Loading...
6A - Site Review #LUR2002-00009, Henry and Beer Residence, 1460 Sierra DriveCITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: May 2, 2002 (Agenda Item Preparation Date: April 25, 2002) AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of Site Review Amendment #LUR2002-00009, the Henry and Anne Beer Residence, to eliminate a previously approved accessory building from the plans and construct a new 771 square foot studio addition north of the existing attached garage at 1460 Sierra Drive. The addition causes the measured building height to be 48 feet, where the existing house was previously approved by the Planning Board in 1989 to a measured building height of 38 feet. (No change proposed to the apparent total building height.) Applicants and Owners: Henry and Anne Beer REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Planning Department Peter Pollock, Planning Director Bob Cole, Director of Land Use Review Elizabctli Hanson, Presenter OV~R~'I~~~': The Planning Board is being asked to consider an amendment to a Site Review Amendment approved Uy the Planning Board on June 7, 2001. The 2001 amendment was for an approval, with conditions, of two additions to a single family residence and a new 787 square foot accessory Uuilding at 1460 Sierra Drive. The amendment was considcred by the Planning Board as an appeal by ueighbors ~d and Betty Turner due to the potential impact of the accessory building to views from the adjacent property at 1480 Sierra Drive. This Site Review Amendment eliminates the accessory building from the plans and replaces it with a studio addition on the north side of 1460 Sierra Drive. s:\plan\pb-items\memos\eh1460sierra5202.wpd AGENllA ITEM #~~ PaEe 1 STATISTICS: Proposal: Amend the Site Review plans for 1460 Sierra Drive to: o Eliminate the pxeviously approved plans for a new 787 square foot accessory building on the southeast comer of the site. This accessory building was the subject of an appeal to Planning -Board in 2001. o Construct a new 717 square foot studio addition north of the existing attached garage. Building heiQht calculation: The placement of the new addition would change the building height measurement, by creating a new lowest point within 25 feet of the building, according to the city code definition of height. Therefore, while the apparent building height would not change, the building height per code would increase from 38 to 48 feet. (The existing house at 1460 Sierra Drive was previously approved by the Planning Board in 1989 as a Planned Unit Development and Height Review to a building height of 38 feet.) o Remove the existing fence and construct a new 5 foot tall fence, 9'9" west of the Beer property's east property line. Requested variations to the Land Use Regulations: A building height of 48 feet where 35 feet is the by-right height for a principal building. Project Name: Henry and Anne Beer Residence Location: 1460 Sierra Drive Size of Tract: 18,200 square feet Zoning: LR-E, Low Density Residential - Established Comprehensive Plan: Low Density Residential, Area I KEY 1SSUE: Would the proposed location of the studio addition have the least visual impact to nearby properties, including minimizing the blocking of views from adjacent pro}~erties? s;\plan\pb-items\memos\eh1460sierra5202.wpd AGENllA ITEM # Pa e 2 BACKGROUND: Site Context Siena Drive is a cu]-de-sac street offBellevue Drive and near city of Boulder Open Space (see vicinity map in Attachment B). The quiet low density residential zoned neighborhood contains a mix of established residences and newer, larger homes. 1460 Sierra Drive is an18,200 square feet lot. The lot size exceeds the minimum 7,000 square foot lot size for Low Density Residential - Established, LR-E, zoning. The standard setback requirements for a principal building on this property are 25 foot front and rear yard setbacks and minimum five foot side yard setback (with a total side yard requirement of 15 feet). The accessory building setbacks are a minimum of 55 feet front yard, and a minimum of three feet for the side and rear yard setbacks (with zero side and rear setbacks possible with a maintenance easement from the neighboring property). The maximum by-right building heights aze 35 feet for principal buildings and 20 feet for accessory buildings. One off-street pazking space is required for each single family dwelling unit. Site Review History On July 6, 1989, a Planned Unit Development and Height Review was approved by the Planning Board for a new 6,031 square foot single family residence on the vacant property at 1460 Sierra Drive. The approval granted a 38 foot building height and a variation to allow a driveway that is not entirely perpendicular to the street. The approved residence meets all setback requirements. No accessory buildings were shown on the approved PUD/Height Review plan. On hme 7, 2001, the Planning Board approved a Site Review Amendment for a new accessory building at the southeast corner of the property and two small additions (dining room expansion and new bathroom) to the existing house. The main focus of the 2001 Site Review Amendment was the proposed accessory building at the southeast corner of the property. The applicants proposed to build into the hillside at the rear of the existing house to create an artisYs studio for the Beer family. During the review process, the adjacent neighbors at 1480 Sierra Drive, Ed and Betty Turner, and the Planning Department raised concerns that the size, height, and location of the accessory building may not comply with Yhe Site Review criteria related to minimizing impacts to views from adjacent properties. In particular, it appeared that the accessory building would block mountain views from the rear patio of 1480 Sierra Drive. ln response, the applicants redesigned the accessoiy building. This redesigned building was approved by the Platming Board. A building permit has been issued for the two small additions. The applicants have decided not to construct the accessory building, due to its high construction costs. This Site Review Amendinent proposes a new location for an artisYs studio. s:\plan\pb-items\memos\eh1460sierra5202.wpd AGENDA ITEM # ~ Pa e 3 Project Description Studio Addition The applicants, Henry and Anne Beer, propose a 771 syuare foot studio addition north of the existing attached garage, as described in the Statistics section above and in the applicanYs written statement in Attachment D. The addition would be attached to the existing attached garage and would be set back 42 feet from the front property line. The design and materials of the addition would match the existing house. This proposal requires approval of a Site Review Amendment by tHe Planning Board because 1) the existing house was approved as a Planned Unit Development and Height Review in 1989 and 2) the new construction does not meet the standards of a Minor Modification since the proposed new square footage exceeds 5% of the total floor azea of the development (5% is the threshold for buildings approved above the permitted height), and 3) the height of the house, as measured according the city code definition of height, increases from 38 to 48 feet with the new addition. Because the studio addition is located on the lower portion of the properry's slope, it changes the "lowest point within 25 feeY' reference for the house's height calculation. Therefore, even though the apparent height of the house will not change and the roof line of the addition is 24 feet lower than the existing house's roof line, the resulting measured building height per code changes from 38 to 48 feet. As proposed, there would not be an intemal connection between the proposed studio addition and the existing house. In other words, to access the studio from the house entries, one would walk a short distance outside. Internal connections between rooms is required by the definition of a dwclling mlit, to minimize the poten[ial £or illegal dwelling units. Because this site plan is tied Yo a Site Review Amendment and a development agreement, staff finds the proposed plan acceptable. Also, only a sink is proposed; no toilet is shown on the site plan. It is unlikely that the studio space ~vould be converted to a second unit. To ensure that the site remains a single family dwelling, staff recommends a condition requiring a dedaration of use be recorded against the property. New Fence Also included in the Site Review Amendment request is a new proposed fence. At the 2001 Site Review Amendment hearing, the Planning Board added a condition of approval that required the Beers to remove the existing wire fence alovg their east property line. This was in response to die Turners' complaint that the fence was unsighUy and affected their mountain views. This Site Review Amendment plan shows removal of the existing fence and construction of a new five foot tall fence 9'9" west of the property line. The Beers have discussed the new fence location and design with the Turners, as described in the applicanYs written statement. At the time of distribution of this memorandum, discussions between the Beers and Turners ~vere continuing. s:\plan\pb-items\memos\eh1460sie~ra5202.wpd AGENDA iTEM # N Pa e 4 The Beers have indicated that it is their intent to locate the fence so that it is not visibie from the Turners' back patio, thereby not affecting their mountain view. Staff recommends a condition of approval that requires a final fence plan to be submitted at the time of building permit application. ANALYSIS: Planning staff reviewed this application for compliance with the applicable Site Review criteria. Given the concerns expressed in the 2001 Site Review Amendment, staff has identified visual and view impacts of the proposed studio addition as the key issue. This.criterion is discussed in detail below. A checklist of staffls analysis of all of the applicable Site Review criteria is included as Attachment A. ' Would the proposed location of the studio addition have the least visual impact to nearby properties, including minimizing the blocking of views from adjacent properties? The Site Review section (Section 9-4-11, B.R.C. 1981) of the land use regulations addresses the protection of views or view corridors. Section 9-4-11(I)(2)(E)(iii) states: (iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent properties The 2001 proposed accessory building at 1460 Sierra met all by-right setback, height, and separation requirements. However, given the placement and height of the building shown in the original application and the concerns expressed by the Turners, staff determined that it may have impacts to tl~e remaining view of the mountains from the Turners' property at 1480 Sierra. The applicants' revised plans showed a significai~l design change, both in the heiglll of the proposed building and its location. The changes seemed to specifically address the view issue; the new design was pulled back from the Turners' property and would not be as visible from1480 Sierra. During the 2001 review, staff and the Tnrners also suggested alternative locations for a studio, either as an addition or an accessory building. One of those alternative locations was neaz the front of the Beer residence, c(oser to Sierra Drive. The new Site Review Amendment proposes a studio addition in one of these previously suggested locations. The proposed location does not impact the views from neighbors and is less visible, particularly from more private rear yard patios. The addition would be most visible from the street. The design of the addition is complementary to the existing Beer residence design, minimizin~ its visual impact. PUBLIC COMNIENT AND PROCESS: During the project's review, ~d and Betty Turner of 1480 Sierra Drive, reviewed the proposed plans as they were revised and shared their comments with staff and the Beers. The Turners initially expressed concerns that 8~e proposed new fence would affect dle mountain views from their s:\plan\pb-items\memos\eh1460siena5202.wpd AGENDA ITEM # A Pa e 5 property. After discussions between the Tumers and the Beers, the applicants proposed a revised fence location and height (see applicanYs written statements). Conespondence from the Turners are included as Attachment C. Another adjacent neighbor, Muriel Briggs, also reviewed the proposed plans. No other public comment was received. Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject property and a sign posted on the property. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-2, B.R.C. 1981 have been met. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff finds that the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the Site Review criteria (see Attachment A). The proposed addition would provide the Beers with the studio space they desire while minimizing visual and view impacts to their neighbors. The new fence will also minimize view impacts to the adjacent neighbors to the east. Therefore, staff recommends that Planning Board approve Site Review Amendment #LUR2001- OOO1Q incorporating this staff inemorandum and the attached Site Review Criteria Checklist as findings of fact and using tlie following recommended conditions of approval. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated Apri19, 2002 and on file in the city of Boulder Planning Department. 2. The Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions contained in the Development Agreement for P]anned Unit Development #P-89-10 and Height Review #H-89-5. 3. At the time of buildine permit application, the Applicant shall submit a grading and erosion control plan, and drainage and soils reports prepared by a licensed engineer and meeting the city of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. 4. At tl~e Yime of building pern~it application, the Applicant sl~all submit a final fence plan for the new fence along the east property line, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director. Prior to final inspection, the Applicant shall remove the existing fence located along the east property ]ine. s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\eh 14GOsierra5202.wpd AGENDA ITEM # b~ Pa¢e 6 At the time of building permit application, the Applicant shall record a Declaration of Use against the property placing a limitation on the use of the studio addition, stating that 1460 Sierra Drive may only be used as a single family dwelling unit. Approved By: ~~~~ Peter Pollock, Director Planning Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Site Review Criteria Checklist Attachment B: Vicinity Map Attachment C: Correspondence Received Attachment D: Applicants' Proposed Plans and Written Statement s:\plan\pb-items~memos\eh1460sierra5202.wpd AGF.NDA I'PEM #~I'~ Paee 7 ATTACHMENT A SlTE REVIEW CRITERIA CHECKLIST (I) Criteria for Review: No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that: (1) Boulder Vallev Comprehensive Plan: (A) The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds that the concept plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). Speclflcally, 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, materiais 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 shali 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 with the BVCP. (2) Site Design: Projects should preserve and enhance the community's unique sense of place through creative design that respects historic character, relationship to the natural environment, and its physical setting. Projects should utilize site design techniques which enhance the quality of the project. In determining s:\plan\pb-items\memos\eh 1460sierra5202.wpd AGENllA I"1'EM # Pa e 8 whether this subsection is met, the approving agency wiil consider the following factors: (A~ Open space: Open space, including, without limitation, parks, recreation areas, and playgrou~ds: (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 sufface water, wetlands, riparian areas, and drainage areas; (iv) The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project and from surrounding development; (v) The open space provides a buffer to protect •sensitive environmental features and naturai areas; and (vi) If possible, open space is linked to an area- or city-wide system. Private useable open space area is available on the site and adequate open space would remain after construction of the proposed addition. (B) Landscaninn: (I) The project provides for aesthetic enhancement and a variety of plant and hard surface materials, and the selecfion 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. Proposed landscape desJgn contributes to the development of an attractive site plan and enhances the appearance of the property. 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 projectis 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; s:\plan\pb-items\memos\eh1460sierra5202.wpd AGENllA ITEI~l # bA P~EC 9 (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; (y) Where practical and beneficial, a significant shift away from singie- occupant vehicle use to alternate modes is promoted through the use of travel demand management techniques; (vi) On-site facilities for external linkage are provided with other modes of transportation, where applicable; (vii) The amount of land devoted to the street system is minimized; (viiiThe project is designed for the types of traffic expected, including, without limitation, automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians, and provides safety, separation from living areas, and control of noise and exhaust; and (ix) City construction standards are met, and emergency vehicle use is facilitated. No changes to the pedestrian or vehicular circulation patterns on or adjacent to thls site are proposed in this application. (D) Parkinsa: (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 (4 parking spaces where one is required). Parking spaces are in an enc/osed garage. (E) Buildina Desiqn, Livabilitv, and Relationship to the Existinn or Proposed Surroundinq 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 for the 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 for the immediate area; (iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent properties; (iv) If the character of the area is identifiable, !he project is made compatible by the appropriate use of color, materials, landscaping, signs, and lighting; (v) Buildings present an attractive streetscape, incorporate architecturai and site design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale, and provide for the safety and convenience of pedestrians; s:\pl~i~\pb-i[ems\memos\eh14GOsicrra5202.wpd AGENDA 1'1'EM # ~^ Y.~~e~~ (vi) To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned public facilities; (vii)For residential projects, the project assists the community in producing a variety of housing types, such as multi-family, townhouses, and detached single-family units as well as mixed lot sizes, number of bedrooms, and sizes of units• (viiiFor residential projects, noise is minimized between units, between buildings, and from either on-site or off-site external sources through spacing, landscaping, and building materials; (ix) A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation, safety, and aesthetics; (x) The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids, minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems; (xi) Cut and fill are minimized on the site, the design of buiidings conforms to the naturai contours of the Iand, and the site design minimizes erosion, slope instability, landslide, mudflow or subsidence, and minimizes the potential threat to property caused by geological hazards. Propnsed addition is compatible with the existing site and character of ihe area. The heighf, location, and design of the addition has been designed to minimize the shadows on and b/ocking of views irom adjacent properties. (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 potenttal for the use of solar energy in accordance with the following solar siting criteria: (I) Placement of Oaen Snace 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 Sitina: 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. Buildings shall meet the solar access protection and solar siting requirements of Chapter 9-8, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981. (iv) Landscapin,g: The shading effects of proposed fandscaping on adjacent buildings are minimized. The siting of the addition allows most shading to impact its own property. The applicant has provided a shadow analysis which demonstrates compliance with the solar access ordinance. s;\pian\pb-items~memos\eh 1460sierra520Z.wpd AGENDA I'PENI # Pa e/ t~ i i t~~.nivir,iv i D of B ~ ~ .~. ~. ~: ~. ~. .~. ~- _ ~. .. ~ 9JEOT ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Location: 14BQ Sierra Dr ~ } Review Type: Slte Review o ,.. ~~ [ F( N~me of Rroject: Henry Beer PU.D ~..o~o~. ~ hld fink- C a18oulderGl6 P. ~ r Review 1~uinber: L11R2001-OU010 N ~.ti.~ ria..~ .ti~~.~w ~~;;.W~; c ~..,~~ ~ ~ {~pplicant: B.ob P.erletz . :~~ ~ °"'~"""^ ` I ,. , a~ ATTACHMENT C Apri123, 2002 1480 Sietta Drive Boulder, CO 80302 Liz Hanaon City of Boulder Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway 3`d Floor Boulder, Co 80306-0791 Turner response to revised drawings of Beer fence, dated April 18, 2002 Dear Liz, Mr. Beer's comments that his and Ed's decisions aze also my decisions is incorrect. I was not consulted and after checking the latest blue print, Ed and I have come to an decision with each other.. Mr. Beer proposes to move his fence west 9'9". We would like it moved-starting at the northernmost post which his drawing indicates-at an angle with the southernmost post being 20' west of its current location. We accept his proposal of 5' posts. I am unhappy seeing his fence posts from our dining room, kitchen and bedroom windows as wel( as from our lower patio. We believe this correction would eliminate the visual unsightliness of his wooden posts. His comment that he would lose 515 square feet of his lot should be considered by the Planning Board in that that part of his ]ot is so steep that it is unused and unusable. Also he could insert a gate at the base of the fence. Thank you for the time and headaches which you have put into this project. Yours very truly, /l~ ~d~~rn~. Betty J. Turn~r ~~~~ - ~C~~ Edward C. Turner pgenda Ilem # ~_ Page N ~3 ,~ : , ~ P . ~ 1 ~ ' „ TUP U~ - .r ~~ ~ yt'All.=H?.0 . ~ ~i~YSii~ i;ONC . . ~~ RF iA1Nir1C WAI i -~'~•~`-. m, 1 ` , Ol; cX ~ ~ ~ •... ~:.. ~ ~ ~~GFZRL ! ~. ~}-' . ~ / ip5 ` . ~ f `` ~"~ ~ \ ~-CI Q: ~~ F„isrwr, ~'' ~ ° ~ `oA qPPRUVE!) `, fUDiO ~oP oF -- ~ s~iEO p. ~ ~ Q~~` LC~Cqtl~)i;_ ~;a~~=et.e - :-I~ NOT TO BE BUILT . ~ ~ f , `.'_w .~x.`_._..< `, ~~- ~ ~ -- ~ ', ~ .~~ ~ \\ APPROVED STEPPED . ` . - `?; "'- - ~ CMU RETAINING ~=r""" `" ~ ` ` WATL DASHED ~ ~ ~ - , ~: c \ ~~ a R ~° ~ ~ ~ `\ N r W , . ~~ ~.x ~ r c ~1 c~ \ 3--... .o ` ~ ~ H1G~ ~ o~ `~ ~ ~ - :..~-. ~._ ' ~ o PROPOSED ' ~ ~' ` ~ ~ ~ \ -- ~ ~ ~ ~. jo~ti N W E ~~~ ~/ ~-, o - ~~ , ; ;` `, ~ ~ l ~. _'.,~ '`~ ~. ; ~ ~ . , . . - __.;..._. Q,~t~ -. ~o ~ \~ ,` . ,'~ ~~ 1-~ n ~ ~ 8p. . . .. - - ~ ' '~ O i ~ - \1 \t 4 ~ ~ ~ EXISTING FENCE ~ q~ ; . ~~~ y ~ • ~ ~ `~ ~ TO BE REMOVED ~ ~~ ~o ; ' ~ ~ sg : ~ , ~ ' Q~~ `~ ~ ~ ~-° ~ ; - PIN LOCATiON ~ ~` \ TYP. O (4) LOC' . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ` PLANNING BOARD - ~ . ~ , ~ ~ DEFINED VIEW a ~ CORRIDOR ~ . ~ '~' ioo ~ , :.~\ ,;M,,.~, : 1 a 'vik~A .P ~~ F. .. - .. . ._ .. . . . . . . .~~ . ~~t ~~. ~d:w +d.' .. .. n .. ,. . . . . . " ' -. . .. ~ ' . . I ~ , r' ! ~ March 10, 2002 1480 Siena Drive Boulder, CO 80302-7846 Liz Hanson City of Boulder Planning an Development Services 1739 Broadway 3`d Floor Boulder, CO 80306-0791 Re: Site Review Amendments to Site Review # LUR2001 Henry Beer PUD Dear Liz, This letter is in response to the letter from Henry Beer, dated February 18, 2002. We have examined his Amendments and have no problems with his proposed addition at the northwest corner of his existing house. We do disagree with his request to remove Condition 7 ofthe Site review. His discussion ofthe dangers posed by removing his fence seem to be based on newspaper comments rather than on facts. We would like to see tangible proof of animals such as bear and mountain lions on his property. Has he photographs? We question his statements in that since we moved into our home on Sierra Drive in 1968 we have never observed bears, bear droppings or mountain lions on our property or the open space which adjoins our property. Both Muriel Briggs and we have each raised 4 children from toddler age through teen ages with no fences or incidences with wild animals. We both have had do~s and one cat who roamed the space sunounding our homes (before city ordinances forbidding this activityl with no confrontations with any wild animals. We do not understand his obsession with having a fence. His boys play basketball on his drive, street hockey and football on Siena Drive in front of our houses with no protection from wild animals. We do have traveling deer which nibble our pine trees as they meander up Siena Drive and the hill to the green belt area. One year we had racoons but they disappeared as soon as we quit feedin~ our dogs outside. We have no vicious wild animals that we have ever observed. Very truly yours, ~ ~~~~ B ty J. Turnei~ ~d '~'C~-'~`'~'~".l~ E ward C. Turner RECEIVED MAR t ~ 2002 ,~,ye~ ~a ltem ~ ~ page ~ IS ATTACHMENT D April 18, 2002 Ms. Liz Hanson Ciry of Bouider Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway 3'd Floor Boulder, Co. 80306-0791 Re: Response to Liz Hanson 8 Mazch 2002Review Results and Comments of Site Review Amendments to Site Review #LUR2001 00010 Henry Beer PUD (Revued 18Apri12002) Please find attached the corrections for our Sice review amendmenc. Below is our written statement addressing the points brought forward by your staff review. Raview Findines Submitced with this response are drawings indicating the changes that are the result of attaching an addition to our home placed in this specific location on the lot. During che proceedings leading up to the approval of the accessory building; both ciry scaff and our neighbors the Turners thought that adding to the north of the existing house would minimize view corridor issues. The current proposed location, attached as showa to the garage, has drawn no objections from neighbors. However seaff determined thax this addition changes the point on the site from which building 6eight would be calcula~ed. The corrected drawing shows that the new poinc would change the elevation measuring point from 392.0 to 382.0, lowering the heighc reference point by 10 feat (See drawing Al.l). Ic is important xo note that xhe addicion icself is 24 feec below che e~ciscing roofline, and adds no height at all to the existing sttucture. We believe that overall, this addition has less visual impact than the apptoved accessory building. EnQiv_eering No requirements ax this time for site review amendment. Please note the current drawings submicted address drainage for proposed addition, and the original Site Review required a soil report, which has been submitted and is on file. I.~eeal Documents Lenders with an inrerest in 1460 Sierra Drive are GMAC (1" mortgage) and BankOne (line of credic). Enclosed is an Endorsement issued by Commonwealth land Title Insurance Company that deletes exception #11 (page 5 of Schedule B). While in the process of submitcing our application, Union Planters Bank transferred the mortgage to GMAC. Actached is che Notice of Assignment that shows GMAC as the new service effective April 1", 2002. Land Use A floor plan has been submitted as a pazt of this response. The original approved accessory building had a toilec, and the proposed addition does not I have included a floor plan of che addition for clarification. The elimination of the toilet fur~her illustrates thac ic is not our implied kgentla I,em ~ ~ f'age # ~~ or expressed intent to make this a dwelling unit. We will sign a condition of approval warranting that we do not incend this addition to be used as a dwelling unit ac any time. Plan Documents We have filed for a lot line adjustment, File # TEC2002-00011, under Anne Beer, applicant Landscaoine As you know, Anne and I have had face-to-face of discussions with Ed and Betty Turner, our neighbors to the east, to discuss and resolve what would be considered acceptable to them regarding the fence and their concerns about the view. After looking at some informal fence post positions held in place by Anne and viewed by Ed and me, our discussions narrowed down and became more clear to me. Ed stated that as long as no portion of the fence is visible from their lower patio (which is the patio in the picmres in our original application pgs. 13 & 14), that they would be satisfied. He believed that we could achieve this goal by moving the fence further west, so t6at it is substantially below the ridgeline that occurs along our properry line. We can achieve his objeccive by moving the fence 9'-9", considerably west of its current location. Attached is a revised A-1 drawing showing the new fence configuration that meets these requiremencs. meet Ed's rec~uirements. If uoon completion it does not meet the requirements s~ paragraph above, we will remove ie and redo it until it meets those requirements. must Meeting these requirements means that 550 square feet of our lot is effectively not useable/accessible ro us. This is not insignificant, but in the spirit of accomodating our neighbor's wishes and in order to move the process forward, we are prepared to accept these terms. Please call me if you require additional information. Thank you for your help. Henry G. Beer 1460 Sierra Drive Boulder CO 80302 303.442.G 120 Hyenda item # _I/~___page # ~Z °-- ~~uuu. na ~o 9 April Za02 Ms. Liz klanson Ciry of Boulder Planning and Developmenc Services 1739 Broadway 3`d Floor Bnuldar, Co: 8030G-0791 Re: Further Turner Discussions Dear X,iz: Afrer ouc discussions this mornin~ regazding our proposed knce along the ease (TurnedBee~) properry line, I mec chis afternoon wich Ed Turner co furcher discuss what would be considered accepcable to chem regarding che fence and cheir eoncerns abouc che view. Afcer looking ac some informal fence post posiuons held in place by Mne and viewed by Ed and me, our discussions narrowed down and became more clear to me. Ed seaced thac as long as nv porcion oF the fence is visible from chcir lower pacio (which is the pacio in tlle pic~ures in our original applicacion pgs. 13 &14), that tliey would be sacisfied. T-ic belinved tl~ac wa could achieve this goai by moving the fcnce furcher wesc, so chat ic is subscancially 6elow the Aidgcline chac occurs along our properry Iinc. Ed is awaze of and does noc oUjecc co che cen fooc pottion oFche architeecural wall chac occurs ac che nonhern mose portion of che fcnce line, since ic is in front of our house, 6locks no views and is screencd by tbeir overgreens. L too believa we can achieve h is objeccive by movi~ag che fence considerably wesc oF ies aurenc location. ~UUe are willing [o agrec c6at the fenee occurtin~along [h~easc ~ro„ggFry line m~st meet Tb. _ t . _._'ff _. 1_'.._]. 1____ . __ J~ . ...!__.. ._ .__f._l.'.J_. Although we do noc havc a drawing cha[ accuracely shows che desircd con~igura~ion, wc will prepare various mockupsl conFiguracions prior co aceceing che Fence co ensure ics compliance w.ich ehe ~erms ofthis lecter. Meecing chese requiremei~u m~,ns chac 515 squar~ feec of our loc is noc useablclaccassihlc co us. This is noc inaigni&canc, huc i£ it enahles us to movc Forward on our applicacion, we are prepare<< co accepc chese cerms and move fotward. I appceeiace your help in this tnactcr. ~E51 uuc ri~V',rl~.'G 141i~1~~T(t~'~lG11 '8~,._ 18 February 18, 2002 Ms. Liz Hanson City of Boulder Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway 3`d Floor Boulder, Co. 80306-0791 Re: Site Review Amendments to Site Review #LUR2001 00010 Henry Beer PUD Dear Liz: The purpose of this letter is to put forth desired changes and modifications to our approved Site Review #LUR 2001 0010. Attached is a modified site plan and drawings that show the patticulars of those requests. The prima change relates to the elimination of the agproved accessory building. The accessory building will not be constructed. Rather, we aze proposing a new addition attached to the northwest portion of the e~cisting house, shown on the new site'amendment drawings attached. Not constructing the accessory building entirely eliminates the concerns that were put forward by our neighbor in the Site Review heazing, related to their Flatirons views to the west. The new progosed addition is attached at the nonhwest corner of the existing house. The addition adds no structures on the site, and blocks no views. The new proposed addition is well within all height, shadow and secback requirements. All storm drainage is conveyed from the roof of the addition down the existing driveway, and requires no grading changes to achieve this path (see attached architectural drawin~. We ~lan to go forward with the other aspects of the a}~proved and permitted portions of the site review, including the dining room addixion and the powder room addition, minor changes to the patio azea and a portion of the approved gazden wall. The extensive grading and drainage that was necessitated by the original accessory building plan is no longer required, and will not be undertaken. Conditioit7 of the Site Review agproval be removed. Condition 7 required the elimination of the existing poultry netting fence along the east property line. Again, since there is no (onger a building there we request that the existing fence be allowed to remain. We aze adjacent to City Open Space and every variety of animal known to inhabit this area has been on our properry, including the serious ones---bear, mountain lion, not to mention deer. With two young boys and pets, a fence is an absolutely necessary requirement. This new proposed addition location has been shown to the Turners, our neighbors to the east, and chey have said that they have no problem with the proposed addition. ,-..~,,.. ~ bA ~,.~~}~9~. ~ ~v.~.~w ~~.2ff~ ~~ a~plication xo do so. The adjustment does not reduce or increase the size of our loc. Our neighbor to the west, Muriel Briggs has a mailbox and a number of lazge trees in het front yazd, which as it was discovered during a survey, are not on her property. The adjustmenc gives her more frontage along 5ierra Drive, and gives us more width at the rear of our lot. No money will change hands and both neighbors see a muxual benefit in the exchange. If the lot line adjustment is approved, the knee wail shown along the existing west lot line will move slightly to align with the new lot line. I hope I have covered all the necessary areas of concern for a submission. Thank you for yout consideration and I remain Very,'T~'ruly Yours, Henry G. Beer~ 1460 Sierra Drive Boulder CO. 80302 Ht;2~ iUu f°em i~ ~ ~~';~" 7~~-