7C - Site Review #LUR2001-00049, 1320 Meadow AvenueCITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: October 4, 2001
(Agenda Item Preparation Date; September 2Q 2001)
AGENDA TITLE:
Public hearing and consideration of Site Review #LUR2001-00049, to construct a 600 square
foot addition to an existing single family house at 1320 Meadow Avenue. The existing house
was built in 1973 to a height of 31 £eet. The second floor of the addition would match the
existing height (31 feet). This property is zoned ER-E (Estate Residential Established).
The applicants are requesting vested rights pursuant to Section 9-4-12 `Nested Rights,"
B.R.C.1981.
Applicants and Owners: Patrick and Deborah Kratovil
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Planning Department
Peter Poilock, Planning Director
Bob Cole, Director of Land Use Review
Don Durso, Case Manager
OVERVIEW:
The Planning Board is being asked to consider a request for a Site Review to add a 600
square foot addition on the second floor of an existing single family house. The house
was bui]t in 1973 to a height of 31 feet. Thirty-five feet was the maximum height
allowed by the land use code at that time. In 1993, the land use code was amended to
limit the height of houses on nonstandard lots (lots below the minimum squara footage
required in the zoning district). Because this lot is a nonstandard lot, the maximum
height of a structure on this lot is limited to 28.3 feet.
s:\plan\pb-items\memos\dd1320meadow.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7C Pase 1
OVERVIEW (Continued)
The effect of the change in the land use code was to cause the structure on this lot to become
non-conforming as to height. Site review and a public hearing are required far any change to
expand the structure in the area between 28.3 and 31 feet. A public hearing is also required
because the applicants aze requesting vested rights.
Staff recommends approval of the proposal.
STATISTICS:
Proposal:
Variations to the land
use regulations:
Proj ect Name:
Location:
Size of Tract:
Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
KEY ISSUE:
Construct a 600 square foot addition to an existing 1,800 square foot
single £amily house. No expansion of the footprint of the structure is
proposed.
The applicants are requesting a height modification to 31 feet.
1320 Meadow Site Review
1320 Meadow Avenue
10,000 square feet
ER-E, P,state Residential - Established
Low DensiYy Residential, Area I
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
Meadow Avenue is located east of Broadway, in north Boulder, where the elevation begins to
rise towards Norwood Avenue to the north. Because of this elevation change, the houses located
on the north side of Meadow Avenue are higher in elevation and look down or over the houses
s\plan\pb-items~nemos\dd1320meadow.wpd AGENDA TTEM # 7C Pase 2
on the south side of the street. The applicants' house is located on the south side of the street.
(see vicinity map, Attachment S). The quiet, low density residential-zonad neighborhood
contains a mix of established residences and ]arger remodeled or newer homes.
The property at 1320 Meadow Avenue is a 10,000 square foot lot. The lot size does not meet the
minimum 15,000 square foot lot size for Estate Residential - Established zoning {a "non-standard
]oY'). The house was built in 1973, when the zoning code did not restrict height on lots that did
not meet the minimum lot area for the zone. Therefore, when it was built to a height of 31 feet, it
met all zoning requirements related to height. The city's land use code was amended in 1993 to
proportionally reduce a structure's allowed height based upon the size of a lot if the lot is non-
standard. Because 1320 Meadow does not meet the minimum lot size, the 1993 zoning code
reduces the maximum allowable height of the structure to 2833 feet. The effect of the code
change was to cause this structure to become a non-conforming building as to height. Therefore,
any proposed expansion to the structure in the portion of the house that exceeds the maximum
haight requires a site review.
At the time the 1993 change was made to the code, it was intended that new stnxctures on vacant
lots go through height review, but additions to existing structures were not considered at that
time. In retrospect, site review may not be the efficient process for this type of proposal.
Therefare, staff will be recommending a change to the land use code in the future to
accommodate this situation.
Project Description
The applicants propose an addition to the existing house above the existing floor on the east side
of the house to add a living room and study/guest room. Currently, this area is a vaulted area
open from the first floor. To expand the house in this area will require the removal and
reconstruction of approximately 60% of the roof of the structure. The roof over the east half of
the house will be raised approximately two feet to match the existing roof height of the
remainder of the house. No increase in height is requested as part of this proposal. The ridgeline
of the portion of the roof to be raised will also be turned to run from east-west to a north-south
orientation. (see applicants' plans, Attachment C).
ANAL'YSIS:
Planning staff reviewed this application for compliance with the applicable Site Review criteria.
A checklist of staffls analysis of all of the applicable Site Review criteria is included as
Attachment A.
s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\dd1320meadow.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7C Paee 3
Is the building height, mass, scale, orientation and configuration of the addition compatible
with the existing character of the area?
The critical Site Review criteria that apply to this application are found in Section 9-4-11(i)(2)
(E), B.R.C. 1981 of the land use regulations. This section requires that the height, mass, scale,
orientation and configuration of the addition be compatible with the existing character of the
area, 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.
The applicants have adequately responded to these site review criteria, and staff concurs with
their analysis (see applicants' statement, Attachment C).
Heieht. Mass. Scale
The property is uniquely located in an area well below the surface of the street upon which it
fronts. The properties to the north are located well above the street. Because of the topography,
the houses to the north look over the tops of this house. The change proposed by the applicants
wili not cause the house to appear any taller than it already is. Because it sits well below the
structures to the north, it wiil not affect their views.
Views
It does not appear that the existing house blocks views currently. The proposed addition does not
increase the building coverage. The western half of the existing house already is built to the
proposed height for the addition. Therefore, raising the easterly portion of the roof will
minimally, if at all, affect the views from the existing houses to the west and east of this house.
Attractive Streetscane
The reconfiguration of the ridgeline on the easterly portion of the house will rectify a curious
architectural detail (the vertical wall of windows facing north), and also improve the useability of
the front entry by raising it a floor to provide a level entry into the house from the street. Finally,
the front elevation of the proposed remodel will present a more attractive streetscape than the
existing structure, which cun•ently does not relate well to the street (no windows or obvious entry
features facing the street).
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS:
Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to aU property
owners within 600 feet of the subject property and a sign posted on the property. Ali notice
requirements of Section 9-4-2, B.R.C. 1981 have been met.
s\plan\pb-items~nemos\dd1320meadow.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7C Pa2e 4
Staff received three phone calls from mambers of the public inquiring about the project. Plans
were providad to one of them. Two callers asked questions but did not express an opinion of the
proposal, and one supported 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 are compatible with the existing character of the area, and the proposed addition will
minimize tha blocking of views to neighboring properties.
Therefare, staff recommends that Planning Board approve Site Review Amendment #LUR2001-
00049 incorporating this staff inemorandum and the attached Site Review Criteria Checklist as
findings of fact and using the following recommended condition of approval.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL
The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in
compliance with the applicants' plans dated October 4, 2001, which are on file in the City
of Boulder Planning Department.
By:
Department
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Site Review Criteria Checklist and DRC Comments
dated August 24, 2001
AtYachment B: Vicinity Map
Attachment C: Applicants' Proposed Plans and Written Statement
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\dd1320meadow.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7C Paee 5
ATTACHMENT A
SITE REVIEW CRITERIA CHECKLIST
(I) Criteria For Review: No site review application shal! 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.
Policy 2.30 Design That Respects Existing Character. Residential, commercial, and
industrial development and redevelopment shall be encouraged to follow sound and
innovative land use pianning. 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.
Policy 2.36 Enhanced Design 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 character 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," B.R.C. 1981.
Not Applicable; no new residential units proposed; existing density is consistent wifh the
BVCP.
(2) Site Desipn: 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 wil~ consider the following factors:
s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\dd1320meadow.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7C Paee 6
(A) Open space: Open space, including, without limitation, parks, 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,
threatened and endangered species and habitat, ground and surface water,
wedands, 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 features
and natural areas; and
(vi) If possible, open space is linked to an area- or city-wide system.
Private usable open space area is available on fhe site and adequate open
space would remain alter construction of the proposed addition.
(B) Landscaoina:
(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 9-3.3-3, "Landscape Design Standards;' B.R.C. 1981; and
(iv) The setbacks, yards, and useable open space along public rights-of-way are
landscaped to provide attractive streets capes, to enhance architectural
features, and to contribute to the development of an attractive site plan.
No change is proposed.
C. Circulation: Circulation, including, without limitation, 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 are 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) Alternatives to the automobile are promoted by incorporating site design
techniques, land use patterns, and supporting infrastructure that supports and
encourages walking, biking, and other alternatives to the single-occupant
vehicle;
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\dd1320meadow.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7C Paee 7
(v) Where practical and beneficial, a significant shift away from single-occupant
vehicle use to alternate modes is promoted through the use of trave! 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 safery,
separation from fiving areas, and controi of noise and exhaust; and
(ix) City construction standards are met, and emergency vehicle use is facilitated.
No changes to the pedestrian or vehicular circulation patterns on or adjacent to
ihis site are proposed in this application.
(D) Parkin :
(I) The project incorporates into the design of parking areas measures to provide
safety, convenience, and separation of pedestrian movements from vehicular
movements;
(ii) The design of parking 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 are designed to reduce the visual impact on the
project, adjacent properties, and adjacent streets; and
(iv) Parking areas utilize landscaping materials to provide shade in excess of the
requirements in Section 9-3.3-12, "Parking Area Design Standards," B.R.C,
1981.
The existing off-street parking exceeds the minimum standards (two parking
spaces where one is required). Parking spaces are in an enclosed garage.
(E) Buildin~ Desian. Livabilitv, and Relationship to the Existinq or Prooosed Surroundina
Area:
(I) The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration are compatible
with the existing character of the area or the character established by an
adopted plan forthe area;
(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
fortheimmediate 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 weil as mixed lot sizes, number of bedrooms, and sizes of units;
s:\planlpb-items~nemosldd1320meadow.wpd AGENDA TTEM # 7C Paee 8
(viii For residentiai projects, noise is minimized between units, between buildings,
and from either on-site or off-site external sources through spacing,
landscaping, and huildi~g materials;
(ix) A lighting plan is provided which augments securiry, 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 hazards.
The proposed addition is compatible with the existing site and character of the
area. The height, location, and design of fhe building have been designed to
minimize the shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent properties. No
increase in the footprint of fhe building is proposed.
(F) Solar Sitinq and Construction: For the purpose of ensuring the maximum potential for
utilization of solar energy in the city, all applicants for residential site reviews shall place
streets, lots, open spaces, and buildings so as to maximize the potential for the use of
solar energy in accordance with the following solar siting criteria:
(I) Placement of Oqen Soace and Streets: Open space areas are 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 Buildinq Sitinq: Lots are oriented and buildings are 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) Buildina Form: The shapes of buildings are designed to maximize utilization of
solar energy. Suildings shal{ meet the sofar access protection and solar siting
requirements of Chapter 9-8, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981.
(iv) Landscaoinp: The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent
buildings are minimized.
The applicant has provided a shadow analysis which demonstrates compliance
with the solar access ordinance.
s:\plan\pb-itemsunemos\dd1320meadow.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7C Pase 9
CITY OF BOULDER
LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS
DATE OF COMMENTS: August 24, 2001
PROJECT NAME: 1320 MEADOW
LOCATION: 1320 MEADOW AV
COORDINATES: N06W06
REVIEW TYPE: Site Review
REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2001-00049
DESCRIPTION: Site review and modification to construct a partial second story.
REQUESTED VARIAT IONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS:
A height of 30.9 feet is requested. The Maximum height allowed is 28,33 feet without
Site Review.
The applicant is requesting vested rights.
I. REVIEW FINDINGS
Application meets ali criteria; this item is scheduled for Planning Board for October 11, 2001. The applicant will need
toprovide 9 full sets of the plans and applicant statement by September 24, 2001.
A public hearing is required because the house exceeds the allowed height in the zone for this size lot, and because the
applicant is requesting vested rights.
II. CITY REQUIREMENTS
Landscaping
No requirements at this time. Bev Johnson, 303-441-3272.
Legal Documents
Please provide updated title work to reflect the Kratovils as fee owners. Submitted work still reflects Richtel as fee owner
Both of the Kratovils will be required to sign the development agreement. (Melissa Rickson - CAO)
Neighborhood Comments
Rich McCabe called to say that he supported this project because it is a reasonable addition to this house.
Planning
Planning staff concurs with the applicants written statement and their crikeria checklist for site review. Don Durso, 441-
3273.
III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS
Building and Housing Codes
Must meet the requirements of the building code in effect at the time of building permit application. Steve Brown
Address: 1320 MEADOW AV ~~~ ~C PB~~ /~
_ ATTACHMENT B
of Boulder Vicin
0
~~~ti
~- ~ 3~-c ~:~
NoRWOa~ A
~
A
0
D ~.
~
~
D ~ ~~~ ~
~
.'. ~
~.~- ~ _-,
~~,~
. ~
~_.- _ --
~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~'"
~
LI
ND
EN
AVE
--
-
--
--
-' - ~
I
~
~ ' ~ ...
~ ~
~ - ~
~ ~
D ~ 0
~" n Z
v
~
~
m m
~"~ m A
n
1 n ~
Locatian: ?320 Meadow Ave ~,~„~
Project Name: 132Q Meacfow Ave ~ 1:3600
Reuiew Type: Site Review MapLInK CItY o~ Boultl~ OIS
lfi~ NpnWMn tlrplq~tl enlFq~nep~l~
Reuiew Number. LUR2009-00049 N ~.~"aa w~."..~ ~""...~°M
(urlwevn~le{enssNlM FFiinrbn
mriMwdM1~nen.
A plicant: Deborah Kratovi! •}~~p~~,~~~4~,.~~~
ATTACHMENT C
SITE REVIEW - WRITTEN STATEMENT
• 6. This application seeks to gain approval to modify our existing single-family
residence without any change to the footprint, site development or
landscaping to allow construction of a partial second floor above an existing
living area under a slightiy raised roof-the elevation of which shall not exceed
the existing height of the residence as it now stands.
(A) The current ownersh+p is by Patrick Kratovil and Deborah Kratovil.
(B) The objectives to be achieved by the project include (1) To give a very
dated residence an overall facelift. This house was built in 1973 and is
very much needing updating; (2) To improve the safety of this dwelling.
As you can see in the attached photo (Exhibit 1), there are stairs which
are made of exposed aggregate leading down a steep slope to our front
door. In the winter, these are very hazardous. These stairs are on the
north side of the property and are, therefore, shaded a great deal of the
time. Even with our diligent daiiy efforts to shovel and salt these steps,
they remain icy and treacherous. In fact, the Post Office has refused
to deliver any parcels to us (we have to go pick them up) due to our
stairs-and this is when they have been shoveled and salted. The new
entrance would be to the second floor thus eliminating the existing
stairs altogether. In their place would be a bridge-type crossing to the
~ second floor creating a much safer entrance (see elevations). (3) This
update would make the house much more aesthetically pleasing to the
neighborhood in general. Of those houses which have been
remodeled, this would be very much in keeping with those and not
overly done to compete with existing houses as well. (4) It would not go
any higher than it now stands, thereby creating to adverse affects to our
neighbors. In fact, our neighbors to the north (the only neighbors upon
whom we could have any effect) have stated that they have no
objection to the retention of the existing height at all. Their house is
much higher than ours, and they look right over us (Exhibit 2). To the
south of us is our neighbor's backyard. We would in no way impact him
either. To the west and east of us, both neighbors are as high or higher
than we are now. (5) We would be increasing the square feet of this
house minimally-in fact only 600 square feet total. The house now is
1800 s.f. and would be only 2400 s.f. when completed. In fact, the new
roof would be different in its construction and would not occupy any
more volume (see Exhibit 3 and elevations).
8. Please see attached prints of floorplans and elevations which reflect the
current floorplans and where changes would be made as well as elevations
which show current roof lines and changes where applicable.
•
Additional Heiaht Modification Application Requirements
• 1. Please see attached architectural plans.
2. n/a
3. n/a
4. Please see attached shadow analysis.
5. n/a
6. n/a
7. n/a
GENERAL CRlTERIA FOR ALL SITE REVIEW APPLICATlONS
(~)
1. Boulder Vallev Comprehensive Plan:
(A) This is not applicable to our application.
(B) The density shall not exceed any limits as this will not change. It is
currently a single-family dwelling and shall remain so.
(II) Site Desiqn:
(A) Open space: not applicable - no open space is near.
• 1, No open space is near and/or would be applicable in this case.
2. The yard will not change in any way.
3, No trees will be cut down, no nearby trees, shrubs or otherwise
will be touched or damaged.
4, n/a
5. n/a
6, n/a
(B) Landsc.apinq:
1. The landscaping as it now exists will basically remain the same.
Nowever, we wiil be redoing what needs to be addressed after
the remodei is completed to include but not be limited to:
rf>,placing the sprinkler system, replanting any grass, replanting
thie slope on the north side of the house. In that there will be no
change to the footprint, we do not anticipate major damage to
the landscaping, but undoubtedly there will be some and to that
extent, we will repair, replant or replace that which needs
addressing.
Z. There will be every effort to minimize damage to the
. I<~ndscaping; however, in the immediate perimeter of the house
(where any damage is likely to occur) there is primarily grass
• areas.
3. This is not applicable to our project in that a yard already exists
and will be maintained.
4. Again, this is not applicable in that our yard already meets this
provisions and will not be altered.
(C) Circulation:
1. Not applicable
2. Not applicable
3. Not applicable
4. Not applicable
5. Not applicable
6. Not applicable
• 7. Not applicable
8. Not applicable
9. Not applicable
10. Not applicable
(D) Parkinp:
1. This is an existing residence and the garage and parking
situation will not change with this remodel.
2. Not applicable
3. Not applicable
4. Not applicable
(E) Buildina Desipn, Livabilitv, and Relationship to the Existina or Proposed
Surrounding Area:
•
1. This neighborhood is a mix of houses. Slowly, remodels and
• updates are occurring all over. What we are proposing is very
conservative by all standards. It will not overshadow anyone's
house physically or aesthetically. The height will not change
from what currently exists and has existed for almost 30 years. It
will very much be in keeping with the neighborhood. It will also
enhance the neighborhood as this house is extremely dated and
unattractive. This will bring it up to an aesthetically pleasing
design without being ostentatious. 'Our goal is simply to update
it, increase the space minimaliy making the house much more
livable and increase the safety of the dwelling. The mass is
increasing minimally. The house in general will fit into the
existing neighborhood very comfortably-in fact more so after
the remodel than it does now in its current state. I have included
pictures of neighboring houses for your reference (Exhibit 4).
2. The height of our house would not change. This is very much in
keeping with all of our neighbors who are as high or higher than
we are. To the direct north of us, that house looks right over the
top of our house. To the south, we are above our neighbor's
backyard, but his house is 3 stories and is, in fact, higher than
ours. To the west, the house is higher than ours. To the east,
the house is as high as ours.
• 3. In that we are not going any higher and are not increasing mass
in any significant way, we will in no way impact any of our
neighbors. We will not block anyone's view from any angle and
we will not cast any new shadows on any home around us.
4. We will be choosing very soft, neutral colors and natural
materials for the exterior of the house. These will in no way
make our house stand out or set it apart from the existing
houses on the street which are all neutral themselves. Our
landscaping already exists, and we will only improve it-not take
any away. This will only enhance the neighborhood in every
way.
5. This house will present a much more attractive streetscape. As
it now stands, we are "in a hole°. This will be mitigated very
much so by the addition of the second floor over the current
living space. This will move the entrance from the bottom floor
to the upper floor thereby creating a"bridge" or "walkway" to our
main entrance which will be closer to street level. This coupled
with the complete facelift will all come together to create a much
improved presentation streetside. Further, where pedestrians
• are concerned, the safety will be vastly improved. As covered
earlier, the existing exposed aggregate steps going steeply down
• to the main entrance are a hazard in the winter (not to mention
other months as well). We have a 4 year old whose friends
come to visit as well as our own elderly parents who also come
to visit. These stairs are very dangerous--particularly in the
winter months. Even with daily shoveling and salting, they are
on the north side of the house, and therefore very shaded in the
winter and remain icy regardless of our best efforts. These steps
would be removed completely to make way for the new bridge
which would have only a few steps and a straight walkway to the
upper floor which is where the new entry would be, thereby
eliminating the hazard altogether.
6. Not applicable
7. Not applicable
8. No change will be to affect noise.
9. The only change to lighting will be to the walkway which will
incorporate lights along, at the start and at the entrance to
provide a safe walkway to the house.
• 10. There will be minimal impact to the environment.
11. There will be no cut and fill on this project.
F. Solar Sitinq and Construction:
1. Not applicable
2. Lot Lavout and Buildinq Sitinct: This is an existing house, the
footprint of which will not be changed in any way. Therefore,
solar siting is only under our control to some degree. The south
exposure of the house is where the vast majority of windows are
located, and no buildings to the east or west of us impact us, nor
do we impact their dwellings at all as well.
•