5B - Site Review and Height Modification - 1043 Pine (LUR2009-00001)
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: April 16, 2009
AGENDA TITLE:
Public hearing and consideration of a Site Review for Height Modification #LUR2009-00001
(Goldman Residence), to modify the maximurn permitted height of the Residential Mixed-1
(RMX-1) zone district (35') to construct a north facing dormer with five operable windows at
the same height as the existing residence, 40.2', located at 1043 Pine Street. The site is
comprised of approximately 8,400 square feet.
Applicant: Margery Goldman
Owners: Margery Goldman, Bonnie and Jay Capaul, Nick and Velentina Ganiaris
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Ruth McHeyser, Executive Director of Community Planning
David Driskell, Deputy Director of Community Planning
Jessica Vaughn, Planner I
OBJECTIVE:
Define the steps for Planning Board consideration of this request:
1. Hear Applicant and Staff presentations
2. Hold Public Hearing
3. Planning Board discussion
-Is the request consistent with required Site Review criteria set forth in Section
9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981, specifically Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(F), Building Design,
Livability and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed Surrounding Area?
4. Planning Board take action to approve, approve with conditions, or deny
STATISTICS:
Proposal: SITE REVIEW: Height Modification request for the construction of a
north facing dormer with five operable windows that exceeds the
maximum permitted height of the RMX-1 zone district (35'), at 40.2',
which is consistent with the height of the existing residence.
Code Modifications: Height
Proposed Height Code Requirement Modification Requested
40.2' 35' 5.2'
S:IPLANTB-ITEMSWEMOSU043 Pine_Ndoe AGENDA ITEM # 58 Page 1
Project Name: Dormer Addition to Unit 4, Chauncey Stokes Condominiums
Location: 1043 Pine Street
Size of Tract: 8,400 SF (.19 Acre)
Zoning: RMX-1 (Residential Mixed-])
Comprehensive Plan: Mixed Density Residential
KEY ISSUES:
1. is the proposed height modification consistent with the Site Review criteria set forth
in Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981, specifically Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(F): Building
Design, Livability and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed Surrounding Area?
BACKGROUND:
Project Description
The applicant is proposing to construct a north facing shed dormer with five operable windows.
The height of the proposed dormer is consistent with the height of the existing structure, 40.2'.
However, it exceeds the maximum permitted height for the RMX-1 zone district (35'). The
purpose of the dormer is to provide better ventilation and lighting to a small loft area on the third
story, and is only visible from the alley or rear of the existing residence (see Attachment A,
Applicant's Proposed Plans and Written Statement). The proposed dormer will not create any
additional floor area, as the floor area of the loft is already accounted for in the existing square
footage of the residence.
Zoning Description
The site is zoned RMX-1 (Residential Mixed-1), which is defined as: Mixed density residential
areas with a variety of'single-family, detached, duplexes and multi family units that will be
maintained; and where existing structures may be renovated or rehabilitated (Section 9-5-
2(c)(1)(13)). The maximum permitted height within the RMX-1 zone district is 35'.
Properties adjacent to and within the vicinity of 1043 Pine Street are zoned RMX-1 to the east,
south and west. The RL-1 (Residential Low-1) zone district is adjacent to the north, which also
has a maximum permitted height of 35'.
Existing Site/Site Context
1043 Pine Street is comprised of approximately 8,400 SF. The existing residence, originally
built between 1890 and 1895, was refurbished in 1991 into four, multi-story condominium units
ranging in size from approximately 1,300 SF to 1,500 SF.
1C D
SAPLAMPI3-ITEMSIMEMOSV043 Pinc.JV.doc AGENDA ITEM # OD Paue 2
1043 Pine Street is located within, and is a contributing structure to the Mapleton Hill Historic
District. Surrounded by various residences representing different architectural styles of the
period of significance (1895-1910), including Prairie (1015 Pine Street), Dutch Colonial Revival
(1018 Pine Street), Tudor (1037 Pine Street), Queen Anne Victorian (1027 Pine Street), and
Bungalow (1117 Pine Street), 1043 Pine Street is also representative of this period of
significance despite its current renovations (see Attachment B, Vicinity Map).
The height of the existing residence at 1043 Pine Street is 40.2', which exceeds the maximum
permitted height within the RMX-1 zone district (35'). This makes the residence a nonstandard
structure. Pursuant to Section 9-2-14(8)(3), B.R.C. 198 1., an application for any principal or
accessory building above the permitted height for principal buildings set forth in Section 9-7-1,
"Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, will be recommended to the Planning
Board for action.
The site is unique in that there is an approximately 17% slope, as calculated within the building
envelope, from the front of the building envelope to the rear, with the steepest slopes being
located in the rear one-third of the envelope. The building siting is unique, as the house backs to
a `ledge' upon which the garages are positioned, and creating an inverse `walk-out' in that the
front of the residence is fully exposed (see Sheet 3, Attachment A, Applicant's Proposed Plans
and Written Statement).
The proposed shed dormer is proposed within the rear one-third of the lot, and would face the
garages.
Character of the Surrounding Neighborhood
The architecture and environment of the Mapleton Hill area combine to create a unique
neighborhood. The architecture of the area demonstrates a wide range of elements and styles that
create an environment that is representative of various architectural styles throughout the late 19`h
and early 20th centuries. Within the Mapleton Hill Historic district are representations of
virtually every late nineteenth century architectural revival style.
1043 Pine Street resembles a Queen Anne Victorian (1837-1901) with steeply pitched gables
with decorative wood shingles, and an expansive front porch with architectural gingerbread
detailing and bay windows.
Also notable within the Mapleton Hill area is the mature landscaping, trees, detached sidewalks,
and raised front yards. Between Broadway and 9th Street, there are raised front yards with houses
aligned to create a unified street-wall with detached sidewalks.
Project History
On November 28, 2007, the Landmarks Design Review Committee reviewed and approved the
application (HIS2007-00323) for the proposed shed dormer, and issued a Landmark Alteration
Certificate finding that the proposed dormer was consistent with the historic preservation
ordinance and the applicable design guidelines.
S:1PI.AMPt3-CCEMSWFM05U043 Pine.Mdoc AGENDA ITEM # 56 Page 3
ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a Site Review application for a Height Modification request to
increase the maximum permitted height from 35' to 40.2' for the proposed shed dormer.
Applications for Site Review are reviewed for consistency with the review criteria set forth in
Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981, "Site Review Criteria for Review" (see Attachment C, Site
Review Criteria for Review).
1. Is the proposed height modification consistent with the Site Review criteria set forth
in Section 9-2-14(h), S.R.C. 1981, specifically 9-2-14(h)(2)(F): Building Design,
Livability and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed Surrounding Area?
Staff has reviewed the proposed height modification for consistency with the Site Review
criteria set forth in Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981, specifically 9-2-14(h)(2)(F): Building
Design, Livability and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed Surrounding Area, and
has determined that the proposed height modification is consistent with the applicable
criteria listed below:
(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 existing building height is 40.2'. The height of the proposed shed dormer is
consistent with the height of the existing residence.
The proposed shed dormer does not have any adverse impacts on the integrity of the
surrounding neighborhood since the proposed dormer is north facing and is only visible
from the rear alley, is consistent with the existing height, and does not create any
additional floor area.
The proposed shed dormer is consistent with the architectural styles and features within
the Mapleton Hill area. The design and materials of all elements of the donner, including
eaves, windows and siding are strictly in keeping with historic standards for the district
and are consistent with the existing building's materials and colors as provided by the
Landmarks Alteration Certificate review and approval (HIS2007-00323).
(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;
Staff has researched the building heights of the existing buildings located between
Broadway and 91h Street. No information was found confirming any existing building
heights.
As required as a part of the Site Review application, the applicant did provide
information on the heights of the adjacent buildings to the cast (1053 Pine Street) and
west (1037 Pine Street), which were reportedly 29' and 39.5' respectively. However
SAPLANIPB-ITEMSWEMOSU043 Pine.JV.doc AGENDA ITEM #'546 Page 4
these heights are not verifiable without a height survey from a certified surveyor. The
height, never the less, appears to be in proportion with the surrounding structures and
would not appear overly imposing or out of place.
(iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from
adjacent properties;
The orientation of the proposed shed dormer, which is north facing, does not block any
views nor create any shadows beyond the extent of the shadows that the existing
residence creates. Additionally, the proposed shed dormer is only visible from the rear of
the property.
(iv) f 1 the character of f the area is identifiable, the project is made compatible by the
appropriate use of color, materials, landscaping, signs, and lighting;
The design and selection of elements and materials, including eaves, windows and siding
of the proposed shed dormer are consistent with the existing building's materials and
colors and adhere to the historic standards set forth in the Mapleton Historic District
Design Guidelines as approved in the Landmarks Alteration Certificate (HIS2007-00323).
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. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-3, B.R.C. 1981 have been met. No public
comment, either in support or opposition of the applicant's request were received.
STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION:
Planning staff finds that:
1. The application satisfies the Site Review criteria pursuant Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C.
1981, specifically Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(F): Building Design, Livability and Relationship
to the Existing or Proposed Surrounding Area.
Therefore, staff recommends that Planning Board approve Site Review Height Modification
Review ##LUR2009-00001 incorporating this staff memorandum and the attached Site Review
Criteria Checklist as findings of fact.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in
compliance with all approved plans dated December 30, 2008 and on file in the City of
Boulder Planning Department, except as may be modified by this approval.
L
5:\P1_AMPB-ITEMS\MEM0S\1043 Pine.Mduc AGENDA ITEM 4 D 8 Page 5
Approved By:
Ruth McHeyser, Exec ive Director of Community Planning
Planning Department
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Applicant's Proposed Plans and Written Statement
B: Vicinity Map
C: Site Review Criteria for Review
S:%['LANV'B-1'1'GMS1MI:MOS~1043 hric.JV.doc AGENDA rrEM #5~ Page 6
ATTACHMENT A
/lffy/!`f/fy
' y~ff1lJ!//f fyly"!!
yyyfyyyrffr°" s3 ~ ~!/~ly~'`
y//fy A4~ ` )
yylf/ rn,
s
lyy N 4 ~ ~ 22 ~r M
w o
,yl~ 1 r RAGE 2 ;~L' z
- _ ~ y.✓ TFr~Y.h ~
a~3 my ~ f ZNo
S.wr.y, Gp.nlg6 GSMn ~ 1` y( ,W'~`f^'~ `{iL~ ~ O
~ IA,f lul.o...A rq I + 4- Yid r i' .~V l - f/ H .J U
CO tlM• C T'~' .h'~ P~ 1 1 ~ 7 "1 ~/t' ~l / Al Z
Th' t` T J
wacacrw ~w.w - yr n . 4 4.Mz «'t`.
ta, ra~srs~r uinr, 3 tn@!^ } y [Y, Q
ma vu,.ev ~wrn.sramaw~e w.r. 1` i ~r~,h>. .'S _ i a "r7 boo 3 m
h'r' U} w
hSp.mEdS{ 6 GW.o[Nmx.Mdmtlmm~ in'vel
Sr-
r
64' SCALE 1"=20' o
wrane^ss' wr .y- ~'t~ ~ O.. ~ N o
t N IDv
tea- ro r
~,~`~fy~ l7lryJ 4
,
_Ul
°4,un`J I f t " Two
WAS
air ~ >
r;~ S X36 51oRY ef~NIW► P
D S no"
1 f ~R UNh I? rh W
HICK 4 Q' 0
W
G h a~;: ~ .hl h ~ W z U
t BUyyplrt I r` 5 0 C_r rrvv
OR,( AFARK R C~
MOsi hicNPa ~y r I,~ 1 s
F
39-
r
` 14 1'- ` , Y ~ , r~r vtt S-~9.Sr
~ ?t i t' ~ t irk r
t v v { Alh : q;l CD
3.1
lJrL L'97~1
S Y (~S Tm
A@MrWe ~S~So
MM
L7°~
CI
77 I I °
11. ~
J-- r
W.K
Ir°x
I I / i Try 1 W tE
II Ul- - II III II ~ ,s
I I Wvr,Irul / ,fi z"
, I hrYR,, YA71011
,os
r.~e•r; i i j LI °
~ ~ ~ ,Rmr DL'C~ I ~ao
µNMiN S
10 1 1W ~T
TO III 15,C,
F5(XJr- PbAf~ j
j F..
1,P 11AIJ
(IAl ()F FWRJ>I'sD - lo renouw
H
AREA OF
PROPOSED w
ROOF CHANGE FK,s,c, fir-- w 00
hP.9 WnU,~ r~rx,P,WOO, d
O
F
L
0
"3T'h
Ire wa_2CZ 40
2 - - - a?
n
~P to r °m
I
two KF?- w1w, cn
rll'D fR PENN - zNn Rp- Iw) PT
Uu
41u~
- Gausi'4 kl Irk fAlsr4 F-1%6 - `
e cy` a -,rr. EafPrTK RLCt -
- New a>KP K
777
A.
i N11Y.oG~~15r'4 - 771 ~
a f _ - gKi4TR hr Prlt' GWsk116r~(i
_ f
- LA157h P90 CANS
I 6Nlll~i - m'~
i - - - PAKTI& NIP vouf
G,> I51 Nh KIP pFl 1a~TRtJ T 1 z 7
L
OR,TI-4 ruryATiO}1 I~h! 1~IRU I~1 r
PAIrITav -
1Pdf1
FIM1W AW4106
WWrAP+~',
INN P1P> 6T
r,~sY n cAa's o I °
NOPJH rI.rUATir* o
wl In ffPlURyIAb~
Sra115: IMP <C
AREA OF
PROPOSED Q
ROOF CHANGE
8' d'4 RCJHPA Pa1GMW r
~MAK b/BQMFIr,>, 1YIM Lt-- t- 0
fq,7 --ti- -TO Plhlhll . 111 Q
Ws
- wIsmwAILr d, o
m
LL I
6ntiof. fY~IP/IM- nl
- - -
JIII1I I
L>fUV~Po~Rr.i I ; ~ „ i
' WwFiR11: 9.EAfY1FiJf / i ~
suar++w 12
fleGJYlk1f i~ F•ilc.•WY~)6J.fA4''~'~WU~. -
y{rtu:f tN f 11Flyti1 tY.ol4 r~
10 31 PwStsnT..+a
wrh-r Cl.r,,VA-rlgo
CIHW O Or Orel P,lxlr L10
a=* ~56LPWSJ-
y awls
+I SOLAR ANALYSIS SOLAR FENCE 25' HIGH, MXR-E ZONING Q
t POINT I LENGTH OF UPHILL GRADE ADJ. LENGTH j z
II _eI SHADOW _ I' OF SHADOW
0
A 66.2 29.15' 37.05' r
6 66,2 42.4' 23.6' wK
t ~
1
1
C 66.2 42.4' 23.8' j n
\r ~J 1 i
D , 66.2 42.4 28.8' I -
20 Rod F~
~ - - - - - - ~o~~
00
no
kti E 66.2 31.8' 34.4' F . -
F 66.2 21.2' 45.0' °
a y G 66.2 1 S.9' j 50.3' <
J
i ~'y 4> ° T H - 66.2 60.9' N'
t,'t I G6.2 0 66.2
1 s~
y y h~°
' yam` 1 f~ SOLAR ANALYSIS ROOF POINTS
M r A
~ POINT LENGTH OF UPHILL GRADE ADJ. LENGTH
SHADOW - OF SHADOW Q
\ y_ _ t RA 92-6" 45.05' 47.55
X010 - - - - - '
\ ; i t u. It RB 92 fi' 45,05' ; 47.55
RC 92.6' 39.75" I 52.85 I W
~,i t ~y yy RD 92,6" 39,75' 52.85' Ld 0
A~\ 0,
` _ ..-....~.y_ _
i 1 ~ 1, ~,,,~o~" y r~~ U
,t , y a ,,Y 1.'y Np0a1?t }r y 2'
\ H y
1,'
• ~ \ 1 ,_ai r lWy J
W
~ 11 ~i'4 ~~~4Y+)~';i`•Y~ _p1;~~4k4j 1~'~ f-4 ~ Q
SOLAR ANALYSIS
t
r
GOLDMAN RESIDENCE W
1043 PINE STREET
BOULDER, CO 80302 p,
i MARGERY GOLDMAN C'"O
1y yt i 303908-1386 d-
C7
s ANALYSIS BY
t BOB RADER Md 11/30108
MANDALA DESIGN
j NORTH 2399 AGRICOLA STREET
i HALIFAX, NS B3K 4138
} i Ff / 902-444-0416
1 i Ty'°D~ ~
Jk4Jy~' DECEMBER 21 NOTE-ELEVATIONS FOR
SOLAR ANALYSIS AT 10:00 A.M. THE 5HAC}--4N ANALY515 YUZE-
05TAINED FROM A PREVIOUS
PROJEGT ON THE 51TE
Agundu bm i#56 1 _
I z~~
t`' Co W
cowl
SOLAR ANALYSIS SOLAR FENCE 25HIGH, MXR-E ZONING A i
I,.
l POINT I LENGTH OF ; UPHILL GRADE ADJ. LENGTH
SHADOW OF SHADOW _ o
A 50.0' 10.6' 39.4' a a
pppHB B 50.0' 26.5' 23.5' a'3
`~I fPpMEVS t1 ! m.
con
C I 50.0' 26.5' 23.5' K:
ly i t~ t i D 50.0' 5.3' 44.7'
11 Qp.W 1, ~ ~ ~y~ W e"
- V ~i a o
~t SOLAR ANALYSIS ROOF POINTS r' p o
a
~^a
POINT LENGTH OF UPHILL GRADE ADJ. LENGTH
i !i w kit `r SHADOW OF SHADOW N
t~1t i' ~'1 RA I 71.0' i 39.75' 31.25' k i
i
y ' t 1$ 1 I__ a"~~
`II It t 1 RB 71.0' I 45.05 25.95'
FMS..
1 ll ` RC j 71.0' ! 37.1' 33.9'
RD 71.0' f 45.05 25.95' Q
1 l~ `
ll" 1 W Q
1 W
1
t r E- I- U
t W ~w
SOLAR ANALYSIS
` GOLDMAN RESIDENCE
t
1043 BOULDER~COR 0302 P--,
n~
Wt t t ~ t
1
y~ ~t MARGERY GOLDMAN co
t s 303 908-1386 CD
ANALYSIS BY
BOB RADER NR Is
MANDALA DESIGN
2399 AGRICOLA STREET '
1 i HALIFAX, NS 133K 468
1 ~ - NQRll1 Krm
902-444-0416
mr-m
I 1 5'J /
y t ,
DECEMBER 21 NOTE ELEVATION5 FOR
/ SOLAR ANALYSIS AT NOON THE SHADOW ANAL-Y515 WERE
1 20' PROJ Nm FROM yIPREVKXG
ON THE J4pRWe bm # S$ Peae r
r SOLAR ANALYSIS i SOLAR FENCE 25' HIGH, MXR-E ZONING z
~ POINT I LENGTH OF i UPHILL GRADE ~ ADJ. LENGTH
' SHADOW ! OF SHADOW a
Ao N-- A 66.2' 10.6' 55.6' j a J
` B 66.2' 21.2' I 45.0' I
~1 rrl~r~. 1' C - 66.2' i 26.5' j 39.7' w` .
r i
14 Puff 1p VL0Y1. 1, - - - - - PaG-,
ti v D 66.2' I 31.8' 34.4' p
SOLAR ANALYSIS ROOF POINTS
POINT LENGTH OF UPHILL GRADE ADJ. LENGTH
r ra 1 I i SHADOW OF SHADOW
~RA 92.6" --23.85' r 68.75'
1 ri / / ef,\ RB 92.6" 37.1' 55.5' N
RD Rr RC 92.6' 37.1' 55.5'
/ RD 92.6. 47.7' 45.2'
1. ~
y - _ -RE- 92.6" 37.1' 55.5'
( y 11115~dg9~~ , /
77
W Q
_ _ JS 4 K~1~' y. V r ~ Q
1. ' SOLAR ANALYSIS W w
GOLDMAN RESIDENCE cv) o
. 1043 PINE STREET m
BOULDER, CO 80302 z
r'
MARGERY GOLDMAN ~L
l _ /f 303 908-1386
t 4 C"-D
ANALYSIS BY C:)
BOB RADER
r - MANDALA DESIGN
1 rroeni 2399 AGRICOLA STREET
HALIFAX, NS B3K 4138 d= ~z
902-444-0416
TRIP
DECEMBER ?i NOTE: EL.EVATION5 FOR
SOLAR ANALYSIS AT 2:00 P.M. BTAJjNm A ~rK
THE PROJECT ON THE 511E
i
A"T'TAC11MENT B
City of Boulder Vicinity Map
Maxwell Av
R M X =1-_
-
\ ! -
AV-
Mapleton
Subject Area
r Y ;x 1043 Pine St
BT 7, >
LA
'2
1 - = DT-3-
Y 1 l _a
----RMX \474'
Y
- • , ~ , rt ~I;Y1 X11 t=-~
~I J
Y 1 -f
1 11Y ~1- L- ~ I1 IY 1, - l 1 ` 1 ~r
lY X11 ` ` + ti 1
Y_ 1~ i 1 J'
' l Y 1 a ~~,I.J 1
%
BM_ S 1 \DT-5+
1 r I r - Subject
•RW-1 YY ,
Location: 9043 Pine St
Project Name: 9043 Pine St City of
..A& Review Type: Site Review BouCdcr
NORTH 11ie information depicted on this snap is pro,nded
Review Number: L UR2009-00001 as graphical representation only The City of Bwlder
provides no warranty, expressed or implied, as to
as to
1 inch = 300 feet the acouacy and/or completeness of the information
Applicant: Margery Goldman contained hereon.
Amide PWG
CRITERIA FOR REVIEW ATTACHMENT C
No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that:
(1) Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan:
)L(A) The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan.
9043 Pine Street is within the Mixed Density Residential land use designation category,
which is defined as: In the Mixed Density Residential area a variety of housing types
and densities are found. In the Mixed Density Residential areas, housing uses will
predominate, although neighborhood scale retails and personal service uses are
allowed.
The applicant's proposal does not seek to alter the type of use, which is residential.
Y _(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:
The dwelling unit type is not being changed with this application, nor is the existing
density on site. There are four units on an approximately 8,400 square foot lot, yielding
approximately 20 dwelling units per acre for the site. There is no maximum density
defined for the Mixed Density Residential land use designation, only that a variety of
housing types and densities will persist throughout.
NIA (i) The density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or,
NiA (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.
NIA (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.
The 1043 Pine Street proposal impacts a single unit within a 4-unit condominium
complex. The proposal's economic feasibility is dependant on the applicant only.
(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:
NIA (A) Open Space: Open space, including, without limitation, parks, recreation areas,
and playgrounds:
All open space on the site is existing and I not being altered with this application.
N/A (i) Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional;
N/A (ii) Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit;
N/A (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 fedQral 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;
N/A (iv) The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project
and from surrounding 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;
N/A (vi) The open space provides a buffer to protect sensitive environmental
features and natural areas; and
N/A (vii) If possible, open space is linked to an area- or city-wide system.
N/A B) Open Space in Mixed Use Developments (Developments that contain a mix
of residential and non-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
NIA (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;
NIA (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;
AqwxW k
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 systern
that serves the property, whether public or private and whether constructed by the
developer or not:
NIA (i) High speeds are discouraged or a physical separation between streets
and the project is provided;
N/A (ii) Potential conflicts with vehicles are rninimized;
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-,
NIA (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;
NIA (v) Where 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;
NIA (vi) On-site facilities for external linkage are provided with other modes of
transportation, where applicable-,
N/A (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
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;
NIA (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;
NIA (iii) Parking areas and lighting are designed to reduce the visual impact on
the project, adjacent properties, and adjacent streets-, and
NIA (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-
Y_(F) Building Design, Livability, and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed
Surrounding Area
Y (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 existing building height is 40.2'_ The height of the proposed shed dormer is
consistent with the height of the existing residence.
The proposed shed dormer does not have any adverse impacts on the integrity
of the surrounding neighborhood since the proposed dormer is north facing and
is only visible from the rear alley, is consistent with the existing height, and does
not cerate any additional floor area.
The proposed shed dormer is consistent with the architectural styles and features
within the Mapleton Hill area. The design and materials of all elements of the
dormer, including eaves, windows and siding are strictly in keeping with historic
standards for the district and are consistent with the existing building's materials
and colors as provided by the Landmarks Alteration Certificate review and
approval (H1S2007-00323)_
Y (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;
Staff has researched the building heights of the existing buildings located
between Broadway and 9''' Street. No information was found confirming any
existing building heights.
The applicant did provide information on the heights of the adjacent buildings to
the east (9053 Pine Street) and west (9037 Pine Street), which were reportedly
29' and 39.5' respectively; however these heights are not veritiable without a
height survey from a certified surveyor-
Y (iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views
from adjacent properties;
The orientation of the proposed shed dormer, which is north facing, does not
block any views nor create any shadows beyond the extent of the shadows that
the existing residence creates. Additionally, the proposed shed dormer is only
visible from the rear of the property.
(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;
Agmide fib 0 51u ,l
The design and selection of elements and materials, including eaves, windows
and siding of the proposed shed dormer are consistent with the existing
building's materials and colors and adhere to the historic standards set forth in
the Mapleton Historic District Design Guidelines as approved in the Landmarks
Alteration Certificate (HIS2007-00323).
X _(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-,
Not applicable; the streetscape is not impacted by the proposed shed dormer,
nor is it being altered with this application. The proposed dormer is only visible
from the rear of the property.
(vi) To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned
public facilities-,
Not applicable; no public amenities are associated with the addition of the shed
dormer.
Y (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,- no additional units, or floor area are being created with this
application-
(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, the proposed dormer does not create any additional floor area,
but makes the existing floor area of a loft more functional in terms of lighting and
ventilation. There will be no noise impacts.
Y (ix) A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation,
safety, and aesthetics;
Not applicable; no lighting is proposed with this application.
Y _(x) The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and
avoids, minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems;
Not applicable; the addition of a shed dormer to 1043 Pine Street does not create
any adverse impacts on any natural ecosystems.
Y (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.
Not applicable; there is no cut and fill associated with the construction of the
proposed shed dormer.
NIA (G) Solar Siting and Construction: For the purpose of ensuring the maximum
potential for utilization of solar energy in the city, all applicants for residential site reviews
shall place streets, lots, open spaces, and buildings so as to maximize the potential for
the use of solar energy in accordance with the following solar siting criteria:
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.
NIA (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:
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 electrical 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.
N/A (1) Land Use Intensity Modifications
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.
Agwda i 0 i-ew,
(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
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
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.
l fax„,..
(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.
(t7 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:
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, may be located on a separate lot if the following
conditions are met:
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
NIA (iii) The property used for off-site parking under this Subsection continues
under common ownership or control-
AgMda o 5 fpe 0