Loading...
2B - Docket No. 2008-02 - 3123 3rd St - appealing the denial of the administrative solar exception application (ADR2007-00208)~ Revisad Apri12007 400.pd1 ~~~ ~ CITY OF BOULDER Planning and Development Services Center 1739 Broadway, third floor . P.O. Box 791 • Boulder, Colorado 80306 Phone: 303-441-1880 • Fax: 303-441-3241 . Web: boulderplandevelop.net BOL/"~ VARIANCEAPPLICATION APPLICATION DEADLINE IS 4:00 P.M. ON THE THIRD WEDNESDAY OF EACH MONTH. MEETING DA7E IS 5:00 P.M. ON THE SECOND THURSDAY OF THE FOLLOWING MONTH. GENERAL DATA C~ ~O3c~ (To be wmpleted by ihe applicant) . Street Address or Generai Location of Property: 3\ 23 31ZD S~rsc.~, go~Qo~w~ , • Legal Description: Lot 13 414 Biock S3 Subdivision 1~ tW LPt N O~ (Or attach description.) . Exis6ng Use of Property: • Description of proposal: Or ~ r~..+n ~ v~ ~ *Total floor area of existin buildin : pl ~`` *Total floor area ro osed: 3500 ~-~ *Buildin covera e existin : ''~ *Buiidin covera e ro osed: ~4a 0 S~~\. *Buildin hei ht existin : ~,! ~~` 'Buildin hei ht ro osed: 31t~ \~~r "See definitions in Section 9-1fr1, B.R.C. 1981. ~k `. ~X~s~.~q ~oui~la.n~ ~~s Sv~ol~c.~ ~o c~Q-~-no1;~~< J ~ Name oi owner: ni E~MI~N ~A ~Z FA~~ • Address: 3\b O `'~~-D ~~reQ-~ Telephone: ~3o3~bb~_$~3g • Ciry: F~ ~^, v~_n~~ State: CA Zip Code: ~O 30~ Fax: ~03)4~14 _ SR ~$ • Name of Contact (if other than owner): • Address: 7elephone: • City: State: Zip Code: Fqx: STAFF USE ONLY ' Doc. No. Date Filed Zone Hearing Date Application received by: Date Fee Paid Misc. Rect# , Administrative Solar Exception Application Requirements March 3rd, 2008 1. Legal description of property for which exception is requested Lots 13 and 14, Block 53, Newland addition, County of Boulder, also known as: 3123 and 3125 3`d street, Boulder, CO 80304. The easterly 145 feet of the property identified as 3123 3`d Street is the part within the City Limits of Boulder and is the subject of this application. Total area = 145' x 50' = 7250 sq. ft. (This site was annexed in 1974, Annex. Ord. 3970, Amended Ord. 3987) 3125 3`d Street is the westerly 100 feet of the property situated outside of the City in Boulder County and is not a part of this application. Furthermore, 3125 3`d is not buildable due to existence of blue line limitations and is also subject to a covenant restricting development. 3123 3rd and 3125 3`d Street are owned together as the entirety of lots 13 and 14 and comprise a single ownership of 12,250 square feet. 2. Drawings and topography to establish how solar access protection on nearby lots would be affected Please see attached Solaz Shadow Analysis Diagram, Solaz Shadow Analysis Table, and 3D Shadow Analysis model by Hower Architects in connection with this application. 3. List of addresses and legal description of all lots that would be affected by this exception The only property affected by this solar exception is: Lots 11 and 12, Block 53, Newland addition, county of Boulder, also known as: 3161 3`d Street, Boulder, CO 80304 (Note: Shadow cast on lot 10 is on non-buildable portions of the lot only.) Owner: Ms. Nancy Stetson Address: 3161 3rd street, Boulder, CO 80304 4. Statement addressing application These 2 lots were sold to the present owner by Ms. Nancy Stetson (owner of 3161 3`d Street) with the understanding that a home would be built on this site and that solar shade variance would be granted in order to build such structure. Since prior to purchase of this property by Mr. ltazifard it became apparent that any economical structure on this site would violate the solar shade requirements, granting of this solar variance was made a contractual part of the sales agreement. Review Criteria (Section 9-9-17(fl In order to grant an exception, the approving authority must fmd that each of the following requirements has been met: (A) Because of basic solar access protection requirements and the land use regulations: i. Reasonable use cannot otherwise be made of the lot for which the exception is requested Only the very east (front) portion of the 7,250 sq ft properly at 3123 3rd Street is buildable due to the following restricfions (Please view pictures i, 2, 3 and 4): 1. Silver Lake ditch runs through the site at approximately 85' from the eastern lot line. Existence of a steep hill to the immediate east of the ditch renders the 20' zone east of the ditch as unbuildable. The additiona125' set-back from the eastern lot line leaves a buildable zone of only 40' X 35'. 2. The area above the ditch is not buildable because of blue line limitations combined with lack of any access. The hillside to the east of the ditch is very steep and hinders access to the area above the ditch. 3. The max set-back of 10' is chosen for the northern side of the proposed structure in order to minimize effects on the neighboring property. These physical factors limit the location of any proposed structure and the basic footprint within the buildable area of the lot. There are no other opfions such as spreading the proposed square footage over a larger footprint or moving the structure on the site so as to minimise solaz access impacts on the adjacent property. The existing topography and allowable set-backs result in the 40' X 35' (1400 sq ft) proposed buildable foot print. ii.The part of the adjoining lot or lots that the proposed structure world shade is inherently unsuitable as a site for a solar energy system: Due to the narrow 50 feet width of the adjacent property (3161 3`~) it is unlikely that any solaz system would be built on the ground in the side yazd affected by the proposed exception or on the southern wall of any future stnu.Mure. Plans presented by the adjacent owner, Ms. Nancy Stetson, provide a 5' wide side yazd but do not show any proposed solar system in the side yard or on the southern wall. Installation of solaz panels in the side yard or on the southern wall of any future structure is unsuitable because the steepness of slope (east to west) makes solaz access even more difficult. The owner of the protected lot wishes that the existing trees within the common side yazd area and to the west of both properties be protected and not removed. Some of these mature trees already shade the affected portion of the solar protected lot, and will shade the southern wall of any new structure. (Please view pictures 5, 6, 7 and S) iii. Any shading would not significantly reduce the solar potential of the protected lot: The protected lot (3161 3rd) will not be significantly affected due to the fact that any solaz equipment will likely be roof mounted. The attached 3D solar diagram indicates that no shadow is cast on any adjacent roof top of 25' or higher at any time iv. Such situations have not been created by the applicant: The physical limitations of the site, such as the ditch, steepness, and narrowness of the site, have been in existence for many years and are not the result of any action by the applicant. No other exceptions to zoning standards for the bulk and height of the proposed structure have been requested The proposed home is a reasonable use of the site and does not set a new precedence in the area with regards to height or solaz shadow. (B) The proposed plan would be the minimal action that would afford relief in an economically feasible manner because: The proposed building plan designed by Hower architects is a 3 story building which has only 2,870 finished square feet above grade (on the two upper living levels) with an additional 630 SF below grade on the garage level, for a total finished area of only 3500 square feet. The 3rd floor is cantilevered out by 2' to the west in order to create additional living space. This is a very modest structure considering the 7,250 square feet city lot it is being built on. (Please note that the entire property is 12, 250 sq ft). The city lot is 145 feet deep and the reaz 80 feet will not be built on. The total depth of the property ownership is actually 245 feet and the west 185 feet will not be built on. The maximum buildable square footage on the subject property (only that portion within the City limits) is 0.8:1 F.A.R. (Section 9-8-1, Table 8-1). The allowable buildable area for this lot is (7,250 sf x 0.8) or 5800 square feet. Because of the physical limitations of the site the proposed building area is only 2870 square feet (all of the upper two finished stories) plus x 1400 (half of the first garage level) plus 204 sq ft deck and front porch area = 3774 square feet total floor area. Ratio of proposed to max allowable square footage is :3774 / 5800 = 65%. BECAUSE OF THE PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS OF THE SITE THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS ONLY 65% OF THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE. THE RESULTING F.A.R FOR THE PROPOSED DESIGN IS 3774/7250 OR 0.52. Further reduction in the area of the proposed structure in order to accommodate a very limited possibility of solar use within the shadow is not economically feasible. The following alternative architectural designs were considered sod ruled out as economically unfeasible: . 1. Excavation of the first floor level garage in order to lower overall structure height was considered. Due to the existence of Silver Lake Ditch the ground water table is high at this site. As documented on page 3 of attached soil test report for 3161 3~ street, ground water was encountered at 5' below existing ground surface (just past the time of seasonal LOW groundwater). The report recommends building a minimum of 4' above the seasonal groundwater table. Several other homes on the west side of 3rd street share the same ground water and slope limitations and none has been excavated, the garage levels are all at the same level or slightly above the street. Hence this option was eliminated. 2. In order to meet the letter of the solar code a flat roof building design would be limited to a height of 28'. This would completely eliminate the 3rd floor of the proposed building and limit the above grade square footage to 1400 sq ft and the total finished square footage to only 2030 sq ft. This is economically unacceptable for a lot in the $600K to $700K price range. 3. By stepping the flat roof line, or utilizing a slanted roof pitch, down from the south to the north side of the proposed structure, it is possible to have a 3rd story, on the south side of the structure, which is 32' high and 19' wide. This would result in considerable loss of ceiling height and aesthetics and would limit third floor area to 19'X 42' or 798 sq ft. This results in a total finished square footage of 1400 + 798 or 2198 sq ft (with garage level, a total area of 2828 sq ftJ. The resulting FAR for this design, including all decks and porches would be approximately 0.42. Again building such a small house on this site is economically unfeasible. 4. Intermediate (not complete protection) steps to provide more solar access by methods such as slanting portions of the roof, reducing (to zero) roof overhang, or reducing floor to ceiling height on each level, do not result in a significant gain of solaz access to the land or southern face of a future home on the protected property. However, such `modest' changes, do significantly impact the habitability, functionality, and aesthetic design of the subject site. Intermediate changes to the design fiuther erode the economic feasibility of the project. 5. From a constmction cost point of view the proposed finished square footage of 3500 will cost approximately ($250 X 3500) $875K to build. This will result in a total cost of ($875K + $600K Land, arch. drawings and pemvts + $SOK holding cost) $1.525M, or $435 per square feet, which is already above the estimated $400 per square feet value of the proposed property. Based on the above assumptions the smallest economical structure at this site must be 4333 sq. ft., which is sabstantially larger than the proposed structure. ((,7 The design of the proposed home causes the least interference possible for the adjacent tot. The only lots affected with this solar variance are lots 11 and 12. There are currently no structures in the area of the proposed solar shade envelope. However, as demonstrated in the attached 3D Solar Shade Analysis even at 2 pm on December 21~` the shadow cast on a future stricture on lots I 1 and 12 would be no more than 25 feet high. This will allow total solaz access to the entirety of any roof line which is 25 feet above ground or higher, hence solar access on such building would not be compromised by the proposed building on lots 13 and 14. This site is only 50 ft wide with required total side set-back of 15 ft. Therefore only 35 ft is available for the proposed house. The min. required side set-back is 5 ft and this is placed on the south side of the house in order to m~Yim;~e the set-back on the north to 10 feet. This will minimize the impact on solaz access to the neighbor to the north side (3161 3`~ St.). (D) The proposed structure is not located in a designated historic district. (E) This section is not applicable as the proposed design does not involve reconstruction or addition to an existing roof. (N~ Not applicable as this request is not made in order to install a solar energy system. (G) Not applicable as currently there is no existing solar system. (I3) This exception would not cease more than a minor breach of basic solar access. Assuming an identical building envelope on the adjoining lot, which is also 50'wide, the buildable footprint maybe assumed to be also 1400 sq ft. The attached solar shadow analysis diagram shows that portion of this 1400 sq ft envelope which is affected by this exception is approximately a triangle on the NE corner of this envelope with side legs of 30'(from east to west) and 9'(from south to north) and an area of roughly 135 sq ft. Hence less than 10% (135/1400) of the footprint of any future stmcture at the affected property will be subject to this exception. Additionally, the current owner of the protected property (who is the seller of the subject site) has no solaz energy plans for the protected site. The current owner of the protected property has no objection to this exception request. Any future structure on the adjoining property has the option of having an efficient, aesthetically acceptable, and economically feasible solar collection system installed on its roof top without any shading by this proposed solar exception. m All other requirements for the issuance of an exception have been met by materials being submitted along with this application. 5. Statement from owners of affected lots Please see the attached notarized statement from Ms. Nancy Stetson. This is the only affected owner and there is no objection whatsoever to this request. Ms. Stetson has made plans for a home on the affected lot which do not, at this time, include any provision for solar energy panels or systems of any sort. Ms. Stetson understands completely that the affected lot may only have solaz access on the roof or on other unaffected areas of the property and that the area on the south side of any future residence on the affected lot will not have solaz access because of the existing trees and the shape and height of any residence on the subject site. 1~\S GroSS _~a~c~.e.-r~ r~.reo, W ~.v~ arm. a~t~`cox;,,..~~.<~ \`3S ~~s \{~--p onl~~( pPa~~:o~. o~rp ~I.~ ne;ll~,bo•Els, I ' ~Mlplr~o.~~~E 'Foo~p r: 0.F Q.~~~ Q tt~ S O COJ V Ii ~a[ctwc canoe me ~uwu~ I t7 soLM FH12 NL LU30n5 r Ip uow{ni Bwiw~o nF~ to e XCe, \O.\ . IE LoT to ~ / I wr°gVpi..• / IJ n 1 eMaEe FanlLr RD8IDONGE JI J I I I i J ~ I ~ r ~ I I-~ Eon~l rowx a area. ]6• awy Iran .waNn.. 00018' n WefA I I I ~ • ( 1 / hL•....r: a rop or veer ruk . 6060.T OL uea6, M•xln4+ •IlenWln , OOOis' a WpaO I 1 / o xa I I 1 m 18lRli - - rt r-- - _ - . __F___ _ I I / ~ I I ~ I ,Rm ARGHITEGTUR4L DRAWING INDEX L~T 11 \ i ~ I ' ~ ~ \ I n P4`° r~,x ~a AI 15axro0eD mm 1•LMV ewaocw ener t n t~ I V ' I I ' / \ / ' !I•~+~c~ a] 1'16~lVelD lLOVarION0 a! rleol•'DeeD 6EevarroNS - - 1 i ' ~'i- I / i ~ - / - I j I / / 1 ¦ a4 neoroeeD euD-ealE't1n e4eeffi1r RaN ; I i ~ / \ I I / i / _ a6 NlOr00® MAN RO01! RAN f#/ .i rROroeeD ~rrae Resole I•LAN , I , ~ , „ I , \ , I ' ~ RAZIFARD n I / / 1.~ ' ° ~ ' ' \ ~ ~ ~ 1 RESIDENCE STRUCTURAL DRAWING INDEX ~ \ , ' i y , ~ \ i , I / / I 01 1'OIDDaT10N DOTAILB _ _ _ _ _ _ \ _ _ _ _ _ 07 1'OI30ATICN RAN 1 \ 7 ~ e3 eaeereNr ItoORr I`uM rtoae RewMO I•LAN ~ zu' ~ _ i (6 i ~ i t 45 jD ~ _ I ° ~ / ~ `I J ~ 3123 3fd SV99t s4 uRl•u R.OOR/ Eoue!R Roes rRw`I6n Fl.AM 1 \ I ee Roor Rean6la 1°LaN / oexRx NOIEe ~ - - ` - ~ ~ ~ \ _ BOUktB~ CO \ i w \ ' i SOLAR SHADOW ANALYSIS GALGULATIDNS: 1 ~ - - i '-Nir-- - ~r uK. / I .w seW °°e"" amw arw ~ 1~ PART OF i 1 11~ ~ It II t r~'• elt• ebp•r b w f1•L e°elen InAYn hw bM aQpnYG /er dvrKW n g•tla I 1 1 1 ~ eels auw~o~p 3.•a. we•e en dolx Aae~. A.u I caw ukul.ld ~ ppuuldemr r o LOT 13 1 1 1 \ JJ ~ ~ rer1N by aey of Seula•r 6e4r aer+.. aumn rd Awrl eel•r eNeden n~iyn• I 1 11 1 1 \ ~ Yi ~ I I e A~ILILT amDMr ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 111 14 axn3„wL~b~oeNr1 _ II i I w ~ ,.r.,i 1 _ _v.~_ m•. nea ^ •e-e.-1~ ' 11 u~- _ ~X FO w :°r.°....r.... 1 _ _ _ ~ i~'111 wlwlnl`o+t I j ! i ~ 1 ~ G°".,~.a. ~~.±.d. TI v _U D / ,yr.,....r......i I jll I ~ 1^ PART OF ~ 111111 - y11 1 I` ~...»~....m. I LOT 14 I 1 1 1 \ " T16 111 I ' 1 1 1 1 ~ a,~ ~ ow 1 _ r~_ _ _ \ I 1 r ra Imo ceal7cr No. \ 6 7006 SOLAR SHADOW ANALYSIS TABLE ~ Vi"e"`' 6Ve 12.ozz3m LOT IS R1K0 I 7 3 { 6 i 1 GEN REV 12.1].2007 M,.r 1810NT OIIMQULW]TN p~yAf~ lLIVATION QO GNNJOE MElOVATIR! RENOID NEWNT IeV11eD OFlODWLB101N GEN REV I2~3L2008 ~,p.Q.1T ACOVO ~ M NOGN ] OT's 10 •n lIOQ1 7 IO •n NaON 1 N •n NOGN ] 10 •n NDON ] A D7' M.T' i{' 641' 0014' M10' 60K' 000]' -II' 7' Y ]I' 3C 34' Mb' id KO' MAMR Rlb~ e m' iee u' w.6' s613' ees4' 66x' 6016' -n' -3` s' tl' ]o' r' 3N1' 40' 116• = PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND ACTUAL SOLAR SHADOW STUDY Rw'~ G 7I' 086' 0610' 60O' -1' k' 31O' ~ I• • 10'-O' D DI' prB' 6606' l001' 4' 30' 036' ' Z fRf le[ r'~+c[ w.mrw EOwrN p,OVA~ OLE•varlGl+eND cluNa0 m6L6varroN RevrceD W6laNr R0II1ED OiMOYI LB161N - LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 0~~' EL@ROIT GRAD! b M NOON 1 6TaRT le •n NOON 7 V •n NOOK ] b M NOON ] Van NOON ] Aiffi~6p PLAT OF'Alerr Q 1VE NOOLaNDY ADDITION~rO GOILDOR ~~W~IyCyfyY~Y}rI O~ W ' L0.^AT®M 7NE ON1N Vf Ge eSCTIQ! ]4. TWOIRIIr 1 NOR7M. RY19E 11 YEDi Q TMO iTN r11, pyyyR ptyyi I tl' DV' 0007' 60 W' A' tl' 9V` GtT Q OWLDOR COWTT Q 610ULD9e, OrAr! Q C0.0RAD0 7 tl' DW 6016' 0603' 1' k' D1' 3 tl' ND' 0010 600T 7' K' 3T Oti A tl' 318' 0010' 0011' 4' M' 47!' - 0 tl' 316' 0000' 0013' b' M' 4Ti' i tl' D18' ]4@ 9IA' 0000' 00N' OON' 6p0i' g 0' 10' tl' h' tOD' 74D' pC SOLAR SNADOUJ ANALYSIS TABLE (~a~r e~o~asE~ ~,~',R~„~„~ ~ 3t25~3125 '3 ~s~f~e{~ I 2 3 4 5 6 7 ROOF HEICsHT SHADOW LENGTH ELEVATION ELEVATION END CHANGE IN ELEVATION REVISED HEICsHT REVISED SHADOW LENGTH ELEMENT RADE 10 am NOON 2 START 10 am NOON 2 10 am NOON 2 10 am NOON 2 10 am NOON 2 m A 32' 84.1' 64' 84.T 5564' 5576' 5566' 5562' -II' 2' 2' 21' 30' 34' 55.6' 60' 89.9' ® 23' 60.9' 46' 60.9' 55'13' 5584' S5~6' 9569' -il' -3' 4' 12' 20' 27' 3IB' 40' 'IIS' C 21' S5b' 5516' 5583' 14' 3TID' D 31' 82.0' 5565' 556I' 4' 35' 92b' PENCE HEIGHT SHADOW LENGTH ELEVATION ELEVATION END CHANGE IN ELEVATION REVISED HEIGHT REVISED SHADOW LENGTH ELEMENT CRADE 10 am NOON 2 START 10 am NOON 2 m 10 am NOON 2 m 10 am NOON 2 10 am NOON 2 m I I2' 3IB' 5562' 5562' 0' 12' 3IB' 2 12' 3IB' 5565' 5563' 2' 14' 31' 3 12' 31B' 55'10' 5561' 2' Id' 37' 4 12' 3IB' 5515' S5'II' 4' Ib' 423' 5 12' 3IB' 5580' 5513' 6' 18' 4'Ib' b 12' 3IB' 24ID' 3IB' 5586' 5588' 5586' 558i' -2' 0' S' 10' 12' 17' 26S' 24.0' 45ID'