5B - Site Review LUR2003-00025 at 3580 4th StreetCITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: May 22, 2003
(Agenda Item Preparation Date: Apri128, 2003)
AGENDA TITLE:
Public hearing and consideration of Site Review LUR2003-00025 for a height modification of
a proposed single family residence from 28 feet to 31.5 feet. The building site is located at 3580
4~h Street on the southeast corner of 4'h and Kalmia Avenue.
Applicant/Owner: Fred Claze
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Planning Department
Peter Pollock, Planning Directar
Bob Cole, Land Use Review Manager
Mike Randall, Planner II, Presenter
OVERVIEW:
The subject parcel is a non-standard lot due to lot size. Based on a formula for non-standard lots
the maximum permitted height is 28 feet. The applicant requests consideration of 31.5 feet.
After finding that the request generally conforms to the site review criteria, the planning staff is
recommending approval.
STATISTICS:
Proposal: Height modification from 28 feet to 31.5 feet for a new single family
dwelling
Location: Southeast comer of the intersection of 4`h Street and Kalmia Avenue (see
Attachment A)
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos~mr 3580 4th Height Mod AGENDA ITEM #~S Q Paee 1
Zoning: RRl-E
Minimum Lot Size = 30,000 sf ...... Permitted height = 35 feet
Actual Lot Size = 14,260 sf ...... Reduced height = 28 feet
BVCP: Very Low Density Residential
KEY ISSUES:
1) Is the height of the new dwelling in general proportionate to the height of existing
buildings and the proposed or projected heights of approved buildings or approved
plans for the immediate area?
2) Is the proposed dwelling's height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuratioa
compatible with the existing character of the area or the character established by an
adopted plan for the area?
3) Does the orientation of the proposed dwelling minimize the blocking of views from
adjacent properties?
BACKGROUND:
In 1997 the subject site and the sunounding properties were rezoned from ER-E to RRl-E. The
minimum lot size in the RRl-E district is 30,000 square feet. The size of the subject site is 14,260
sf, therefore, the site is a"non-standard lot." The site is currently developed with a single family,
one-story dwelling (with basement walk out), and attached garage, containing about 1200 sf, with
an existing height of 28 feet. The applicant has applied for a demolition permit which was reviewed
and approved by the Landmarks division and is valid until November, 2003.
In accordance with the height formula in Section 9-3.5-3(b)(2) the maximum permitted height of a
principal structure on the subject non-standazd lot is:
Height =(14,260 - 7,500) x.000444 + 25 = 28.0 feet
Height, as defined by the zoning code, is the height of the building measured from the low point of
natural grade 25 feet out from the building. On this site there is a substantial grade change from the
northwest side of the lot to the southeast. By this measurement the height of the proposed new
dwelling will be 31.5 feet.
The applicant has submitted a written statement and drawings of the proposed dwelling which
illustrate the height (refer to Attachment E at the back of this report). The lower level contains 1370
square feet with an attached garage of 585 square feet (total lower level= 1955 s fl, and the highest
portion of the structure is a second story containing 700 square feet, a total floor area of 2655 square
s:\plan\pb-items~cnemos~nr 3580 4th Height Mod AGENDA ITEM #.~~ Paee 2
feet. Except for the upper level, all other portions of the home are at or below 28 feet in height.
Therefore about a third (700/1955 = 0.36) of the proposed footprint of the home is over the 28 feet
height limitation.
ANALYSIS:
Is the height of the new dwelling proportionate to the height of existing buildings and
the proposed or projected heights of approved buildings or approved plans for the
immediate area?
The neighborhood is characterized by a mix of one and two-story homes of various designs and
sizes. There are some newer two-story homes and at least one two-story home is now under
construction in the area.
The design of the proposed dwelling is typical of the other homes and with about 2000 square feet
of living floor area it is not overly large by comparison. While the defined height of the proposed
structure is 31.5 feet the new home presents an alevation to the street which is substantially lower.
To 4`~' Avenue, where the highest part of the dwelling faces, the actual height from grade level is
about 24 feet; and from Kalmia Avenue, where the bulk of the single story lower level and attached
garage face, the overall height above grade is about Z 1 feet above grade.
The upper story contains a bedroom, bath and study. The floor to ceiling height has been kept to a
minimum such that the side walls of the rooms are only 5-6 feet (rather than a fu118 feet) in height,
then angling to the high point (refer to the `North/South Bldg. Section' in the applicants materials,
Attachment E).
Neighboring homes to the east and south are also affected by the same slope of the land which
affects the subject site. The home to the east presents itself to Kalmia as a single story, but on the
south side is a basement walk out. The home to the south also has a substantial slope in the back
yard.
2. Is the proposed dwelling's height, mass, scale, orientation, and con~guration
compatible with the existing character of the area or the character established by an
adopted plan for the area?
The front of the home will continue to face 4'~' Avenue, as it does today, with a covered porch
extending into the front yard. As it appears from the street frontages, the new building is compatible
in height, mass, scale, orientation and configuration with the existing character of the area.
The new dwelling is to be located mostly within the north half of the site leaving a substantial
portion of the south half in open yard. The new home will have a lot coverage of 1955 square feet,
about 14% of the lot area. This is comparable with other homes in the area.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos~mr 3580 4th Height Mod AGENDA ITEM #~~ Paee 3
3. Does the orientation of the proposed dwelling minimize the blocking of views from
adjacent properties?
Planning staff reviewed this application for compliance with the applicable Site Review criteria
concerning view preservation. Although views near a new development are important there is no
absolute protection for adjacent private property owners. Significant concerns have been expressed
by a neighboring property owner to the east (444 Kalmia, see correspondence in Attachment D). The
key criterion is not whether a view will be blocked, but whether impacts to views by proposed
development would be `minimized.' (This criterion is discussed in Attachment B)
There are many vantage points from which to view the mountains to the west. Today, the most
predominate westerly view from 444 Kalmia is over the north half of the subject site, the very
location of the new dwelling at the permitted setback. At its closest point to the neighboring
property (about 70 feet to the west) the new home is a single story measuring (by code) 28 feet high.
This part of the new home, at the permitted height, will have a greater impact on the present view
than the second floor of the new structure which is further to the west.
From a different vantage point, as currently proposed, the westerly view over the southerly half of
the subject site is kept open, even more so since the existing residence will be removed and the new
home wil] be more than 20 feet further north on the lot.
The alternative of reducing height (eliminating the second floor) from the requested 31.5' has the
resuit of increasing lot coverage and adversely affecting other views without changing the fact that
the predominate westerly view continues to be blocked by parts of the new home already at or under
the permitted height of 28 feet and does not improve the view over the north half of the subject site.
A larger building footprint may impact views from all other vantage points.
Refer to Attachment C for staff's complete response to the Site Review Criteria Checklist.
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS:
Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners
within 600 feet of the subject property and a sign posted on the property for at least 10 days. Notice
of this item was published in the Daily Camera in the "News from City Hall" section at least 10 days
prior to this hearing. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-2, B.R.C. 1981 have been met.
Comments have been received from adjacent landowners (please refer to Attachment D).
STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION:
Planning staff finds that the request is consistent with the Site Review criteria as they apply to this
site. The following is a summary of the staff's findings:
s:\plan\pb-items\memos~mr 3580 4th Height Mod AGENDA ITEM #~?~ Paee 4
1) The height of the new dwelling is proportionate to the height of existing buildings in the
immediate area.
2) The proposed dwelling's height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration are compatible
with the existing character of the area.
3) The orientation of the proposed dwelling minimizes the blocking of views from adjacent
properties:
a) Demolition of the existing home will open up the view over the south half of the lot.
b) The alternative of moving the 700 square feet of upper floor area to the same level
of the main floor of the proposed home is less acceptable since: it will cover more
ground area; is likely to place even more new construction closer to the east side of
the site; and, at the allowed height of 28 feet, may further reduce the westerly view
from properties to the east.
Therefore, staff recommends that Planning Board approve LUR2003-00025 incorporating this staff
memorandum as findings of fact with the following Conditions of Approval:
1) The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance
with all approved plans dated 3/20/2003 and on file in the City of Boulder Planning
Department.
2) The approved height of 31.5 feet is only for that portion of the proposed home as depicted
in the drawings dated 3/20/03. Prior to Praming Inspection approval a Height VeriFication
survey is required so that the maximum height may be confirmed. The maximum height
shall not be greater than 31.5 feet as measured per the code "heighY' definition in Section 9-
1-3 B.R.C.1981.
3) The architectural intent shown on the approved plans dated 3/20/2003 is acceptable. The
Planning staff will review plans submitted for building permit to ensure that the architectural
intent is performed.
Approved By:
~
~
~-~ ~ ~
~ i , . !; ~~x1--
Pe+ter Pollock, Planrung Director
ATTACHMENTS:
A Vicinity Map
B View protection by Boulder's city code
s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\mr 3580 4th Height Mod AGENDA ITEM #,ri~ Paee 5
C Site/Use Review Criteria Checklist
D Correspondence from adjacent owners
E ApplicanYs Written Statements and Proposed Plans
s:\plan\pb-items~rnemos~mr 3580 4th Height Mod AGENDA ITEM #<'7B Paee 6
3580 4th Street - Vicinity Map ATTACHMENT A
~ =~1
ApProx location l'~
I, of new home ~
~-
~ `~
i
~ ~,, 3580
~ ~ u~. . ~
r
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
l
~ ~~i~ ~ ~
~ ~~
~ ~
~
~
_
~ ~~
~~
~~
~ ~ 0
~,~~,
~~~~
'1
~~ ~
~ , ,T:
~ ~~~~
~
~ o
~.
~ ~
~ ~~
~
~,~ ~~~~
:
~ ~ ~~~ ~ . ~
~
~ ~
~'
~
~
~
~
~
I
~ ~.~~~w ~v
~
m~
,
~
l
~",,.;;
i~:r, ~~~ ~ ~~ti
'i ~ t~;i ,.
~
.
~ iqii~~~
~
~ Ij ~ ~~
~
[ ~
~~ f~T a~ ,' ~ ~ I~IG,~~ ~
~i
~ 9
~
~'
'
I
~I
I"'
:~
i
I
:
R~
~ ~~
,
~~ ~ ~ ~ i~.
~
i
~
~
~
.
~
~
~~~. ~
'
~
~ ' ~~~ ~ ~ ;~'
~..~:~ ~ .
~
~~
~
~I~'~h~ ~~
-i
~ ~,
ij w~y
a II~ r ~ I~ ii
iii i I'~.~~ ~. ~~.
1
LEGEND
LU R2003-00025
Site Review - Height Modification
Applicant : Fred Clare
~~
KALMIA AV
, ~~N~ ~
~ ~~~
\
~~~,~~~~
~ ~ ~,i ,,.,
i~,h~l, i~ ii~, ~ ~I
ti~l'~
~
'~ „' ~~~~~i l;li
~~~ ~~~i~i 4~r';I
~'i i ~.~~ ~ ~1'
I' ~
1:1492
~ MapLink
City of Boulder GIS
~i~, mr~,~,e~~, a~~~nea ~~~ ~i~~r ~~ ~,
~~.~am,~R~~i~mTi.e~b~~~.~~~~ ~~q.
N ~i~~ cry ~~r H~~dde, ~~o.m« ~~~,v~R.,~~r,
~~.~«s,~~a ~~ n~~rMi.,~ ~o ~n~-.a~~~,~~.
_ Agenda Item # ._~~ Page # '7
ATTACHMENT B
View protection bv Boulder's cit~code
The mountain backdrop of Boulder affords unique views to local citizens and visitors to Boulder
from private property, public rights-of-way, and city parks and open space areas. Views from private
property are an amenity which may be affected as the unintended result of the development rights
of a nearby property. There is no city regulation for the protection of mountain (or other) views for
"by-righY' development (that development which does not require Land Use Review or other
variations from the city code). However, the legislative intent section of the city's land use
regulations (Section 9-1-1, B.R.C. 1981 states:
This title is intended to accomplish the following purposes.•
(a) Promote coordinated sound development, effective use of Zand, and high quality site
planning considering and complementing the city's unique geographic setting, amenities of
view, and open space;
The Concept Plan Review and Comment section (Section 9-4-10, B.R.C. 1981) and the Site Review
section (Section 9-4-1 l, B.R.C. 1981) of the land use regulations are the only portions of the Land
Use Regulations that address the protection ofviews or view corridors. Section 9-4-ll(I)(2)(E)(iii)
states:
(iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from
adjacent properties
The key word in this criterion is `Sninimizes. " While the city has approved Site Review applications
which block or affect other properties' views in some manner, the city must make a finding that this
blocking of views has been minimized by the applicanYs orientation of the building.
s:\plan\pb-items~memos~tnr 3580 4th Height Mod AGENDA ITEM #~~ PTae 8
ATTACHMENT C
SITE REVIEW
General Criteria
No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that:
I. Boulder Vallev Comprehensive Plan:
Y The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive P~an.
II. Site Desian: It utilizes site design techniques which enhance the qualily of the project. In determining
whether this subsection is met, the approving agency will consider the following factors:
A. Ooen space, including without limitation, parks, recreation areas, and playgrounds:
NA 1. Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional;
Y 2. Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit;
The open space and private yard area are provided in accordance with the
minimum setback requirements for the RR1-E zone. However, the praposed
home occupies a footprint of only 14% of the total lot area and substantlally
preserves the south half of the lot in open yard area.
NA 3. The project provides for the preservation of natural features, including without
limitation healthy long-lived trees, terrain, and drainage areas;
NA 4. The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project and from
surraunding development;
NA 5. If possible, open space is linked to an area- or city-wide system.
B. Landscaoinp:
NA 1. The project provides for a variety of plant and hard surface materials, and the
selection of materials provides a variety of colors and contrasts;
NA 2. The project provides significant amounts of plant material sized in excess of the
landscaping requirements of Sections 93.3-2 and 9-3.3-3, "Landscaping and
Screening Requirements," and "Landscape Design Standards;' B.R.C. 1981; and
Y 3. The setbacks, yards, and useable open space along public rights- of-way are
landscaped to provide attractive streetscapes, to enhance architectural features, and
to contribute to the development of an attractive site plan.
The landscape setbacks conform to the standards for single family dwellings and are
compatible to the surrounding neighborhood.
C. Circulation, including without limitation the transportation system that serves the property, whether
public or private and whether constructed by the developer or not:
Not applicable to the proposed site plan.
s:\plan\pb-items\memos\mr 3580 4th Height Mod AGENDA ITEM #~~~ Paee 9
D. Parkina: Two car garage provided.
E. Buildina Desiqn, Livability, and Relationshiq to the Existinq or Proposed Surroundina Area
Y 1. 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;
The neighborhood is characterized by a mix of one and two-story homes of various designs and sizes.
There are some newer two-story homes and at least one two-story home is now under construction
in the area.
The design of the proposed dweiling is typical of the other homes and with about 2000 square feet
of floor area it is not overly large by comparison. While the defined height of the proposed structure
is 31.5 feet the new home presents an elevation to the street which is substantially lower. To 4~"
Avenue, where the highest part of the dwelling faces, the actual height from grade level is about 24
feet; and from Kalmia Avenue, where the bulk of the single story lower level and attached garage face,
the overall height above grade is about 21 feet above grade (and does not exceed the permitted 28
feet as measured from the low point).
The upper story is about 700 square feet and contains a bedroom, bath and study. The floor to ceiling
height has been kept to a minimum such that the side walls of the rooms are only 5-6 feet in height,
then angling to the high point (refer to the `North/South Bldg. Section' in the applicants materials).
Neighboring homes to the east and south are also affected by the same slope of the land which
affects the subject site. The home to the east presents itself to Kalmia as a single story, but on the
south side is a basement walk out. The home to the south also has a substantial slope in the back
yard.
Y 2. 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;
The new dwelling is to be located mostly within the north half of the site leaving a substantial portian
of the south half in open yard. The southeriy side of the new home will be located about 21 feet
further north on the lot than tlie present home. The new home will have a lot coverage of 1955 square
feet, about 14% of the lot area. The front of the home wiil continue to face 4'h Avenue, as it does
today, with a covered porch extending taward the front yard. Setbacks to 4'h and Kalmia are 25 feet.
As it appears from the street frontages, the new building is compatible in height, mass, scale,
orientation and configuration with the existing character of the area.
Y 3. The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from
adjacent properties;
Planning staff reviewed this application for compliance with the applicable Site Review criteria
concerning view preservation. Although views near a new development are important there is no
absolute protection for adjacent private property owners. Given the concerns expressed by a
neighboring property owner to the east (444 Kalmia, see correspondence in Attachment D), the key
criterion relates to whether any impacts to views by the proposed new dwelling would be `minimized.'
The staff's finding in this regard is that other alternative designs at the permitted height of 28 feet will
substantially alter the westerly view from any property to the east of the subject site. The larger the
footprint and the cioser that any new structure is built to the permitted setbacks, the greater the
impact on views.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos~mr 3580 4th Height Mod AGENDA ITEM #~`~ ~ Paee 10
Those portions' of the proposed new dweliinq at ar under the permitted height of 28 feet will
substantialiy alter the westerly view from the properties to the east. The alternative of reducing height
from the requested 31.5' (by piacing the 700 sq ft of floor area at the same main level) and increasing
lot coverage may also adversely affect other views without changing the fact that the westerly view
continues to be blocked by parts of the new home at or under the permitted height of 28 feet.
As currently proposed the southerly half of the subject site is kept open, even more so since the
existing residence will be removed.
Y 4. If the character of the area is identifiable, the project is made compatible by the
appropriate use of color, materials, landscaping, signs, and lighting;
The neighborhood is characterized by a wide variety of housing styles and designs. The proposed
home, while having its own unique style, does reflect the general character of the area with a street
facing front porch, pitched roof, use of stone as an element of the design and maintenance of
substantial open yard areas.
NA 5. 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.
NA 6. To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned public
facilities;
NA 7. 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;
NA S. .For 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;
NA 9. A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation, safety, and
aesthetics;
NA 10. The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and
avoids, minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems;
Y 11. Cut and fili are minimized on the site, and the design of buildings
conforms to the natural contours of the land.
The propose dwelling utilizes the natural slope of the lot without substantial regrading.
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:
Y 1. Placement of Open Space 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 mayjustify deviations from this criterion.
Y 2. Lot Lavout and Buildincr Sitinp. 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.
s:\plan\pb-items~memos~mr 3580 4th Height Mod AGENDA ITEM # r7~ Paee 11
Y 3.
Y 4.
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.
Landscapinq. The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent buildings
are minimized.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos~mr 3580 4th Height Mod AGENDA ITEM #~~ Paee 12
ATTACHMENT D
City of Boulder
Planning and Development Services
PO Box 791
Boulder CO 803U6-U791
Attn• Project Case Manager, Mike Randall
Re~ Site Review
Review Number LUR2003-00025
Comment: We are strongly oppose the height variance requested for
3580 4th St• by Applicant Fred Claire.
When the zoning in this area was changed a few years ago from
Estate to Rural Residential, we spoke to many of the people in
this area explaining that it mould mean the height of any new or
modified construction would be reduced on non-conforming lots• No
one objected•
We naw see no reason for such a variance on one of the smallest
lots in this area_
From our personal point of view, the added 3 1/2 feet would
cause serious blocking of light, air and particularly view to our
house at 444 Kalmia, which is directly adjacent and to the east of
the applicants lot• Further, the natural slope of the land is such
that a tall structure on the Claire lot would loom aver us,
blocking our view of the open space above 4th Street• We feel the
proposal would also add to the congestion in our area by adding a
driveway in an area that is already very crowded with driveways•
When we remodeled our house at 444 Kalmia about 5 years ago we
paid particular attention to keeping the profile of our house law
so that there would be minimal impact on the view of our neighbors•
We now think that this conservative impact should be maintained and
applied in this case•
Sincerely. Ber~~ olber~c~~~~~~
~ ti
Aq,ne Grace Tolbert
~: ;x.,~ x~~~ ~%~~~~~
444 Kalmia Ave, Boulder, CO 80304-1734
Telephone~ 303-447-8532
Agenda Item # 5 ~ Page # /._~
LS~L~~ V L~ ~
City of Boulder April 10, 2
Planning and Development Services ~.~ 1 1 2003
PO Box 791 ~
Boulder CO 80306-0791
Attn. Project Case Manager, Mike Randall
Re: Site Review
Review Number LUR2003-00025
Comment: As a follow up of our letter sent on April lst in which we
expressed great concern regarding the proposed height variance
requested for 3580 4th Street, I have taking several pictures from
our living room window and from the porch adjacent to it. These
pictures show the present view that we have of the open space hill
just to our west. They also show the house at 3580 4tn
I am told by Fred Claire that the height of the present house is
the 28 feet that would be allowed by current zoning for that lot.
It is easily possibie to show on these photographs the line for the
present house, at 28 feet and a line for the proposed height of
31.5 feet by using the existing brick chimney as a measure. This
chimney is 7 two-inch bricks high and the 3 1/2 ft increase is a
fraction less that three chimney heights. I have indicated that
proposed height with the upper of the two lines on the marked
photographs.
We can see from these photographs that the proposed house, even
at the legal limit of 28 feet will seriously damage our view to the
west. Note that the ac]ditional 3'-2 ft to 31.5 ft cuts down the
view line way above the top line of trees on the other side of qtn
We realize that it is probably more economical to build a tall
house with a smaller foundation for a give square footage of space,
but we feel that our view and the decrease in the value of our home
as a result of the loss of view are equally serious.
We are strongly opposed to the height variance requested, and the
precedence that would be established for zoning in this area.
Sincerely. Bert M. Tolbert ~;~"'^ ~w ''~~~
Anne Grace Tolbert ~~~ ~ °~'~~~~;'J''~
444 Kalmia Ave, Boulder, CO 80304-1734
Telephone: 303-947-8532
Agenda Item # .~ ~ Page # /~/
D~~~o~
City of Boulder April 1, 20
Planning and Development Services APR 2 2 2003
PO Box 791
Boulder CO 80306-0791
Attn. Project Ca'se Manager, Mike Randall
Re: Site Review d 3'
Review Number LUR2003-00025
PETITION:
We request the Planning and Development Board of the City of
Boulder respect and maintain building height limitations on new and
remodeled construction set by present zoning regulations in the
west Kalmia area.
Signed:
--~~"
~~ ~~
~~ \
~_ ~
` y4' /~a~~..>.r
~ ~ -
~ ~
~~ ~
/ ~}-~ (~ u
W / C~ ~ ~
,9v.~ ~
i l.Y`~ i : -
~~~.~,.,"
~ ~
~ ~~~`
~~',~.~.~ ~,y~.~~~.a~~
~C~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~
~ ~ v ~~~,~ ~~
~-oc ~G~~.,,~~
Agenda Item # .5 c~ Page # /S
,.~,~. -~,.~, .~, -.a ~...-~. __--~, .~.
i Mike Randall - Fred Clare - 3580 4th Street _, _ ~_Page ~
From: "Emily Barltey" <emilybartley@hotmail.com>
To: <plandevelop@ci.boulder.co.us>
Date: 4/23/03 9:31AM
Subject: Fred Clare - 3580 4th Street
Dear Mike Randall,
I am Fred Clare's neighbor directly to the South. I have been aware of
Fred's struggle to rebuild his home for some time and have been sympathetic
and supportive of him.
Yesterday, Burt Tolbert stopped by my home to discuss Fred's request for a
height variance and asked me to join a campaign he's organizing to protest
the additional three and a half feet Fred is asking for.
I sympathize with Burt and his anguish over losing some of his view of our
mountain. This is a bitter pill to swallow for any home owner.
I am also aware that Burt Tolbert, who also deals with the advantages and
disadvantages of a sloping lot, probably attained a height of at least a few
feet more during his remodel than Fred Clare is requesting.
Burt had pointed out to me that Fred's design shows a sharply peaked roof. I
have not viewed the plans myself but hope to in the near future. If the
sharp peak of this roof is the reason for an additional three and a half
feet, I can understand a mild redesign of the plans to avoid the need for
this variance.
As a resident of this neighborhood and in the same home for the last 23
years, I cannot fathom the wisdom of allowing up to a 6000 square foot house
in order to avoid a certain height. One of the most valuable assets of our
area, besides the views, are our mature trees. The spread of a house over
most of a non-conforming lot would certainly encourage the cutting down of
trees and, at the very least, the death of trees through root disturbance
during construction.
I also own a sloping lot which would greatly affect my height limitation
should I decide to increase my square footage. I am currently a single
mother and have no need for additional living space. However, all of my
financial assets are in my home and the ability to expand my square footage,
without destroying my mature trees, would certainly affect the value of my
home one day. I'd like to think that I made the right investment in order to
see my daughter through college and graduate school.
The ability to apply and receive a variance was created, I hope, to allow a
fair and just recourse for home owners who find themselves in situations
that were not intended when the zoning in question was finalized. I feel
that Fred Clare should not be penalized for his sloping lot and beautiful
trees that we all enjoy as a neighborhood.
Please feel free to call me and discuss this matter further.
Emily Bartley
3550 4th Street
303-440-0304 home
303-941-3670 cell
APR 2 4 ~
Agenda Item # , S/~ Page # %~-'
,---~, ~ .-~~-,,..-~~.~.,. ~..,..-.~- .~~,-~ ~
~ Mike Randall . Attn: Mike Randall Re: 3580 4th St. _ __ Page,1~
From: Timothy Ryan <timothyryan_1@yahoo.com>
To: <plandevelop@ci.boulder.co.us>
Date: 4/29/03 10:O6PM
Subject: Attn: Mike Randall Re: 3580 4th St.
Hi Mike,
My name is Tim Ryan and I live at 497 Kalmia Ave. I am
diagonal from Fred Clare at 3580 4th St. and I have
seen the drawings and architectural model of his
proposed new residence.
I believe that Mr. Clare's request for a height
variance is very reasonable and I ask that the
planning department grant that variance for several
reasons: one, the resulting house will still be lower
in height than the surrounding homes; two, the
resulting increase in height will not adversely affect
any neighbor's view corridor; three, the home will be
well-situated and well-proportioned for the lot, a far
better situation than many of the designs currently
being executed in this neighborhood.
A smaller footprint, good design, plenty of room left
on the setbacks, these are the things that the
Newlands neighborhood needs. LeYs not deter people
from trying to build right.
If you have any questions, you may reply via emaii or
contact me at 303.489.3862.
Thanks for your consideration.
Tim Ryan
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahool Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo. com
~ ~ d ~P~w
Agenda Item # ~S~ Page #~
ATTACHMENT E
Height modification proposal for 3580 4th Street
March 17, 2003
Background
The existing house is a single story with a walk-out basement. The main floor of the existing house is
approximately 3 ft. off the grade at entry along 4th Street and the ridge of the house is 21 ft. above tlie
adjacent grade. There is an S foot grade change from the NW corner of the site to the SE corner. See the
attached contour map.
The Kalmia/Linden area was rezoned from ER-E to RR1-E in 1997. Since the size of the property is
14,260 square feet, it became non-conforming at the time of the rezoning: All the lots on the east side of
4th Sireet between Juniper and Kalmia are now non-confonning, as they aze under 30,000 sq. ft. Based
on RRl zoning the allowable height for new construction is 28 feet.
The proposed new residence is approxnnately 2,000 Sq. ft. with unfinished basement and attached
garage. It is a two story structure, with the second level wall height starting at 5 ft. (See attached
schematic design drawings.)
The site was recently surveyed to assess the impact of the building height restriction and to verify the
front yard set-back. The results of the survey indicated a more significant grade drop than anticipated.
Because of the grade drop, the height of the new construction can be only 21 ft. 3 inches above the main
level 6nished floor - this is only three inches above the height of the existing single story home.
In order to comply with the height restriction, the proposed schematic design drawings had to have thirty
inches removed from the height. This was accomplished by:
1. Reducing the slope of the roof from a 10/12 slope to an 8/12 slope. The slope change reduces the
head height upstairs by approximately 18 inches.
2. Reducing the ceiling height of the first floor by 6 inches, resulting in a 9 foot ceiling height.
3. Lowering the front of the house into the grade approximately 12 inches. This will require stepping
down into the house from the street.
Response to item 6. of the Site Review Applications Requirements and Checklist
This responsc is given in two parts. The first part follows the four-point outline given in item 6. of the
Site Review Application Requirements and Checklist section of the Site Review document. The second
part follows the outline for the General Criteria For All Site Review Applications section of the Site
Review document.
Site Review Applications Requirements and Checklist
A. Current ownership
The current owner of the property is Fred Clare. Mr. Clare has owned the property since October
31, 1985 and has been a resident of the City of Boulder since January of 1965.
Agenda Item # •~S~' Page # ~~
B. Objective
The owner would like the City staff to review the possibility of adding 3.5 ft to the 28 ft. allowable
height for a maYimum height of 31.5 ft. If allowed, the owner will:
1. Increase the second floor wall height to six feet from five feet.
2. Raise the first floor level by one foot so that it will not be necessary to step down from
the street. This will also allow for the construction of a more standard foundation.
3. Increase the roof slope.
Such changes would result in a height that is approximately 24 feet above the main level
finished floor.
C. Development schedule
Construction is planned to begin in late May of 2003 and end six to eight months later.
D. Special agreements
There are no special agreements, conveyances, restrictions, or covenants that will govern the use,
maintenance, and continued protection of the goals of the project and any related parks, recrea6on
areas, playgrounds, outlots, or open space.
General Criteria for all site review applications
I. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
Granting an increase in height would be in compliance with the Boulder valley comprehensive
plan as well as the officially-stated reason that the neighborhood was rezoned from ER-E to RRl-E
in 1997: "Rezone the Kalmia/Linden neighborhood to maintain the current density and character."
The new structure will not add to the density of the neighborhood. The effect of a height
modification on the character of the neighborhood is considered in what follows.
II. Site Design
A. Open space.
The compact two-story design allows for a maximum amount of open space surrounding the
house.
B. Landscaping.
Effort has been made to retain all existing trees and mature landscaping. The final
landscaping will maximize xeriscaping.
C. Circulation.
Not applicable.
D. Parking.
Agenda Item # ,S/_j Page # / `
The two-caz garage will provide more off-street enclosed parking than the current single-car
garage.
E. Building Design, Livability, and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed Surrounding Area.
L"I'he proposed structure is in every way compatible with the existing character of the
neighborhood. Its design relates to old farm houses with more open yards azound
them. The design is also consistent with many historic homes in the City.
2. Granting the height modification will not affect the character of the neighborhood.
Seven out of the neazest eleven houses are at, or close to, the 35ft. height limit (see the
attached chart). All but one of the seven highest houses are on non-confornung lots.
The heights on the chart were arrived at by making good-faith estimates based on 8'-9'
ceiling heights and using the definition of "height" as specified in section 9-1-3, BRC,
1981.
3. Passive solar features have been implemented by exposing the length of the house to
the south with windows and doors letting the winter light in, and extended eaves
keeping summer light out.
4. All lighting will comply with the BRC.
5. Even with an increased height, shadows affecting adjacent properties is not an issue,
particulazly since the house is on a NW corner lot. See the attached shadow analysis.
6. Under~;rounding all relevant utilities will improve the aesthetic appeal of the property.
F. Solar Siting and Construction.
The length of the house runs east/west for maximum southern exposure. South-facing
windows and doors will let the winter light in and extended eaves will keep the summer
light out.
G. Additional Criteria for Poles Above the Permitted Height.
Not applicable.
Summary
The desired height modification will make the proposed house more livable without having a significant
effect on the character of the neighborhood. Allowing height modifications for non-conforming lots in
the neighborhood could have a positive effect in general by encouraging flie construction of compact
two-story houses rather than sprawling single-story houses.
Agenda Item # S~!7 Page # ~U
~
vo
~
0
a
m
~
~
~
3
~
~~
b
~
~
~
~
~
~
~cly(l~Ulo !~s[dau-t2 -r'r~, L}"~` S~!'2Pr'~' -- G(~eJ f f~,°~la,$~dv~
1-
~
vo
~
0
a
m
~
~
~
@
~
~~ t
~
b
~
~
~
~
c;
~
~fy7"/~1G ~31dP.wc[. " ~~ ~~~l~'1
2
M
~ -
, IDu~
~w~'~n - ~ l f,u~ ~,na ~o~.iA~li,
Y~'~
- ~ ~ _ --
~~; ,
. ,/ Ili_d~y . ~~ - . -_ 2 .
1 ~ •- ~ - -
~ ~' ~y ._ ---
; - . - . 1- - --
- ~
,
', /~~ ~ ~_- - - --~
~ . ~~ i _
~ -a - - ` - - _ -_ - _" _
; _ _ ,~ ~r r--~
_ ~ in
, ~. .~
- - - ----
~ -- ---- ~1-. ~~ ; _. _ ~ -- i7 --_~ -_ ~
N ; , 1 ~~ 1~: `~ , ~ ~ ~ -~ - +~
, _.
,
+ ~`,_ ~ _ ~ ; r i 11_
' ~_~
.
--- --- . - - -
_ _ , ~ , 1 ~-~_- ;_ ~ ~.;., ''; ~I ',-J ~ -(-' j _ i _ - - ~~ ~r-~ - - -
,
_ i
_ _ -- .- 1 1 1 ~ , - ' '-. _ - -
~ r ,
_. - ~ / L n --
~ - ,i 1- '-!~ • .._ -. ._ L 1 _ _ • 4v. . - h~ i~~ -r .! ~ .. -
.. -. ~. ' , _ ,1.. ~ -~ ~i ~ '~~~i -~ / . ~ I ~ . I .~ i-' I.
~,, i ~ ~ f-_, I
~~ L__ ~ ~__ -~ ~ kristin lewis
_1 ~__J
~ I ~ ~ A r c h i t e c t s
low o~ low oi~,~'
~ -- --- --- -~}--
1`~6f~ - V 1GH~ I tUWI ~m1A• - - - - - - - - - - ~eze iar,s,Aeer#3oo
~u
Agenda Item # ~ ~ Page # ~3
~ III^
':.rs,`.
~ 'VY }~y~
. /v ~ ... ~(Aa~+iy'~ l.' i. . . ...
~
v/ N
~ r~
H+
V
S
~ y
~
n
w~
- N
r~
^I'--~ m
0
~
U
~ f.l Q
- G
Pi I'°~
` Il
m ~
~
~ 6 N j
~ ~
~ I
~
Agenda Item # .S~ Page #~~/
...' 1 I . . . -i,'~ :~,'.y:'.
M
O
y
~1iCaN 4~~rd"~
~/~' r~' St2uC?t.l~ ~ 55~0 i; i
- - -- -~`" - -_. ... _ ..._... ... --- _ __ ~ -~`
9 ~
i ~
~ --~ ~2 _ , ; :
-\ ~i ~
_ ~ I -- - -- - --- .. _f_ i
I gED20oM ,°' ~
~ '
_k ~s ,
i
.. . -~ - - ----- ~
, ,. - --' ~
-- - - -~ _
_--~ ~ , -' -_ -~ _^ ~ ~ N o ;
L __ ~ i
~
~
~
~
~
_~
~
9
~
~~
~
b
~
~
~
~}
~
, -- ---'- --I ~IVIN~ ~~~ ! -
--- ----- ----
,._-
-- - - - ~ _ _
~ --- --.----- ~ o-
i -- . ., . ; T.7 ~'
----- i
i: i ~ • 1 1
----- ~! , -
-- , , ~,
_-.- -
--
-- ----- -_-~--_.
_ -
_ ----
- -- - - ----
~
- - - -
-- - - - --~ - - -
-- --- - -- . - ._ -
-- -
--- - - - --
-- ~n ~ _ ,~ ~
55~ -
~giT~ l.0`~/ FOttJ'f ~ 2~j' FFbM BLDG
~ SrtE Ptl+n}
~.~r
~/6 = I ~,a~~
u~so+oz
~~~:
o~zo~~
g4S~MF,t~[7
-I - -- - - -
0
~~
-_--_--- _-~$_--
NOI~t'H =~tJ'f~j ~>!~ , ~Dh1
tJ0-fE: ~~ ~ ~l(tp.D~ -H~ GH't ~lt~t ~F
IS ~S.G~i• y' ~'R 31-Co" 2.JM
S~T~ lAW ~O+NT .
kristin le~~~is
A r c h i f e c t s
I q29 14iH 5m[cr #300
BWLDER Co 80302
4th Street
~
00
A
.7
R.
m
~r
..
A
~
~
'\f~
i
W
'b
A1
QQ
A
~
~
~
KALMIA
~ Site PI~
nra
3~ ~1~3
~
v
~ TRr~~
«
~ ~tvu~' u'~B .
~ uqu k•a+w~'
i =T2'_
~
QQ
A
^3
G
~
~r
e~
A
~
~
I~IJ,
b
~
QQ
A
~
~
;~~- -
;~w~/
_
~
~ -----
~~
~
C~ ~ r..~~
I ~ /~S'
bt 4k
_~
; _`
_~
. i~ ~ ~
/ _- --
eU~uf ~ar~
~ 1~ ~
~
~
4; ~
'
i
°' ~
M: ~~
!um-+k ~:cssh:n - ld kaGmi+~
~38D~
3,'20~ 0 3