Meeting Packet - Planning - 5/24/2011
CITY OF BOULDER
PIX*P~ PLANNING BOARD MEETING AGENDA
DATE: May 24, 2011
TIME: Immediately following the Joint CC/PB meeting
PLACE: Council Chambers, 1777 Broadway
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The April 28 and May 5 Planning Board minutes are scheduled for approval.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS/CONTINUATIONS
A. Call Up Item: Site Review For Height Modification, LUR2011-00027, 809 Pine Street: Request for a
detached garage to exceed the maximum permited height for accessory structures in the RL-1 zone
district (20') at 24'-2".
5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A. Deliberate and take action on the proposed policy, text and map changes, as part of the 2010 Major
Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY
ATTORNEY
7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK
8. ADJOURNMENT
For more information call (303) 441-1880. Board packets are available after 4 p.m. Friday prior to meeting, online at www.bouldercolorado.eov, at the Boulder
Public Main Library's Reference Desk, or at the Plarming and Development Services office reception area, located at 1739 Broadway, third floor.
CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD
MEETING GUIDELINES
CALL TO ORDER
The Board must have a quorum (four members present) before the meeting can be called to order.
AGENDA
The Board may rearrange the order of the Agenda or delete items for good cause. The Board may not add items requiring public notice.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The public is welcome to address the Board (3 minutes* maximum per speaker) during the Public Participation portion of the meeting regarding any item not
scheduled for a public hearing. The only items scheduled for a public hearing are those listed under the category PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS on the
Agenda. Any exhibits introduced into the record at this time must be provided in quantities of ten (10) to the Board Secretary for distribution to the Board
and admission into the record.
DISCUSSION AND STUDY SESSION ITEMS
Discussion and study session items do not require motions of approval or reconmiendation.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A Public Hearing item requires a motion and a vote. The general format for hearing of an action item is as follows:
1. Presentations
a. Staff presentation (5 minutes maximum*)
b. Applicant presentation (15 minute maximum*). Any exhibits introduced into the record at this time must be provided in
quantities of ten (10) to the Board Secretary for distribution to the Board and admission into the record.
c. Planning Board questioning of staff or applicant for information only.
2. Public Hearing
Each speaker will be allowed an oral presentation (3 rnninnutes maximum*). All speakers wishing to pool their time must be present, and
time allotted will be determined by the Chair. No pooled time presentation will be pennitted to exceed ten minutes total.
• Time remaining is presented by a Green blinking light that means one minute remains, a Yellow light means 30 seconds remain,
and a Red light and beep means time has expired.
• Speakers should introduce themselves, giving name and address. If officially representing a group, homeowners' association, etc.,
please state that for the record as well.
• Speakers are requested not to repeat items addressed by previous speakers other than to express points of agreement or
disagreement. Refrain from reading long documents, and summarize continents wherever possible. Long documents may be submitted
and will become a part of the official record.
• Speakers should address the Land Use Regulation criteria and, if possible, reference the rules that the Board uses to decide a case.
• Any exhibits introduced into the record at the hearing must be provided in quantities of ten (10) to the Secretary for distribution
to the Board and admission into the record.
• Citizens can send a letter to the Planning staff at 1739 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302, two weeks before the Planning Board meeting,
to be included in the Board packet. Correspondence received after this time will be distributed at the Board meeting.
3. Board Action
a. Board motion. Motions may take any number of forms. With regard to a specific development proposal, the motion generally is to
either approve the project (with or without conditions), to deny it, or to continue the matter to a date certain (generally in order to
obtain additional information).
b. Board discussion. This is undertaken entirely by members of the Board. The applicant, members of the public or city staff
participate only if called upon by the Chair.
c. Board action (the vote). All affirmative vote of at least four members of the Board is required to pass a motion approving any
action. If the vote taken results in either a tie, a vote of three to two, or a vote of three to one in favor of approval, the applicant shall
be automatically allowed a rehearing upon requesting the same in writing within seven days.
MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY
Any Planning Board member, the Planning Director, or the City Attorney may introduce before the Board matters which are not included in the formal
agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board's goal is that regular meetings adjourn by 10:30 p.m. and that study sessions adjourn by 10:00 p.m. Agenda items will not be commenced after
10:00 p.m. except by majority vote of Board members present.
*The Chan may lengthen or shorten the time allotted as appropriate. If the allotted time is exceeded, the Chair may request that the speaker conclude his or her connuents.
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
April 28, 2011
6:30 pm-8:30 pm
1811 Pearl Street, 3rd Floor Board Room
A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years)
are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also
available on the web at: http://wxt-w.bouldercolorado.gov/
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Aaron Brockett
Bill Holicky
Willa Johnson, Chair
Tim Plass
Danica Powell
Andrew Shoemaker, Vice-Chair
Mary Young
STAFF PRESENT:
David Driskell,
David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney
Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager
Debbie Fox, Administrative Specialist III
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, W. Johnson, declared a quorum at 6:35 p.m. and the following business was
conducted
2. Elect Chair and Vice-Chair
On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by D. Powell, the Planning Board approved 6-0, 1
abstain (A. Shoemaker) Andrew Shoemaker as Chair of the Planning Board.
On a motion by A. Shoemaker, seconded by D. Powell, the Planning Board approved 7-0 Bill
Holicky as Vice-chair of the Planning Board.
3. Committee Assignments
a. Landmarks ex officio member
i. M. Young proposed rotating the position since the meetings are very long and
the night before Planning Board. T. Plass expressed concerns due to the fact
that the constant rotation would lead to a lack of rapport. The board and staff
discussed a variety of options, to include only staying for the public hearing
items and four people on quarterly rotations. It was decided to split the
position quarterly:
1. Quarter 1 (May, June, July) - T. Plass
2. Quarter 2 (August, Sept. Oct) - TDB
3. Quarter 3 (Nov., Dec., Jan.) - TBD
4. Quarter 4 (Feb. Mar, April) - TBD
1
ii. DDAB - D. Powell
iii. Greenways Advisory Committee - A. Brockett
4. Rules refresher
a. To help prompt board members regarding ex parte and other meeting protocols, a
hearing item check-list will be provided at every meeting.
b. S. Shoemaker suggested if you meet with anyone from the public, to have them write
out what they plan to talk to you about and forward it to the Planning Board. D.
Gehr reminded the board that ex parte only applies for the quasi-judicial items. This
will be noted on the agenda.
c. D. Gehr reviewed the nuances of the liquor license and case review issues, as they
relate to zoning and planning.
d. D. Gehr provided observations on the Board's meeting and process efficiency. Two
key items of note included:
i. Feedback has been positive from an outside point of view/informal survey of
staff.
ii. The end of meeting debrief needs offer more constructive criticism.
5. Process improvements
C. Ferro provided a review of the upcoming process improvements for memos and
presentations and the outcomes of the SIPOC-R process and recommendations. The
board was asked what level of detail was helpful. The following are the notes from that
discussion:
o The RTD concept plan was an example of a fully evolved memo, as opposed to
955 Broadway (Fraternity House conversion), but the history, background and
complexity warranted it. The Golden Buff project was an example of too little
info.
o For Concept Plans, simplified plans that are conceptually loose are preferred and
a 3-5 page memo with a check list behind is helpful.
o Outlining conformance with BVCP is not necessary for ones not in agreement,
but the board would like to see a better job of flagging what ones are key.
o Having the voice of Sam Assefa, the City's Urban Planner, in the memos is good.
o The current level of detail is about right. At concept review, flag key issues and
then let board flag additional key issues.
o DRC comments would be useful, especially for historic issues on items like RTD.
Applicant responses are useful, the example was Gunbarrel. The board was
cautioned that the DRC comments are arguments before plans between the
applicant and staff, but the board felt they can help offer nuances that can't be
written into a memo.
o The board asked if it is possible to have Land Use Application cheat sheet (gives
metrics quickly)
o The board and staff discussed that Sketch-up is just a model for character
sketches. The board asked if it is possible to ask that architectural character
sketches be used, as it could help have an impact or more hand drawn, as it help
everyone think about projects in a different way
6. Review of previous year
a. Meeting review: feedback from 30,000 ft level; what went well, what could have
gone better.
1. Meetings have been run well.
2
2. There is a need to increase predictability for the public, as there has been
inconsistency in the allotted 3 minutes for public hearings.
i. It was recommended to be stricter with the time so that everyone is treated
equally, especially on nights with a lot of speakers.
ii. It is helpful for the chair to emphasize and explain the process and the reasons
for the process.
iii. The chair should give the number of presenters and estimated time for public
hearings.
iv. The chair should not do a call for last speaker at end of the public hearing.
v. It was requested that the board take breaks between the public hearing and
deliberations.
vi. The allotted speaking time is left to the discretion of the chair and vice-chair.
It can be as little as 2 minutes, when necessary.
b. Feedback on joint meetings/ potential scheduling of joint meetings.
i. Joint meetings seem necessary when there overlapping reasons to meet,
otherwise they have the potential to be busy work.
ii. Meeting with the Landmarks Board seems necessary to developing rapport.
Staff is already considering it due to the Camera building project.
iii. The board discussed the potential to meet with the Liquor Board. Staff
commented that there is a project coming that may be likely in 2012 that could
present a reason to meet. It was suggested a representative come and address
the board under matters or public hearing to explain the issues they are facing.
c. Timing of receiving packets
i. M. Young requested more time between receiving the packet and the meeting.
It was agreed that items should be sent as they become available. If that does
happen, the entire packet will still be sent and posted on Friday prior to the
meeting.
d. Review of the PB Beta paperless project, with updated metrics
i. The PB would like the findings put in paper and/or talk to LEAD as it is good
publicity. It is also good information for Council.
ii. Comments on the pilot:
a. The board likes the searchability and the links to attachments.
b. Some don't like that you can't read during down time, as you have to be
on the computer.
c. The transparency is better for the public.
d. Finding that the screen open at the meeting can be disruptive. It was
suggested that you can close to keep from being distracted.
a. Suggestions: T. Plass uses legal pad for highlights of issue, makes
notes. B. Holicky prints out the site plan or rendering and then
makes notes.
e. The board discussed at length the possibility of purchasing iPads with cost
savings from 15 color copy plans.
a. Is it possible to charge fee for cost recovery for electronic
submittals? $300 paperless fee vs. $2500 color printed plans.
f. The board would like print plans for projects over 1 acre. Staff requested
that the board send staff a note if they ever need printed plans that were
not previously provided.
3
7. Update on 2011 Work Program, Upcoming Pipeline Projects and Alcohol/ Land Use
D. Driskell gave a quick update on the Work Program that includes sustainability - energy
future, changes internal to cover the workload, peer to peer training program.
move to Matters in future meeting.
S. Richstone gave an update on the joint City Council/County Commissioner meeting.
8. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 9:08 p.m.
APPROVED BY
f
Board Chair
DATE
4
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
May 5, 2011
1777 Broadway, Council Chambers
A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years)
are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also
available on the web at: http:/hvww.bouldercolorado.gov/
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Aaron Brockett
Tim Plass
Danica Powell
Andrew Shoemaker, Chair
Mary Young
Willa Johnson
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Bill Holicky
STAFF PRESENT:
David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney
Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager
Jeff Arthur, Engineering Review Manager
Karl Guiler, Senior Planner
Chris Meschuk, Planner I
Michelle Mahan, Transportation Engineer
Debbie Fox, Administrative Specialist III
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, A. Shoemaker, declared a quorum at 6:10 p.m. and the following business was
conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by W. Johnson, the Planning Board approved 6-0,
with 1 absent (B. Holicky), the April 7 Planning Board minutes, as amended
On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by D. Powell, the Planning Board approved 4-0, with
2 abstentions (M. Young and A. Brockett) and 1 absent (B. Holicky), the April 13
Planning Board minutes.
On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by M. Young, the Planning Board approved 5-0, with
1 abstain (W. Johnson) and 1 absent (B. Holicky)), the April 21 Planning Board minutes,
as amended
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
1. Alan Katz, 103 Genesee - Spoke of concern of the Hogan-Pancost development due to the
water issue. Provided questions for the Groundwater 101 presenter.
1
2. James Johnson, 130 Manhattan Drive - Spoke of concern of the Hogan-Pancost
development due to the water issue. Provided questions for the Groundwater 101
presenter.
3. Ron Craig, 260 Cimarron - Spoke of concern of the Hogan-Pancost development due to
the water issue. Provided questions for the Groundwater 101 presenter.
4. Jeff McWhittier, 5435 Illini Way - Spoke of concern of the Hogan-Pancost development
due to the water issue. Provided questions for the Groundwater 101 presenter.
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
A. Use Review, LUR2011-00016, 4555 13th Street, Unit 2B. Request to locate a 291
square foot independent dental hygiene office at 4555 13th Street.
B. Floodplain Variance, LUR2011-00022, 3005 Arapahoe Ave., Conoco Gas Station
C. Floodplain Development Permit, LUR2011-00025, 3005 28th St., Old Flowerama site
D. Use Review, LUR2011-00006, Boulder's Bilingual Childcare Ctr.
The board did not call up these items.
5. INFORMATIONAL ITEM
A. Groundwater 101
Staff Presentation
Gary D. Witt, P.G., CPG, Sr. Hydrogeologist/Project Manager, Wright Water Engineers,
Inc., provided an overview presentation on Groundwater 101 to the board.
6 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A. Public hearing to consider a Concept Plan entitled Waterview, LUR2010-00058, at
5801-5847 Arapahoe Avenue to develop an existing 14.87 acre site (composed of two
properties) with 288 attached rental units within three four story buildings at heights
up to 55 feet (i.e., over the 40 foot limit in IG and over the 35 foot limit in RH-4). The
project site is located on the north side of Arapahoe Avenue immediately adjacent to
South Boulder Creek.
Applicant/Property Owner: Lookout, LLC
Staff Presentation
K. Guiler presented the item to the board.
Applicant Presentation
Andy Allison presented the item to the board on behalf of the applicant.
Public Hearing
1. Cynthia Anderson, 1193 Old Tale Road- She addressed the fact the potential water
issues are due to shallow wells. She stated they currently have issues with getting
permits to redrill wells, so the development could cause additional problems with wells.
She also expressed concern about the building's high density on a street that has
significant pedestrian and bike traffic, as it will increase the traffic.
2. Lou Kingdom. 1365 Old Tale Road, also spoke to the domestic well situation. He isn't
opposed to the development, but wants assurances that the development won't impact the
water table. He also expressed concern to the increase in traffic and that the architecture
is inconsistent with the area.
2
3. Elizabeth Williams, 1555 Old Tale Road- She expressed concerns about the traffic that
already exists and will increase due to the development.
4. Bill Williams, 1555 Old Tale Road - He spoke against the development due to the
density and the traffic increase it will cause.
5. Ray Hedburg, 1310 Old Tale Road. - He provided a history of the flooding in the area,
as a long term resident. He is concerned about the potential flood issue coming from a
backlash of water from the new development and concerned that the County isn't aware
of the project.
6. Judy Renfrew, PO Box 17100 - She found the design quality, but in the wrong place.
She is concerned about the massing and visual impact on the surrounding neighborhoods.
She questioned the number of urban amenities for the increase number of families. She is
concerned that a light would likely have to be added to address the increase in traffic.
7. Brad Peterson, 1457 Old Tale Road, pooled time with Tom Perrin, 1436 Old Tale
Road. Spoke to the fact this project is not compatible with the surrounding area. He cited
specific code Section 9.2.14H, 2.F. II, of B.R.C., as the building height, mass and scale
being too large, with too much traffic, for the area; the increased traffic; and the flooding
potential.
8. Porsche Young, 1548 Old Tale Road, She spoke to the concern about the flood issue
and the water table.
9. Sally Kingdom, 1325 Old Tale Road, She spoke about the history of flooding and
concern for the increased traffic.
10. Caroline Coggan, 1305 Old Tale Road. - She spoke to the traffic concern due to the
number of kids that live in the area and how the project will increase the traffic. She also
addressed the concern for the diversity in South Boulder Creek and how a project of this
magnitude will affect it.
Board Discussions
BVCP Polices
The board was in consensus that the project lacks compatibility related to the neighboring
residential areas; that it doesn't seem to be the right area for infill. Specifically, the project
doesn't meet the BVCP due to the lack of project compatibility with adjacent land use and the
built environment. Some felt the project doesn't have the necessary amenities to support the
development's residents and that it lacks the necessary walkability to create a community.
Site Design/Open Space Quality
The board cited positive aspects of the project being the pond and the connectivity the bike path
provides. In addition, some felt there are some good geometric shapes to the building. There
were concerns about the super block that presents a dead zone on Arapahoe. There was also
concern that the geographic features, like the open space, should be consistent with rural
character of the surroundings. It was suggested that the pond could be better incorporated and
the open space adjacent to Arapahoe not good due to sound and safety. One board member didn't
like outdoor pool because this climate makes them unusable most of the year.
Building Design/Massing & Height
The board was unanimous in their opposition to the pedestrian bridge, the height increase and the
proposed massing. There was concern about the flat roofs, so contours or relief will need to be
added to mitigate the flatness. In addition, most stated a need to simplify the materials and colors
of the facades.
3
Density/Residential Use
The board felt that a residential designation would work, but it would need to be compatible with
the character and density of the surroundings. This would potentially work with a lower density
or if it included a street side mixed-use that works with the industrial neighborhood while also
being compatible to the neighborhoods.
Flood/Traffic
More technical expertise will be warranted at Site Review.
Environmental
In the context of groundwater, the environmental will need more review at Site Review to better
understand the impacts to the neighbors.
7. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY
ATTORNEY
A. Planning Board comments to the City Manager on proposed changes to the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Administrative Regulations.
Andy Proctor and Michelle Allen presented the item to the board.
Board Feedback
W. Johnson expressed concerned that regulation 3.4.5 doesn't provide enough clarity.
She would like to see the regulation deleted, or clarification on why and how it happens.
A. Brockett agreed.
B. AHTF - Andy Proctor gave an update on the Affordable Housing Task Force, to
include the history and the upcoming meetings and milestones of the Task Force.
C. Calendar - May 19th meeting has been cancelled. Move the follow-up meeting to
Wednesday instead of Thursday. Reschedule follow-up meeting to Wednesday the
D. Prep for May 24th - S. Richstone provided an overview of the May 24 Joint CC/PB
meeting set-up.
E. A. Brockett gave an update on the Greenways Meeting.
8. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK
9. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:12 p.m.
APPROVED BY
Board Chair
DATE
4
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Board
FROM: Jessica Vaughn, Planner I
DATE: May 9, 2011
SUBJECT: Call Up Item: 809 Pine Street
SITE REVIEW for HEIGHT MODIFICATION (LUR2011-00027)
request for a detached garage to exceed the maximum permited height for
accessory structures in the RL-1 zone district (20') at 24'-2". This
approval is subject to call-up on or before May 27, 2011.
Attached is the disposition of the approval for a Site Review for Height Modification
request for a detached garage to exceed the maximum permited height for accessory
structures in the RL-1 zone district (20') at 24'-2" (see Attachment A, May 13, 2011
Planning Board Notice of Disposition).
Background:
809 Pine street is zoned rt ' i ('t rr',
Residential Low-1 (RL-
1), which is defined as
"Single-family detached - t?- "
residential dwelling units
at low to very low
residential densities"
section 9-5-2 c 1 A
B.R.C. 1981). Currently, _ . " - .
there is not a garage on T - y
r ,may.
the site. •
' 809 Pine Street
809 Pine Street was
4 r.
designated as an
individual landmark in
1977 as the Morrison- '
MacKenzie House.
Located within the
Mapleton Hill Historic s
District, 809 Pine Street is
located at the northeast c
corner of Pine and 8'~ e _
Streets. The property is r'
comprised of 27,500;,
L Y
square foot lot that is two
Agenda Item 4A Page 1 of 16
to three times larger than the lots within the same block.
In February 2011, an administrative application for site access modification was
approved that allows for the property to maintain the existing access configuration from
8d1 Street instead of the alley as required by code (see the staff comments in Attachment
B, Adininistrative Access Yfodification). The application request was approved and
justified on the approximately five feet of grade change from the alley to the proposed
garage location within a distance of 28 feet (17%) being a limiting factor.
In April 2011, the Landmarks Board held a public hearing for the current request for a
detach garage to be located in the northwest corner of the lot. The Landmarks Board
recommended unanimously (5-0) to approve the proposed garage with the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall be responsible for constructing the house in compliance
with the approved plans dated 03.03.2011 except as modified by these
conditions of approval.
2. Prior to submitting a building permit application and final issuance of the
Landmark Alteration Certificate, the applicant shall submit the following,
subject to the final review and approval of the Landmarks design review
committee, revised plans showing a significant reduction of the height, mass,
scale, and configuration of the dormers, and details regarding doors, windows,
roofing, siding, all to ensure that the approval is consistent with the General
Design Guidelines and the Hapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines and the
intent of this approval.
3. The applicant shall mitigate the visual impact of the foundation and retaining
walls, subject to the final review and approval of the Landmarks design
review committee.
4. The applicant shall mitigate the visual impact of the proposed stairway using
grade and landscaping, subject to the final review and approval of the
Landmarks design review committee.
On Wednesday, May 12, 2011, the Landmarks Design Review Committee met to discuss
the final design details of the proposed garage. The Landmarks Design Review
Committee determined that the applicant had been responsive to the Board's conditions
of approval and general comments with regard to reducing the height, mass, scale, and
configuration of the proposed dormers and in mitigating the visual impact of the
proposed stairway on the east facade. As a result Landmark Alteration Certificate for the
proposed garage was issued May 12, 2011.
Process:
A request for height modification for accessory structure heights to exceed the maximum
permitted height for accessory structures is required through section 9-2-14(b)(1)(E),
2
Agenda Item 4A Page 2 of 16
B.R.C. 198 1. Additionally, section 9-2-14(g), B.R.C. 1981, states that if the proposed
building height, principal or accessory, is not in excess of the maximum permitted height
for principal buildings in the zone district, the city manager shall review and decide an
application for such a request and refer that decision to the planning board for call-up.
Proposal:
The purpose for the applicant's request is to construct a 1.5-story, 746 sq. ft., two car
garage that is in excess of the maximum permitted height for accessory structures in the
RL-1 zone district (20'). As a result of the amount of grade change on the site, the
proposed garage will be 24'-2" as measured from a low point within 25'. The height of
the proposed garage will not be in excess of the maximum permitted height for principal
structures in the RL-1 zone district, 35 feet. The height of the proposed garage from
grade is 19'-7" and will be comparable to that of the surrounding structures, which range
in height from 12 feet to 20 feet and in size from 200 sq. ft. to 816 sq. ft. Please refer to
Attachment C, Proposed Plan Set for a complete set of drawings.
08F4MLT 94N" ROOF
Tyr.
N N 11
HC GP EASTIH6 HeMe
HM LAP W . ROM Yr. r454AJ7
WALK TO
13'-7"
- - - - - 19'-7"
40 @Mve
vSM?EAU" 4
OMLK P3'~
I`MM WTfOf__ _ - _ 6ARIdE LEVB (541T
&U*b TO E%T&C &YM
FOrF &R%M T,TT°,.run.N 6 24'-0" 34'-?'
GRAVEL DRI VE/TURNdW
N=, d APAdG h xT 96WIK 24'
nem+ ns eMWTra +~ceure
0 JNEST ELEV,~TIOIV
3
Agenda Item 4A Page 3 of 16
Overall, the proposed garage is consistent with the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design
Guidelines, General Design Guidelines and the Site Review Criteria for review as
stipulated in section 9-2-14 (h), B.R.C. 1981. The proposed garage:
• Respects the traditional relationship of the main house to the accessory structures
on large corner lots within the Mapleton Hill Historic District;
• Preserves the functionality of the existing backyard open space by maintaining
adequate separation between the house and the proposed accessory structure;
• Maintains a general proportion of building mass to open space;
• Proposes historically appropriate paving materials;
• Maintains traditional parking location at the rear of the lot;
• Limits pedestrian and vehicular conflicts given the parking, turning radius and
back distance are all accommodated for on site;
• Is subordinate to the landmark house in mass, height and scale, but takes design
cues from the primary structure; and
• Is simpler in design and detail than the primary structure in terms of windows and
materials.
Conclusion:
Staff finds that this application meets the Site Review criteria set forth in Section 9-2-14,
B.R.C. 1981 (see Attachment D, Site Revieir Criteria) in terms of consistency and
compatibility with the existing zoning district and surrounding neighborhood.
This proposal was approved by Planning and Development Services staff on May 13,
2011 and the decision may be called up before Planning Board on or before May 27,
2011. There is one Planning Board meetings within the 14-day call up period on May
24, 2011. Questions about the project or decision should be directed to Jessica Vaughn at
(303) 441-4161 or vaughnjkbouldercolorado.gov.
Attachments:
Attachment A: May 13, 2011 Planning Board Notice of Disposition
Attachment B: Administrative Access Modification
Attachment C: Proposed Plan Set
Attachment D: Site Review Criteria
4
Agenda Item 4A Page 4 of 16
Attachment A
CITY OF BOULDER
Planning and Development Services
1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791
phone 303-44.1-1880 • fax 303-441-3241 • web boulderplandevelop.net
CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NOTICE OF DISPOSITION
You are hereby advised that the following action was taken by the Planning Department based on the
standards and criteria of the Land Use Regulations as set forth in Chapter 9-2, B.R.C. 1981, as applied to
the proposed development.
DECISION: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
PROJECT NAME: 809 Pine Street Accessory Structure Height Modification
DESCRIPTION: SITE REVIEW FOR HEIGHT MODIFICATION request for a detached garage to
exceed the maximum permited height for accessory structures in the RL-1 zone
district (20') at 241-291
.
LOCATION: 809 Pine Street
COOK: N03W07
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 6-8, Block 152, Squires Addition to West Boulder,
County of Boulder, Sate of Colorado
APPLICANT: Brad and Holly Drevno
OWNER Brad and Holly Drevno
APPLICATION: Site Review for Height Modification, LUR2011-00027
ZONING: RL-1
CASE MANAGER: Jessica Vaughn
VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT: NO; the owner has waived the opportunity to create such right
under Section 9-2-19, B.R.C. 1981.
FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, SEE THE FOLLOWING PAGES OF THIS DISPOSITION.
Approved On: May 13. 2011
Dat
A
By:
DaVy Driskel , ecutive Director of Community Planning and Sustainability
This decision may be appealed to the Planning Board by filing an appeal letter with the Planning
Department within two weeks of the decision date. If no such appeal is filed, the decision shall be
deemed final fourteen days after the date above mentioned.
Appeal to Planning Board expires: May 27, 2011
IN ORDER FOR A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION TO BE PROCESSED FOR THIS PROJECT, A
SIGNED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND SIGNED MYLAR PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITH DISPOSITION CONDITIONS AS APPROVED SHOWN ON THE
MYLAR PLANS, IF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS NOT SIGNED WITHIN NINETY (90) DAYS
OF THE FINAL DECISION DATE, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL AUTOMATICALLY
EXPIRES.
Address: 3005 STERLING CR Agenda Item 4A Page 5 of 16
Pursuant to Section 9-2-12 of the Land Use Regulations (Boulder Revised Code, 1981), the applicant
must begin and substantially complete the approved development within three years from the date of final
approval. Failure to "substantially complete" (as defined in Section 9-2-12) the development within three
years shall cause this development approval to expire.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The Applicant shall ensure that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated
May 13, 2011, on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except to the extent that the development
may be modified by the conditions of this approval.
2. The Applicant shall not expand or modify the approved use, except pursuant to subsection 9-2-15(h),
B.R.C. 1981.
3. The Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions contained in any previous approvals, except to the
extent that any previous conditions may be modified by this approval, including, but not limited to HIS2011-
00152.
4. The Applicant shall ensure that the garage shall not exceed the height of 25 feet as measured pursuant to
the methodology set forth in the definition for "Height" within section 9-16-1, "General Definitions," B.R.C.
1981.
Address: 3005 STERLING CR Agenda Item 4A Page 6 of 16
Attachment B
CRITERIA CHECKLIST AND COMMENT FORM
ADMINISTRATIVE SITE ACCESS EXCEPTION
SECTION 9-9-5(c)(9)
Criteria Criteria
Met Not Met
(9) Exceptions: The requirements of this section may be modified under the provisions
of Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981, to provide for safe and reasonable access.
Exceptions to this section may be made if the city manager determines that:
(A) The topography, configuration of a lot, or other physical constraints makes
taking access from the lowest category street, alley or public access frontage
impractical, or the character of the existing area is such that a proposed or
existing access to the street, alley or public access frontage is compatible with the
access of properties in such area;
The existing topography and mature vegetation on the site establish physical
constraints that make taking access from the alley impractical and would change the
character of the existing historic property. There is an existing grade difference of
approximately six feet from the alley to the proposed gar-age, within a distance of 10-
to 23 feet, as shown below.
6400t
_ : ."z'
differi- "
a•~ uii
(B) The site access and curb cuts would not impair public use of the public right-
of-way; create safety or operational problems or be detrimental to traffic flow on
adjacent public streets; and
The site access as it exists today off of 8th Street does not impair the public right of
way, create safety or operational problems as the access has been located on the site
for nearly 135 years. Patterns of traffic flow have long been established and the
visibility of the access point is clear from the street. There also are very few curb cuts
along 8th Street in the vicinity of the site, as the site itself is a relatively large lot.
Agenda Item 4A Page 7 of 16
(C) The site access and curb cuts will minimize impacts to the existing on-street
parking patterns.
The existing parking patterns have been established for nearly 135 years, since the
construction of the historic property. The existing site access and curb cuts will not
impact the longstanding parking pattern.
REVIEW COMMENTS:
Historic Preservation (James Hewat 303.441.3207)
The Morrison-Mackenzie house at 809 Pine Street was constructed in 1877 for Boulder entrepreneur John Morrison after
designs by local architect E.H. Dimick. Dimick is also credited as having designed Old Main at the University of Colorado.
Morrison sold the house in 1878 after declaring bankruptcy. After changing hands over a short period, the property was sold
Neil D. Mackenzie, an owner of the Poorman Mine in Caribou, Colorado.
The property is notable in the Mapleton Hill Historic District as containing a well-preserved and relatively early surviving
example of residential architecture on West Pine Street. Prominently situated on a large corner lot, the Queen Anne house is a
highly visible and recognizable feature in this section of the historic district.
The 1890 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map and early photographs indicate that a hipped roof carriage house was located at the
northwest corner of the property. By 1922, additions had been constructed east from the carriage house along the alley. The
1931 Sanborn Map shows the building as having been removed.
Due to the relatively steep grade to the north of the property and unsuitability of entering the building on that side, it is likely
that the carriage house had doors on its west or south face. The location of doors on the south face would correspond with the
current location of the curb cut west onto 8"' Street. It is unlikely that 8t1' Street was paved prior to 1931.
While it is unclear that the existing curb cut corresponds to the original carriage house, it is likely older than fifty years in age
and existed during the Mapleton Hill Historic District's 1865-1946 period-of-significance. For this reason, there is reason to
argue that this feature is historic and should be maintained.
l
-
1
Figure 1:
1890 Sanborn Fire Insurance map showing
809 Pine Street at north-east corner of t.
Y I S
8th and Pine Streets
-
I
Carriage house $09 Pine
_~_s_.
M
i
FINAL DECISION STANDARDS:
Agenda Item 4A Page 8 of 16
Approved as submitted.
INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS:
See attached checklist.
Agenda Item 4A Page 9 of 16
Attachment C
BULK PLANE ~ ~-6 ~
~ '6' OFF~T A5PHALT 5HIN6LE ROOF, ' - Q~ESE_T_ TYP.
la'-oY " '
~q'-1 I/2" LINE OF EXI51TN6 HOUSE Z
bARAGE PEAK (5436.b') _ !ROOF HT. (5434.05') (NOTE: LOW POINT FROM 25' i LINE OF EXISTING HC O .INE of Exlsrlt~b HousE
~
AWAY =5412.5' bARA6E HT 412 ~T~4 NEW LAP SIDING' d ROOF HT. (5434.0! FROM LOW POINT= 24'-2) ELEVATION HT
SIMIALR 70 (F~ ROOF HT. (5434.05') %
III 5'-I I/4° I ~ (5434.057 RESIDENGE,IYP. DORMER PLATE HT. 12 W
11~ /
LOT LINE ®8TH STREET ~ ~ ~
i _ ' ~ I I z ~ a' - m a
410q'-0" ~ IOq,_O~~ 1 LOFT LEVEL I i
I LOFT LEVEL ' ~ I / LOFT LEVEL / '11 ~ ~I
t ~
_ f I ~ REbRADE ! RE50D ! _I
(EJ GRADE ~ - yy (E) GRADE A ALLEY 5422.5') (EJ HILL5IDE ~ ®ALLEY E ~ -I GARAGE ~ (Fa
GRADE ®RLLEY t
j ~ 51DEWALK (~4`32b') SIDEWALK ~ ~
"0~- r = _ 100'-0" GARAGE LEVEL j GONG. FOUN6ATIOPJ-- _ - bARA6E LEVEL (541 X100'-O' (5422H')
~ i f1 GARAGE LEVEL (5417') 1.1 1
(541"1') WOODS 6LA55 E) GRADE OVERHEAD GARRIAbE 51DING TO EXTEND OVER LINE OF LOW POINT FOUNDATION TO WITHIN b" 24'--~u
® GuRB GUTS STYLE GARAGE DOORS. ~ FROM 25' AWAY OF GRADE, TYP. 4~- GRAVEL DRIVE (54120) / G D 0
T
NEW DRYSET STONE _ _(5412.57 WALLS S LANDSGAPIN6 ~ _ q4'-0" NEW DRYSET STONE
(E) HOUSE FLOOR LEVE $L$L NOTE: GARAGE 15 5ET BACK 24' WALL5 t LAND5GAPINb
/ (5411.05') FROM THE EXISITNG RE5IDENGE 24'-7" 24'-011
t GRAVEL DRIVE/ TURNOUT Z
24'_0°
50UTH EL~~I,~TION WEST ~LEV~ ~ L ~ Y '~T 101 `1 NOTE: bARA6E 15 5ET BACK 24' S~ G T O N ~ ~ FROM THE
EXI51TN6 RE5IDENGE
NOTE: bARAGE 15 5ET BAGK 24' FROM THE EXI51TN6 RESIDENCE ~~8" = I'-0" I~8" _ ~'-0"
III 41- II
INE OF EXI5TIN6 HOUSE U -
S ROOF HT. (5434.057 ~ ~
LINE OF EXI5ITNG HOUSE S ROOF HT. (5434.057 1
_ \ - - 12 I p
- - ~4 - -i ~ # - = Ulf i ~ ~I z
- I 12 ~ ~ ~~i
~ - ~ I I_ 104'-0" I V~ - 4 ~ ~ - c"' I 0
~ ~
m LOT LINE ®8TH STREET LOFT LEVEL ~ \ ' b o AO
~ p ~ N
\ _ - - LOFT LEVEL ~ _ \
~ NEW WOOD 5TAIR O SIR A )AL~ t ~ w W ~
51DEWALK W O
100'-0" SiEcGRADE_(EJ - - - (EJ GRADE GARAGE LEVEL (5411.0') HILLSIDE (5422.57
~ D3 J ~ ~
® ALLEY d 51DEWALK (5422.57 Y~ - b U~
100'-0~ b = ~
GARAGE LEVEL (541T) W DRYSET 5TONE WALLS S LANDSCAPING
U b D
24'-0" I I. ~ J ~
~ ~ ~~O
Q ~m~
~ \ NOTE: GARAGE 15 5ET BACK 24'
I `101 \T~ ~ ~ Y ~T 01 `t FROM THE EXI51TN6 RESIDENCE ~~C~T ~ ~ l ~L~V~TION
, _ _
~ ADJUSTED 50LAR SHAI `D SOLAR SHADOW ANALY515 CHART SOq PINE MAIN LEVEL ®541?'+/-
RAF ELEVATION OF I _ - PDINT WILDINb ELEMENT ELEVATION OF ELEVATION OF GRADE
RELATIVE HT OF LENGTH OF SHADOW BUILDINb ELEMENT a PROPERTY LINE BUILDING ELEMENT
~ ~ / ~ e 10 A.M. 54189' a 10 A.M. 18.5'
/ A 5436.6' 5436.6' a NOON 18.26' a NOON ® 2 P.M. 54169' • 2 PM. ]5b'
" ~ ~ I " • / • 10 A,M, a 10 A.M. -
/ 6 not used = / ' nOt Used a NOON - • NOON e 2 P.M. 0 2 PM.
"i~~' , ~ G 5435.25 e 10 A.M. 54185' • 10 A.M. 10.6' 5435.25' a NOON 15,95' a NOON
e 2 P.M. e 2 PM. e 10 A.M. - e 10 A.M. -
" . ~ , „ D not used not used a NooN - e NooN
i 6 -0 H FENCE " f . • 2 P.M, s Z PM. e 10 A.M. 5420.q' a 10 A.M. 1.q'
i - (E) TREE E 5435.5' 5435,5' • NooN 14.6' o NOON • 2 P.M. 0 2 PM.
E / ~ e ID A.M. 5422b' 0 10 A.M. 2.6'
i= - 5435.5' _ tl_- 5435.5' a NooN 12.q' a NooN e 2 P.M. 5422b' e 7 PM. 2.6'
' ' - x - _ - - p G 5434.Z' e 10 A.M. 0 10 A.M. 5434.1' a NOON 15.1' e NooN
- - - e 2 P.M. 541q.0' 0 2 P,M. 10.6' e 10 A.M. a 10 A.M.
~ ~ Z 4 . 5 5434.1' • NOON 15.1' a NOON e 2 P,M, 541q.0' e 2 PM. 10.6'
e 10 A.M, • 10 A.M.
" I ~ " " - I 5434.6' 8 - 1- H 4--- A 5434.6' e NOON 11.8' a NooN e 2 P.M. 5416b'
e 2 PM. 15.9'
- e 10 A.M. a 10 A.M. 5430.0' . NOON 10.5' • NOON
I W - ~ - ~ J 5430.0' • 2 P.M. 54195' 6 2 P.M. 2.6'
- " - = NOTE;
W ~ _ I. ALL POINTS NOT .L POINTS NOT SHOWN ON CHART ARE PQ~
I I I'; UNDER 13' IN RELATI~ I - J 13' IN RELATIVE HT. ~
/ i I ~ c~ Y
I ~ J d
W - 24'-0" ~j
I G - 24'-Q" 13'-8 1/4" ~
I PR OS D G RAG 1
I ~ a 7'-l'~
~
,I, . I ~
~ I
RON GATE GONG. APRON l- I d ~ c1J I II I , ~ I , VU'
m ~ t I I I ' --p~---- i I I r'
~ - , 1 ~ (E) CURB GUT I i I I I I i I I - p i Z II I ~ I I I ~ r~
U 8 DRIVE (5410 ~ ' ~ U ~ ~ II ~ II II II i i , I ~
-b 24 -0 ; ~ f5 o ~ - I1 I ~ ~ ' i~ I II a II LINE OF~ - - - ~ I
~ 1 1 I
` ~ a II II I I x I STAIR ABV. - 1 I I E _ I ~ V Y n~
YYY
GRAVEL - - - - _ - I I - - ' I II I I I l~ ~ 33~ F? i ~ ,yn~j
2- AR A I ~ I f. ~ I ~ p,~/
DRIVE ~ - / NI - i ~ Fr I ry I i I ~ i ~ ~ 1 n
I I I~ I I~I1 I
NEW DRY 5ET STONE ~J - ~ ~ 2 10 a'QI' I - I I I I P~ i I I
II II I II ~ I r
RET. WALLS " - - i - E BRIGIC PAVERS O - -
I TO REMAIN ------J L--21~~~In~ I I ~ V
~ ~U I _ I ~ I I ~ o0
~ I ~P - ~ , ~ NEW GRAVEL , ` _ I I ^ Q~ / ~ ~ I I ~
~ tJ--I ~ I I
W ~ DRIVE FOR - I I I
VEHICLE TURN-OUT/I 3b o i L---------------- ----------------J
_ .J -0 L~
16.8 o x 5 -0" L ON POINT (5412.5')
DENOTES HEIGHT 5' (GONG. APRON A50VE 6'
54V (E) RESIDENCE
ks) o o 16.5 NOTE:
-610 III I O II y I I- II
LANDMARK DRG HA5 APPROVED TH15 DE5I6N. z L 1
LINE OF (E) GRAVEL AN LAG HAS BEEN GRANTED PENDING FINAL 4 24'-011
DRIVE DETAILS ON PAINT COLOR $ RET, WALLS.. ~
SOLAR ANAL-l"515 GARAGF- FLAN LOFT PLAN
N iia'l =1-00I N 1/811=i~-o" N 1/811
Agenda Item 4A Page 10 of 16
- _ - -
i
Z
O
fi fi fi _ ~
w
CURB ~
CUT
rn
d _ -
rn~ ~ m
~ 51DEWALK :WALK ~ c ~ Q !fl
U~ 163 J~ ' ~
~ .
~ -
; i
~ ~ ~ 1
~ - ~ z 1 ~ ~
j f y` I 1 Q
i a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
rn ~ 1 ~ o ~
N ~ 1 i
~ i, < d rn I
~ i ~ ~
rrn0
~ rn~~ x OD
cA~ ~ rn ~rn z 0 { p ii ~ ~ I'I ~ ~ w N
' dr z r x ~lz rnn
'1 ~ _ 0 - ' ~ rn ~
~ c . rn ~ C 0_ ~
rn r ➢ a ~ ~ ~ I i~ ~ 1
~ ~ rn ~ ~ r 1 V Y r ~ I~
ire- ~ ~ , u x n ~-J - 0 ~ N ~ i ~ I ~ (n fn ~
l o-. p ~ ~I ~ ~
N C
~ I~,~ 1~~- U ~ ~o ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ P~ U N
r i~~ 0 ~ - ➢ ~ li ` I ~I W O
~ f1 - ~ ` ~ W~ b
`r~,
~r~ - i ~\L
11~ ~ ~ a'. ~ iJ i o~ ~ ~ U J P I L~
t ° ~ U ~l k I ~ ~p i'+ a
141 0 ~ - - i i ~ ° o o . ~
U ~w~
_ ~ ~
Y ~ O a b ~ N 1 i ~ O ~O
r ~ p ~ I~'I 1 ~ Q ~ m 1~, ~ r
dprz 0 rn ~ ~
rnz➢0 z 1~ i `i
~ z~ ~ ,Ij I /V ~ ~
~ 111 I 1 rn
N ~ k -P ,II ~l rn ~I ! `
0~~ zpn in ~ (zi ' + ' I
~ N d
prn0 ~ ~ 'I m ~ ~ `I ~ ~ U~ I . ` ~
zrn ~z~
00~ rn ~y OAN ~ i N II 1
r➢~ ~ ~ ~h
0~~1 rn ~rn~o ~ 1 M
~d~l d 1 .
0 rn i Z ~ ' i
_ rnrnrn 0 ~rn - ~zd rn 0,~ 0 rn
~ d~ .J
~z~ ~ICp p0- rn~i Cp ` ~ rn~
r ~ ~
Ned D7C zrn z D ~ > z~ 1'
p N ~ r D
rn ~ < z rn ~Y 1
l ~ 0 ~
~ 00 N %(I ~ N 1
~ Orn
= 0 rn (E) OVERHANG ~ 1'`
~Z d i ~ i
i 2~
~rn w~ 1` ~
0 ~
z d
rn rn rn
z 0 ~ 1,
rn ~r
11 ~ ~ ~
z oN ~ o
o
(J1 z - - rn ~ 0
~
0 1, ~ ~ ~ 1~ ~
. ~ ~
1,, ~ d
. ~ V ~
.
~ ~ ~a
P~ ~ ~
m .
A ~ ~ 0 rn ~ ' ~ _n ~
i n N W d_I__Q
II . I~
i
0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - -
Agenda Item 4A Page 11 of 16
Case LUR2011-00027
Attachment D
Project Name: 809 Pine Street Accessory
Structure Height Mod.
Date: April 27, 2011
CRITERIA FOR REVIEW
No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that:
(1) Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan:
Y (A) The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
This application request is for the construction of an accessory structure, garage, for a single family
residence. The site is not only an individual landmark, but also within the Mapleton Hill Historic District.
The provision of the accessory structure will provide sheltered parking and storage on a site where the
amenity currently does not exist rendering the site more functional and livable as a residential use. The
location of the proposed garage utilizes an existing curb cut and drive so as not to fragment the useable
open space on the site and is located a significant distance away from the main house so as not to
encroach on the historic resource.
The proposal protects the existing and historic development pattern for accessory structures in the Mapleton
Hill Historic District, as well as is compatible in design, location and form to the historic character of the
existing landmark and site.
Comprehensive Plan Policies
2.12 Neighborhoods as Building Blocks
2.13 Preservation of Community Character
2.33 Preservation of Historical and Cultural Resources
2.42 Enhanced Building Design for the Built Environment
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:
Y (i) The density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or,
The BVCP land use designation is Low Density Residential and the zoning is RL-1
(Residential Low-1). As it exists today, the site complies with the maximum permitted
densities of the zone district (6.2 unit per acre) and the land use designation (2 to 6 units
per acre) with only 1 units or 1.6 units per acre.
N/A(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.
N/A(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.
Agenda Item 4A Page 12 of 16
Economic feasibility is not an issue as it only applies to the single home owner.
(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:
Overall, the development proposal places the proposed garage in the northwest, rear, corner of the site
where, historically, accessory buildings are found to be located, especially on large corner lots within the
Mapleton Hill Historic District. The location of the proposed garage preserves the backyard open space and
the historic character of the site as well as reinstates a historic condition.
Y (A) Open Space: Open space, including, without limitation, parks, recreation areas,
and playgrounds:
Overall, the development proposal, preserves the backyard area between the house and the
proposed garage, and maintains a general proportion of built mass to open space found within the
surrounding area.
Y (i) Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional;
Y (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 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;
Y (iv) The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project
and from surrounding development;
The location of the proposed garage on the site leaves the site open. It preserves the existing
rough proportion of building mass to open space.
Y (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;
There is 29' of separate between the proposed garage and the existing house.
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(C) Landscaping
Agenda Item 4A Page 13 of 16
Landscape improvements are not required nor proposed as part of this application request.
Y (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 transportation system (81h Street, Pine Street and the alley) that serves this property is existing. No
modifications to the existing roadways are being proposed with this application request. Additionally, the
proposal provides the required backing distance and turning radius on site to minimize vehicular and
pedestrian conflicts.
Y (E) Parking
The development proposal is to locate the proposed garage and driveway in the rear, northwest corner of
the lot. The garage will provide two sheltered parking spaces (where one parking space is required), as well
as the required backing and turning radius on site.
The parking area is proposed as gravel, which provides a more permeable surface that is more compatible
with the historic condition than concrete. Final details of the parking area will be worked out at the Ldre.
Y (F) Building Design, Livability, and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed
Surrounding Area
Overall, the proposed garage:
• Respects the traditional relationship of the main house to the accessory structures on large corner
lots within the Mapleton Hill Historic District;
• Preserves the functionality of the existing backyard open space by maintaining adequate
separation between the house and the proposed accessory structure;
• Maintains a general proportion of building mass to open space;
• Proposes historically appropriate paving materials;
• Maintains traditional parking location at the rear of the lot;
• Limits pedestrian and vehicular conflicts given the parking, turning radius and back distance are all
accommodated for on site;
• Is subordinate to the landmark house in mass, height and scale, but takes design cues from the
primary structure; and
• Is simpler in design and detail than the primary structure in terms of windows and materials.
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;
809 Pine Street is not only an individual landmark, but it is also within the Mapleton Hill Historic
District. Of note, 809 Pine Street is the largest lot within a 500' radius with the exception of the
Mapleton Hill Elementary School that is adjacent to the north. 809 Pine Street is at least double
the size of all of the lots within the 800 block of Pine.
Accessory structures in near proximity to the site (500' radius) range in size from 260 sq. ft. to 816
sq. ft. The majority of the accessory structures in the vicinity are a single story, however it is not
uncommon to find 1.5-story accessory structures on larger lots within the Mapleton Hill Historic
Agenda Item 4A Page 14 of 16
District. Of those accessory structures in near proximity to the site, the majority are a single story
and they are all subject to a significant change in grade.
The proposed garage is a 1.5-story, 917 sq. ft. and 24.2' tall measured from a low point 25' away.
The height is a result of the grade change in the northwest rear corner of the lot. There is
approximately 9.5' of grade change from the rear property line to the low point (a distance of
roughly 49') equating to a 20% change in grade.
The height of the proposed garage measured from grade is 19'-7", which is more consistent with
the adjacent structures that range in height from 12'-6" to 20' tall according to City of Boulder
building permit records.
Given the historic evidence of an accessory structure of this size, location and height, and the size
of the lot, the proposed garage is consistent with not only the Historic Preservation Ordinance but
also Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines.
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;
The height of the proposed garage measured from grade is 19'-7", which is more consistent with
the adjacent structures that range in height from 12'-6" to 20' tall according to City of Boulder
building permit records.
Y (iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views
from adjacent properties;
The location of the proposed garage, being consistent with other accessory structures, located in
the rear of the lot, maintains a clear line of sight through the property north from Pine Street as well
as east and west from 8m Street.
The location of the proposed garage also minimizes the impacts of shadows on adjacent
properties. The grade change from the alley to the property will minimize cast to the north through
the alley. There are no adjacent properties to the west, so there will be no adverse impacts of the
shadows that are cast.
Y (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;
809 Pine Street is located within the Mapleton Hill Historic District and is an individual landmark.
The proposed garage, approved by the Landmarks Board, meets the historic district design
guidelines in that it:
• is subservient to the principle structure;
• is simplistic in materials and design; and
• is complimentary to the principle structure in that it takes design elements and
architectural features from the principle structure.
Y (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;
Agenda Item 4A Page 15 of 16
The location of the proposed garage, in the northwest corner of the site, is reflective of a historic
condition as evidenced by the 1890 Sandborn Maps, which indicates that a 540 sq. ft. structure
was once located on the property in the same location. Access to the site will be taken from 8th
Street and not the alley given the change in grade between the alley and 81h Street, which is
approximately 6'.
The proposed garage will face Pine Street so as to accommodate all of the parking, required
backing distance and turning radii required on site, which will limit the number of pedestrian and
vehicular conflicts.
N/A(vi) To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned
public facilities;
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;
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;
N/A(ix) A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation,
safety, and aesthetics;
Y (x) The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and
avoids, minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems;
Although there are no major natural systems located on the lot, the proposed development does
take into consideration the existing topography and site conditions. Locating the garage in the
northwest corner of the lot minimizes the disruption on the site in terms of onsite useable open
space fragmentation and limiting paved drive surface by utilizing the existing drive and turnaround.
This location also utilizes the natural grade to minimize the visual impacts of the north and west
sides of the building, including bulk and mass, will be recessed into the grade.
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.
Y (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:
The proposed garage faces south with a gabled roof on a north/south axis, which will maximize solar
energy, if so desired.
Agenda Item 4A Page 16 of 16