3773 Wonderland Hill Avenue.
Previously, we lived 7 years just to the east of this site south of the ditch at 995 Linden Ave..
I have reviewed yout background information, the Land Use Code and walked the Site. It appears
that theze are a nutnber of important issues that sug~est that this proposal has significant problems
even though the suggested new sites aze lar~er than the 15,000 sf in the BR-E Zone.
Historic Context:
The Maxwell House is one of the most important historic houses / sites in Boulder, whether
designated or not.
Lot Sizes / Locations:
Even though the proposed Lots aze lazger than 15,000 sf, they aze located on very steep
topogzaphy, ax-d are vexy narrow. Considering ER-E setback requirements, these lats may be very
difficult to build on due to tha nancow building envelopes and sieep topography.
The locaflons of the two new lots are also located directly in front of the major views of the
existin~ House, to the west and to the south, and appear to significantly degrade the historic
house's, remaining front and side yard integrity if developed.
The west Lot has a significant view impact on the Hill Residence to the west, while the south lot
could ha~e an impact on the Silver Lake Ditch and Trees.
2601 B1eke Sveet, Snit~ 400 Denvv, CO 80203
Telephone 303 29l•0284 Fncsimilc 303 296-9172
Agenda Item H_~E _Page # "~
Mike RandaU
16 )anuary 2001
Page 2 of 2
CARL A~ WORTHINGTON AIA ASIA
and Aec~oeiaEes
arc6itscturs
utdan ssriga
pfannting
ACCeaa:
The access to the 3 lots would probably be ok onto
happen to tha historic driveway hack to Sroadway?
Woaderland Hill Avenue. What would
View impact to neiehbors:
There would be some view disruptioa to adjacent properties: ie. The Whites, the Hills, as wel~ as
the Feauto's and Hannagans aeross Wonderland Hill Avenue.
Summarv:
Reviewing the above, we are very opposed to tlus present pzoposal due to the foltowing reasons:
- Aegradation of'historic Maxwell House and site views
- Difficult topography with setbacks on the 2 new sites, especiaSly Lot 3.
- Visual impacts to adjacent homes
We would ]ike to be kept on the mailing list as this proposal goes though the review process.
Thanks again for your background information.
5incerely,
Carl A. Wocthington AIA ASLA
~~~~
Ann-Marie Worthington
Encl: Site Plan with Notes 1.16.01
Vicinity Plan with Notes 1.16.01
Agenda Item k__[____-Page # ~~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board
FROM: Peter Pollock, Planning Director
Bev Johnson, Environmental Planner
DATE: March 22, 2001
SUBJECT: Summary of City Council discussion of the Planning Reserve Area
This memo provides a summary ofthe City Council discussion of the Planning Reserve Area at their
March 20, 2001 meeting.
In September of200Q City Council asked that Planning Board consider further reducing the size of
the Pianning Reserve Area. Staff took this request to the Planning Board as a public hearing item
on November 16. Planning Board voted not to initiate further study of the planning reserve but
requested that the item be placed on the January 23, 2001 joint study session agenda to allow an
informal discussion. The item was continued from that meeting to the March 21, 2001 City Council
meeting. At that meeting, Peter Pollock provided an update to City Council on previous Planning
Board and Council actions taken regarding the Planning Reserve Area.
At the March 20, 2001 City Council meeting, staff requested input from Council on their interest in
further study of the planning reserve for the Year 2000 Major Update to the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan. Several Council members agreed that there is merit to further analysis of the
long-term community need for the planning reserve. Council members felt that given the timing of
the update and other departmental wark priorities, further study should not be initiated at this time.
Council members requested, however, that a study of the planning reserve be included in the next
five-year update to the comprehensive plan.
S:~PLAN~PB-(TEM S\Memos\bj counci Id iscussi onsummary.wpd