Loading...
5C - Site Review & Height Modification for 3161 3rd St - LUR2007-00058 to permit an existing structure to exceed the 20 ft height limit for accessory structuresCITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: December 6, 2007 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of Site Review and Height Modification #LUR2007-00058 to permit an existing structure (now considered a prinhipal structure at 34 feet 6 inches) to exceed the 20-foot height limit for accessory structures on a 12,250 square foot lot located in the RL-1 (Low Density Residential) zoning district, in order to build a new principal structure on the site. Construction of a new principal structure, which could be built up to 35 feet in height, would effectively change the status of the existing structure to an accessory structure, REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager Karl Guiler, Case Manager OBJECTIVE: 1. Hear Applicant and Statt presentations 2. Hold Public Hearing 3. Planning Board discussion -Would the allowance to build a new principal sYructure on the site and retain the existing 34 foot and 6 inch tall struclure be consistent and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? 4. Planning Board take action to approva, approve with conditions, or deny SUMMARY: Proposal: SITE REVIEW: Request for a hei~ht modification, pursuant to Section 9- 2-14(b)(1)(E), B.R.C. 1981, to permit an existing structure on the site to exceed the 20-foot height limit for accessory structures. The existing structure (now considered the principal structure on the site) is currently 34 feet 6 inches per the city's height measurement, which is from the lowest point within 25 horizontal feet of the structure's tallest side. With the proposed construction of a new principal structure on the site (permitted to be up ro 35 feet in height), the existing structure's status would change to accessory, thereby requiring the modification. The proposed structure is intended to meet code requirements. No changes to the existing structure are proposed. Project Name: Stetson Home AGFNDAITEM#SC PACE#1 Location: 3161 3rd Street (Newlands neighborhood) Size of Tract: 12,250 square feet Zoning: Low Density Residential- One (RL-1) Comprehensive Plan: Low Density Residential, Open Space, Other, and Open Space, Development Rights KEY ISSUE: Would the allowance to build a new principal structure on the site and retain the existing 34 foot and 6 inch tall structure be consistent and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? BACKGROUND: Existing Site /Site Context The subject site is located at the western edge of the Newlands neighborhnn~i. ~,vhich is predominantly single-family residential, on 3rd Street between Evergreen Avenue and Forest Avenue. The property is bisected by the "blue line,° which prohibits the extension of water utilities into the mountain open space behind the residence. The site is also bisected by the Silver Lake Ditch, which is immediately east of the existing residence located at the center of the property. The property is steeply sloped and increases from front to back; west of the blue line. the slope on the property increases significantly. Areas west of the blue line are designated Open Space, Other in the Comprehensive Plan. Further, a Development Rights Grant and Easement was placed on the rear portion of the property in 1986 to preserve the area as undeveloped open space. Please refer to Anachmenl A for a vicinity map and to Figure 1 on the following page for the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) land use and development pattern around the subject property. Project Description The applicant is requesting approval of a Site Review Height Modification, in order to build a new principal structure on the site. The Height Modification is required, because a new principal structure on the site would effectively change the status of the existing building to an accessory structure; one which, at 34 feet 6 inches, would exceed the 20-foot height limit for accessory structures. Because this height is comparable to the permitted height for principal structures (i.e., 35 feet) and the RL-1 zoning does not allow more than one principal structure by-right per Section 9-9-2(b), B.R.C. 1981, the request can only be approved through Site Review. The property owner claims that the existing structure was built as an accessory structure in 1985 to a principal residence that was never built (see applicant's written statement under Attachment B). AGENDA ITEM # SC PAGE # 2 i i Forest Av ~ ~ ~ ~ BFI d Open Space. Other L M~ r Blue Line !approximate I, Open Space. Acquired Low Density Rasid~ntal r- 1- ~ r Open Space, Development Rights ~ _ ~ ,y`, ~~3161 3RD ST rr~ 1 Q ~ _ ~ j iL ~_..J: Figure I- BVC'1' land use & development pattern around 3161 3rd Street. ANALYSIS: Per Section 9-2-14(b)(1)(E:). B.R.C. 1981. the applicant has submitted a Site Re~~iew Height Modification application as described in the Project Description section above. Typical!}~. such application for buildings under the •5 foot height limit for the coning district are staff level reviews with the possibility of call-up by the Planning Board or the applicant. In this case. staff is not recommending approval of the application and thus, the applicant is requesting that the Planning Board consider the proposal. In order for the request to be approved, Planning, Board would have to find that the proposal is consistent with the Site Review criteria of Section 9-2- 14(h), B.R.C. 1981. The following key issue has been identified by staff: V4~ould the allowance to build a new principal structure on the site and retain the existing 34 foot 6 inch tall structure be consistent and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? Although the property owner claims that the existing structure was built as an accessory structure. building permits and a certificate of occupancy only substantiate the allowance to build asingle-family residence (i.e., a principal structure). For instance. the description on the September 1985 building permit indicates a new studio and residence, but lacks any specific references to accessory structures, although the applicant has provided staff with an older site plan that indicates a main house and studio. Though there may have been intent on the part o1~ the owner to at some point build a principal structure on the site, there is no evidence that specific plan was approved to have two buildings with entitlements to build up to 5 feet (in AGENDA ITEM # 5C PAGE # 3 essence, two principal structures). Building permits and a certitcate of occupancy from that time indicate one single family dwelling permitted up to the principal structure height of 35 feet. Therefore, staff concludes the existing building was reviewed as and is considered to be a principal structure on the site by the city. (See Attachment C for permits and certificate of occupancy). Regardless, the allowance to build a new principal structure on the site would create a condition that effectively results in two principal structures on the site, due to both buildings' height at or near 35 feet (the submitted plans show a new principal structure being at least 30 feet in height). Thus, the allowance to retain the existing structure at 34 feet 6 inches and build a new home, permitted up to 35 feet in height, is a matter of consistency and compatibility with surrounding development; one of the core elements of the Site Review criteria. Criterion 9-2-14(h)(2)(F)(ii), B.R.C. 1981 notes as follows: "The heigh[ of buildings is in general proportion to the height gfexisting buildings and the proposed or projected heights ofapproved buildings or approved plans,for the immediate urea. "Staff finds that the proposed project would not meet this criterion. Height modifications have been granted in the past to allow for tlexibility to build standard accessory structures (or in some cases, single-family structures) on steep terrain, where deviations are minimal and not out of character with surrounding development. Although it can be argued that the height of what would become an accessory structure at 34 feet 6 inches would be comparable to principal structure heights in the neighborhood, there is no evidence of any accessory structures of that height in the immediate vicinity. The intent of the RL-1 zoning district is to permit one principal structure on the site (up to 35 feet in height) and one or more accessory structures that would be subordinate to that height with a 20 foot height limitation. The definition of accessory structures is as follows: "Accessary fiteilding or slrvchrre" means a detached building or structure located upon the some lot ac the principal building or structure [o which i! is related and that: (1) Is subordinate to and customarily fortnd with the principcr! building, structure, or use of the land: (2) For residential uses, the building coverage is no greater than the building coverage ~in• the existing or proposed principal building: (3) /s operated and maintained_for the benefit or convenience of the occupants, employees, and customers ofor visitors to the prenvses with the princi,^ul use: (4) !s used only by the occupant of the principal building or s[rzutrrre: (.i) !s not used as living or sleeping quarters; and (6) For residential uses, Ilze building or structure does not have any bathltrfi or shower ,fixtures and no more than one of any of the following combinations of plumbing.Jixna•es: (A) One sink, one clothes washer connection, and one hose bib; or (B) One sink and one toilet. AGENDA ITEM # SC PAGE # 4 Per subsection (6) of the definition, approval of the application would require removal of plumbing fixtures in the existing residence, as to avoid two dwellings on the site. This is because the RL-1 zoning district allows only one principal dwelling per lot and does not allow accessory units in structures other than within the principal structure. If this request were approved, it would appear as two principal structures on the site, which would not be compatible with the established pattern of development in the neighborhood. With the logic noted in the application, any neighbor could request a second principal structure on their property, which is not the intent of the RL-1 zoning. Therefore, staff finds that the allowance to have two structures on the site at principal structure permitted heights would be a speci.rl privilege to the owner and would not match the existing neighborhood development pattern. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Board deny the request. 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 prior to the public hearing. All notice requirements of Seciion 9-4-2, B.R.C. 1981 have been met. Staff has received several emails/letters from neighbors who oppose the request, as well as one in support. These emails/letters are found in AltachmeM F. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff finds that this request is inconsistent with the Site Review criteria, namely Criterion 9-2-i4(h)(2)(F)(ii), B.R.C. 1981. Therefore, staff recommends that Planning Board deny Site Review #LUR2007-00058 incorporating this staff memorandum and the attached Site Review Criteria Checklist as findings of fact. Approved By: ~~(n Ruth McHeyser, A g Director Planning Department AGENDA ITEM # SC PAGE # 5 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Vicinity Map Attachment B: Applicant's written statement Attachment C: Building permits and certificate of occupancy for existing residence Attachment D: Development Review Committee comments Attachment E: Staff response to Site Review criteria Attachment F: Public Comments Attachment G: Applicant's response to staff and neighborhood comments Attachment H: Applicant's submittal materials and plans AGENDA ITEM # SC PAGE # 6 _ _ -ATTACHMENT A City of Boulder Vicinity Map _ _ _ ~ - _ z.~-„~,~~ _ _ Hawthorn Av ~ ; r I ~ - - e v i - - Grape Av - - ~ , - _ ti I ! ~1 4 a _ i 1 t ~ ~ - / r ~ , I 1.~ j I, - i - ( i I L ~ ~ { ~ i i ~ i I i ~ I i , , L _i ~ . Foresf Av L i _ - R _ j i ~ Subject Area , 3161 3rd St ----i - ~ I i 1 ! ! i ji . -j ~ ~ - ~ I 1 ~ , i - - Evergreen Av ~I - E _ _ r--- - _ : , _ ~ l ~ i ~1 ~ _ - ~ ! ~ . r _ _ ~ ~t , _ 1 . ~ ~ h Subject ~ - ~ ~ j 1 I ~ i i ~ a r ~ I f ~ - 4 r 4.~ ' Delwood Av - - _ '1 ! r I ~ I ~ ~ , ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ _ - - - - ~ - - Location: 3161 3rd St ~,A,~~j Project Name. Stetson Home C.zty of Review Type: Site Height Bozzldet" Modification Review The information depicted on this map is provided as graphical representation only. The City of Boulder Review Number: LUR2007-00058 provides no warranty, expressed or implied, as to 1 inch equals 300 feet the accuracy and/or completeness of the information Applicant: Nancy Stetson contamedhereon ATTACHMENT B To City of Boulder Planning and Development Services From Nancy Stetson, Owner Mike Randall, Planning Consultant Date : August 31, 2007 Re 3161 3'a Avenue Height Modification Request for Accessory Studio Structure I have reviewed the requirements for a request to the City of Boulder for a Height Modification (Site Review) in order to permit an existing Accessory Studio Structure with a new principal residence. This request for Height Modification is an allowable application under Section 9-2- 24(b)(E) which states that: "a development which exceeds the permitted height is required to complete a site review Additionally, the code states in 9-2-14(g): `...the city manager will refer with a recommendation to the planning board for its action:... (3) An application for any principal or accessory building above the permitted height for principal buildings set forth in Section 9-7-1...". Please refer to the following points of information: History. In 1985 Ms. Stetson, Owner, proposed to the City of Boulder to build both a principal structure and an accessory studio and submitted plans to do so. Because of financial limitations the Owner opted to build the much smaller studio first, with the addition of kitchen facilities, and obtained a permit to build a "studio & residence" which was completed in 1986 and occupied as such to this date. Because of family obligations and other delays she was unable to proceed with completion of the principal home as intended until now. The tot is steeply sloped upward from the front to back of the lot. The front elevation of the lot is 5562, the rear line of the tot is at 5626 (64 feet of change in 245 feet length = 26% or 14.6 degrees of slope). The existing studio/residence is situated back about 100 feet (and above the ditch, which traverses all the properties in this block) but below the Blue Line which is the established limit of development atong the western border of the City of Boulder. About one- half ofhe lot is above the Blue Line. The existing studio contains abou~}~ square feet on each of two levels 1 The first level containing the kitchen and bath is accessible from the lower elevation on the east side of the site. The building is not divided into rooms for dining, sleeping, etc. as it was never intended n..,.~., xm, ti ~i rimes! to be occupied as a home for so long. The studio on the second level is open and airy and conducive to meditation. The shape of the structure is octagonal with a metal roof angling from each side towazds an apex. Aside from the kitchen facilities along one short wale, there is nothing to suggest that the structure was ever intended to be occupied as a principal dwelling. Several months ago, Ms. Stetson approached the Building Department with plans to build a new principal dwelling on the site. She was told that because the existing studio was over the height limit iF would trot be possible to issue new permits until the studio were modified, torn down, or the height otherwise addressed. Height of the Studio (Accessory Structure) The height of the studio structure from the lower level slab on grade to the apex of the roof is 2 9' feet. As measured by Boulder Zoning Code the height is 34 feet. The allowed height of an accessory structure is 20 feet, the existing studio is therefore 14 feet over the allowed height. (Note that the site does not meet the definition of "steep slope" per city code which is 20 degrees of slope). Today, since the studio structure is permitted as the principal home on the site, the allowed height is 35 feet. Ms. Stetson has no explanation as to why, 20 years ago, the question of the height of the studio, as the proposed access©ry building, was not asked since it was clearly intended that there would be a principal home built on the site. Request for Modification of the Height of au Accessory Structure The Qwner respectfully cequests that the Planning Boazd consider allowing the studio to continue in its present condition and permit the existing height as an accessory structure. This would then permit Ms. Stetson the privilege of building the principal home she always intended. The reasons for approval can be best summed up as follows: 1. The existing studio has no impact, visually or structurally, on any other property or structure in the vicinity of the site. 2. The existing studio is unlikely to have any impact on any other property in future since the ad}aeent properties have already been developed and any redevelopment would take place with the studio already in place. 3. Viewed from any side the studio structure itself presents a very limited elevation. It is only 25 feet wide, octagonal in shape,. and the roof slopes steeply from each of the eight sides to a single point. (This is as compared to a gable type roof as on a typical accessory garage.) The studio is very attractive in appearance and very much in harmony with the surrounding hillside. 4. There are other struchrres above the ditch (high on their respective lots} in the vicinity of the site: a. The home at 3173 is. 1`IO.feet north of the studio and is permitted 3o feet in height. b. The home at 3095 is 400= feet south of the studio and is permitted }35 feet in height. 5. All other homes in the vicinity (except as indicated above) are well below the studio and practically out of sight of the studio- 6. The construction of a new principal home on the front of the site (and respecting setbacks and height requirements) would obscure any view of the studio from the neighborhood. As it sits presently, trees and other obstacles along 3`a Avenue generally block any view of the studio. 7. Permitting the height modification far the studio and construction of a new principal dwelling will in no way interfere with Solar Access requirements as set forth in the Code. The home on the property to the north is already built about 140 feet away. Because of the Blue Line, it is not possible to build any other structures further back of the site to which the view tines of the studio would be a difficulty. 9. The structure has existed for over twenty years without any complaint or evidence of any impairment to any other property, private or public. 10. The granting of this request should not present any "precedent" which could be 'interpreted to confer rights to other properties because the facts in this case are so unique to this site. a. The structure has existed for 20 years as a permitted principal home; b. The structure is on a slope of 26%; c. The structure is at the edge of the Blue Line; and d. other development similarly situated in the area exceeds the height of this structure. 11. Reuse of the studio as an accessory structure is a wiser use of resources than significant reconstruction or demolition of the structure to meet the height requirement. 12. Two story accessory buildings are situated throughout Boulder are not unique in any way to the community. 13. In all other respects the studio meets the zoning code requirements for setbacks and floor area. 14. The granting of this height modification does not confer any additional right to the Owner which was not already intended and clearly stated in plans submitted at the time of construction 20 years ago. Ms. Stetson has spoken to all of the neighbors who unanimously support her application She would be grateful for favorable consideration of this request to allow the accessory studio the additional height. Thank you for your kind consideration. I~lancy Stetson A~ntla ilesa ~ - > L- _ ( e- 1) Boulder Vallev Comprehensive Plan: ~ (A) The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and polities of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The development of a single family home with a detached accessory studio stnidure is consistent with the existing zoning and supported by the BVCP for development of a low density residential designated property. (B) The proposed development shall not exceed the maximum density assodated with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation. Additionally, if the density of existing residential development within athree-hundred-foot area surrounding the site is at or exceeds the density pemritted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Ptan, then the maximum density permitted on the site shall not exceed the lesser of: ~ (i) The density pemtitted in the Boulder Valtey Comprehensive Ptan, or, The proposed unit on 72500 sf is supported by the BVCP. na (i) 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. 1987. (2) Site Design: Projeds should preserve and enhance the corununity's unique sense of place through creative design that respeds historic dtarader, relationship to the natural environment, and its physical setting. Projeds should utilize site design techniques which enhance the quality of the projed. In determining whether this subsection is met, the approving agency will consider the fdlowing factors: (A) Omen Space: Opera space, inducting, without limitation, parks, recreation areas, and playgrounds: ~ Useable open space is ananged to be accessible and functional; The site is subject to the "Blue Line" which limits development at the western edge of the city to below the line. A substantial portion of the site is above the Blue Lire and cannot be developed. That open area is adjacent to Boulder Mountain Parks. ~ (ii) Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit; The single famiy home meets and exceeds all open space requirements forthe zone and meets all setback requirements. ~ Qii) The projed provides for the preservation of or mitigation of adverse impacts to natural features, inducting, without limitation, healthy long-lived trees, signficant plant communities, ground and surface water, wetlands, riparian areas, drainage areas, arui species on the federal E[xtarrgered Spedes List, "Species of Spedal Concern in Boulder County" designated by Boulder County, or prairie dogs (Cvnomvs ludiwidanus}which is a spedes of bcal concern, and their habitat; Almost all of the trees on site are located along the sout#r property line and wiN not be affected by this application. ~ (iv) The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the projed and from surtoundirg development; Open space proposed is primarily located west of Ure Blue Line, otherwise all setback requirements have been met. ~ (v) Open space designed for active recreational purposes is of a size that it will be furtdionaNy useable and located in a safe and convenient proximity to the uses to which d is meant to serve; The open space on site is adjacent to Boulder Mountain Parks, it is not accessible to the public but serves as a visual buffer to the homes. ~ (vi) The open space provides a txrffer to prated sensitive ernironmerrt~ features and natural areas; and There are no protected environmental features or natural arms identified at ttris locatipn. ~ (vii) If possible, open space is linked to an area- or citywide system. The open space on sAe is adjacent to Boulder Mountain Parks, it is not accessible to the public but serves as a visual buffer to the homes. (B) Open Space in Mixed Use Developments: Developments that contain a moc of residential and non- residential uses: NA This site is not zoned for mixed use. (G} Landscaping: ~ (i) The project provides for aesthetic enhancement and a variety of plant and hard surface materials, and the selection of materials provides for a vadety of colors and contrasts and the preservation or use of local natrve vegetation where appropriate; The proposed tot layout is typical for single family use. The area of the lot above the Blue Line will be maintained in a manner consistent with the natural vegetation of the Mourdain slope as it is today. _NA_ ~u) Landscape design attempts to avoid, minimize, or mftigate impacts to important native specter, plant communities of special concern, threatened and endangered spedes and habitat by integrating the existing natural environment into the project; NA (iii} The project provides significant amounts of plant material sized in excess of the landscaping requirements of Sections 9-3.3-2, "General Landscaping and Screening Requirements" and 9- 3.3-3, "Streetscape Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981; NA (v) The setbacks, yards, and useable open space along public rights-of-way are landscaped to provide attractive streetsrapes, to enhance architectural features, and to contribute to the development of an attractive site plan. (D) Circulation: Cimulation, inducting, without limitation, the transportation system that serves the property, whether public or private and whether constrocted by the developer or not: Development of the site is consistent with a single family home for which the adjacent existing street network is designed. (E) Parking: Parking will be provided for the future home consistent with the zoning regulation. (F) Buikting Design Livability and Relationship to the 6dsting or Proposed Surrounding 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; The general building scale and mass are consistent with the single family home character of the area and intent of the BVCP. ~ (ii) The height of buildings is in general proportion to the heght of existing bindings and ttm proposed or projected heights of approved buildings or approved plans for the immediate area; The height of the existing accessory studio stnrcture exceeds the permitted zoning height of ZII feet up to 29 feet tbwever, because of the unique location of the structure above the ditch which runs through au of the Ids it this biddy aril below the Blrre t.ire there are only two other structures similarly situated. The princq?al home to the north, 3173 3°d Avenue, is above ttre ditch and'rs at or near the height of3c~feet. A second home (3095 3'~) is also above the ditch and also near the 35 feet height limit. All other structures are below the d'Rch in this block. The construction of a new principal residence at the front of the tot (with the conversion of the existing rear structure to non-residential accessory) will aft but obliterate any view from most neighboring vantage poids. The ezception ~ the trome to the rrortlr wlydr is about 140 feet away and currently has a vicar of the accessory studio structure. tt was the original intention of this property owner to but W the accessory studio structure first and inhabit the accessory studio structure as a residence (for which tt is pemirtted) Temporarily anti such time ~ a more permanent prfncipaf structure could be 6uttt. Unfortunately, nwre Than 20 years has passed before this could be done. All original drawings and permAs inmcate cleacy/ The irr0erit of the owner. ~ is not brown vrhy Ure accessory building was allowed ib be tnrilt over Tire 20 feet rmtifaQon- The existng accessory studio structure was built for race as a meditation room, it does not coritairr signiflcarit °home" improvements. For example there are no separate rooms, k is all open. The upper story is on the sarrae level as the h~side and appears as a single level- The added height is because the upper room is a dome Eke stnrctree designed for enhancing mediTation. J (iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from adjacerd properties; ~ ('rv) If the character of the area is identifiable, the project is made compatible bll the appropriate use of color, matedaks, landscaping, signs. and lighting; There is no defined character for this area. Residential housing is of a varied design, generally of the mid 70's vernacular, but both post modernist acrd historic designs are present in this arm as well. ~ (v) Builctngs present an attractive streetscape, incorporate arch&ectural and site desgn elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale, and provide for the safety and convenience of pedestrians; The single family home has been designed m treble irrdividuatRp. The general r and architecture reflect some rreigl~orhood character ~ (w) To the extent practical, lire project provides public amenities aril planned public faabties; llte site reserves ail open space above The Blue Line. NA (vi) For residential projects, tire project assts the cartvnurily in producing a variety of horsing types. such as multi-famiy, townhouses, and detactred single-faory urMs as welt as mbced tar sizes, number of bedrooms, and sizes of units; NA (viii) For residential projects, noise is minim¢ed between units, between txdldirxp;, and from either on-site or off-site external sources through spacing, landscaping, and building materials; d (oc) A IigtHing plan is provided which augments security, energy ~ronservation, safety, and aesthetls; All fighting wig be required to conform to city standards. J (x) The project incorporates the nahaal ernvuorr[rtent rt~ the design and avoids, mir®rrzes, oc mitigates impacts to natural systems; The site reserves aN open space above the BWe t.irre_ !j (w) Cut and fin are rrrremized on the site, the design of Iwiictngs conforms to the natural cordours of the land, and the site design minknizes erosion, slope irutabdity, lanx4slide, muditaw or sutuidence, and mirir<n¢es the potential threat to property caused by geoWgical hazards. The accessory studio structure was buAt to tie a pleasant addition to the rratrrr~ area. (G) Solar Siting and Construction: For the purpose of ensuring ttte maximum potential for uttiization of solar energy in the city, ail applicants for residential site reviews shall place streets, tots, open spaces, and buildings so as to nuounee Ute potential for ftm rue of solar energ7r b acLrordarrce with the following solar siting atteria: The orieritatiar of both the exatin9 Y studio structure and the proposed principal residence meet all solar requirements and do not affect or lurrtt any existing or proposed adjacent structure. ,agenda~;«_ C_ N~ge~~ _ 'V [ifi; r,j, ~ Ipi€aili!i iIVSLSnIh:Nl ~a,VLi)iliJn~i„)~~.r(i!:ai1111:hIlAlt,dYl d.lla 4.li.idl.Ial+wu UbliJillod.iihL,dfEl li~iawd,Juli liur,i lvll6hlll ~Jil~r.I~~Al.l~„4iillai!~~!1!ai.Y~.{L ?(~I~~Gdrl/6 ~1~llldi7kii!,iC du~Ai!I~ldl!J.i4~e !~~-dJ~nl)i i4Yd"a dF}~~^. ~ . ~ ' -C?/C „~Il hy~~+yy ,t a 6Wq, Perron N,.. Elee. Prrmil No. Plh+•Ptrmit No,/ Mneh.Onr(m~ll NUO.( I W+br P.t.P. Srwar P,LF. TebI P.LF. Detr D.LF. Pa(d Prre Frr ,p /A' fY ~ F'~ ~ [ t / /f ~ I ~/t// /OJ f x p; Da4n r I Dra / zC. c, ~ Deb ~J Doto S S . f+ S WU ~ , ' CITY OF BOULDER • BUILDING PERMIT APPLtCA710N ~ d' t •.y, E-I `4 3 BLGG.AbDRES3 ? / ~ f•~ `JI ~ lU' .r~:'• F'I i, Al :r -~-~.tr%~._,.~ Data ~,1)/r. VALUATION (Labor&Matcrie415~~ t__-__ ~ :xii OWNER f { CONTRACTOR ~y,. s Jgnme 5~~ayLtft) Nama" ~ C~' { l.f/ Nnw ~ CLASS OF WORK _ Addition _ gitoralion _ Rooalr y l t n ~ OHico ` (If other than "NEW", ploasc wmp!ete tha folinwinq:, Mall Address _yJJ-mot, s I • ~ r_ License No ?sl: No. I-! [I . ! 7,k~r QQ / ~ Job Site Will thB change or expand ?la Prlnc?Pa! CitV-•f.:.J t`a ll~i'~'il'~~ u~~•~('I Z0. Hour utaof.:ha bulld!ng7 Yas_No_ Td. No. 1 ~ Te'. No. Tol. No. ~ H GI ,t , ~ ~ Will this crrnta another dwelling ' ; or rooming unit) Yas_No___ , 7: DESCRIPTION OP WORK: ' I/J X41' I') ~ P.(;Gyl I? 'h1[;G ~ t% " Z=~ ° r .,..C,( s2 r~~ n Was (or fs) [his building en Ficad Elevation et slto_ 4 ~ i L~ 2~ ~+-y - eccw~ory bulldingl Yes No _ '~q ~ ELEC7RICALPERMIT w LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tomp. C[mts. Pwr./Par. No. _-Fae__ ~ 0 ~ Lot (~__BIOLIt Canlroe;ai Nem+- L~'t~f;'L.I-rliti rL~Y.>'{~L I(. ,Ro9, No._G~ _No, Units_,_VS13~Y>`` r g t'rev O Subd(vision, tif.^Wbr~tVl~ r'~-nr~l7iDPU New Work~_frdd,/Bern. $q, Ft. Unit No. 1.~~•~_Sq. F[. Unit Na. 2 ~eo,./1Z-" Nrw Svo. ' ~ Chg. Sva, Sia(Main 15 U __gaseboard Gec. Ht . W n I hereby stain the obovr is corrnet, Pn'I I nprert to enmply I agree to perform this work In camplia:tcr Forc+d Aft Furnaro_._._~ with ell CItY Ordlnancas regulating eonstructlon witl~ ho Cadns the CItY of 9ould r. ~ O tar_._..__ .i_ ~.71 : ° ~',Gyfr_~<--~-' ~b Date SI nnture~ o1T ~ Darn I J 8 IGool Qr rorA pant i PLUMBING PE MIT yr, p NOT WRITE FLOW TH LS LINE tvs ~ 1 v k; Type of Coast, W N Oca, (ijou Coutteetw Name /7 ~i, t11b1 11% /~i(~. - 000 ~ Q P r. 1 Li. No, ~No. Unittl~_,_ VaV ee'?YY tb ~ t Flre Zono - y Dnto ~ ` Naw WorkJBoths Remodol/geths ~ Typos of Fixturos/No. Ks rtlfG•lJ ~y'+, cwrs ' Pleas A roved R Typm of Fixturos/No, r ~ f /j rTC/Fti )!r~ - ~ ?:J, PP Y~ ~ ~ 1 ~ Other Fn:- ~ ~ ' ~ ~ Hn58 ~f r?J Trlrri'. ~ I oql ao to perfor this work In eomplinnea with tha Codrs of the City of Bouidor. 1 t 1 ~ Final lnspoctlon yr , / P ,f Insnscbdb D to Siynnlun alp D ~+U ~ 'i Buliding_Par~;t` e $ /J`~ QJ MECHANICAL P AMIT V~ /Pl'en~C~heck a ~1• s~ Contractor Mamo_,~ Y7 J% ~^~(,f}YY13 W 3 C(J ~SL•~7 .,y~ ~ t...~~~ ~ ~ S LfJL_ Llc. No. Val. Fea .y;, Electrical Pormlt Faa $ Now Repeir._.._ Heplaee BTU Rating ~S) vt~! Ii.P. Loudon - Mechenleal Parmlt Fen S Hnt Wotar Htr.,_.i'// Sealed Comb, Htr.,_ Spaee Htr. _,_Uait Htr..,__ Comfort Cecling Plumhfng Pernllt Fee S _ Low Ple». Boller High Pross. Bailor- Duet Furnace- Forpad Alr Furnace Us s Tax y / d~ Vontllatlnp P.gpip. _Refrigaratlon SYStem Gu Piplnp_J~~tlinr__ ` / . $ ^~~C I agroe to portar Gtls work rn compllen witlytho Codas of ilia City of Bou ar. Park1L'ammuntry pev. $ ~ ~ ~ ' f)~ ~ -o ~ ' TDTAL ~ - $ CJ~, mprelsd by - Da Slps nntfa to I s Dab ~ v s J _ a ~ a.. . N ,~....~...r~,~..,.„,.t~~~.,: aaisN aia. la~lus ?d4~ 1i, r, ~.~iEW~JI~u~~i9m16':~di~~~i~~~;~'''';~t'~~:ti4l~. ~uuu'~i.tlu,e~~C CFL"lDikr S:JI diiS':E~r'~ii NrV(~ )':~~~~~r(aisc~~t611i:. ~ r q ~ r' C hr ~~ki ZONING INFO RHAT 1011 1 `;'wgr~rj 1txF.t. Date Rr.ceiveJ y~_~% - (not to he filled in by applicant) ~ I: • ~.I Zoning Dlstrl ct-- .-~i~• ~j as Type of Occupancy ~j~j'fG / L/lfeG Street front v~ G~ -7 yT i lot Arca ~/~l~ ^_Dimenslons~0~\ ~~~0 _ Number of Floors G Ilel ght /•`r~, t Frontage .,~iC.~ 1 ~ I Total Floor Area of Principal Aul ldings Accessory Buildings / / ~ Open Space Aequi,red l Open Space ~ Number of Units Pe rmi Cled _Nu/m~bJar of Unl LS 1..~~'Z~•`.~ Change of Occupancy from JZ!"l r/~tr~G/Q!g°U,r.[o~.yS'~-~j~ ~ r Number of Parking Spaces Required ~ Provl ded _ G Principal Interior Lo[ ~~rto/rney!ot Th rcugh Lot_ "L" Shaped TI P.ul :dln9 Ne•N Construction Addltlon• Alteration Lands car.i rig, Paving, Screening or Uarrlers Requl red_ r Describe / . I Comman ts' ~ - ~ ~ _ ' North . , DE PP.ftTMrENTAL CLCARANC ES i Si Ce Orefnags L Flood Control Englhee rVr ..v r _`„^Date_ y•t~a-,.,; B,~i~,airr9 r----. ~ Y w Transportation Engineer ~ ~ Date ~.q~ ut~ r - N•9ier Utility Er.gi nesr~ ~ Date ? r`' 11 ~ Sewer Utility Engi nee; Oate ~ C Parks Ucpartment Data ~ ~ Fire-and/nr Health Departmen• ~ _Da[e ~^'Z 9-• ~Ir I ~ V Uc~`~C r Zoning..Adrnl nistra [or_ L. Da[ ! ~ No Scale ~ o~-'---~ c Surrent Planner-_ ~ 7ntc~ ^~I mss- I ~J-~ r 3 r( 4h~alr 4Yi'li!lid:b81::f11diLC'a:adl ~$&iB9 iiW7`J'ti2il;~iWiSY::li1e6BXi;Li65dfS:IW ISfudlUS:d16'lilliAdl9i(ite~'~~611i!'~°iI.~G`'f~Lii~iYv1,`il!~ti~'IIY~~~~rrAPal'~:n~i~~i:~~~91tli ~I1f7L4lldGi i4~?i lYfkl'f:likl~ guakr~.l! IEYIm~:ii:~ll~i~kl~1~5~L'~~i"I~'~ 1 ~~r ~ ~ - a{i ` ~yF. nlda, permit No. ~ Eloo, Permit Na. II Plba. Parmlt No. Mach, permit No. 'Nator P.LI'. Sawor P.LF. Total P.I,F. Date P Lf•. Peid Park Pmm ats rP}Sire"; oguiJ /~~S~C~f oasm O.so Oate r, ,~t~ ___~L~~-_-~~4'o s. $~??s~J•o I ~7 s~~J~:(jO ~ t ~~,,~;~r,~,,, CITY OF BOULDER • • • BUIL.UING PERMIT APPLlCATIDN tp~"?t, ~`a ~ ~ - ~irLLiJ17RT1 oN 0 • ~ 'f~j ~ 6LDG. AODRL•SS _ . ~ ~ Date `1 ~(o ~ -VALUATION (labor F. Materials) $ 7C~"00_~ r a. OWNER CONTRACTOR ~ N ~i CLASS OF WORK .5 :u Name 5~~~~ Name r4~l~_LA11P .,L~ New ~ Addition Alteration Repair if t'~ r~t `r ~ ~ ~ Offic¢ Uf other than "NEW", plcasn complnte the fallowing: 1 Maii Address (rue License No. Yel. No. - - Will thL chenpo or okpand the principal ~1I^!) Joe Site 24 Hour use of the bulldingT Yes _ No _ Ek ~1WJaJL ~J'-If~V a City Teh No. Tol. No: Tel. No:___- Wlll this cr¢ata another dwalfing I, or roam(ng unitl ~ Yes _ Nom j l~ DESCRIPTION OF WORK: 7 tI~+ .'T~1Y~~{~L • `/h'~~ ' ~ / Was (or isl this build''ng an .,1§a. Flood Elevatipn at slle ~ `I'_1/1~ CSC YJ~bk^r. )s•.a - aaessory bulld(npT Y¢s __-__No_ - ELE, TRICAL PERMIT I LEGAL DESCRIPTION h Temp. Conis. Pwr./Par. No. _Fee_ Lot S._ ~ a' Z Black - ~ 7 Contractor Name _ Rng. No.__-_,No. Untts_,_,-,_ Val Now Work Add./Ram. ~ Sq. F;. Unit No. 1___, Sq, Ft. Unit No. 2,_~_Fae_ Subdivision --t!~~~~~ New Svc, _CI1g. Svc. Size/Main _,Bas¢board Elac: Hty. 45v ~70~ {U ~n{~~ Ctlµa.r.~ (a eYve~o- i agree to perform this Work in comPliz.ice Forced Alr Furnaca~_ I here y stela the a ve rs correct, and I rle to comply vrith all C!ty Ordinances reg..fating wnstruetion with the Codes of the City of Bmtldor. gther^. It 4 Inspected by Data SlBnatura of APPlleant .,..«~°tm S'; Siarulura Owns er AP liwnt t;`~: PLUMBfNG PERMIT a DO NqT WRITE OELOW Th115 LINC-- ( •s Type of Const, Occ. Gf up Contractor Namo_ Li c. No. _No. Un(ti_ _ Vai._, 'L Fire Zone Date /,t~-%~` Naw Wark/Baths TRamodal/Baths_. TYPes of Fixtures/No._ Plans Approved B ~ i Types of Flxturas/No. ~ _Oth¢r Fec~ --t-~.~. I aprea to p¢liorm Ibis work In complianc¢ with the Codes a1 the City of Rouid¢r, ~a s~ Final Inspection R _ Dnto Ina meted b ~r•~ Dxtn w~ ~e Si nature o(A~~PIIcan[~~~ _ _ Omm s , Building Porm(t Fee $ _ ~ MECRANICAL PERMIT r Plan Check Fe ~ ~ -~.'i` Contractor Namo J' $ Lic. No. Val. _-~..__Fae Elec[riral Permit Foe S Plew.^_ Repair _ Replace _ _ BTU Rating,___~ H.P.. Location Mechznical Permit Fee $ Hot Wat¢r Htr..__ Sealed Cmnb. Htr Space Htr. ~ Unit Ntr. - Comfort Cooling.-___ 6 Plumbing Permit Foe $ Y Low Press. Bolter liigll Press. Boiler Duct Fumaca Forced Air Furnace - ' , .a Use/Sales Tax $ ~ I.'L> Ventllating Equip,_____Refrigoration System __Gas Piping ~ nine. X~ ~ ~ Energy S I agree to perform this work in compliance wltb'tho Codas of iha City of Boulder. ~ ~ Par lCommuni5y Dav. $ 'l _ _ f~,}~}` TOTAL $ r~ - ~ Inspected by noU 5'Rnrturo of Applicant Oeto j~ ~ • ~.RWiT` ~ I ) r 1 rY ~ Z O N I N G I N f O R H A T 1 0 0 .~k!,.}:g,~,i^. Oato Received S (not [o be Pilled In by appl leant) ~ ~ :,Yi;rf.z~ . . ~~~h'y~yt~>. ,1w yyyr'~4""'.'^" Zoning Distrl c[ ~G._.~~-~` 4~ ~?~~r?% ..~yYPy 'd~~4;~Y 7 ~(r~i~~~`~= Street Front J ~~??fif~jt' ,_,g'(i TYPe of Occupancy~_~".i~>~: 1 / L ' / x Sp Lo[ Area ~ ~ Dimens lons_~ J(~~.a,^ r ~ ~ Number of Fl oors~ Iles ght _F ron [age ~ i . lLL]]]---- f Total Flecr Area of Principal Bul ldin95 Accosso ry Bui Dings ~ G~ ~ j~ ; Open Spaca Required -Open Space .7 ' rj.: o Number of Units Pe rmi teed [~/LP Number of Uni T[5~2/G"~-- •i ~J 9 P y / f~~~ ~ c ~ 'J O Chan a of Occu anc from - [o L y ~ Number of. Parking Spaces Requi reJ__~_^,P rovi Jed ~ r V /l o ~~lu- , / Principal -q i-.. Interior lot' y Corner Lo[_ 'fh rough-Lot "L" Shaped Bui lJing G- ~ Naw Construction_ L/ Addition Al Ce ra tl on_ - ~ Lar,Jsca in Pavln Screenin or Barriers Re ui red ~ Y [ ` Descri be~ ~ L7~:n W C•,A`} ~T North s' ~'.2 ~ D E P A ft T 11 E N T A I. C L E A R A N' C E S I~rSi ~ L ~ ~ tv'~-'~.. 7 :1~~sor ~ Site Drainage L FIooA Control @~ ineer ~ Ic..~_t`,ro <;"_t~,._ct~ _ Bvi ldT•~y ~ I^ i _ - 9 Z i C Transportation'Engir,eer_~-~-'^T~ _ n Date^_^ ~ F• ' ~ Naler Uti li [y Engi ne ~f~/L~e.a. t~, 1~' _ _Da te~~.~"r. u /'T ttt""^"""" u ,y, ~ ~ t p h § I Sewer Utility Enginec~~=7kg~2~~~__Date._~~~ ~ ~ ~ Ipo Pa rKS Uepar[ment ~~77GG _ u Date `tC _ u. Q` Fire andnor kleal th Department _ --•,.,~7~~~Date_ _ ] ~ {//![Y"- ~t s No Scale (~i~ FU-i Zoning AJmJnis[rpror Date ~ Ir, < Current Planner _ - Data o P Yea.. r- ...Cs. ~Y~~ i~ Gam- CiJrv ~ /JJ O Ll ~ --.~4 w l ~~~µ+~'~~-ui>irR'pG`,'w~ttpp,ee 71,'ar ~r^i~t"~ yy,,~e/b Q"".{ +~3ei it'i{!~~y%tsr~q~~i5:: } fx'ky`^'~e" f-~ 4/*~,.~^:__ . - SY.~xF ~afi:C"1~~ F- ~'~'S.-.7Y „'9+ChF I t.7_' ~f~lNY'r {nf r 5 ~ fr`ii%. h-Q~rs~Y Y.. v . y - .tJ-'X'n ~t r~~.- , ~ ~ erf~~~~~~ ~~~~~~t~p ~ THIS fS `'i0 CERTIFY REGAgDSNG THE BUtLD}NG Oft S7ftllCTURE ~~t' ~ ,HEREINAFTER-DESCRIBED: That the building or structure has been inspected bya duly authorized : official 01 tt-,e Bui{ding #nspection Division of the City of Boulder and ~~s,=~¢-_~„ occupancy thereof is hereby authorized. t'~ ' 2~'; ~ ~ - ~ ADDRESS 3ZGI 3rd street r_ DESCRIPTIOTd OF 6UILDING OR STRUCTURE : - O'rIE FAMILY DWELLING NANE OF OWNER NANCY STETSON t - ~ ~ BUILDING CONTtiACTOFt BARRY CAMPBELL ~ 437 UNTJERSITY .BOULDER, .80302-. ADDRESS ~ -ri: ~~..V~,~;,%;=.~ o Siiuaied on real property in the City of Boulder, 9oulder County, ' Colorado, described as #o{lows; - Lot . 1i_' block 53 Sub N-FWLAND t S~~ 8© . ~ c s ~ C c c ~=h~^; Other _ _ s = : ~ ~ c_ L 509 ' q Bldg. Permit No. 4, ~ : j , Occupancy Group R_3 ~ _ ~i~ ~ ~~_f I Construction TYpe - yN ~ - . ~^F7f~.g~~ ~ 23rd JAN. 86 ~r~ F: ~ V~litness my hand this- n-y az~ iS ~s_, ~ building ffiaal, City of Boulder ,j-~ -T THE LAND llSc ZONE IS LRE T USE 1S FN'~j4i. SPECIFICALLY T1NF ;7WFl i.TNG .-ann.y_ 1 -mac. ~1 o ~ UNIT !(I - p."°. .,Sys.. - T 5:: r M ~ ~ Z~n~n~ Artminictr.]t r Date ~ - - HENCEFORTH, 7HE USE OA OCCUPATION OF ANY BUILDING, STRUCTURE, ~ol OR LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF BOULDER SHALL SE IN COMPLIANCE WITH i~Ar ~ ~ THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS OF THE D1S T RiCT IN WY.iCH 1T IS LOCATED. ~ may,- TFtIS CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY SHALL BE POSTED IN A CONSPICUOUS 'a ~ PLACE ON SHE PREMISES AND SHALL NOT BE RESIOVED EXCEPF 6•i THE BUILDING OFFICAL - ~ ~ ,p Yi, v' ~ - yf ~ ~ t t Y ~~1~~.' of Y N.e~ ~ ~ MK ,A~f ~ ~ !F4 ~ '.u*...'~IY y Y 'S¢ti: w5 ~ e"n .eT •rAv~~S~~-S a.. ~Yf~J .Z 2d- ~F:.. .v ~ _ 3" _w,. °r~ N '~~i ' F','~ i CITY OF BOULDER ATTACHMENT D .~,///~~y~'~ii Planning and Development Services ~ ~il 1739 Broadway, Third Floor P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 yt phone 303-441-1880 fax 303-441-3241 web boulderplandevelop.net ~Y CITY OF BOULDER LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS DATE OF COMMENTS: October 5, 2007 CASE MANAGER: Karl Guiler PROJECT NAME: Stetson Home LOCATION: 3161 3RD STREET COORDINATES: N05W08 REVIEW TYPE: Site Height Modification Only Review REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2007-00058 APPLICANT: MIKE RANDALL DESCRIPTION: SITE REVIEW: Request for a height modification, pursuant to Section 9-2- 14(b)(1)(E), B.R.C. 1981, to permit an existing structure on the site to exceed the 20-foot height limit for accessory structures. The existing structure (now considered the principal structure on the site) is currently 34 feet per the City's height measurement, which is from the lowest point within 25 horizontal feet of the structure's tallest side. With the proposed construction of a new principal structure on the site (permitted to be up to 35 feet in height), the existing structure's status would change to accessory, thereby requiring the modification. The proposed structure is intended to meet code requirements. No changes to the existing structure are proposed. REQUESTED MODIFICATION FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Section 9-7-1-Maximum height for accessory structures. Request to allow a new principal structure on the site and converting the existing principal structure to accessory. This change would permit an accessory structure of 34 feet in height where 20 feet is the maximum permitted. I. REVIEW FINDINGS Staff finds that the application does not meet the criteria for Site Review. Please see the zoning' section below for more information. Therefore, staff will not recommend approval of the request to the Planning Board. The Planning Board public hearing for this project is tentatively scheduled for December 6, 2007. Prior to that meeting, the Planning Board fee of $1,540 must be paid (prior to staff memorandum preparation) and 18 sets of plans for the Board members and other reviewers would be required (Case Manager will contact applicant of when to submit the plans). Please contact the Case Manager for any questions. II.CITY REQUIREMENTS Building and Housing Codes The property is located in an area identified as having steep slope and soils with the potential or mass movement. Development on the lot requires that a Colorado licensed engineer design the foundation, grading and drainage plans according to a soils report also prepared by a Colorado licensed engineer. Kirk Moors 303.441.3172 Engineering The proposed structure appears to be located less than 12 feet away from the Silver Lake Ditch. The Silver Lake Ditch and Reservoir Company must approve the proposed Site Plan prior to building permit submittal. Contact Jim Snow, President of the Silver Lake Ditch and Reservoir Company. 303-442-7178 Fees Because revisions or corrections are not required for this application, based on 2007 development review fees, hourly billing will not be applicable unless another application is required or the applicant revises the current proposal. However, Address: 3161 3RD ST ,uaenda I~ ~ C, ape k i ~ because this request requires Planning Board review, a Planning Board processing fee of $1,540 is required prior to preparation of the staff memorandum. Fire Protection Fire has no issues with this request since the "studio" is existing. David Lowrey 303.441.4356 Legal Documents Julia Chase, City Attorney's Office, Ph. (303) 441-3020. Prior to signing the Development Agreement, if approved, the Applicant is required to provide a title commitment current to within 30 days. Neighborhood Comments Staff has received comments from several neighbors who are opposed to the proposed request. These comments will be faxed to the applicant. Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Open Space A portion of the subject property is restricted as described in the Development Rights Grant and Agreement referenced by reception # 630512. John D'amico, Open Space Review Process This request will require Planning Board review. A public hearing has been tentatively scheduled for December 6, 2007. Please note that the Planning Board fee of $1,540 must be paid prior to preparation of the Planning Board memorandum. At the public hearing, Planning Staff will make a recommendation to the Planning Board. The Board will make a decision on the project following a staff presentation, public comment, and testimony from the applicant. The Planning Board's decision may be called-up by the City Council within 30 days of the decision. Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Zoning Criterion 9-2-14(h)(2)(F)(ii) notes as follows: "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."Staff finds that the proposed project, which would result in what would appear to be two principal structures on the site, would not meet this criterion. Height modifications have been granted in the past to allow for flexibility to build a standard accessory structure on steep terrain, where deviations are minimal and not out of character with surrounding development. Although it can be argued that the height of what would become an accessory structure at 34 feet would be comparable to primary structures in the neighborhood, there is no evidence of any accessory structures of that height in the immediate vicinity. The intent of the RL-1 zoning district is to permit one principal structure on the site (up to 35 feet in height) and one or more accessory structures that would be subservient to that height with their limitation of 20 feet in height. If this request were approved, it would appear as two principal structures on the site, which would not be compatible with the established pattern of development in the neighborhood. Although the owner may have constructed the existing structure with the intention of later building a separate primary dwelling, City records only reflect that the structure that was built in 1985 was permitted as a single family residence, or a principal structure permitted to a height of no taller than 35 feet, not an accessory structure, which would have been limited to 20 feet as today. The building permits and certificate of occupancy for the structure all indicate a single family residence with a 35 foot height allowance. With the logic noted in the application, any neighbor could request a second principal structure on their property, which is not the intent of the RL-1 zoning. Therefore, staff finds that the allowance to have two structures on the site at or near 35 feet would be a special privilege to the owner and would not match the existing neighborhood development pattern. Therefore, staff will not recommend approval of the Site Review request to Planning Board. If the project were approved, the applicant would have to demonstrate that the new structure on the site would be consistent with City Steep Slope regulations and the criterion 9-2-14(h)(2)(F)(xi), which states, "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 cause by geological hazards:' Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Address: 3161 3RD ST ;li:ndair#_ ~ L _P'~r~# ~b II. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS Engineering The development on this site must be in accordance with the Guidelines for Hillside Development. A soils report, drainage plan and report, and an engineered foundation are required at building permit. Land Uses The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Low Density Residential. Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Review Process Per Section 9-9-2(b), B.R.C. 1981, only one principal building is permitted per lot in the RL-1 zone, unless approved through Site Review. Principal structures are permitted at a height of 35 feet, whereas accessory structures are limited to 20 feet. The review is required, because the status of the existing principal structure would change from principal to accessory with the construction of a new principal structure on the lot, which creates an accessory structure 14 feet over the accessory structure height limit. Section 9-2-14(b)(1)(E), B.R.C. 1981 of the Land Use Regulations allows applicants to request permission to build structures taller than what the zoning district normally allows. In this case, approval of the project would permit an existing structure at greater than the 20 foot accessory structure height and a new principal structure on the lot. The review criteria can be found in Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981 of the Land Use Regulations. Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Utilities The applicant is advised that at the time of building permit application the following requirements will apply: a. The applicant will be required to provide an accurate plumbing fixture count form to determine if the existing water meter and service are adequate for the proposed use. b. Water, wastewater, and storm Plant Investment Fees and service line sizing will be evaluated. c. If the existing water and/or wastewater services are required to be abandoned and upsized, all new service taps to existing mains shall be made by city crews at the developer's expense. The water service must be excavated and turned off at the corporation stop, per city standards. The sewer service must be excavated and capped at the property line, per city standards. d. The existing water meter and pit must meet current City of Boulder standards and specifications. Replacement of the meter and pit must be completed prior to final inspection approval. e. Water and sanitary sewer services to the accessory structure must draw from the proposed principle structure. Zoning The project site is zoned RL-1, Low Density Residential. This zoning district is primarily used for established detached residential development. Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 IV. NEXT STEPS • Pay $1,540 fee for Planning Board review. Planning Board public hearing tentatively scheduled for December 6, 2007. • Submit 18 complete sets of plans for the Planning Board and other reviewers (this would not be necessary until closer to the meeting. The Case Manager will notify of when to submit.). V. CITY CODE CRITERIA CHECKLIST To be prepared at time of staff recommendation VI. Conditions On Case To be prepared at time of staff recommendation Address: 3161 3RD ST ATTACHMENT E CRITERIA FOR REVIEW No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that: (1 ).Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan: _(A) The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. As discussed under Criteria F(i) and (ii) below, the construction of a new principal structure on the site could create a condition where there appears to be two principal structures due to their apparent height at or near 35 feet. This is inconsistent with the intent of the RL-1 zoning district, which only permits one principal structures on the site and accessory structures that are expected to be subordinate to the principal structure per the Section 9-12 definition of "accessory structures." Having two structures of principal structure statue on the lot would not be compatible with the character of the single-family neighborhood and would not match the pattern of development typical of such neighborhoods. Therefore, the proposal would not be considered consistent with Policy 2.13, Support for Residential Neighborhoods, which states. "The City will seek appropriate building scale and compatible character of new development," and thus, inconsistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. X (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: Vii) The density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or, The allowance to build a new principal structure on the site and/or permit an existing structure over the 20-foot accessory structure height limit would not increase the allowable density normally permitted on the single- family site. (ii) The maximum number of units that could be placed on the site without waiving or varying any of the requirements of Chapter 9-8, "Intensity Standards," B.R.C. 1981. X (C) The proposed development's success in meeting the broad range of BVCP policies considers the economic feasibility of implementation techniques require to meet other site review criteria. (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 whether this Subsection is met, the approving agency will consider the following factors: ~!,ndale~~ SL ~ a:2 X (A) Open Space: Open space, including, without limitation, parks, recreation areas, and playgrounds: X (i) Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional; The site has ample open space that is above the blue line and adjacent to Boulder Mountain Parks land. X (ii) Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit; With areas behind the existing home as open space land, the residential unit on the property would have ample private and public open space for their enjoyment. X (iii) The project provides for the preservation of or mitigation of adverse impacts to natural features, including, without limitation, healthy long-lived trees, significant plant communities, ground and surface water, wetlands, riparian areas, drainage areas, and species on the federal Endangered Species List, "Species of Special Concern in Boulder County" designated by Boulder County, or prairie dogs (Cynomys ludiovicianus) which is a species of local concern, and their habitat; The proposed new residence on the property would be located closer to the roadway than the existing residence and would not be in areas where development is prohibited (i.e., above the blue line in open space areas) or areas that are environmentally sensitive. Any new structure on the site would have to respect the Silver Lake Ditch, which traverses the property. X (iv) The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project and from surrounding development; The required setbacks for any structure on the site would be consistent with open space seen throughout the neighborhood and would provide appropriate relief to density expected for a low density residential development. N/A (v) Open space designed for active recreational purposes is of a size that it will be functionally useable and located in a safe and convenient proximity to the uses to which it is meant to serve; Not applicable to a single family residential use. X (vi) The open space provides a buffer to protect sensitive environmental features and natural areas; and The entire rear half of the property is protected open space with an Open Space land use designation and a Restrictive Covenant protecting the area from development near the protected lands beyond the property. X (vii) If possible, open space is linked to an area- or city-wide system. Residents of the property have immediate access to areas designated open space on and beyond the property. N/A B) Open Space in Mixed Use Developments (Developments that contain a mix of residential and non-residential usesf Not applicable to single family residential uses. N/A (i) The open space provides for a balance of private and shared areas for the residential uses and common open space that is available for use by both the residential and non-residential uses that will meet the needs of the anticipated residents, occupants, tenants, and visitors of the property; and N/A (ii) The open space provides active areas and passive areas that will meet the needs of the anticipated residents, occupants, tenants, and visitors of the property and are compatible with the surrounding area or an adopted plan for the area. N/A (C) Landscaping The criteria below are generally not applicable to single-family uses. Further, the height of the existing building is the focus of this Site Review. ` N/A (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; N/A (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; N/A (iii) The project provides significant amounts of plant material sized in excess of the landscaping requirements of Section 9-9-10, "Landscaping and Screening Standards" and Section 9-9-11, "Streetscape Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981; and N/A (iv) 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. N/A D) Circulation: Circulation, including, without limitation, the transportation system that serves the property, whether public or private and whether constructed by the developer or not: The criteria below are generally not applicable to single-family uses. Further, the height of the existing building is the focus of this Site Review. ~sacia ifs i! _ ~ t-_ . # N/A (i) High speeds are discouraged or a physical separation between streets and the project is provided; N/A (ii) Potential conflicts with vehicles are minimized; N/A (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, pedestrianways and trails; N/A (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; WA (v) W here practical and beneficial, a significant shift away from single- occupant vehicle use to alternate modes is promoted through the use of travel demand management techniques; N/A (vi) On-site facilities for external linkage are provided with other modes of transportation, where applicable; WA (vii) The amount of land devoted to the street system is minimized; and N/A (viii) The 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. N/A (E) Parking The criteria below are generally not applicable to single-family uses. Further, the height of the existing building is the focus of this Site Review. N/A (i) The project incorporates into the design of parking areas measures to provide safety, convenience, and separation of pedestrian movements from vehicular movements; N/A (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; N/A _(iii) Parking areas and lighting are designed to reduce the visual impact on the project, adjacent properties, and adjacent streets; and WA (iv) Parking areas utilize landscaping materials to provide shade in excess of the requirements in Subsection 9-9-6(d), "Parking Area Design Standards," and Section 9-9-12, "Parking Lot Landscaping Standards," B.R.C. 1981. (F) Building Design, Livability, and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed Surrounding Area "~;~rcia lr~i r - ~G- ~ ~S (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; The location and massing of a principal structure meeting RL-1 setbacks, height and floor area limits would likely be similar to existing development in the neighborhood, where most of the single family homes have been built near the street and with variable massing. However, the allowance to have two structures on the lot at a height at or near 35 feet would not be consistent with the pattern of development in the neighborhood, as discussed in the criterion below: _(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; Height modifications have been granted in the past to allow for flexibility to build a standard accessory structure on steep terrain, where deviations are minimal and not out of character with surrounding development. Although it can be argued that the height of what would become an accessory structure at 34 feet 6 inches would be comparable to primary structures in the neighborhood, there is no evidence of any accessory structures of that height in the immediate vicinity. The intent of the RL-1 zoning district is to permit one principal structure on the site (up to 35 feet in height) and one or more accessory structures that would be subservient to that height with their limitation of 20 feet in height. If this request were approved, it would appear as two principal structures on the site, which would not be compatible with the established pattern of development in the neighborhood. With the logic noted in the application, any neighbor could request a second principal structure on their property, which is not the intent of the RL-1 zoning. Therefore, the allowance to have two buildings of principal structure height on the property would not meet the intent of this criterion. X (iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent properties; Allowance to retain the existing structure would not create any new shadow or view impacts. Any new structure, whether principal or accessory, would be evaluated at the building permit stage for compliance with the Solar Access Regulations. ,(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; Allowance to retain the existing structure and build a new principal structure would affect the character of the area, which is composed primarily of single-family homes and more subserviently scaled accessory structures. Colors and materials are dependent on any final design for the site. _(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; streetscape impact is currently unknown without specific plans of the proposed principal structure. N/A (vi) To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned public facilities; Not applicable to single-family uses. N/A (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; Not applicable to single-family uses. N/A (viii) 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; Not applicable to single-family uses. N/A (ix) A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation, safety, and aesthetics; Any lighting on the site would have to comply with the Outdoor Lighting Regulations. (x) The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids, minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems; The location of a new single family dwelling closest to the street minimizes impact to those areas that are protected on the site to the rear of the lot. Any new structure would have to be sensitive to the Silver Lake Ditch, which traverses the site. (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. If a new single-family dwelling were permitted on the site, the cut and fill would be concentrated closest the roadway, which would avoid erosion, slope instability etc. that could occur if otherwise constructed further upslope on the site. Nevertheless, the applicant would have to demonstrate that the new structure on the site would be consistent with City Steep Slope regulations and this criterion, by having a Colorado licensed engineer design the foundation, grading and drainage plans according to a soils report also prepared by a Colorado licensed engineer. N/A (G) Solar Siting and Construction: For the purpose of ensuring the maximum potential for utilization of solar energy in the city, afl 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: The criteria below are not relevant to the height modification request. Impacts to solar access on adjacent properties would be evaluated at time of building permit in the event a new principal structure were approved for the site. Most of the criteria below relate to projects with multiple buildings and lots. N/A (i) 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 may justify deviations from this criterion. N/A (ii) Lot Layout and Building Siting: 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. N/A (iii) Building 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 Section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981. N/A (iv) Landscaping: The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent buildings are minimized. N/A (H) Additional Criteria for Poles Above the Permitted Height; No site review application for a pole above the permitted height will be approved unless the approving agency finds all of the following: Not applicable. No poles are proposed. N/A (i) The light pole is required for nighttime recreation activities, which are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, or the light or traffic signal pole is required for safety, or the e{ectrica! utility pole is required to serve the needs of the city; and N/A (ii) The pole is at the minimum height appropriate to accomplish the purposes for which the pole was erected and is designed and constructed so as to minimize light and electromagnetic pollution. NIA (I) Land Use Intensity Modifications Not applicable. No modifications to this section are proposed. N/A (i) Potential Land Use Intensity Modifications: (a) The density of a project may be increased in the BR-1 district through a reduction of the lot area requirement or in the Downtown (DT), BR-2, or MU-3 districts through a reduction in the open space requirements. (b) The open space requirements in all Downtown (DT) districts may be reduced by up to one hundred percent. (c) The open space per lot requirements for the total amount of open space required on the lot in the BR-2 district may be reduced by up to fifty percent. (d) Land use intensity may be increased up to 25 percent in the BR-1 district through a reduction of the lot area requirement. N/A (ii) Additional Criteria for Land Use Intensity Modifications: A land use intensity increase will be permitted up to the maximum amount set forth below if the approving agency finds that the criteria in Subsection (h) "Criteria for Review" of this Section and following criteria have been met: (a) Open Space Needs Met: The needs of the project's occupants and visitors for high quality and functional useable open space can be met adequately; (b) Character of Project and Area: The open space reduction does not adversely affect the character of the development nor the character of the surrounding area; and (c) Open Space and Lot Area Reductions: The specific percentage reduction in open space or lot area requested by the applicant is justified by any one or combination of the following site design features not to exceed the maximum reduction set forth above: (i) Close proximity to a public mall or park for which the development is specially assessed or to which the project contributes funding of capital improvements beyond that required by the parks and recreation component of the development excise tax set forth in Chapter 3-8, "Development Excise Tax," B.R.C. 1981: maximum one hundred percent reduction in all Downtown (DT) districts and ten percent in the BR-1 district; (ii) Architectural treatment that results in reducing the apparent bulk and mass of the structure or structures and site planning which increases the openness of the site: maximum five percent reduction; (iii) A common park, recreation, or playground area functionally useable and accessible by the development's occupants for active recreational purposes and sized for the number of inhabitants of :.~ndai~a~~_ 5 G_I'€~#_~ the development, maximum five percent reduction; or developed facilities within the project designed to meet the active recreational needs of the occupants: maximum five percent reduction; (iv) Permanent dedication of the development to use by a unique residential population whose needs for conventional open space are reduced: maximum five percent reduction; (v) The reduction in open space is part of a development with a mix of residential and non-residential uses within an BR-2 zoning district that, due to the ratio of residential to non-residential uses and because of the size, type, and mix of dwelling units, the need for open space is reduced: maximum reduction fifteen percent; and (vi) The reduction in open space is part of a development with a mix of residential and non-residential uses within an BR-2 zoning district that provides high quality urban design elements that will meet the needs of anticipated residents, occupants, tenants, and visitors of the property or will accommodate public gatherings, important activities, or events in the life of the community and its people, that may include, without limitation, recreational or cultural amenities, intimate spaces that foster social interaction, street furniture, landscaping, and hard surface treatments for the open space: maximum reduction 25 percent. N/A (J) Additional Criteria for Floor Area Ratio Increase for Buildings in the BR-1 District Not applicable to this zoning district. N/A (i) Process: For buildings in the BR-1 district, the floor area ratio ("FAR") permitted under Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be increased by the city manager under the criteria set forth in this Subsection. N/A (ii) Maximum•FAR Increase: The maximum FAR increase allowed for buildings thirty-five feet and over in height in the BR-1 district shall be from 2:1 to 4:1. N/A (iii) Criteria for the BR-1 District: The FAR may be increased in the BR-1 district to the extent allowed in paragraph (ii) of this Subsection if the approving agency finds that the following criteria are met: (a) Site and building design provide open space exceeding the required useable open space by at least ten percent: an increase in FAR not to exceed 0.25:1. (b) Site and building design provide private outdoor space for each office unit equal to at least ten percent of the lot area for buildings 25 feet and under and at least 20 percent of the lot area for buildings above 25 feet: an increase in FAR not to exceed 0.25:1. (c) Site and building design provide a street front facade and an alley facade at a pedestrian scale, including, without limitation, features such as awnings and windows, well-defined building entrances, and other building details: an increase in FAR not to exceed 0.25:1. (d) For a building containing residential and non-residential uses in which neither use comprises less than 25 percent of the total square footage: an increase in FAR not to exceed 1:1. (e) The unused portion of the allowed FAR of historic buildings designated as landmarks under Chapter 9-11, "Historic Preservation," B.R.C. 1981, may be transferred to other sites in the same zoning district. However, the increase in FAR of a proposed building to which FAR is transferred under this paragraph may not exceed an increase of 0.5:1. (f) For a building which provides one full level of parking below grade, an increase in FAR not to exceed 0.5:1 may be granted. N/A (K) Additional Criteria for Parking Reductions: The off-street parking requirements of Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be modified as follows: Not applicable. No parking reduction is proposed. N/A (i) Process: The city manager may grant a parking reduction not to exceed fifty percent of the required parking. The planning board or city council may grant a reduction exceeding fifty percent. N/A (ii) Criteria: Upon submission of documentation by the applicant of how the project meets the following criteria, the approving agency may approve proposed modifications to the parking requirements of Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards;' B.R.C. 1981, if it finds that: (a) For residential uses, the probable number of motor vehicles to be owned by occupants of and visitors to dwellings in the project will be adequately accommodated; (b) The parking needs of any non-residential uses will be adequately accommodated through on-street parking or off-street parking; (c) A mix of residential with either office or retail uses is proposed, and the parking needs of all uses will be accommodated through shared parking; (d) If joint use of common parking areas is proposed, varying time periods of use will accommodate proposed parking needs; and (e) If the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced because of the nature of the occupancy, the applicant provides assurances that the nature of the occupancy will not change. N/A (L) Additional Criteria for Off-Site Parking: The parking required under Section 9- 9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, maybe located on a separate lot if the following conditions are met: Not applicable. No off-site parking is proposed. N/A (i) The lots are held in common ownership; N/A (ii) The separate lot is in the same zoning district and located within three hundred feet of the lot that it serves; and WA (iii) The property used for off-site parking under this Subsection continues under common ownership or control. 7 ":iILi11iC°;i l'r 5 L_ ~ ~'~2 if.._ J ATTACHMENT F TO WHOM TT MAY CONCERN Re: 3161 3`d street, Boulder, CO 80304 Proposed height variance $eing the owner of the properties at 3123 3`~ street and 3160 3'~ street, I am the immediate neighbor to the above referenced property on 2 sides. Hence I am the neighbor most affected by any proposed structure at the 3161 3`~ street site. The existing Art/Meditation studio at 3161 3'~ is an attractive building which was built with much care according to principles of sacred architecture. I understand that this building was not designed as a living space and that a second structure was originally planned as the primary dwelling. I appreciate the studio structure in its present configuration and have absolutely no objection to the height of this studio as it stands. I fully support the building of a primary residence below the ditch as this would make the 3161 property more functional and would improve the character of the neighborhood. _ Z ~ r qla~ J~o~~ Peyn~ifard 3123 and 3160 3`d street Boulder CO 80304 303-494-5838 JASON KIEL ~ d 2K (zo° ~ NOTARY PUBLIC ~y~/ TEOFCOLORApp ~'I(~ ~rnimv~ca. ,P~~.vtp7 o~o~ZS/2°II My Commis'~foh C-xpi~es 06/25/2011 Karl Guiler -Response to Review #LUR2007-00058 From: "Chris Hanson" < v To: <guilerkC~bouldercolorado.gov> Date: 10/3/2007 10:32 AM Subject: Response to Review #LUR2007-00058 Oct. 3, 2007 Mr. Guiler, As property owners across the street from Ms. Stetson's residence at 3163 3~d. St., we are against any proposed changes to the building height requirements for this property. The current density and building coverage for properties on this street are already pushing it's limits. We feel that every attempt should be made to maintain the development standards set by the City of Boulder and recommend that you deny this application. Sincerely, Chris and Hidelly Hanson 3180 3'd St. ~aantla Its # ~ C, # _~Z1 Jl Karl Guiler - LUR2007-00058 From: "Thatcher Wine'' To: <guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: 10/2/2007 11:44 PM Subject: LUR2007-00058 Re: 31613`d St. Review #LUR2007-00058 I am opposed to the proposed height modification in this review. This area of 3`d Street and particularly 31613`d St. and the lot immediately in front of it, are already very crowded in comparison to the surrounding homes and neighborhood. In their current form, they detract from the Open Space which they are adjacent to and to contemplate not one, but two larger structures built on this small area (the new primary structure at 31613`d St. and what appears to be a tear down of the "house" in front of 3161 with a larger structure to be built) would detract significantly from the character of the neighborhood and the enjoyment of views both from the street and from Mt. Sanitas. While the other construction projects are not addressed by this review, I bring up these issues to provide context as to why the height modification should not be approved as it would only lead to the worsening of an existing problem, not an improvement. Please feel free to contact me for additional information and clarification. Thatcher Wine 305 Forest Ave. Boulder CO 80304 Ph.303-946-1288 Fax. 303-444-4630 ,~nAaltaatk _ 5 ~ ~ i~ Karl Guiler -Site Height Modification at 3161 Third St From: To: <guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: 10/2/2007 11:07 AM Subject: Site Height Modification at 3161 Third St October 2, 2007 Karl Guiler Case Manager City of Boulder, P.O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306 Dear Knrt: We recently received your notice of a Site Height Modification for 3161 3rd Street, Review Number LUR2007-00058. As neighbors to the south at 3121 Third St, we appreciate the opportunity to share our concerns regarding the above mentioned Site Height Modification request. Our concerns at this time are threefold: 1. The possibility of having two primary residences on a 50 foot wide lot is not in keeping with the immediate neighborhood character. Since we have been living at 3121 Third Street, the current structure has served as Ms. Stetson's primary residence. While we understand this current structure is not an ideal building for a primnry residence, nevertheless, its history is that of a primnry residence. 2. Our section of Third Street between Evergreen and Forest is not wide enough to handle parking on both sides of the street. Thus, parking is very limited and adding another possib?e residence on 3161 Third Street will only exacerbate this problem. 3. As we have been told by Ms. Stetson that she will keep the existing building as an arts studio, granting the site height modification, however, will make the property more attractive to sell. Anew buyer may not have the same intentions for the property as Ms. Stetson does. Sincerely, Harry Silver and Marina Florian Karl Guiler - 3161 3rd. St. Request _ . From: To: <guilerkQbouldercolorado.gov> Date: 9/30/2007 8:00:17 PM Subject: 3161 3rd. St. Request Dear Carl, As neighbors of the 3161 3rd Street property, we oppose the variance currently before the City of Boulder. The current resident has lived at this location for over 20 years as a primary residence. To grant the request for a height modification so Ms. Stetson,rEs home could be reclassified as a studio after all this time is absolutely absurd. Our understanding is that the home is over 30 feet in height as it stands, considerably over the 20 foot limit for an accessory structure. The proposed new structure would mean that this property would be permitted two houses over 30 feet high on one narrow lot. This plan would be totally uncharacteristic of this block on either side of the street and especially for lots backing up to open space. The street is already highly congested and should be reclassified as a one-way. Allowing an additional house would most certainly lead to a rental property in the back end, despite what the owner may be promising at this point. We also understand that Ms. Stetson has already purchased another property up Sunshine Canyon. She recently sold the house adjacent to 3161 (immediately south) to a neighbor directly across the street. Although he has a stop work permit on this property, he is planning to build a large house on this lot. Word in the neighborhood is that he also intends to buy 3161 3rd St if Ms. Stetson gets the approval from the city to build a second house on the lot knowing that the variance would be transferred to him. Either way, granting this request would have long-term negative impact on this neighborhood. Thanks for your consideration. Jill Gartland and Jim Schultz 3119 3rd St. Boulder, Colorado 80304 303-449-3363 Karl Guiler - 31613rd Street From: Jackson hazlewood _ ,,,n> To: <guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: 9/25/2007 6:36 PM Subject: 3161 3rd Street Karl, We spoke on the phone today. I am not a supporter of the Variance for the property at 3161 3rd. I live next door at 3173 3rd Street. Here are a few of the reasons why: The two lots that make up 3161 are approx. 12700 feet. The current structure which is approx. 1200 sq ft and rests against the blue line on the west and has a easement for the silver lake ditch to the East. Therefore aprrox. SO% of the lot is not buildable. She wants to squeeze a second home on one lot below the silver lake ditch and 3rd street. Nobody else on 3rd has done this so why now. This has been her primary home for the last 15 + years. It is used as a home and has full bath and kitchen and should not be able to be an accessory structure in it's current form. I bought my home knowing she could not build another structure below without first tearing down the current structure or cutting off the top by 14 feet. Now she wants to add a second home on a the lot with only a small amount of useable area. I would like to be kept informed of any developments. Thank you in advance and feel free to calf with questions. Ceil is best Whipple Hazlewood 3173 3rd Street Boulder, CO 80304 720 406 7634 773 732 0453 Cell PS Does she see this email? Kick back and relax with hot games and cool activities at the Messenger Cafe. PIS now! November 29"', 2007 Jackson W Hazlewood 3173 3`d Street Boulder, CO 80304 City Of Boulder Planning & Development Services 1739 Broadway, Third Floor Boulder, CO 80306-0791 Regarding: Stetson Home LUR2007-00058 To Who it May Concern: I am writing to express my OPPOSITION to the proposed height variance to allow what is now and has been for the last 22 years the principal residence (which it no longer is) to become an accessory structure. The property at 3161 3`d Street is zoned low density residential. Ms. Stetson's lot is 12,700 square with the current residence being 1200 sq ft. A large portion of the lot (40- 50%) is behind the blue line. The property also has an easement for the Silver Lake Ditch running across it. Stetson's current residence is between the ditch on the East and the blue line on the West with no room to grow. The proposed new structure would be squeezed between the ditch and the street and negatively change the character of the neighborhood. She would be the only person with two homes on what in reality is a 6000sq ft lot. I understand needs change and I would support removing the cuaent structure and building ONE new structure to better meet her needs. On another note, in speaking with Ms. Stetson about her project, she told me she purchased a new home in Sunshine Canyon where she is now spending most of her time. Currently the property at 3161 3`d Street is a "rental" she sold her property located at 3123 3`d Street next door and did a 1031 exchange with the property at 3161 3rd Street. Why does she need two homes on a lot when she does even plan to live in it? Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Jackson W Hazlewood 720 406 7634 ATTACHMENT G To City of Boulder Planning Board From Nancy Stetson, owner 3161 3rd Street Date November 26, 2007 Re LUR2007-00058 Response to staff and neighborhood comments There is only one basis and intent for this application for a height modification. Specifically, that is the preservation of a built resource which is the Studio. The Studio is an attractive, good, solid, and valuable asset to the property. The demolition of the Studio in order to observe the height of 20 feet does not serve the owner or the community well. There is no evidence that the Studio has ever in the past detrimentally impacted any person or property and similarly, there is no evidence that the Studio, with a new home, will have any impact on persons or property. Whether the Studio stays or goes, it is benign to the neighborhood, the new home at the front of the lot will be built and an accessory structure (up to 20 feet) can be built to replace the Studio (unnecessarily). The purpose of the Studio was for art and meditation and for 20 years it has served that purpose well. There is simply no practical or logical or legal reason that the Studio should not continue to serve in that way for many more years to come. The westerly half of the property is under a permanent easement (above the Blue Line) given by the owner to the citizens of Boulder to preserve open space and views. Resources, in terms of wood, stone, effort, and money, have already been expended to create this wonderful structure. To cause it to be needlessly removed will cause an unnecessary loss to the environment and to [he community, using resources and then disposing of them carelessly. There was never any consideration given to ignoring the regulatory authority of the City or to imposing hardships on any person or property. It is simply better to keep the structure as it presently stands than to waste it. Please consider the following responses to concerns raised by City staff and neighbors. I am genuinely concerned about these issues and wish to set the record straight about my desires for the property and the future development. 1. That the current studio is my primary residence. 20 years ago I presented plans to the City of Boulder for two structures, a permanent large home fronting on 3rd Street and a second accessory building above the ditch for use as a meditation and art studio. Because of financial reasons I began with the much smaller studio and added a kitchen with the notion that it (the kitchen) would be removed at the time the front home was completed. This plan was well known to the reviewers and a permit fora "Studio and Residence" was issued. Unfortunately many factors prevented me from ever completing the project and I have lived off and on in the Studio for 20 years. The Studio was not designed as a ..~ad~i, ~T_L ~R,tr home and is not today suitable for a home (for example: for a family), it is too small, it is round, there are no room divisions (bedrooms, living room, etc.). It's "history" as a primary residence is immaterial because the structure will be modified to be an accessory structure in whatever manner mandated by the Planning Department. 2. That the Studio is over the allowed height for an accessory structure. The plans presented to the City of Boulder in 1985 clearly show two structures, the Studio would be an accessory to the front residence. No mention was ever made of height restrictions at that time, my decision to build the "Studio/Residence" first did not influence or change the design or the height of the proposed structure and yet it was permitted at its current height 20 years ago. 3. That approval of my request (to convert the Studio/Residence to an accessory structure) would be tantamount to allowing two residences on the lot. Neither I nor any of my neighbors are permitted to legally occupy two residences on any property in this neighborhood. The kitchen facilities (there is no `room') will be removed from the Studio in order that it may not qualify as a residence. In this neighborhood and throughout Boulder, accessory structures are very common, even at two stories. To say as a fact that someone in the future might occupy any accessory structure illegally as a residence is not fair to law abiding citizens and is not a measure of the purpose of the application at hand. Many of the remodels which have occurred in this neighborhood have resulted in residences of much greater square footage that what might be permitted on this site. 4. Current ownership of the property, future development rights. The law is applied equally to the property without regazd of future ownership, sales, etc. Most homeowners in the neighborhood today did not build the home they live in now. Those who did build the home are unlikely to live in that home forever and will transfer their rights to the new owners. It is immaterial to the application and to the City's fair enforcement of the development regulations who owns what, or when. All owners, whether current or future live within the same allowances and restrictions. The "intentions" of the current owner or of a future owner are not at all a consideration in this application. My only intention, provided that the Planning Board agrees, is that the existing resource of the Studio be preserved. 5. That the new residence to be located on 3`d may cause traffic or parking hardship. The new residence will meet and exceed all current requirements. The City's requirement is for one suace in the RL zone. The new home will have at least a one car garage and a full sized driveway for a total of 2 pazking spaces. It is probable that the new home will actually have atwo-car gazage and a double wide driveway for a total of 4 spaces. There is no additional requirement for parking associated with an accessory structure. 6. That the two lots facing 3`d (11 and 12, Block 53) are combined as one. The two properties have always been separate and never together, and are presently owned by different individuals. The southerly property has its own residence, and the subject property also has its own residence. What future owners will do with each lot is entirely in the realm of review and approval by the City of Boulder. Both lots are permitted homes and accessory structures to the extent allowed by the zoning code, as are all other properties in the neighborhood. ?;ib J ;n ; S i? - of 7. That there is insufficient room on the east end of the lot (fronting 3`d) for a new home. After applying all required setbacks there remains adequate room for a home which will fit into the existing character and value of the neighborhood. Any property in the RL zone may have a home of at least 1000 square feet minimum and an accessory structure which does not exceed the coverage of the principal structure (ie, they may be equal in size). The regulations do not specify any particular size, small or large, only that the setbacks be observed and an FAR of 0.8:1 is the maximum. 8. That the application is changing the height standards of buildings. The application does not request any change for any new building, only that in deference to a small, existing, good, and attractive Studio that consideration be given to save it from demolition. The conditions and circumstances of the application are unique to this site and this building and do not provide any "precedent" in the neighborhood for new buildings to improperly exceed the permitted height. 9. That the conditions in the neighborhood are bad and will be worsened by this application. 3`d Street is among the most desirable places to live in Boulder. This has caused many properties to be upgraded in size and price. The City has visited this issue many times and has implemented certain restrictions. This application does not exceed any limitation imposed by the City, nor does it maximize the opportunity that may be available. The purpose of the application is to preserve an existing resource, no measurable added impact is apparent with this request. 10. That views will be blocked. The Studio is placed very high on the lot and has not imposed any view hardship on any property. The new home on the front of the lot is on the lowest part of the lot and in alignment with all other homes. As there is no assurance of any kind given in the zoning code to the preservation of any view over private property, and that it is unlikely that any view is actually being taken away, there is no actual impact to another's view. ~L ~ 3 ATTACHMENT H Response to Section 9-2-14 (e) Additional Application Requirements for Height Modification (e) Additional Application Requirements for Height Modification: The following additional application requirements apply if the development proposal includes a request for the moditication of the permitted height: (Response by applicant follows in BOLD type) (t) Preliminary building plans including sketches and elevations illustrating the proposed building or pole and indicating how the height was calculated; Site and building plans have been submitted. (2) For developments in all Downtown (DT) districts, a model, at a scale of no less than one inch equals thirty feet, of the proposed building and all buildings and property within one hundred feet of the proposed project; (Not applicable) (3) For developments in all Downtown (DT) districts, an illustration of the proposed building shown from street level demonstrating the pedestrian view, including, without limitation, a perspective, computer model, or photographic montage; (Not applicable) (4) A shadow analysis, as described in the solar analysis instructions provided by the city manager, that shows the shadow cast by athirty-five-foot building located at the required setback and the shadow cast by the proposed building; The site plan depicts the required shadow. (5) A list of the height of each principal building located or known to be proposed or approved within one hundred feet of the proposed project; Only one structure is immediately adjacent to the project, due south is a single story residence not more than 25 feet in height, this home is proposed to be removed and a new home of less than 35 feet in height built. Only one other structure is within 100 feet, the second home to the south (3121 3`d Street) is not more than 35 feet in height. (6) A written statement and drawings which describe the way in which the proposal accommodates pedestrians, including, without limitation, uses proposed for the ground level, percent of transparent material at the ground level, and signage and graphics; No provision is made in the proposed site plan to accommodate pedestrians, the site is a single family home lot and no provision other than the existing public street is necessary. (7) A detailed plan showing the useable open space and a written statement of how it serves the public interest. The site is a single family lot with a open space easement over the rear (western) half above the `Blue Line'. The easement specifically serves the public interest in the preservation of open space and views.