Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Meeting Packet - Planning - 6/2/2011
CITY OF BOULDER PIX*P~ PLANNING BOARD MEETING AGENDA DATE: June 2, 2011 TIME: 6 p.m. 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. Site Review For Height Modification, LUR2011-00027, 809 Pine Street: Request for a detached garage to exceed the maximum permitted height for accessory structures in the RL-1 zone district (20') at 24'-2". B. Floodplain Map Revision, LUR2011-00030, 4747 Arapahoe Ave. (Boulder Creek) 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Public hearing and consideration of a Site Review Height Modification pursuant to section 9-2- 14(b)(1)(E), "Height Modifications," B.R.C. 1981 to permit a roof cover over an existing deck attached to an existing residence at 2035 Balsam Drive (#LtTR2011-00020). The height modification is required as the addition of a roof cover causes the low point to be adjusted to a point roughly 8 feet lower on the sloped site. The existing residence would not become physically taller. The hearing on this item will be held under the quasi-judicial procedures of the Boulder Revised Code. Applicant/Owner: Jack and Jean Thompson 2. Quasi-Judicial: Public hearing and consideration of Use Review application #LUR2011-00029 to permit modifications to a previously approved Special Review for a private school at the Mount Zion Church site at 1680 Balsam Avenue. The request is to permit the addition of grades nine through twelve to accommodate the relocation of Watershed School (grades six through twelve only) where the previous approval was specifically for pre-Kindergarten to eighth grade. Despite the increase in grade levels, student enrollment is not proposed to exceed the previously approved maximum of 175 students. The hearing on this item will be held under the quasi-judicial procedures of the Boulder Revised Code. Applicant: Jason Berv, Watershed School Owner: Mount Zion Lutheran Church 6. NIATTERS 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 wwwbouldercolorado.gou. at the Boulder 1 Public Main Library's Reference Desk. or at the Planning 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. 2 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES - DRAFT 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:/hvww.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 3 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. 4 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 Wads 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. s 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 Board Chair DATE s 4 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES - DRAFT 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 I 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. 7 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. 8 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 Discussion 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. 9 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 10 4 MEMORANDUM To: Planning Board FROM: Jessica Vaughn, Planner I DATE: May 20, 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 June 2, 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 19, 2011 Planning Board Notice of Disposition). Background: 809 Pine street is zoned W -A Residential Low-1 (RL- 1), which is defined as E - - "Single-family detached residential dwelling units at low to very low 4- residential densities" a .1 (section 9-5-2(c)(1)(A),~ B.R.C. 1981). Currently' there is not a garage on the site. ' 809 Pine Street 809 Pine Street was designated as an individual landmark in 1977 as the Morrison- MacKenzie House.a Located within the Mapleton Hill Historic District, 809 Pine Street is located at the northeast y 1 - t corner of Pine and 8tli #T Streets. The property is •.f cr comprised of 27,500 r• square foot lot that is two 11 Agenda Item 4A Page 1 of 14 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 Stn Street instead of the alley as required by code (see the staff comments in Attachment B, Adnrinistrath,e Access 1Vlodification). 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 Mapleton 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 fayade. 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 12 Agenda Item 4A Page 2 of 14 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. AsrKV-r Mwl" mom M. 139-7" 19'-7" 249-2" me or Ejaffrm NCLSE Im LM /1A' RGOF Mf. fb404,ml) 5"ALK TO z 'LUVIKK ~o ro ewlor . ,.LLE, . 5tr7B'YPLK r M1431S'? L J LGlYr. !'~hT10l~ - - - ~-0~ * TO EXT@47 OVER 6I+RIOE LrVtiL tbMy7 Ml oTown4hi ar rr. 41-T GRAVEL IVE/TURNOUT Low Point 25' Away (EL. 5412.5) 0 ASST ELEV,4TION 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; 3 13 Agenda Item 4A Page 3 of 14 • 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 Review 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 19, 2011 and the decision may be called up before Planning Board on or before June 2, 2011. There is one Planning Board meetings within the 14-day call up period on June 2, 2011. Questions about the project or decision should be directed to Jessica Vaughn at (303) 441-4161 or vaughnj kbouldercolorado.gov. Attachments: Attachment A: May 19, 2011 Planning Board Notice of Disposition Attachment B: Administrative Access Modification Attachment C: Proposed Plan Set Attachment D: Site Review Criteria 4 14 Agenda Item 4A Page 4 of 14 Attachment A CITY OF BOULDER Planning and Development Services < 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 phone 303-441-1880 • 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 24'-2". LOCATION: 809 Pine Street COOR: 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 19, 2011 Date By: Da id Drisk II, Executive 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: June 2, 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. AddressI!P09 Pine Street Pursuant to Section 9-2-12 of the band 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. AddressjE$09 Pine Street 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 feetfrom the alley to the proposed garage, within a distance of 10- to 23 feet, as shown below. ! I Ff ,f. • , ~f .1 Lf11~ • - _i (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 0, 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. 17 Agenda Item 4A Page 5 of 14 (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 cats 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 comer 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 8`1' 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. Figure 1: - - ~l . I r wr'~~ 1890 Sanborn Fire Insurance map showing 1? g 809 Pine Street at north-east corner of 0 t. 8th and Pine Streets Carriage house 809 Pine M - FINAL DECISION STANDARDS: 18 Agenda Item 4A Page 6 of 14 Approved as submitted. INFORNIATIONAL COMMENTS: See attached checklist. 19 Agenda Item 4A Page 7 of 14 Attachment B BULK PLANE ~ ~-6 ~ ~ '6' OFF~T A5PHALT 5HIN6LE ROOF, ' - Q~ESE_T_ TYP. la'-oY " ' (n ~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 1/811=i~-o" N 1/811 20 N iia'l =i -o' Agenda Item 4A Page 8 of 14 - _ - - 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 . I~ i i 0 21 Agenda Item 4A Page 9 of 14 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. 22 Agenda Item 4A Page 10 of 14 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 23 Agenda Item 4A Page 11 of 14 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 24 Agenda Item 4A Page 12 of 14 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; 25 Agenda Item 4A Page 13 of 14 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. 26 Agenda Item 4A Page 14 of 14 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board FROM: Katie Knapp, Civil Engineer, Floodplain and Wetlands Permitting DATE: May 24, 2011 SUBJECT: Call Up Item: 4747 Arapahoe Ave. (Boulder Creek) Floodplain Map Revision (LUR2011-00030) This decision may be called up before Planning Board on or before June 3, 2011 A Floodplain Map Revision was approved by Planning and Development staff on May 20, 2011. This mapping change revises the extents of the High Hazard Flood Zone along Boulder Creek. A Floodplain Map Revision was submitted for the Boulder Community Hospital Foothills property to revise the high hazard flood zone along Boulder Creek. The applicant reviewed the current regulatory flood hazard area delineation study prepared by Muller Engineering Company, Inc. in January of 1983, the high hazard floodplain delineation prepared by Love and Associates in 1987 as well as the proposed Boulder Creek floodplain study being prepared by Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc. and determined that the city's current, regulatory high hazard delineation should be revised based on the current site topography. A new high hazard zone boundary was computed based upon the flow velocity and base floodwater elevations of the current regulatory floodplain analysis. The current high hazard flood zone and the proposed, corrected high hazard flood zone mapping for Boulder Creek are depicted in Attachment A. The cross section information is included in Attachment B. Section 9-3-2 (d) and (f) Boulder Revised Code, 1981 authorizes the city manager to amend the boundaries of the high hazard zone. This authorization is included in Attachment C. The proposed high hazard zone amendment will not change the FEMA "area of special flood hazard" or "regulatory floodway" because the high hazard flood zone is not a FEMA flood zone, but strictly a city regulated flood zone. The analysis did not involve any changes to the regulatory HEC-2 floodplain analysis model. The City of Boulder is currently performing a restudy of Boulder Creek. The preliminary results from the new study also support this map revision. This floodplain map revision was approved by Planning and Development Services staff on May 20, 2011, and the decision may be called up before Planning Board on or before June 3, 2011. There is one Planning Board meeting within the required 14-day call-up 27 Agenda Item 413 Page 1 of 6 period on June 2, 2011. Questions regarding this floodplain map revision should be directed to Katie Knapp in Planning and Development Services at 303-441-3273 or knappka),bouldercolorado. gov. Attachments: A. Proposed Floodplain Map Revision B. Cross Section Information C. City Manager Authorization 28 Agenda Item 4B Page 2 of 6 Att\achm~ent B JUA,lncorporateo 1319 Spruee Street 8aulder, CO 8030E Phone: 303.444.1951 Far: 343.444.1'957 Emall: fnfo~jvajva.mm 1 3 3 lr 3 Z 5235 ' 5235 5235 5235 h a ACTUAL EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE ~ ACTUAL EFFECTIVE HIGH HAZARD ~ ~ HIGH HAZARD W 0 HIGH HAZARD z 0 - 5230 5230 5230 5230 W ~ EFF CTIVE 100-YEAR ~ EFFECTIVE 100 -YEAR _ ° WSE 5227.86 - _ _ i ~ _ °~_.Q,_~-'~ WSE 5227.69 ~ ,~~1----- - - EFFECTIVE _ EXISTING GRADE 5225 5225 EXISTING GRADE HIGH HAZARD 5225 5225 - STA 17+179 -PROPOSED MODEL STA 17+152 -PROPOSED MODEL ~ STA 11.82 -EFFECTIVE MODEL • STA 11.79 -EFFECTIVE MODEL z 5220 5220 5220 5220 ° 49+80 50+00 50+40 50+80 51 +20 51 +60 51 +80 69+80 70+00 70+40 70+80 71 +20 71 +60 71 +80 0 ~n w 0 CROSS SECTION A-A CROSS SECTION C-C SCALE; 1 "=20' HORIZ SCALE: 1 "=20' HORIZ ~ 1 VERT 1 "=5' VERT o 0 z 5235 I I 5235 ACTUAL EXIST GARAGE RAMP ACTUAL EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE - RETAINING WALLS HIGH H{ HIGH HAZARD HIGH HAZARD _ EXISTING GRADE DESIGNED BY: DWH 5235 5235 5230 523.0 DRAWN BY. DID ACTUAL EFFECTVE ~ ~ I _ CHECKED BY: CRH EFFECTIVE 100-YEAR I HIGH HAZARD - ° _ - - WSE 5227.48 I JOB#: 1774c I - ~ I I - DATE: May 2, 2011 5230 - ~ 5230 5225 I_ 5225 ©JVA INC - ~ EFFECTIVE 100-YEAR f I 1 o 1 - _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.4._ WSE 5227.80. - - - f = - 1 _ r• J - ~ W 5225 5225 5220 EXIST GARAGE - 5220 z L ACCESS _ ~ O ° EXISTING GRADE EFFECTIVE ° 6' STA 17+168 -PROPOSED MODEL HIGH HAZARD STA 17+116 -PROPOSED MODEL ~ N STA 11.75 -EFFECTIVE MODEL ~ ~ D 5TA 11,81 -EFFECTIVE MODEL 0 1 5220 5220 52 5 N 5215 c~ ~ 59+80 60+00 60+40 60+80 61 +20 61 +60 61 +80 79+80 80+00 80+40 N so+40 so+sa e1+2o a1+so a2+oo $2+20 ~ Q ~ CROSS SECTION B-B a CROSS SECTION D-D ~ O a SCALE: 1 "=20' HORIZ 0 SCALE: 1 "=20' HORIZ O ~ U ~ 1 VERT 1 "=5' VERT ~ _ 0 N 0 ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ Q• T ~ ~ 0 0 U a a ~ ~U 0 O w a m v ~ J u ~ ~ r J ~ c m 0 Q n 0 m 0 0 a 0 SHEET N0. 0 r\/1 111'\ IT A tnhltlI L r 30 Agenda Item 4B Page 4 of 6 Attachment C MEMORANDUM TO: Maureen Rait, Executive Director of Public Works FROM: Katie Knapp, Civil Engineer, Floodplain and Wetlands Permitting DATE: May 19, 2011 SUBJECT: Boulder Creek High Hazard Zone Floodplain Map Revision (LUR2011-00030) A Floodplain Map Revision was submitted for the property at 4747 Arapahoe to revise the Boulder Creek high hazard flood zone along the Boulder Community Foothills property. The subject property was filled in April, 2003, prior to the construction of the existing Boulder Community Hospital. A Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (LOMR-F) was approved by FEMA on October 15, 2003. Although this map revision removed a portion of the property from the 100-year floodplain, the high hazard flood zone was not re- evaluated at the time. The applicant reviewed the current regulatory flood hazard area delineation study prepared by Muller Engineering Company, Inc. in January of 1983, the high hazard floodplain delineation prepared by Love and Associates in 1987 as well as the proposed Boulder Creek floodplain study being prepared by Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc. and determined that the city's current, regulatory high hazard delineation should be revised based on the current site topography. A new high hazard zone boundary was computed based upon the flow velocity and base floodwater elevations of the original HEC-2 cross sections. The current high hazard flood zone and the proposed, corrected high hazard flood zone mapping for Boulder Creek are depicted in Attachment A. The cross section information is included in Attachment B. Section 9-3-2 (d) and (f) Boulder Revised Code, 1981 authorizes the city manager to amend the boundaries of the high hazard zone as set forth in the following: Section 9-3-2(d) Administration: The city manager shall administer the requirements of this section and shall: (7) Amend the boundaries of the high hazard zone and the conveyance zone pursuant to subsection (f) of this section; Section 9-3-2 (f) Map Amendments: As watercourse or flood channel improvements or mapping corrections are made, the city manager may amend the flood regulatory area maps to recognize the changed conditions produced by such 31 Agenda Item 413 Page 5 of 6 improvements or corrections provided that no such amendments or corrections may change a FEMA "area of special flood hazard" or "regulatory floodway" unless the city is in receipt of a letter of map amendment or a letter of map revision issued by FEMA. The proposed high hazard zone amendment will not change the FEMA "area of special flood hazard" or "regulatory floodway" because the high hazard flood zone is not a FEMA flood zone, but strictly a city regulated flood zone. The analysis did not involve any changes in the regulatory HEC-2 model or cross sections. The City of Boulder is currently performing a restudy of Boulder Creek. The preliminary results from the new study also support this map revision. Please indicate the city manager's authorization to amend the floodplain map and incorporate this into the city's GIS system with your approval below: Maureen Rait, Executive Director of Public Works Date Attachments: A. Boulder Creek High Hazard Zone Map B. Subject Property Cross Sections 32 Agenda Item 413 Page 6 of 6 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 2, 2011 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a Site Review Height Modification pursuant to section 9-2-14(b)(1) (E), "Height Modifications," B.R.C. 1981 to permit a roof cover over an existing deck attached to an existing residence at 2035 Balsam Drive (#LUR2011-00020). The height modification is required as the addition of a roof cover causes the low point to be adjusted to a point roughly 8 feet lower on the sloped site. The existing residence would not become physically taller. Applicant/Owner: Jack and Jean Thompson REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Department of Community Planning & Sustainability David Driskell, Executive Director Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager Karl Guiler, Planner II 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 and action on the Site Review SUMMARY: Proposal: Height modification to permit a roof cover over an existing deck Project Name/Location: 2035 Balsam Drive Size of Tract: 16,870 square feet (0.387 acres) Zoning: RL-1, Residential Low-1 Comprehensive Plan: Low Density Residential KEY ISSUE: Staff has identified the following key issue to help guide the board's discussion: 1. Can the Site Review criteria of section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981 be met to permit the proposed roof over the existing deck? 33 Agenda Item 5A Page 1 of 30 Existing Site/ Site Context: The subject site is located on Balsam Drive within the original Hillcrest subdivision; a single-family residential neighborhood accessed by Alpine Avenue off of where 19th Street becomes 20th Street just north of the Whittier neighborhood. See Figure 1 below. '.r'. ` 71 4 Figure 1- Site location and surrounding context. The zoning of the site, which is shown in Figure 2 below, is RL-1, Residential Low -1. Other zone districts in the vicinity are RM- 2, Residential Medium - 2 and RMX, Residential Mixed. RL-1 Edgewood DI 2035 BALSAM DR BA Balsam AV ~ ~ - - - ` Wpina Av [HM X-1 i - MA 4 Figure 2- Zoning in vicinity. 34 Agenda Item 5A Page 2 of 30 1 r. ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 • ~ ~ . may" y~ . ~ ia'-~ GOOSE CREEK y; VL. Alki. I~ 2035 BALSAM DR , f Figure 3- Close up of 2035 Balsam Figure 3 above shows the roughly 16,870 square foot property within its immediate context. As the figure shows, there is significant slope on the north side of the property (shown in two foot contours) which descends down to Goose Creek. The residence is on a relatively level portion of the lot. Project Description & Background: In 2001, a building permit was issued allowing the construction of the single-family residence at 2035 Balsam Drive. City records indicate the calculated height for the building was 32.10 feet, which complies with the 35-foot height limitation for the RL-1 zoning district. Building height in the City of Boulder is the vertical distance from the lowest point within 25 feet of the "tallest side" of the structure to the uppermost point of the roof per section 9-16-1, "General Definitions," B.R.C. 1981. This method of measuring height from a low point down slope of the structure is intended to take into consideration the visual bulk and mass impact of the resulting building. While the city permit records do not clearly reflect how height was measured, it appears that an existing uncovered deck was not considered when determining the location of the low point within 25 feet of the tallest side of the structure. As a result the low point within 25 feet of the tallest side was measured from the bulk of the building and not the uncovered deck. This approach is consistent with the current approach to height measurement that allows staff some discretion when there are low, uncovered, insubstantive elements that do not, in the judgment of staff, contribute significantly to the bulk and mass of a structure. 35 Agenda Item 5A Page 3 of 30 The applicant wishes to construct a roof over the existing deck which would add to the massing of the element such that it would be (and would have been in 2001) considered a part of the building to be included in the height measurement. Measuring the low point 25 feet from the deck (which projects approximately 12 feet out from the building bulk instead of from the bulk itself), alters the original calculated low point of the building to a elevation point roughly 8 feet lower considering the descending slope to the north. This change modifies the total building height from 32.10 feet to just over 41 feet. While the building would not become physically taller than its present height, the addition of the roof over the deck's would alter the building height calculation per code and thus requires a Site Review height modification pursuant to section 9-2-14(b)(1)(E), B.R.C. 1981. The applicant's written statement is found within Attachment D and the proposed plans and elevations are found within Attachment E. During the review process the applicant challenged the determination that the roof cover would require a height modification. Staff has worked with the city attorney's office on this issue and has communicated the reasons for the modification discussed within this memorandum to the applicant. The applicant is thus, proceeding to Planning Board for its decision on whether the proposal meets the Site Review criteria of section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981. ANALYSIS 1. Can the Site Review criteria of section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981 be met to permit the proposed roof over the existing deck? While most Site Review criteria of section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981 do not pertain to such a request, staff has found the most relevant criteria, principally the "Building Design, Livability, and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed Surrounding Area" criteria can be met for the proposal. Although the roof cover technically increases the height of the building by way of the method of measurement and adds to the mass of the building, it would not increase the visual height of the building and would not present an unacceptable amount of mass (no walls would enclose the deck space). It otherwise would appear consistent with construction and improvements to single-family homes in the neighborhood. The proposal's massing would not be unlike other examples in the area as shown in the pictures within Attachment D which shows nearby cantilevered elements. Therefore, staff has found that the Site Review criteria can be met for the request. Specific responses to the Site Review criteria are found below. The full list of the Site Review criteria is within Attachment A and the Development Review Committee comments can be found in Attachment B. (F) Building Design, Livability, and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed Surrounding Area: (i) The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration are compatible with the existing character of the area or the character established by an adopted plan for the area; A discussion of the height aspects are discussed within criterion (ii) below. While the addition of the roof over the existing deck would add to the mass of the overall building, it would not be enclosed and would not be a significant increase or unacceptable addition of 36 Agenda Item 5A Page 4 of 30 mass to the building. The greatest potential impact of the roof would be on immediate adjacent properties and properties to the north. Immediate neighbors (east and west) have not objected to the roof. Impacts on properties to the north would be minimal given the significant elevation change, distance between buildings, and mature trees between the properties. (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 as a result of the new roof would not be objectionable as it would not visually increase the height of the principal building and would otherwise appear consistent with surrounding development that include projecting decks and cantilevered elements. With no change in perceived height, the roof and building to which it is attached would be within the general proportion of heights of existing buildings in the neighborhood. (iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent properties; The addition of the roof over the deck will not cast a shadow greater than that of the existing house and thus, would not impact neighboring lots with shadows. The roof and deck will also not block any significant views. (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; The addition of a roof cover over the deck would not be incompatible with expected improvements over outdoor private open spaces in single-family residential neighborhoods. (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; The roof cover will not be visible from the streetscape and thus, will have no impact on the streetscape. Visibility is possible from Balsam Avenue below, but would appear no different than other single-family homes at the top of the slope. NIA (vi) To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned public facilities; The proposed roof over the deck is an expected improvement for a private residential use, which is allowable on the lot. NIA (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; The proposed roof over the deck is a permitted improvement to a single-family lot. 37 Agenda Item 5A Page 5 of 30 v (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; The proposed roof and deck over which it will be installed would comply with setbacks and would not present any impacts above what would normally be expected from any other structure that is permitted at that allowable distance. (ix) A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation, safety, and aesthetics; Any new lighting that may be associated with the new accessory building would have to comply with the Lighting Ordinance. This would be verified at time of building permit. (x) The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids, minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems; Goose Creek exists on the north side of the property well over 100 feet from the residences and deck. Therefore, there will be no impact to the natural system. ti (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. The roof would be attached directly to the residence where an existing deck is already connected to the house and ground below. No cut and fill is necessary for the roof cover. (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: NIA (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. Not applicable. No new streets are proposed and the building would not be tall enough to significantly impact solar access of any buildings to the north. 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. The building would be sited according to RL-2 zoning standards and siting near the north lot line is not feasible due to the slope and creek in that location. 38 Agenda Item 5A Page 6 of 30 (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 Chapter 9-8~, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981. The roof would be in an area not conducive to solar as it is on the north side of the residence. This aspect would not preclude its construction. (iv) Landscaping: The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent buildings are minimized. No landscaping, which could create shadow impacts, have been proposed. 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 site and a sign posted on the property for at least 10 days. All notice requirements of subsection 9-4-3, "Public Notice Requirements," B.R.C. 1981 have been met. Staff has also contacted those neighbors that requested to be notified of any upcoming meetings or submittals. Two neighbors contacted city staff about the application; one expressed concern about setting a precedent within the neighborhood and the other has written an objection relative to the massing (see Attachment C). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Board approve application #LUR2011-00020 based on the findings provided within this memorandum. RECOMMENDED SITE REVIEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated March 1, 2011 and on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department. Approved B D 'd Ddskell, Ex u i irector Department of Community Planning and Sustainability ATTACHMENTS: A: Staff responses to Site Review criteria B: Development Review Committee comments dated April 8, 2011 C: Public comment D: Applicant's written statement (includes Project Fact Sheet) E: Proposed plans 39 Agenda Item 5A Page 7 of 30 ATTACHMENT A i) Criteria for Review: No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that: (1) Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan: (A) The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The scope of the request is limited to height and therefore, most BVCP policies are broader and thus, irrelevant to the request. The most relevant section of the BVCP to the request is the Community Design section. There is no evidence that the request would conflict with the Community Design policies and any other policies in the BVCP. (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: (i) The density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or, The addition of a roof over a deck on the site will not increase the density on the site. 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 9-7, "Bulk and Density Standards," B.R.C. 1981. Only criteria applicable to a height modification have been included below. (F) Building Design, Livability, and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed Surrounding Area: (i) The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration are compatible with the existing character of the area or the character established by an adopted plan for the area; A discussion of the height aspects are discussed within criterion (ii) below. While the addition of the roof over the existing deck would add to the mass of the overall building, it would not be enclosed and would not be a significant increase or unacceptable addition of mass to the building. The greatest potential impact of the roof would be on immediate adjacent properties and properties to the north. Immediate neighbors (east and west) have not objected to the roof. Impacts on properties to the north would be minimal given the significant elevation change and mature trees between the properties. (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 as a result of the new roof would not be objectionable as it would not visually increase the height of the principal building and would otherwise appear consistent with surrounding development that include projecting decks and cantilevered elements. With no change in perceived height, the roof and building to which it is attached would be within the general proportion of heights of existing buildings in the neighborhood. (iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent properties; The addition of the roof over the deck will not cast a shadow greater than that of the existing house and thus, would not impact neighboring lots with shadows. The roof and deck will also not block any significant views. 40 Agenda Item 5A Page 8 of 30 (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; The addition of a roof cover over the deck would not be incompatible with expected improvements over outdoor private open spaces in single-family residential neighborhoods. (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; The roof cover will not be visible from the streetscape and thus, will have no impact on the streetscape. Visibility is possible from Balsam Avenue below, but would appear no different than other single-family homes at the top of the slope. N/A (vi) To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned public facilities; The proposed roof over the deck is an expected improvement for a private residential use, which is allowable on the lot. 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; The proposed roof over the deck is a permitted improvement to a single-family lot. (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; The proposed roof and deck over which it will be installed would comply with setbacks and would not present any impacts above what would normally be expected from any other structure that is permitted at that allowable distance. (ix) A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation, safety, and aesthetics; Any new lighting that may be associated with the new accessory building would have to comply with the Lighting Ordinance. This would be verified at time of building permit. (x) The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids, minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems; Goose Creek exists on the north side of the property well over 100 feet from the residences and deck. Therefore, there will be no impact to the natural system. (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. The roof would be attached directly to the residence where an existing deck is already connected to the house and ground below. No cut and fill is necessary for the roof cover- (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 41 Agenda Item 5A Page 9 of 30 adjacent properties. Topography and other natural features and constraints may justify deviations from this criterion. Not applicable. No new streets are proposed and the building would not be tall enough to significantly impact solar access of any buildings to the north. 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. The building would be sited according to RL-2 zoning standards and siting near the north lot line is not feasible due to the slope and creek in that location. (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 Chapter 9_8 "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981. The roof would be in an area not conducive to solar as it is on the north side of the residence. This aspect would not preclude its construction. -\I (iv) Landscaping: The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent buildings are minimized. No landscaping, which could create shadow impacts, have been proposed. 42 Agenda Item 5A Page 10 of 30 Attachment B CITY OF BOULDER Planning and Development Services + 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 j_ phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-3241 • web boulderplandevelop.net CITY OF BOULDER LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS DATE OF COMMENTS: April 8, 2011 CASE MANAGER: Karl Guiler PROJECT NAME: 2035 BALSAM DRIVE LOCATION: 2035 BALSAM DRIVE COORDINATES: N04W05 REVIEW TYPE: Site Review Height Modification Only REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2011-00020 APPLICANTS: Jack and Jean Thompson DESCRIPTION: SITE REVIEW: Request for a height modification pursuant to section 9-2-14 (b)(E), "Height Modifications," B.R_C_ 1981 to permit the construction of a new roof element over an existing unenclosed deck (roughly 175 square feet) that is located to the rear of the residence. The method of height measurement requires the overall building height to be measured from the uppermost point of the building's roof to the lowest point within 25 feet of the north side of the structure. In this instance, the change of the low point within 25 feet of the proposed roof deck technically changes the calculated height of the principal building such that it would exceed the 35 foot height limit, although the request being considered is for a new roof cover. The proposed roof cover will be approximately 10 feet lower than the existing uppermost point of the residence, which will remain unchanged. The application also includes a request for vested rights pursuant to section 9-2-19, "Creation of Vested Rights," B.R.C. 1981. REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Section 9-7-1, "Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981- Request to exceed the 35-foot height limit for principal structures to permit a roof deck cover, which despite not adding visual height to the principal building, results in a modified height calculation for the building at nearly 41-feet in height from 32.10 feet previously calculated (not including the deck). 1. REVIEW FINDINGS Staff has found that the proposal can meet the criteria of section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981 and intends to recommend approval to the Planning Board. See Section V below for specific responses to criteria. Planning Board is tentatively scheduled to review this item at its June 2, 2011 public hearing. Please submit an electronic copy of the plans to the Case Manager for forwarding to the Planning Board. II. CITY REQUIREMENTS Access/Circulation Heidi von Waldburg (303-441-4276) No Issues Building and Housing Codes Jim Gery (303-441-3129) No issues - Please see informational comments in Section III below. Drainage Heidi von Waldburg (303-441-4276) No Issues Address: (<ADDRESS> Page 1 43 Agenda Item 5A Page 11 of 30 Engineering Heidi von Waldburg (303-441-4276) No Issues Fees Because revisions or corrections are not required for this application, based on 2010 development review fees, hourly billing will not be applicable unless another application is required or the applicant revises the current proposal. Fire Protection David Lowrey, 303.441.4356 No Issues Legal Documents Julia Chase, City Attorney's Office, Ph. (303) 441-3052 Prior to signing the development agreement, if approved, the applicant must provide the following: 1) An updated title commitment current within 30 days; and 2) Proof of authorization to sign on behalf of the Jack C. Thompson Revocable Trust Neighborhood Comments Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Staff has been contacted by two neighbors inquiring about the request. The neighbors indicated concern about setting a precedent in the neighborhood and the looming nature of the homes above the flood plain. Utilities Heidi von Waldburg (303-441-4276) No Issues Zoning Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Section 9-7-5, "Building Height" B.R.C. 1981 In 2001, building permit #PMT2001-01032 was issued allowing the construction of a new single-family dwelling at 2035 Balsam Drive. City records indicate the calculated height for the building was 32.10 feet, which complies with the 35-foot height limitation for the RL-1 zoning district. Building height in the City of Boulder is the vertical distance from the lowest point within twenty-five feet of the "tallest side" of the structure to the uppermost point of the roof per section 9-16, B.R.C. 1981. This method of measuring height from a low point down slope of the structure is, ostensibly, intended to take into consideration the visual bulk and mass impact of the resulting building. While the city permit records do not clearly reflect how height was measured in this instance (with respect the low point being measured from the north side of the residence, including the deck, versus the north wall of the residence) it appears that the uncovered deck was not considered when determining the location of the low point within 25' of the tallest side of the structure. As a result the low point within 25 feet of the tallest side was measured from the bulk of the building and not the uncovered deck. This approach is consistent with the current approach to height measurement that allows staff some discretion when there are low, uncovered, insubstantive elements that do not, in the judgment of staff, contribute significantly to the bulk and mass of the structure. Measuring the low point 25 feet from the residence, including the deck, alters the original calculated low point of the building to a lower elevation point considering the descending slope to the north. This change modifies the total building height from 32.10 feet to just over 41 feet. Had the original proposal included an elevated roof element that would result in greater impact in terms of visual bulk and mass, staff would have measured height from the low point within 25 feet of the residence, including the deck, and would have identified a height issue at that time. While the building would not become visually taller than its present height, the addition of the roof over the deck's change to the building height measurement requires a Site Review height modification pursuant to section 9-2-14(b)(1)(E), B.R.C. 1981. Section 9-2-14, "Site Review." B.R.C. 1981 Staff has found that although the roof cover technically increases the height of the building by way of the measurement and adds to the mass of the building, it would not increase the visual height of the building and would not present an unacceptable amount of mass. It otherwise would appear consistent with construction and improvements to single-family homes in the neighborhood. Therefore, staff has found that the Site Review criteria can be met for the request. Specific responses to the Site Review criteria are found in Section V of this document below. Address: ((ADDRESS> Page 2 44 Agenda Item 5A Page 12 of 30 III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS Building and Housing Codes Jim Gery (303-441-3129) Building Code comments are general in nature and based on the limited information provided for the purposes of this Land Use Review, and in no way constitute a complete review for compliance with any Building, Mechanical, Fuel Gas, Plumbing, Electrical, or Energy Code, or the Green Building and Green Points Program; nor may they be construed as approval of the proposed structure as shown on the drawings submitted with this application for Building Code purposes. Documents submitted at the time of building permit application will be required to fully demonstrate compliance with the aforementioned Codes. Land Uses Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) land use designation for the site is Low Density Residential. Review Process Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Section 9-2-14(b)(E), B.R.C. 1981 of the Land Use Regulations allows applicants to request permission to build structures taller than what the zoning district normally allows. In order for the proposed height modification to be approved, the Site Review criteria found in Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981 must be met_ Within two weeks on the date of decision, it may be called up by the Planning Board or appealed by a citizen. If this occurs, the project will be scheduled for a Planning Board hearing within 60 days. Please note that a citizen appeal must be filed in writing in the Planning Department prior to the end of the two-week call up period. Zoning Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 1. The project site is zoned RL-1, Residential - Low 1. This zoning district is primarily used for established detached residential development. 2. Please note than if any enclosed floor area is proposed within the covered deck area in the future or any improvements that may change the low point of the structure, discretionary review may be required. IV. NEXT STEPS 1. Submit/send an electronic copy of the plans for forwarding to the Planning Board. V. CODE CRITERIA i) Criteria for Review: No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that: (1) Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan: (A) The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The scope of the request is limited to height and therefore, most BVCP policies are broader and thus, irrelevant to the request. The most relevant section of the BVCP to the request is the Community Design section. There is no evidence that the request would conflict with the Community Design policies and any other policies in the BVCP. (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: (i) The density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or, The addition of a roof over a deck on the site will not increase the density on the site. 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 9-7, "Bulk and Density Standards," B.R.C. 1981. Address: (<ADDRESS> Page 3 45 Agenda Item 5A Page 13 of 30 Only criteria applicable to a height modification have been included below. (F) Building Design, Livability, and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed Surrounding Area: (i) The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration are compatible with the existing character of the area or the character established by an adopted plan for the area; A discussion of the height aspects are discussed within criterion (ii) below. While the addition of the roof over the existing deck would add to the mass of the overall building, it would not be enclosed and would not be a significant increase or unacceptable addition of mass to the building. The greatest potential impact of the roof would be on immediate adjacent properties and properties to the north. No specific impacts have been identified as a result of the roof over the deck on immediate neighbors. Immediate neighbors (east and west) have not objected to the roof. Impacts on properties to the north would be minimal given the significant elevation change and mature trees between the properties. (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 as a result of the new roof would not be objectionable as it would not visually increase the height of the principal building and would otherwise appear consistent with surrounding development that include projecting decks. With no change in perceived height, the roof and building to which it is attached would be within the general proportion of heights of existing buildings in the neighborhood. 4 (iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent properties; The addition of the roof over the deck will not cast a shadow greater than that of the existing house and thus, would not impact neighboring lots with shadows- The roof and deck will also not block any significant views. (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; The addition of a roof cover over the deck would not be incompatible with expected improvements over outdoor private open spaces in single-family residential neighborhoods. (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; The roof cover will not be visible from the streetscape and thus, will have no impact on the streetscape. NIA (vi) To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned public facilities; The proposed roof over the deck is an expected improvement for a private residential use, which is allowable on the lot. NIA (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; The proposed roof over the deck is a permitted improvement to a single-family lot. (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; The proposed roof and deck over which it will be installed would comply with setbacks and would not present any impacts above what would normally be expected from any other structure that is permitted at that allowable distance. 4 (ix) A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation, safety, and aesthetics; Any new lighting that may be associated with the new accessory building would have to comply with the Lighting Ordinance. This would be verified at time of building permit. (x) The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids, minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems; Address: (<ADDRESS> Page 4 46 Agenda Item 5A Page 14 of 30 Goose Creek exists on the north side of the property well over 100 feet from the residences and deck. Therefore, there will be no impact to the natural system. (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. The roof would be attached directly to the residence where an existing deck is already connected to the house and ground below. No cut and fill is necessary for the roof cover- (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. Not applicable. No new streets are proposed and the building would not be tall enough to significantly impact solar access of any buildings to the north. 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. The building would be sited according to RL-2 zoning standards and siting near the north lot line is not feasible due to the slope and creek in that location. 4 (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 Chapter 9-8-, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981. The roof would be in an area not conducive to solar as it is on the north side of the residence. This aspect would not preclude its construction. 4 (iv) Landscaping: The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent buildings are minimized. No landscaping, which could create shadow impacts, have been proposed. VI. Proposed Conditions On Case 1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated and on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department. Address: (<ADDRESS> Page 5 47 Agenda Item 5A Page 15 of 30 Attachment C THOMPSON 2035 Balsam Drive Boulder, CO 80304 Phone: 303444-5460 Fax: 343-442-0832 ieant(r@earth~nk.net muddy6(i}0earthGnLuet November fl; 2010 RE: 2035 Balsam Drive, Boulder, CO 800304 Extension of Roof Over Back Beck Letter of Approval We, as neighbors of Jack & Jeannie Thompson, support their desire to modify their home by adding an extension to their deck roof, designed by their architect, Cheri Betz, to provide protection from the weather. We approve of their constructing a roof extension over their existing deck. Mark and Jill McIntyre 2045 Balsam Drive Boulder, CO 80304 o r ark McIntyre Date 27 J" McIntyre Dat 48 Agenda Item 5A Page 16 of 30 Tifl(OMPSON 2035 Balsam Drive Boulder, CO 80304 Phone: 303-444-5060 Fax: 343-442-0832 lean @earthlink.net muddyWearthlink net November 2010 RE: 2035 Balsam. Drive, Boulder, CO 800304 Extension of Roof Over Back Deck Leiter of Approval We, as neighbors of Jack & Jeannie Thompson, support their desire to modify their home by adding an extension to their deck roof, designed by their architect, Cheri Belz, to provide protection from the weather. We approve of their constructing a roof extension over their existing deck. Jinn and Evelyn Masson 2025 Balsam. Drive Boulder, CO 80304 A J° Masson Date Evelyn . asson Date 49 Agenda Item 5A Page 17 of 30 -----Original Message----- From: Martin Fritter [mailto:mfritter@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 3:07 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Site Review #LUR2011-00020 City of Boulder Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway, Third Floor Boulder CO 80306-0791 RE: 2935 Balsam Drive, Boulder CO Site Review #LUR2011-00020 Dear Planning Staff, Please deny this property owner expanded rights to build additional deck roofing beyond their already generous 35-foot height limit. The buildings on the bluff loom very large over the properties in the flood plain below, including mine at 2200 Edgewood Drive. This additional impact will detract from the value of my home. Thank you for your kind consideration. Sincerely, Martin Fritter 2200 Edgewood Drive Boulder, CO 80304 50 Agenda Item 5A Page 18 of 30 Attachment D LAND USE REVIEW APPLICA Y ION Height Modification JACK AND JEAN THOMPSON 2035 BALSAM DRIVE BOULDER, COLORADO 80304 LOT 14B BLK 2 HILLCREST LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PER REC# 2112424 The applicant proposes to construct a small roof over an existing 198 square foot deck that was built in 2001. The proposed roof will be 10.8 feet below the highest point of existing roof. Because the existing home sits on a sloping lot, the current regulations require the height to be measured from the outside face of the existing deck. Ironically, under the old regulations the roof measured 32' -8" (The plans were approved and constructed according to all applicable building and zoning codes of the time. When constructed, the "height" was measured 25' out from the face of the home on the downhill slope) Now under the new regulations, the same roof measures 41.02 ft. despite the fact that no new roof is being constructed which exceeds the height of what presently exists. The site is zoned RL-1 and is approximately 16,870 square feet. The home is on three levels (2 on street-side, 3 from rear) and consists of 4232 sq. ft. plus a 440 sq.ft. attached garage and 198 sq.ft.uncovered deck. GENERAL CRITERIA FOR SITE REVIEW APPLICATIONS 1. BOULDER VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A. /B. This is an existing single family residence. It is on a lot which exceeds the required size of its RL-1 zoning. No greater density is being proposed and the existing density does not exceed that permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. No new interior or exterior is being constructed. No new roof is being constructed which exceeds the height of that which already exists. H. SITE DESIGN A/B. Open Space: RL-1 zoning does not have open space requirements. C. Landscaping. This is an existing single family residence and there the proposed construction of a deck roof does not affect additional landscaping requirements. D. Circulation. This is an existing single family residence and the construction of a new roof over an existing deck does not affect circulation issues. E. Parking. This is an existing single family residence with an attached 2 car garage which meets all zoning requirements. F. Building Design, Livability and Relationship to Existing Area. 1. The existing home is compatible and comparable to other homes in the neighborhood in height, mass, scale, orientation and configuration. The simple addition of a lower roof over an existing deck does not change this compatibility. 2. The existing height of this home is within zoning code. It is no higher, and is in fact, lower, than many surrounding homes. The addition of a new roof (which is 9.7 feet lower than the highest point of the roof) does not change the compatibility with others in the neighborhood. 3. The proposed roof is lower than the existing roofs and does not cast shadows that encroach on neighboring properties. 4-11. n/a G. Solar Siting and Construction n/a 51 Agenda Item 5A Page 19 of 30 2035 Balsam Drive > i ~i'tl 1 k A ~k'~r. afrx r Y1L : ~'4a,. u< ~ ~f r ~~FRRcc. ~r' a tlv ~t _°:aza _ r z 9 W' off ~ M-M.. . x.k 1 7 S v~, t r ~ is r f ~ ~D2S ~ ~ E} Sk~1urlJ Sr ~ 5 tJ `~~~~it y~1+.'i` ~ n, t~ (5 e~~1 i~{5 - A r~R' P ~ 5 t ~r ~i ~ ~y 52 Agenda Item 5A Page 20 of 30 Neighboring properties Z ,p Wes,, Sc n a~ l A 5G ti 5 "M '4111, k 4 E e ~li~ ~ ,r ~1nr~ ~ r a~ ro zr 5. . j - Cl 4 t r yfc+L gam. h A-ct ~x L , k i 3 53 Agenda Item 5A Page 21 of 30 Updated Aug 2006 PROJECT FACT SHEET For Land Use Review Applications Accurate and complete information about a project is integral to a timely and thorough city review. Please type or print complete answers to the items listed under the boxes that relate to your project. While some of this information may be included on the project site plans or discussed in the written statement, please also enter it here. If you choose to recreate this document, please only include the items that relate to your project. An electronic version of this document is available on the Web at www_boulderplandeveloR.net ALL PROJECTS Key Information Subject property address/location: 2035 Balsam Drive Owner name and address: Jack and Jean Thompson 2035 Balsam Dr Boulder, CO 80304 Legal Description (or attach): Lot 14B Blk 2 Hillcrest lot line adjustment per rec #2112420 Age of existing structures: 10 years Size of site in square feet and acres. Gross: 16,870 Net (after public dedications): 16,870 Current Zoning Designation: RL-1 For rezoning and annexation applications, Proposed Zoning Designation: Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Previous Approvals (specify project name, review type): Solar Access Area Designation (circle one): Area 10 Area 110 Area III[] Does the project include the demolition of any structures? Yes ❑ NoO If yes, what year was the structure built? Please list any requested variations to the land use regulations (specific variance information is requested later in the project fact sheet): Height Modification 54 Agenda Item 5A Page 22 of 30 Please indicate with a checkmark if your property is affected by any of the following: Wetland area Airport Influence Zone Historic landmark designation/district Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC) 100 Year Flood Zone North Boulder Subcommunity Plan CAGID parking district UHGID parking district Other local improvement district Land Use Please describe the proposed use(s) of the property, including activities conducted on site, number of seats, number of guest rooms, number of residents, number of employees, hours of operation and any other unique operating characteristics. Also, please specify which land use category(ies) in the Schedule of Permitted Land Uses (Section 9-6-1) that most closely describes the proposed use: This is an existing single family residence. The owners wish to construct a new roof over an existing deck on the rear of the home. Utilities Are existing buildings hooked-up to city water? Yes 0 No[] Are existing buildings hooked-up to city sewer? Yes 0 No❑ Are there city water mains adjacent the property? Yes 0 No[] Are there city sewer mains adjacent the property? Yes No❑ Please name any utility districts that currently serve the property: 55 Agenda Item 5A Page 23 of 30 Parking Total # off-street standard size 2 (dimensions: 9'x 19' ) parking small car (dimensions: 7'9" x 15') spaces existing accessible (dimensions: 12'x19'+3' ) bicycle (type: ) other (dimensions: ) TOTAL 2 Total # off-street standard size 2 (dimensions: 9'x 19' ) parking small car (dimensions: 7'9" x 15') spaces proposed accessible (dimensions: 12'x19'+3' ) bicycle (type: ) other (dimensions: ) TOTAL 2 Specify % of parking reduction requested % _spaces where are required Specify % of parking deferral requested % spaces where are required Setbacks Certain streets are categorized in the city code as Major Streets and have more restrictive setback requirements. Does your property abut a Major Street? Yes[] No o What is the setback requirement? Are any setback variations requested? Yeso NoO Please specify request: feet for the yard setback, where. feet is required feet for the yard setback, where. feet is required feet for the yard setback, where feet is required feet for the yard setback, where. feet is required Are you requesting any other variations to the Land Use Regulations? Yes® No[] If so, please list the specific variation(s) requested: Height modification 56 Agenda Item 5A Page 24 of 30 Projects with residential dwelling units (existing or ro osed Existing Proposed Total # of lots 1 1 Size of lots 16,870 _ 16.870 Total # of buildings 1 1 Size of each building 420Q +1_ sa ft 4200 +l- $a ft Total # of dwelling units 1 1 Total # of kitchens 1 1 Total floor area 4200 sa ft 4200 +i- sa ft Number of stories 3 3 Maximum building height a2S 40 4 Existing Proposed Floor Arealunit Specify the number of units with each bedroom ELU* ELU` ELU* configuration. 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 2 BR 2 BR 2 BR 3 BR 3 BR 3 BR 4 BR 4 BR 4 BR other other other * efficiency living unit Project density: Existing Proposed Gross units/acre Net units/acre Lot area/unit Total useable open space Useable open space/unit Floor area ratio 0.24 0.24 Is open space reduction requested"? (If yes, specify Open space reduction requests may only be made for properties in the RH-9 or RH-2 zoning district. 57 Agenda Item 5A Page 25 of 30 Attachment E ~ ~ ~ y r" : ~ J H. ~r. M '^a ~ r. ~w ~ Y, :r r f_+ _ wy : M _ - I;' _ _ ~'~r ~ F ~ + - - ri _ _ ~f 1~~I~_ ~~~T ~ ' I Iw i0 I 1~ Tt f s E J ~ i I 1f i 1 % € fi I f J 53 _ _ - E 1 ~ 35? 1 1 ' ~ ~ .~..r- - - 9 33 ` f si 34' ,r- _ - , ~ , i ~ r • _ _ 5335.,` ~ ,r~ ~ _ s~~y~ ~ ~ I ~ j ~ y3 ,1 ~ r / J.. ~ 3- + _ ~ _ I' ~ ~ ! i / ~ ,f R 1 f J/ - ~ yes 4 \s ~ I - ~ ' +r,- / ter- ' ~ ' - i l~ A . r: ' . Q ~ fi ~j`.!'~~~~~:~r.r~`~ ~/rte 'r'i'p. ~ ~ ~'--,~f ~.r,~'~~ 1,r•~ _ ~r..h i 0 10 2Q 4U aa+wgtr~~pe ~ ~ r~ 1 fir r'' r: r' ~ ~ 1I ~ y3 / / yy .fir` lrl~~' I .F r}l' 'j /~.~'~s~ _ 6 , y ~ r r,,, r' r . 1 ,X f + ii ,f /r f r r' ~ ~ f . , I 'i/' *F ~ a 1 ~/I'll '~'f/ f'r/• ~~r f y ~ ~1/ ,Rr i ~~i rr ~ r. 54 r - ~ ~ rf ~ I f.%r~f . f~ ~r rr r ~1 1 Jr. 't, r • ,,f' tr r % r' i ` / 'i y off ~f'; _ I 6a ~ f I ~~O r' / ~ .r . rr r ~ i 1 ~ / fix, f,.,`}..,1 r-~ 4 - ~r it ~ r .Y~, ~ 1~ ~ .r~~ rr rr ~ r ~ .r f .,r` ,•'r ~ r~ II E ~~,l ~1~ I.~~ i ~ f,r r,f~,,r/'~',r ~lr~,. Fr f~ u, ~Il - fir. f , 1 i i ~yp y r r'' i J~ r', i . 1 . r' "~.r'r„//'r//J f''~ i' ,r r ,,rte ',r//"' r ~ r ~ rf s r~ r ~l 2~ -i'" ~ ~ D~~~~' ti ,6s)'. 9: l r• N' 4 4 - ' - / i rry~a ,O .rte-• 1 ~J ~ rr'i ~ ~ ~ I s ~ w ,s; f /a'! ~ . o q ti y .r, ~~,y: 4Y ~ X39 cK'~ a~ 11F p y?,y ~3c~2 9,. 5442. 0~ ~ ~E~ r I f ~ ~ ~ 5 f ,,,r'' _ ; 539 , ' ~ r ~ ~w s, 15 ' I ,P , ~ , N 539 f,!~y~ _ f ~i ~ r ,,~qq r } '3~~_ ~ y`, ~ _ i 1 9y . ~ . , ~y ' g,5 ;r , ~ ~ 5 1 _ ~r ~ 5 , , ~0. 9 ~i` ~ ~ 2 ,i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ a~ 0~ 100 ~ S~ 1, i i 1~ 1 S ~ ~ 1' I 1 ~z, , ~ ,r ~ ',1 ~'c s ~ + 2~~5_-- f~ ~ t ~ ~ f - ~ ~ ~ , FOUND ALUM, CAP j s 1 ' ~ a x ~ I IN SIDEWALK 1 r? 9 1 C~ 1, 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LS 263DD ~ ~ x~~ 6 1 ~ - ~ ti 11 ~ 7a7 1 r BPS , f ~ f ~ SEM = ~ vGater ~ elec. ~ bra ~~FV:YJI~! l~,~ I ~ ~ ❑ ~ f meter 1 ` I tr~ans~crmer}`-~'~" GI's f-~/ 1 ~ 1, w - ~~il -1' t _ ~ GR ~ LS 2630D ON ~ C _ ' 69 P a r~ fl ' ' ~ i i ~ % ~ ~ i ~ s. s ~ ' ~ ~ , ~ ~ i ~r/ ~ ; I 'i ~ j i ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ MANNO~E ~ MANHOLE - ~ 5403.32' I xcr«.vrn I 1','~ ;y` f I ~ ~ ~r ~ ~1 _ i I _ - - - - ~ c- ' ' ~ = r~ ' ~ ~ i i i I~ j I I I I I 58 Agenda Item SA Page 26 of 30 a,a ~ ~J ~ ~ ~ w a iR. c g,,. ~ t:o yx'w f a 4 ° r. ww~aaxanu mx S,M:,.,:. i.zw~..,:-ri ey.~,„~.,,w ,ss: ww., u,"w °,<Hr r,•.,,, " a ,~„a. a ' wAw^u, .w.,,.•-m.,::.:~~evm ~.:.~..~„:>am>~~v,h.«wvub,>~ ~ m;~,,-. tb t$ ya i 3~ Via: rf • q ) ~ f f u ~.a f , • M a Kr >rFt y :.Y i z.. '-dh" ~ 3k ~ a+`.. ..•w...:.:, ..ai ~ f , ~ P;~" m~~ • ua.4:. , s m"""W^w'' ,~"....~w.+ww+~.~,'.r"""'S„~fi '.w` w~am~eri'"'w"'""""".:'.~,>~w' w ,w:w.,v:w..n",w.mv.,.."....~.:.<c::.T.:.wmea•~•-•*+...«..•.-,.-,- ' f: s j k-': 8 E Y § y.•a• ~ ~ 1," 3K pp ,r' yg^tl~ ~K ~~,s~ . ~ ~ y yj b:K- GS ` V ~Y ~ya • z ,y`~~ w : ~ ~ ; ~ , K e ~ y e ~ >r ~ ~ ~ 2 ,1 L_. gg ~ . 'q s ° ~ ` ~ R YR. ~ : k.~j ~ f K' ~ .i.$"u` ~ ~ E cy:. ~ ,.,x..,°m.~ r f: t a' ~ °m f ~ , l... ~ ew ' ' ~ :i..w:d :x. , r~ ''w:h m' ~ r f gg F,. d ~ cy , :E NM 7A'•w~-~; ~ s +1' t : .~:%~Qp*~f.', `~•`a i~` I s2„~s d.~'~'N ~~"Y3: ~ .y~ Is_ ,~E~ !3 0a M~~ 5 ~ ~ { w ,v a ~ : ~ i ~ ~ i`y f ~ Fs" 3• t ~ M,w F f, Syµ, ~ s ~ ~ '*"a^ .Mt fi .R :iii ~ ti Y~ , ."s+et~9j3,~t r a ~~R, ~ a„ E,~` s °r ~ ~ ~'"C." n3~iy.•YSda ~ ~ j,% I ri Y ~ y M1 a 1 ` ~,m, s a s: . E ~ s a~ r ~1 ~ f-' „ ~ ~ . € i i, s < ~ f;i f , s. ~F ~ ~ s~ ~ } a ~ ~ , e t A t w~ E3 ~'1` aN t;'G" ~;k'; 30., ~F 4 ' n^" na~«~~-. ~";~,°u...,»» „mow 3~~ `e ~wX:631~ 5 ~ Y ~ ti ~R~' qB Y s 4 i a. ' .,sa~aa •~1 g ',R^p,'~ ~ ~ rrt ~ • ~ ? 5.7. , ~ n 'Yn'i f ~ r'~ ~ y 1 " ~ ~ 9~~ ~;.:s tee. _ ~ R ~ ~ r ~ ~ _ , ~ ~ Y ~ ,aC` A~ S ~ f y~3• %.5,. .'•X ` k, 1':. ~w~~ A L, C cj R ~ v,r ,y~,,. E _ ~ W..ea, . , e y ~ ~ ~ ~ 4~ +u~6 _ ~ ' 3 .;k, ' ~ . F is f ~ ~ f' ~ r -,r, f~ 3 £ F ` ~ • tai. t. ~ ~ 5 ) YjY~f~ ~y 4pg 3 . Vp „ L ~ n. ~ ~ ? ~ / i Y R ~ ~ ,f: i ' ~ d K• ' Wu> ~ t„ ° 3 ~ Rrr's° p ~ ~ k 9 r"..Q. l~ n,;WY ,dl ~ ~ a. fir,,.^~T^', v ,.f f a ~ ,~1 ~ ada d h. f 't ~ 3 s ~ ~E°~$~.. ~ ~ „f £g : s~s ~ ^a~~,s' ~ "~R.,;. S ,r~~ ~ ~ ps a R~ ; ~cb,.,, ,w , l~ 'I w y'. a 5 1'~ z~ ~ ,:,..a;s^... ~ .3`> ~:RSG`CC9tb.F,,C,ia..:F;Y~d'•°~^A`~`°"':. ' ~ p.. . ~ ~ 7 ,~•j.. r '~A~vz~a~v:Ar~~ab~3°" < f E ~ iJ"'SN Q`~n . w , ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ A ` ~ is x : ° ~ ;J W^ . , , r 6', ~ E i.; r. ~ FG., . r y , Mw.W tt N., w ,hr i i yip y~ ~ y { < " 'r: i:: ~w. 4 ~ ' ' ~ a",Z~ , a; w `~y' , i I M as gx E<:^s , : , , a , , N y ' ^ ~ _ ° s ~ ,r4 » » rage .w,a« s ~ s. ~ • ^ ~:f raa E ,M,w, _ , p yy y y 9991 ~ ~ fib' : i4 1 ~ ' ' ~ 5 ('Ffi i ~ r J g$~~gq~~,gpp ~^.yp ~,g ~g.ya'~,j~ q~eyg g t g~ v x ~ 4 av i ,a "f i g f ~ I x F'"R y ,m . is ~ ~ 9p~ a~.~ 'k ~`3 q~r~° n~: •,r4.1 ~k.+s (k,f. € 6~ fn$wt $r•° ~/q t: g 'H^' • ~ ,~J ~ y Y. .air age f':~: ; S- ,q i f ~Y 3'x'2../ P xr'~ _ •"~d ~g~~~~'fA`K~ ~ fM"" ti~~i"b ~'*A . ~ $.~r" ~ r D Fps k,,,~ ~ ~ ~ K ~ ~ ~ r 4 k• ~ ~ 1 f ~ t ' ~Y ~ of ~0. Y•. h n ^ w , 'a";a F s ! f. f .,~,y, ~ 31:,n r£ $s: C ^ v i , , £ tip. ~s" € k s;'- xis` : a° ,.3 i i a • ~ ~ F , " ~ F,.~...,... , ~ ~ J~~~~»»» ~ - ~ ~ i ~ a ~f Q~ g~ 9 _ 3 \ 4 3~ i ~,3 E E f ~~1 ,~?"`'ia~ k ~ ~ ~a €~'~~~'~`~3 t "en~~. .~i a~' X~Sas w~~t~ o- F . ~ \ ~?F ~ nb F z r _ mar r.. s t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .,is~ =1 ~ "'d xp8 ~ ~ X52 '~k~ -s~ ~J t t F,~ ~ ~ z t q, L "a ~ { s g. i 'r ~^f ~ b ,1 ~ , 3F J ~ 'a' y ~ t ~ E `~~.1 ~"~w',~` FZ~ ,_a~ § _ ~~,~a ~ ~ ~ 6 woo- > ? ~ L. a: iF „,.°~,v S3~rhVn .M "a z 3 qq 6 i t ~ ~ p - ~ v a~' ~ a ' I (..^~~s r i<. ~ ~.-Mx hr,~, ~ s ',t . ~F g' ~ y~ Mzs;:a7k .~,ffi "c""`~:""~'"""""w' j y 9 ter., . a~$ „ ,..,~8::;;; „..,;3` ~ " a R.: 1~ 3 ~ its k~ ~ ~~~a~r~df~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ mm )P is xw+n ~ 'N'~ ~ ~ A F~ #k:, ; ~ sa A ~ ~ w X ~ r~ Ea R. r ` p G~ E ~~yq, ~ ~,aa w S " i k . i;8 A ,~r••b• ~~.d ~d a n . , t 9tF'..; ~ . m~..m A~, a i,~~ a ~k s } tMM4utv:tNNN~ ~ ~''h. ds i ° d s7 ~ t 14 ~ . ~ z { F'i ~F r ~B ~ a ° e~,~ of ~ ~ ~~~~a "da~~~ ~s`a a~, `°C>a~ ~ ,,,,,,TVra°»~,~~; ~ sue,,, i t 3 k e rA..;:,. ^•"^'^^~^'•M.,~:..b.M.dbn4 ~b'~ nr ~:~.,r...,.nrcw.'. Hm.'^a*:..,.,..~~G, ~ i ~ x~~ E rE g i ~ • s~+~k k ~ ~ ~ 3E L, ~.Y.B,j i5 I;ie~ ~ ~ ~ f,~,1 ~ 6M ~t} 1 kY ~ G cu~,uMm w°:nx,,, ~ ,°•°°:s.,^.,.,x^s„•,.;~e,•,..•md»nm•~a.~~•sa'_o~ ~ ~ YP. ~~u fi Gk f a. a N ~ m,~ ~.ti ~ ~ ~ afiF { , ~ ~ ~k g ; . 3~^ 1/ - €y s eYUr fi1~~a~ . 59 Agenda Item 5A Page 27 of 30 ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ n ~r,~u." b ~ , r,y , ~,S', t ~m` Y ,,..w::::, ~.uM1 ....h......i. .i, .~r,~vn n~ mrmwe h .~.~.....a rv.rrmmr M::.H.: a~~•:. x r 2 ~ ~ . ~ a~.~ F t 1 ~ .;m. a°.. ' d. . ,.,sue ~ q af~3>~E r '3 : ? 'A"v.cezrxi'y~wvau x~~Nme.Fx^,~Ec'canno+n+.ro+,,..,,.m.:.n-n...,.«.<n...,,w.wwm~au>"; ~ ~ w....m< w, .w,-vn ,,...~.pwun ~<a,.<<<,s~..wnx»ww+"w...m:..w:wa. ..e.,. n.a ,w..w -i:,n,...a,r, , rx ~ E: : E ~ , rr 3 aF, a ~ , r c ~<-;,w ~ ,.,a~~" „ ,A.., , Mir .,>w ~ry „r;,;;r.,w~w., - .~:o,~.~.n..reY~,mro.-~-.~;~~. Wx..o-~ "...,;...r4: r~r;.~»;,u~..~•,.~-,"em.,~,,.~,,.~.„:~„t > ,.~d~,..,.:~.,, . .~.~,.~.>,•~~a•~oa. s:.rM'.fu,~ar:,<,n..w~~ < _ s z " ` € 3' t r. m~<. . , i s, ~ a ~ ~ t ~ y~ y:. ~ £g ~ ~m . o„q;:. .lL. x wsr.. .u . ; .im k j3 b - 4 f ~ ti. ( ~ w~; 3 axw~~ 3 E 1~ , ( g . „ 3 ~ - s ~ "kq. ~ 9 ~ I t, a. v u k ~ ~ i ~ a irk a } s, ~f ~ , . ' ~ ~ ~ ~s k, ~ €~x;. ~«~~fk~Yr~M,r: r. ~~>i ,.'a..:.....2is t ~ f ~ ' a k~~k ~ ~ w ? ` s " { wk S ,~";.,a ~ >.~a~.~ex»q+~w."..e ,ra;a.: :•xn:-:r;~::a" y F k f s, ~ ~ ~ , un R l ~ I > 9 `s i 9 r .c a. x~ .~".w. 8 g k~. j:. 6C 3 ~ R ';urn. ..o.; v~k.~d: 4~4 S!'i 2 u { Mu i i' ~ S~ z { , $ { ~ ..4. 'fie, s. ~ 't" ~~.i f~ ~ ' ~ ~ k ~ x:, { ask is > sa ' T i~~x } k~:: a n ~ ~ r ~ ~ - - ~ r_ ~ k t < w~:. } ` gnymmiih.'mm . , ~ ~ ~ ti x~; , •R s S""'a :t ..yak { , M.,, f 1 F ,tl~~t. : ♦ i 2 , Sm g .rw..._ g. i w ~ k tt ~ t a= f o ' ~ Tuw E d w,_,,. ~ E , : E ~ k ~ ~.vm,~ y ~,z t,r ~ ~ f % ~ ' l~ ~.4 E ~ f . . r.'. s: a ~ , S 3 ✓s ~y E r r " ~ C q s r g f `w ,F ' ~a # ~ 7 q~ r k s c { ""v' ~ ° ` 3 j t ~ ..~a x G sc k Y ~°y7' F " S 4 'F f ~ ~ y { k I $ „ 5 v ~ ~ @ E ~ _ R ~ ti w-.... R4 p:, k~~ ~ t, o-$;2 E^~~ E i' r..,„ M... M. ~ v :r j.. 4~' i+~ ~~s,,...,~E.,,.~•N~n.. .ha ~ ,tea b'~:. ~ - § E A j:,. ,i FR q( ~ 0~}/r E ~ ~ ~a.. p'~ tt~; v ~ < °;a y f Yzj~ fr x any . , t ` ~ - a q: 'fir, o t x~ "r,.t,rua yr r N,,:ti;' ,f ~ s Y,o-~-w. k. ~ f ~ ~ 5: ; x f 3 ¢ I x ,v f. & r , a~ ~4 s, i~. v d .43...4 ( '3 72< f`,_ ~N ~ ~ Y D D f d' ~ a. 'i: i; : £ o ,i: : a. € ~ r 7 a t'; i F: '~,3 s # @<P°~ Sao xnna»w ~ f, ~ Ae k . 3 1 50, <tt ~ is ~ $ V ^ w i~. ~ > $ ~e .v i ~ i C ~ ~ ~mwo 4, „~t 4bmart g; S ! ~ ~be1~ < A ~r~ r ~ d' ;~~,a ~ _ _ E' 4 ~ ~ ~ S ~ 't ` ~;w..~..:::wp: rower.;.:, wdvx,~~".r ; gv.~,,~,..wrnx, okw!ve E: . R i. ~ Fr4 ~ o ;.~M;"w. EE w„,".:: :rrr,:,,..:-.: ,„.~„..:...~v:;.:. ww,.wyrr.-...~,a w.w>+.~ 3L..,..u.unv.vu....,u....,..uw,w:. u~wa...,. _.~,.w:wxw.rrRw.MUwwk;awwewwww<~.bawaa~u vae r,.,.--m.,. ;i,h; ,,,,,.,.eN~ : r,,...,: F E;, r x i " aw ~t~ ~j N ~ E• f~ a "'k7.~ ~~.,F ~ ~ ~k ° A?'' D ~x ~,6'~w "•~i✓ F a`', ~i,~r m"! ~ E : ~ - ~«ea:Y.wrasw:z3w.smmwxstirerem' ".:.,.,.~;.„xx».,.,e~::~~ t<.~e..~•nx :.r~ ...~.,w,~.,k;..:..exi. w..~,.~.,o..,x .,..,,.,,....,,".,,_w.ww,..~. ~u., a.,,M..,xa. wtc ?.xrrwrs'. 9Y r s ~:P^; ~ a~ r;;' ,,..,.„.m...." .a~a..w...a~NU,u,x".ws; v ss,~v.;+:: .u,...,a. .:.a,A'~< x ~ r>: _ h $ { g f :b Y .S X 3 6 .s UP+j 3k'""'~ N, N+ VPPER a E E a ) 1 9 n ~t _ 60 Agenda Item 5A Page 28 of 30 ~ ~ ~tt~ j. a ,6 ~ ,3 ~ ' a~ 3F ~ 4w~ a I ~ ~ ~ n . Any ~n" i n . ~fP~ Sun hn~ ' ~ i:~ f < . ~ t ~ ~rt g !h;Y CX ~e: ~Sp~T. wdwarrc»me~:dM .KwTY~"wn; wow ~kv~h.M~nr. ,"~"n'""~,-~:•.. ry e ~ s/m,YS` Y ~ ~ u s~ t x v yy yy ~,yy 1;Y,;'.bA ~~fi Z. ~ ~E, i x 1'. y > t' N.~ m < ~a, P ~ „a~ s r, , a ~ y . .e~vm~«+e~: .w'w ,...~w»we~.. ~ 'P`'1 .-e, re~~ ~ ~rvei~r. nww,wa~~ P me r`" k.. ~ \y ' is '%~f~ p, `3 yr~;. ;o 0. fi ~p ~Y ` C fi g z: f 9 ,y.~ 3 n. ~ ~ } ,...•~.?w:xi:- .mow ,.:~~mw,~r. u. a..., n ii~: y, 3:% ~ ? c V" ~ ~ f °d M»5 s z,~~, _ ` m pJ~ Yn'9 0 ~ s - t I: h a; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T, g ' wad ~ ~ F a ~ , M~`~ ~ ~ .x. Y~ i n,13~ ,a 'r. .T. ~;d ~y h ' } y 1" x, y 61 Agenda Item 5A Page 29 of 30 ~ v ~ m:wmww, ~xYA h.hh u~.: .,:~.w..,, ;,,w,r,..._,~.,~: f. { _ ~e : , x ~ c d ,.w.~,.~. . 3~' ':.SRS-« ~,~«~ra s s > Z ~ ~N~ ~ ~ ~ ry. ~ r , ~ ~s ~ 7~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~.,fqq ~ ~t` Y; r t I a,pt . _ v' peg ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ - ~ § . , i. d A,~L ~ ~ Fan ,.,Q a w.+y x y,... f. 2~ . vr~rMwhrr:,~.~. .fie.-~..-.cmaexAmmv ,nw ~ s y1~~y ~ . ~ ~ ~ „ r _ j . -0`' ..,...-~w.w;aw~ww,. a,,.,.::.~.:.;..::. .•,n~.. gv:;r..• _,;.uv«sx ..r<a~mi. ~ r ~~~"~,c~ µ ~.vaar < ~em~.m+w ww _ 3. ~ o~~. < - rtitaoxeua¢nw.:~^i^..i. ' ,:r!:. Mvawaea:~ ..C :y ) ; t 3 ~oa.«~««aan ,tea ~ ~ - ~ rat ~ ~ i $ y ' 4~ S , f ~ ~ J' S n; uut dt9. 4 ~ ...mn . ,:.'.,,uwa,robxoaai' s.w~w~w.;.w"<:..~ . .w::: Y ~ d ~ ~ f: - ~ t x ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ P r \v ~ ~ C m ~v.,....,.,. ~ ,r~~ v M M ( .,,w w ,,.«z~ i ~ is u.,u..:.~ „ ,»~n ~n : 'c,-...~ .r. ~ R 3 ~ k 1 G f, x~`~~' ~ i a ~ ~:xavvp: Ne..,,. ...ovn;. .:r. i,:x~ rr,~,o•.,: ,a:3Awc :aoa., ?,Y ' 3 { Y 37.R Gr: ~.~wrawao~, >A., u.~awo4~W .~a(,Fr.~ . ,w ~-rri,: m.p 3 a: S$""' gz .~c~4e 1 ca.. ;Syr, # ~8'~~ ~ 3~ ~5i~;t ~1'. - ~r ~ y 64r,. "i .~....+...,..a.::~.. naam~e .d ....wcroswwvW~~...vuav~.w.a.~ " w\iNS tpx n. xw5a,~. f(3hMaYk~Y ut oWM:. ~r..,w..~ o+.,ww'~~~.Tws~ ...:'i:n.. ....aa~.~»..s e... xi« +rzxiv,:::.'. , ,.~.+s'.aeYT`tiriiPnx~~ar~ r..'-......c.w....m,~.....:...,..H,..+.....:. nn .....J.i:.n,u vnv, n - ,to ~YPYtMYLAP>LY~C ~3ii~dY/~MaRYa'kAriY>U4t~M .i»k~~Wk> "'y{' . " ~m A"hrR,+¢ihat`xw,axw ai., . x..m ,M......x:::A•N+FW%rwwRNT~~n'ai£riaAJ+Mw a;av.R.'4?.'B'.'4F~~~" . , +`A+ mm.~.. xwxaroti~tl.Mti'e e~e^ammroH..."^:^. k~ti'~'kA`A'44mko'/R( /.R+.R~.tXdhWwh2^ .':+w)rciri'm"M:biv ~+n.J$Y>i~i. ~4u?wT:++ i'?F~S ? F . ~ ~ . ~ d~ f~~ f S t , ' t` Y a` a , ~yy. 3 a ~ { ~ 'y : 4, r xuec, ,t. ~ i;( ~ y~ ~ k 7 C q Y c~n _ ~ ~,«.wa,:~:.rq_e 3, ~ 1dFb"'1~ raglp : 'y ` k~.Zit s''' #3 w„ i. ~t s'i ~ ~ 4 ~~f-~ ~ wv+" ~ ° 3 w , .•;r;e ~ ~ r ..,.r r: w~ . „AaN. i , , „~r sty-""----...,""--n~ , ~ ~ sk: r * ; 2 `r ~9. ~ , ~ ~ ( v t < 4 @ w g'i i~~;' ~ ~ B - ~ ' E f' ~ `.ceka~ ~aawwv •,'mMw~,.wM,?d ~ ~ f c""' ~ 5 ' a ~ ~ 1 ~ a:w ..n o. ~ t z ` yy i Lyy;A+~mbwaw~r^~ava»-' t ,....v.... ~ ~.~\~>,w:.,L.~r J,.b ~ .nn Y'-: i y ar ..xer~~... xr wa : 'w.., ~ ,aroxesuawaaa, ....,attv ,uUUw •.ir... n......,.wMw.e.. ~ of~ r " o § sxw~+ 4~ ' ~ ~ , ~ K ~ a a s n Op ✓ D ..tic'"w ' 4 i ` ~ ~r u f ~ • mnw...:: ~,~a r, x-~xrn~'n~- ,-e.».,w:~ew.' xx s. M ~W~ u.~s:.,. i r~ . ~ ,;,x:~ ..a_.. ,r.'-.. .war a l' .d' _ _ v` , ~ vas ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ k.. - , ~ F,r~ ~ r ~,~Jc tP~ ~ =s" ~ ~ ti 9 ~^n ~o.~.r~r>;. ,a,~.,.,.,.~,a~.,»..~.a,...w'~+~,,~:aK~~.~,»..~,,M, ~n~an ...mM.... m...,c..a,,., r , w, »vrw.. .~,n.rg7nxcw~ a i meow. .x~xrh •~w.,wsoF,. ~`aan?~s.,. n...e.~.. xvwav.., f .wuaH mvwHar iu /w,uvw;:: .w.. ,m.:.... wy faun r.:;:>:w..ourdd^^ ,«~aaua.. .Y:>kw>».N)x.H?,v.wnw?'x>:4a~~X5M Wien:,/vm)N Oe ..,i..::rt 't :'.~-w....~.,....~w,,.^`(~:..,»~.v...-;.......,.,.. w:::. ' ~ ~ •k i. ` I ~ ~ g /:!%rvt ~>i'sf of elo, h 62 Agenda Item 5A Page 30 of 30 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 2, 2011 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of Use Review application LUR2011-00029 to permit modifications to a previously approved Special Review for a private school at the Mount Zion Church site at 1680 Balsam Avenue. The request is to allow grades nine through twelve and accommodate the relocation of Watershed School where the previous approval was for pre-Kindergarten to eighth grade. Despite the addition of grade levels, student enrollment is not proposed to exceed the previously approved maximum of 175 students. Applicant: Jason Berv, Watershed School Owner: Mount Zion Lutheran Church REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Department of Community Planning & Sustainability David Driskell, Executive Director Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager Karl Guiler, Planner II 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 and action on the Site Review SUMMARY: Proposal: Modifications to previous Special Review to allow grades nine through twelve for the relocation of Watershed School (a facility that serves grades six through twelve) to the Mount Zion Church site. Project Name/Location: 1680 Balsam Avenue Size of Tract: 3.12 acres Zoning: RL-1, Residential Low-1 Comprehensive Plan: Low Density Residential KEY ISSUE: Staff has identified the following key issue to help guide the board's discussion: 63 Agenda Item 58 Page 1 of 51 1. Will the proposed changes to the school uses on the site meet the Use Review criteria of section 9-2-15(e), B.R.C. 1981? Existing Site / Site Context: The subject site is located on Balsam Avenue between 15th and 17th streets within the Old North Boulder neighborhood. The neighborhood is predominately single-family residential, although there are some attached dwelling units in the vicinity. Balsam Avenue is an arterial that provides a connection from Broadway, on the west, past Community Plaza, to 28th Street to the east. The site is 3.12 acres in size, has mild slope descending to the south, and contains the Mount Zion Lutheran Church and associated pre-Kindergarten, Kindergarten and primary/secondary school (grades one through eight) uses. The site has two parking fields with over 110 parking spaces. See Figure 1 below. s:. ; - 1I~ 4 r - z ` Mount Zion Lutheran Ghurch and School - r.j a f v I I - ' - 4 F' ine A :n - ~ yam. ~ ~ i 1 1 f • '..;1 _ f l¢~ = `4 ~p,C,, ~ : .L ~ r. ~ ~'•i - Wyly.,. , ~ Figure 1- Site location and surrounding context. The zoning of the site, which is shown in Figure 2, is RL-1, Residential Low -1. The zoning is RM- 2, Residential Medium - 2, just east of the site. 64 Agenda Item 58 Page 2 of 51 BIOU 0 a cp~ Mount Zion Lutheran Church and School a [°o~ L~Jj 0 r F.. LDs 0 Cn R L_ --r FZ n /i _2 a El E= I Alpine Av 0 EJ s fr a Figure 2- Zoning in vicinity. Background: According to city records and previous applicant statements, Mount Zion Lutheran Church was established in 1956 at the subject site. Previous statements indicate that the site was acquired to permit future church growth and eventual development of a school. Following the initial Planning Board approval in 1986 to permit a preschool and day care center for a maximum of 20 children at the site, several subsequent expansions have occurred as described below: 1988: Planning Board approval of additional Kindergarten with a maximum of 60 children (SR-87-25). • 1989: Planning Board approval of addition of grades 1 through 8 with a maximum of 60 children for the existing pre-school and Kindergarten and 60 children for grades 1 through 8 totaling a maximum of 120 children (SR-89-3). 1997: Planning Board approval of an expansion of the facility from 15,115 square feet to 32,865 square feet, a maximum of 175 students [60 students in pre-K & Kindergarten; 115 students in grades 1 through 81 and a 10 percent parking deferral (10 parking spaces). These deferred spaces have now been constructed (UR-95-8). Project Description: Student enrollment at Mount Zion Church's school has decreased in recent years, which has prompted the church to consider alternative school functions on the property. Watershed School, which is currently located at 205 Canyon Boulevard and has similar Use Review approvals as the 65 Agenda Item 58 Page 3 of 51 subject site, has 78 students and desires to find a location where the school can expand. The applicant, Jason Berv of Watershed School, is requesting Use Review approval to consider the addition of grades nine through twelve to the Mount Zion church site as the previous Special Review approvals did not permit grades above eighth grade. Although there would be no increase in enrollment, any potential impacts of the upper level grades (e.g., additional drivers to site and associated parking and traffic impacts) must be assessed through the Use Review. Per Land Use Code subsection 9-2-15(4)(1), B.R.C. 1981, Planning Board review and approval is required to permit a non-residential use within a residential zoning district. Effectively 115 students are proposed for the Watershed School on the site. In addition, up to 60 students would continue to attend the pre-Kindergarten and Kindergarten uses on the site per the previous approval under the administration of Mount Zion Church. Grades one through five would be removed from the previous approval and replaced with the requested upper level grades with a total number of students on the site not to exceed 175 students. The applicant's written statement is found in Attachment C and plans of the site are found within Attachment F (as no changes to the site are proposed, the previously approved site plan is attached.) ANALYSIS 1. Will the proposed changes to the school uses on the site meet the Use Review criteria of section 9-2-15(e)? Schools are generally permitted within low density residential zoning districts if it is demonstrated through the Use Review process that the school will not have adverse impacts on the neighborhood. The two main findings that must be made are that "the use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area" [section 9-2-15(e)(5), B.R.C. 19811 and, "the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development or change to an existing development are such that the use will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties or for residential uses in industrial zoning districts, the proposed development reasonably mitigates the potential negative impacts from nearby properties. "[section 9-2-15(e)(3), B.R.C. 1981]. Staff finds that the continued use of the school with no increase in enrollment would not substantially change the character of the surrounding area; especially considering the number of years a school has operated at the site. However, the introduction of upper level grades could increase the potential of students driving to the site, which would not have been a condition previously assessed under the Special Reviews. As stated in the 'Public Comment" section below, additional traffic and parking congestion around the site are the primary concerns of neighbors of the school. Therefore, staff has required the applicant to do a traffic and parking analysis to determine what impacts could result from the change and what would be necessary to mitigate those impacts. Traffic and Parking Impact The traffic study (found in Attachment D) includes an analysis of the existing traffic (i.e., trips) and parking conditions at the Mount Zion School and the current Watershed School at 205 Canyon 66 Agenda Item 58 Page 4 of 51 Boulevard. The study also includes an analysis of what the potential traffic and parking impacts would be if the Mount Zion School operated at full potential with 175 students for pre-K through eighth grades per the current Special Review approval. In addition, it compares the potential impacts of the previous approval with projections of the combined impact of both schools at the location if operated at full potential of 175 students of pre-K, Kindergarten and grades 6 through 12. The conclusions of the traffic and parking analysis are as follows: 1. The number of trips to the site would be less than that previously approved at full operation based on the higher potential of high school aged students using transit and other alternative modes to access the site and as well as those driving to the school. A reduced number of trips to the school from students driving would occur as compared to younger students that would rely on parents arriving to pick up and drop off children twice a day. 2. With over 110 parking spaces on the site, the study concludes that peak demand for spaces on the site (i.e., up to 84 vehicles) would be less than the maximum number of spaces provided and therefore, the parking need could be comfortably accommodated. This would avoid spillover parking onto the on-street parking within the neighborhood. 3. Various opportunities for drop off and pick up exist around the site (e.g., church curbside along Balsam, frontage along 17th and Alpine and two parking lots) such that vehicular activity would be dispersed and not concentrated in a manner that could pose undue impact to traffic flow. 4. The Watershed School has a strong record of encouraging students to access the school through means alternative to the automobile. This intent would be strengthened by the fact that the proposed location benefits from convenient walking distance to transit along Broadway and 191h Street. The site at 1680 Balsam Avenue would have better access to transit than the current school location at 205 Canyon Boulevard (near the opening of Boulder Canyon). For these reasons, it is concluded that the potential traffic and parking impacts could be accommodated by the site and surrounding transportation facilities. As the site is set up for school operations and impacts would actually decrease compared to a previously approved use, staff can conclude that, "the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development or change to an existing development are such that the use will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties." Conditions of approval have been proposed (see page 6) that would limit the school enrollment to 175 students (60 students in the pre-K and Kindergarten and 115 students for the Watershed School), prohibit students and employees parking off site, and require the school to implement its Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to additionally off set any impacts of trips to the site and reduce the need for parking. Lastly, a condition would require follow up in three years to determine whether the use continues to meet the Use Review criteria. 67 Agenda Item 58 Page 5 of 51 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 site and a sign posted on the property for at least 10 days. All notice requirements of subsection 9-4-10(g), B.R.C. 1981 have been met. Staff has also contacted those neighbors that requested to be notified of any upcoming meetings or submittals. A neighborhood meeting was held at the Mount Zion Church and School site on April 25, 2011. There was significant attendance with individuals from the neighborhood and representatives of the Watershed School. The neighborhood expressed concerns about traffic on Balsam (which has increased significantly over the years based on neighborhood observation) and the parking impacts in the neighborhood from the nearby Community Plaza. While neighbors expressed support for the mission of the school, they did not want the traffic and parking issues to be exacerbated. The applicant expressed that it is part of the school's mission to be stewards of the environment and encourages students and employees to use alternative modes of transportation to the site. The school indicated that it is their intent to continue communications with the neighborhood to address impacts, as they have done at their present Canyon Boulevard location. Neighbors indicated that impacts cannot be addressed by words of intent alone. Some neighbors also expressed concern about the potential change in tax status of the church should the school operate at the location. Staff has received a number of written comments from neighbors opposed to the school as well as members of Watershed School in support. See Attachment B for these comments as well as a summary of the April 25th neighborhood meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Board approve application LUR2011-00029 based on the findings provided within this memorandum and subject to the recommended conditions of approval below. RECOMMENDED USE REVIEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The Applicant shall ensure that the development shall be in compliance with the Applicant's written statement dated April 18, 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. Further, the Applicant shall ensure that the approved school use is operated in compliance with the following restrictions: a. The maximum number students enrolled at the school on the site shall not exceed 175 students. Specifically, enrollment in daycare, Pre-Kindergarten and Kindergarten shall not exceed 60 students and students within Grades 6 through 12 shall be limited to 115 students. Grades 1 through 5 are not permitted under this approval. b. All school staff and students shall park in designated on-site parking areas, and shall not park in the surrounding neighborhood. 68 Agenda Item 58 Page 6 of 51 C. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring the use shall be in compliance with the Applicant's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department. d. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that this approval meets the criteria for a use review in section 9-2-15, "Use Review," B.R.C., including without limitation that the use will be compatible with and have minimal adverse impacts on the use of nearby properties and that the use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. No later than June 2, 2014, the Applicant shall submit for the review and approval of the Planning Director an updated written statement that describes the school's consistency with this approval, any communications with the neighborhood, and hold a neighborhood meeting to determine and assess that the use is continuing to meet the Use Review criteria in minimizing impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. If the Applicant fails to demonstrate that the approval continues to meet the use review criteria in section 9-2-15, "Use Review, " B.R.C. 1981, the City Manager may refer the application to the Planning Board under the provisions of subsection 9-2- 11(b), B.R.C. 1981 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 conditions, except to the extent that any previous conditions may be inconsistent with this approval, including, but not limited to, the following: Development Agreement recorded at Reception No. 801116 on October 30, 1986 (#SR-86-19; Development Agreement recorded at Reception No. 936051 on August 16, 1988 (#SR-87-25); Development Agreement recorded at Reception No. 999209 on August 23, 1989 (#SR-89-3); and Development Agreement recorded at Reception No. 1724915 on August 22, 1997. roved B Ai:` D d O dskell, Ex u i hector Department of Community Planning and Sustainability ATTACHMENTS: A: Staff responses to Site Review criteria B: Public comment (includes summary of April 25, 2011 neighborhood meeting) C: Applicant's written statement (includes Project Data Sheet) D: Traffic and Parking analysis dated May 26, 2011 E: Development Review Committee comments dated May 6, 2011 F: Previously approved plans for the site 69 Agenda Item 513 Page 7 of 51 ATTACHMENT A Criteria for Review: No use review application will be approved unless the approving agency finds all of the following: (1) Consistency With Zoning and Nonconformity: The use is consistent with the purpose of the zoning district as set forth in section 9-5-2, "Zoning Districts," B.R.C. 1981, except in the case of a nonconforming use; RL-1 zoning generally contain single-family detached residential dwelling units at low to very low residential densities. It is not uncommon that schools are located within such districts, if it is demonstrated that the school will not adversely impact the neighborhood. (2) Rationale: The use either: (A) Provides direct service or convenience to or reduces adverse impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; Not applicable. (B) Provides a compatible transition between higher intensity and lower intensity uses; The school is located in the RL-1, Low Density Residential zoning district, adjacent to medium density residential uses that are immediately east and one block to the west. The area is largely single-family in character, but with attached housing to the east and west and with its location within walking distance of Community Plaza there is a transitional aspect to the area. The enrollment of the school would not increase from that previously approved, and the impact of the high school aged students on the site has not been found to pose any impacts significantly greater than that of younger students at the site. The site has operated as a school for years and is on a 3-acre site that can adequately accommodate the use. Therefore, the continued use of the site as a school would be appropriate and compatible within its transitional context. (C) Is necessary to foster a specific city policy, as expressed in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, including, without limitation, historic preservation, moderate income housing, residential and nonresidential mixed uses in appropriate locations, and group living arrangements for special populations; or Not applicable. (D) Is an existing legal nonconforming use or a change thereto that is permitted under subsection (f) of this section; Not applicable. (3) Compatibility: The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development or change to an existing development are such that the use will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties or for residential uses in industrial zoning districts, the proposed development reasonably mitigates the potential negative impacts from nearby properties; The site already has approval to operate as a school and has been since 1986. The only change in operating characteristics to consider is the difference in age range that would result from the introduction of grades 9 through 12 on the site. Because a higher number of high school students could potentially drive to the site, the impact of traffic and parking has been analyzed. Based on the result of the study, which are summarized below, it is concluded that the impact of the change would be no more than the previously approval and would not pose any negative impacts greater than that typical of a school operating in a single-family neighborhood. The traffic and parking study has found that: 1. The number of trips to the site would be less than that previously approved at full operation based on the higher potential of high school aged students using transit and other alternative modes to access the site and as well as those driving to the school. A reduced number of trips to the school from students driving would occur as compared to younger 70 Agenda Item 58 Page 8 of 51 students that would rely on parent arriving to pick up and drop off children twice a day. 2. With over 110 parking spaces on the site, the study concludes that peak demand for spaces on the site (i.e., up to 84 vehicles) would be less than the maximum number of spaces provided and therefore, the parking need could be comfortably accommodated. This would avoid spillover parking onto the on-street parking within the neighborhood. 3. Various opportunities for drop off and pick up exist around the site (e.g., church curbside along Balsam, frontage along 17th and Alpine and two parking lots) such that vehicular activity would be dispersed and not concentrated in a manner that could pose undue impact to traffic flow. 4. The Watershed School has a strong record of encouraging students to access the school through means alternative to the automobile. This intent would be strengthened by the fact that the proposed location benefits from convenient walking distance to transit along Broadway and 19th Street. The site at 1680 Balsam Avenue would have better access to transit than the current school location at 205 Canyon Boulevard (near the opening of Boulder Canyon). For these reasons, it is concluded that the potential traffic and parking impacts could be accommodated by the site and surrounding transportation facilities. The site is set up for school operations and it was found that impacts would actually decrease compared to the previously approved use. Therefore, the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development (change to the existing development) are such that the use will be reasonably compatible, with and have minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. (4) Infrastructure: As compared to development permitted under section 9-6-1, "Schedule of Permitted Land Uses," B.R.C. 1981, in the zone, or as compared to the existing level of impact of a nonconforming use, the proposed development will not significantly adversely affect the infrastructure of the surrounding area, including, without limitation, water, wastewater, and storm drainage utilities and streets; No physical expansion of the school is proposed. The proposal to modify the school to include grades nine through twelve with no increase in enrollment will not result in increased capacity demands for water, wastewater, or stormwater utilities. Transportation infrastructure around the site would also adequately accommodate the need for students accessing the site and parents dropping off and picking up students. (5) Character of Area: The use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area; and School uses have operated on the site since 1986. There is no evidence that the proposed changes to the school uses, which result in no additional students, would alter the character of the area. (6) Conversion of Dwelling Units to Nonresidential Uses: There shall be a presumption against approving the conversion of dwelling units in the residential zoning districts to nonresidential uses that are allowed pursuant to a use review, or through the change of one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use. The presumption against such a conversion may be overcome by a finding that the use to be approved serves another compelling social, human services, governmental, or recreational need in the community including, without limitation, a use for a daycare center, park, religious assembly, social service use, benevolent organization use, art or craft studio space, museum, or an educational use. Not applicable to a non-residential use. 71 Agenda Item 58 Page 9 of 51 Attachment B 2720 14th Street Boulder, CO 80304 April 29, 2011 City of Boulder Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway P.O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306-0791 Dear Planning Board Members: I attended the April 25 meeting at 1680 Balsam sponsored by Mt. Zion Lutheran Church and School in conjunction with Watershed School. As a result of that meeting, I write to share the following questions and their rationale for your consideration when deciding whether or not to grant approval for Watershed School to rent space from Mt. Zion Lutheran Church. question 1. Do the City of-Boulder's 1997 Codes and Regulations used-to grant approval.for.the.Mt. Zion Lutheran Church School and 175 students total "fit"-and..are they reasonable and appropriate for the 1680 Balsam site and the City of Boulder for Year.2011, given overall.changes in the City, and especially the dramatic changes..in..ne'ighborhood.:demographics.-and businesses over the past.14.years? Rationale: Numerous changes in the Balsam Avenue neighborhood have'developed over the past 14 years which need to'be discussed and evaluated before "automatically" con.tinuing.the 1997.approval for renting the 1680 Balsam Avenue property to Watershed School. Various issues and questions were cited by neighborhood residents during the April 25th meeting, two of which are of significant importance-: (1) continuation of the Church's tax exempt status when it is being proposed that the largest part of the Church's property be continuously rented 5 days a week for at least 8 hours a day, as well as ad lib evenings and Saturdays to accomodate student and parent activities; and (2) the current serious.crowding issues in the neighborhood that have developed over the years which includes residential building (size and- number), but primarily due to increased business development in the neighborhood, especially the inordinate number of automobiles used by employees and customers to access the businesses (addressed in Question 2). uestion 2. What demographic study(ies) is/are the Planning Board or other City Department personnel engaged in and/or completed in relation-to.the Watershed,School's:request to rent and occupy 1680 Balsam Avenue school area?. Rationale:--Watershed-administrators s,tated.during,.the April 25 meeting that the current and primary goal for the school. is.to i-ncrease the student body from the approximate 5.5 to 115 students (60 student places would remain with the Church). 72 Agenda Item 5B Page 10 of 51 -2- The result of this increase can be clearly anticipated to result in even more cars and drivers and more noise and air pollution in the neighborhood sooner than later should Watershed School be housed on Balsam Avenue. It also.should be.noted that the current students attending Watershed School reside in Boulder, Lafayette, Louisville, Nederland-and.areas surrounding these communities. Additional students no doubt will continue to attend the School not only from these areas but quite likely from an even broader geographical area. Automobile congestion at the 4 way stop at Balsam/Edgewood and 19th at peak hours during the day is extreme, with 2 and at times 3 block backups not unusual. Balsam and Alpine are end to end cars at these times. These clogged roadways occur near the same hours the School operates during the week according to the School administrator (around 8 - 8:30 a.m., and around 4 - 5:30 p.m.). Additionally, many Watershed parents will be dropping off and later packing up their children at the Balsam location, - regardless of the fact school administrators and parents verbally claim "many" students bike, walk., and take the city buses, but no hard data to support the "many" statements were said to be available or were.presented at the April 25 meeting. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that students will continue to be dropped off and picked up; and as student numbers .,increase-, the drop offs/p,ick ups also will increase, thus increasing traffic substantially. Watershed personnel and parents repeatedly underscore the importance of being 'good neighbors as paramount, including preventing all types of pollution. Although they no doubt are sincere in their statements, the reality of the matter is that more people = more traffic = more auto pollution and generally more disruption to our neighborhood which is currently at the top satiation point for traffic. Please understand that residents of this neighborhood up and down Balsam and Alpine and North Street, as well as on all the adjacent north ;south side streets, have heard the "we'll be good neighbors" statements so many times before; but the long term result is quite the opposite. This is especially true of Whole Foods and other merchants in Community Plaza whose employees are prohibited from parking their numerous cars in Plaza parking lots; so they fill our neighborhood with an extraordinary number of cars (and thus air and trash pollution), and search up:and down our streets as they seek out and take all available parking spaces (leg-al AND illegal) in front of private homes between 13th -and 19th Streets, as well as along Balsam, Alpine and North Street. This"is to say nothing about spaces taken up by Community Hospital, Boulder Medical Center, and Peoples Clinic employees; and the noise, air, and trash pollution is becoming unbearable for many of us who have been long term residents (e.g., we've lived in our home since 1969). 73 Agenda Item 5B Page 11 of 51 --3- Added to this scenerio are all the customers at the Plaza and medical facilities who cannot find any parking within the lots provided by these stores-and agencies. (Sufficient anticipatory planning for increased employee and customer traffic and adequate parking during the business approval process for these businesses is so sadly apparent, especially for residents of the neighborhood). It was commented upon by some people during the April 25 meeting that approval for the Watershed School to move into the Balsam property is already a "done deal" between the City, the School, and the Church. I sincerely hope this is not the case. It would provide neighborhood residents with increased trust in our City's leaders if this comment would be addressed, please, publically. Thank you for your attention to this letter, and to other neighbors' input. Please understand no one at the April 25 meeting had any problem with the Watershed School per se as an institution of learning. Rather,, the main problems lies with the issues detailed above. S'ncere~l, ~d t' ' vti C. Princeton r-J3003Y,444-8163 74 Agenda Item 5B Page 12 of 51 Ir ~uel~l~~Pt e-) ~farin,t q ,~?t"Tpc+ Pow o 0 C,Z ;d t Moyt /6 ?o l " e 4 Agenda Item 5B Page 13 Ot 51 75 j t -ate t4~ C ~ Cl~yet 1 Izl9,z Alp- `nom A-vy, Too jd 0 r , (it) ~>0301 ;oK~-e II &/9vt, CoAn P~ 7A O 31:z Agenda Item 56 Page 14 of 51 76 From: Lark Corbeil [maiIto: lark@publicnewsservice.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 12:17 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: follow up to last night's meeting at Mt. Zion Hello, Karl - I was a member of the audience last night and wanted to compliment you, as well as the Mt. Zion and Watershed representatives. I've been on both sides of similar issues, and it takes great skill to have a real community meeting on an issue that is tender for the local community. As a member of the parent body at Watershed, I am glad to have heard the neighbors' concerns about traffic and parking, even though I felt guilty that we had driven a car to the event! In fact, we've always felt the pressure from the school to use public transportation but couldn't get ourselves together last year. With this move, our son can ride his bike more easily. I wanted to share that to back up what another parent was saying about the integrity of the school administration - I heard nothing last night that they haven't been saying since we first started to consider them as a private school option. I can imagine there are a lot of wheels already spinning from last night-thinking of ways to engage with the neighborhood in a helpful and productive manner for all concerned. We look forward to seeing those initiatives that will likely emerge, when the time comes; and hope that it will. It sounds like the neighborhood already perceives a problem, and we may actually be able to help the situation in the long term in some now unforeseeable way. Sincerely, Lark Corbeil Lark Corbeil 415 Quail Circle Boulder, CO 80304 303-444-0757 From: Meer, Stephen [mailto:smeer@intrado.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 20114:54 PM To: Guiler, Karl Cc: Jason Berv Subject: The Watershed School Mr. Guiler, First, I want to thank you for your time in attending the meeting after hours, and your work on this project. I am the father of a Watershed School middle school student and was at the community meeting last evening at Mt. Zion Church. Additionally, we own property in north Boulder and will be living there by the time the school moves (hopefully) to the new location. We are one of the additional families that will be able to utilize alternative transportation following a move to the Mt. Zion location, of which we are very excited. 77 Agenda Item 5B Page 15 of 51 Our family has been associated with the school for two years now and I want to reiterate what you heard from several of the other parents regarding the School's commitment to "walk the talk" related to being low impact, both on the community and on the planet. I have never been associated with an institution that is so focused and effective at managing their impact on others, irrespective of the specific area. I feel compelled to comment on a few of the themes of last night's meeting: 1. Clearly there is a feeling among the neighborhood residents at the meeting that the existing parking situation is beyond tolerable. I feel for these folks but heard absolutely nothing that even remotely suggests that this would be further impacted by Watershed School utilizing the space. I too have the experience of the School's current parking (at less than 1/3 of the proposed lot availability for the school at the church location) lot being minimally occupied over the last two years. Even if the school was to expand to the full 115 students requested the math doesn't support any mechanism for the parking lot to be overrun even if everyone who is licensed to drive did so. 2. 1 think it important to reiterate that The Watershed School will not have any elementary students under this scenario. The implication here is that the students that will be attending the school are of age that they can effectively convey themselves to school and not be in the situation of requiring a parent to deliver and retrieve them from the school. I don't believe that this was effectively communicated or understood in the discussion. 3. 1 do recognize that the School's using the facility would have the impact of adding some additional traffic to the neighborhood. That said, this use appears to be well below the already considered traffic for the building under its current authorization. I would also like to reiterate that these drivers will be predominantly adult drivers, not students. The Watershed School Parent community is as committed as the school is to assuring that we are low negative impact on the neighborhood. I would suggest that in reality we are much more likely to be a strong positive addition to the immediate and adjacent area. Thank You, Stephen Meer Watershed Middle School Parent From: St. Mary Magdalene Church [mailto:office@stmarymagdalene.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 12:54 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Watershed School application Hello Karl, I was at the neighbor meeting the other night concerning Watershed School occupying the space at Zion Lutheran Church. The neighborhood's concerns about parking and 78 Agenda Item 5B Page 16 of 51 traffic were very valid. I would like to say again that my family is committed to using transportation other than a car. My son, who will be a junior next year, almost always uses the bus (we have an Ecopass) or rides his bicycle to school. He has never driven to school and parked the car there all day, although he has had many opportunities to do this. Driving a car at this school is not a sign of social status. At the school's current location the very small parking lot is never full during the day, showing the staff and student's commitment to alternative transportation. I am convinced that Watershed School occupying this site will have very little impact on the current parking availability in this neighborhood. Watershed School and its families are determined to be an asset to the neighborhood. And since it seems another school would occupy this site anyway it would be a positive move for the neighborhood if the Watershed School application moves forward. Thanks, Kim Freymiller, parent of Watershed School student From: Jen Curtis [mailto:jen.curtis@watershedschool.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 20114:41 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Watershed School Hello, Thank you so much for your work in our moving process. I just wanted to take a minute to contribute my transportation plan with you. I know a few of the neighbors are concerned about an increase in traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood when we move to the Mt. Zion school facility. I want to state that I live at 30th and Iris Ave, currently 3.3 miles from Watershed School at its 205 Canyon location and often drive to school. Now that we will be moving to the 17th and Alpine site, I will be 1.5 miles from school with easier bus and bike lane access. I will not be driving to school once we move. Please consider this when calculating the actual number of drivers who will be at the new site as many of the staff members live much closer to the new school and will no longer be driving their vehicles. If you have any further questions or would like more details on my alternative transportation plan, please let me know. Thanks again, Jen. Jennifer Curtis Middle School Educator The Watershed School 205 Canyon Blvd. Boulder, CO 80302 303.440.7520 79 Agenda Item 5B Page 17 of 51 "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela -----Original Message----- From: Traci Hoops [mailto:tvhoops@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 10:51 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Mt Zion Lutheran Church neighborhood meeting Hi Karl: Thank you so much for listening to the many comments, questions and concerns from both Mt Zion neighbors and the Watershed community. My daughter has attended The Watershed School for 3 years now and we are very hopeful that our school will find its new home in Mt Zion School. I can totally understand and appreciate the comments/concerns from the neighbors regarding the traffic and parking concerns. After hearing the comments Monday night; however, it seems as though the neighbors that attended are more upset about the zoning decision that transpired years ago allowing the church/school to expand than the current issue at hand. A major concern for them seems to be the parking that currently occurs daily in front of their homes. I am confident Watershed will have no need to add to this as there is more than adequate parking available for the limited number of drivers commuting to school. As for any increased congestion in the neighborhood, this certainly would occur with the current zoning should the building be at its full capacity and maybe even more so with younger children that need to be dropped off and picked up. Watershed students are of the age where they can bike, ride the bus or walk to school. Watershed is truly a school that is environmentally conscious, community minded and dedicated to fostering integrity, responsibility and compassion in the students. I truly believe that the Mt Zion neighborhood couldn't find a better tenant for the school. Thank you, Traci Hoops From: chip dempsey [mailto:chip_dempsey@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, May 02, 20119:57 PM To: Guiler, Karl Cc: Jason Berv; Elizabeth Meador Subject: Watershed school application for Mt. Zion use review Dear Mr. Guiler; Thank you for facilitating the neighborhood meeting on Monday April 25th. As a parent of a student at Watershed, and resident of Boulder, I am thankful that your department has a process to adequately communicate the expectations and concerns of all involved. 80 Agenda Item 5B Page 18 of 51 I would like to share with you my impressions of the meeting, and express my own preference for the benefit of the committee that will rule on the use review. My first impression is that the residents of the immediate vicinity of 1680 Balsam who attended the meeting harbor resentment towards the traffic and scarcity of parking, that they themselves attributed to Ideal Market and the Hospital, and the fact that Balsam is de facto, a significant artery of transportation in Boulder. I don't know how many of those in attendance moved in before the market and the hospital, but they both seem like pre- existing conditions that would have been reflected in the purchase price of a property. Certainly, Boulder would not be better-off without grocery stores and hospitals (or schools!) My empathy is further diluted by the fact that I asked if the community had explored asking the city to issue street parking permits to residents, and found they opposed that remedy. I don't believe the opposition to Watershed leasing the property has anything to do with Watershed, per se, as Jason Berv and Liz Meador enumerated 17 staff and 18 students of driving age, compared with roughly 100 parking spots (cumulatively) in the two parking lots on site. I know the kids at Watershed truly believe in the importance of community, it is a central value of the school, and these kids are very idealistic. Having said that, I believe there is no sub-set of children that doesn't deserve access to a school site in a residential neighborhood. Finally, there is an underlying principle that I believe is at stake: and that is the concept of property rights. I don't want to live in a community where, once approved by the city, via a robust evaluation process, a property owner, like Mt. Zion Lutheran Church, having built a school, is not at liberty to use the property, as it intended. To deprive them of that right (or Watershed of the right to rent space) is simply at odds with what I, and I suspect every attendee at that meeting, hold dear. None of us would want to be deprived of using our houses for residence, and I think Mt. Zion Lutheran Church deserves no lesser treatment. I commend your department for it's contribution to the stewardship of Boulder that makes it such an amazing place to live and raise a family. Thank you for affording me the opportunity to share my view. Sincerely, Chip Dempsey 3421 4th St. Boulder, CO 80304 ph. 303 449 3104 81 Agenda Item 5B Page 19 of 51 From: Alexis Rebane [mailto:alexis@watershedschool,org] Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 20119:21 AM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Input on the Watershed School move to Mt. Zion Lutheran Hi, Karl, I was at the neighborhood meeting at Mt. Zion Lutheran (I was the one taking notes). I live at 9th and Alpine, so I'm a "neighbor," though I'm not in as close proximity as some of the people at the meeting. I'm also an administrative staff member of Watershed School. I wanted to email you today to give input on our move to the neighborhood. I think the relocation of Watershed School would benefit the neighborhood immensely. Watershed students are conscientious stewards of the school and their neighborhood, and will only enhance the feeling of community in the area. They are interested and involved in their surroundings. Additionally, I wanted to address the parking & traffic concerns. First of all, while I understand the frustration of the people who can't find parking in front of their houses, Watershed's move would not contribute to that problem. There is ample parking in the lot for the limited number of vehicles driven by staff & students to school each day. Second, as a result of the move, my vehicle will not be one of them. I plan to walk to school, thereby not contributing to either parking OR traffic issues. There are many students who are in a similar position of having easy walk/bike/bus access to this new location. Thanks for your attention. Best, Alexis Alexis Rebane Office Manager Registrar Watershed School 205 Canyon Blvd. Boulder, CO 80305 (303)440-7520 alexisk,,watershedschool.org 82 Agenda Item 5B Page 20 of 51 From: Susanne Achtenhagen [mailto:susanneachtenhagen@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 10:53 AM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Watershed School Hi Karl, I hope I am not too late in sending this. I live at 1574 North Street and could not make it to the meeting last week. I want you to know that we are thrilled to have this innovative, creative and amazing school moving into our neighborhood and hope that our children, who are currently 7 and 9 will attend in the coming years. We can see the roof of the building from our home and our girls love that they will be able to walk or bike to school by themselves. Thank you. Cheers, Susanne Susanne Achtenhagen Facebook: http://www.facebook-com/susanne.achtenhagen 303 245 8249 Love, Laugh and Live! 83 Agenda Item 5B Page 21 of 51 Neighborhood Meeting @ New Site April 25, 2011 6:00pm Karl Guiler, Planning Board, City of Boulder Mark Discenza, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Mount Zion Lutheran Church Jason Berv, Head of School, Watershed School Liz Meador, Associate Head of School, Watershed School Jason Berv provided an overview of Watershed School, and its desire to move to this location. Not to exceed the capacity previously approved, 175 students. Do not plan to change the site; neighbors would like to continue to use the playground --that would be welcomed by WS. Many of our students take public transportation, walk, bike, and carpool, (alternative modes of transportation); very few students drive. WS is not just about academics, it's also about community. WS is proud of the ability of the students to be good stewards and "nice kids." Mark Discenza stated that Mount Zion does not anticipate very many changes. What are the grades attending this location? Pre K, plus 61h_12 1h grades With an increase in students, what will be the addition in traffic? It is our intention that we'll have fewer cars than would have been accepted under the previous agreement. Will WS use the existing parking lot? Yes, with a greater number of spaces than they currently have at their school. How many staff members will be working at the school? 12-17 Traffic and parking are issues. Jason discussed the number of staff members who live within .5 miles, and the track record of alternative transportation. What are the other options of organizations coming in who would NOT have to get approval from the city? Only organizations that could match the original approval level as K-8. (per Karl Guiler) Neighbor: The current school did not go through an extensive review . Prior to the school getting permission, there was a plan in place for senior residences. The church's zoning allowed for a school. Does the change in use require new zoning, and additional tax revenue? The current zoning construct 84 Agenda Item 5B Page 22 of 51 There are many cars overflowing from the hospital and the businesses on Alpine and Broadway. Has it been tried to get designated parking spots for residence? It's a difficult process, and expensive, and has been regretted by other neighborhoods. Can students leave campus during lunch? High school students are allowed to walk (not drive) off campus during the day. 85 Agenda Item 5B Page 23 of 51 Attachment C 10 ZOl t Updated Aug 2006 PROJECT FACT SHEET For Land Use Review Applications Accurate and complete information about a project is integral to a timely and thorough city review. Please type or print complete answers to the items listed under the boxes that relate to your project. While some of this information may be included on the project site plans or discussed in the written statement, please also enter it here. If you choose to recreate this document, please only include the items that relate to your project. An electronic version of this document is available on the Web at ~~u~nxt;r.i~~ iera# nre~+e4e: ALL PRCJFCTS Key Information Subject property address/location: 1680 Balsam Avenue Owner name and address: Mt. Zion Lutheran Church and School Legal Description (or attach): i-OTS 97 -€,v "-Ss WC-. i g6t_3K fi% aF LOTS ~-4 WQL-pFS 3: -,iti -70 Age of existing structures: 55 years for Church and Pre-School. 11 years for new school wing Size of site in square feet and acres. Gross: 3.12 Net (after public dedications): 3.12 Current Zoning Designation: RL-1 For rezoning and annexation applications, Proposed Zoning Designation: Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: LR Previous Approvals (specify project name, review type): SI-95-10 and UR-95-8 Solar Access Area Designation (circle one): Area I gArea 11 ❑ Area III❑ Does the project include the demolition of any structures? Yes ❑ No If yes, what year was the structure built? Please list any requested variations to the land use regulations (specific variance information is requested later in the project fact sheet): 86 Agenda Item 5B Page 24 of 51 Please indicate with a checkmark if your property is affected by any of the following: Wetland area Airport Influence Zone Historic landmark designation/district Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC) 100 Year Flood Zone K North Boulder Subcommunity Plan CAGID parking district UHGID parking district Other local improvement district Land Use Please describe the proposed use(s) of the property, including activities conducted on site, number of seats, number of guest rooms, number of residents, number of employees, hours of operation and any other unique operating characteristics. Also, please specify which land use category(ies) in the Schedule of Permitted Land Uses (Section 9-6-1) that most closely describes the proposed use: Continuation of approved use as church and school. Activities on site: Church services and ministry; Pre-school care; Classes for grades 6-12; Occasional evening meetings for parents Number of employees: current: 16 FT 7 PT; at full capacity: 20 FT, 13 PT Hours of operation: 6:30 a.m. to 5:30 p_m. for the school M-F for school and church; 8:00 - 3:00 on Sunday for church Land use: Private elementary, junior, and senior high schools; Religious assemblies Utilities Are existing buildings hooked-up to city water? YesEf NcC] Are existing buildings hooked-up to city sewer? Yes® No[] Are there city water mains adjacent the property? Yes ff No[] Are there city sewer mains adjacent the property? Yeso, No[] Please name any utility districts that currently serve the property: 87 Agenda Item 513 Page 25 of 51 Parking Total # off-street standard size 44 .(dimensions: 9'x 19' } parking small car 61 (dimensions: 7'9" x 16) spaces existing accessible 5 (dimensions:12'x19'+3' ) bicycle 25 (type: ) other (dimensions: ) TOTAL 135 Total # off-street standard size 44 (dimensions: 9'x 19' ) parking small car 61 (dimensions: 7'9" x 15' ) spaces proposed accessible 5 (dimensions:I2'x19'+3' ) bicycle 25 (type: ) other (dimensions: ) TOTAL 135 Specify % of parking reduction requested a % spaces where are required Specify % of parking deferral requested p % spaces where are required Setbacks Certain streets are categorized in the city code as Major Streets and have more restrictive setback requirements. Does your property abut a Major Street? Yes® No❑ What is the setback requirement? (no change) Are any setback variations requested? Yeso Noo Please specify request: feet for the yard setback, where , feet is required feet forth e yard setback, where , feet is required feet for the yard setback, where. feet is required feet for the yard setback, where. feet is required Are you requesting any other variations to the Land Use Regulations? Yes[] No If so, please list the specific variation(s) requested: 88 Agenda Item 5B Page 26 of 51 Projects with residential dwelling units (existing or ro osed Existing Proposed Total # of lots Size of lots Total # of buildings Size of each building Total # of dwelling units Total # of kitchens Total floor area Number of stories Maximum building height Existing roposed Floor Areatunit Specify the number of units with each bedroom ELU* ELU* ELU* configuration. 1 BR 1 BR T BR 2B 2BR 2BR R 3 BR 3 BR 4 BR 4 BR 4 BR other other other * efficiency living unit Project density: Existing Proposed Gross units/acre Net units/acre Lot arealunit Total useable o n space Useable open pace/unit Floor arear io ;Is o e ~s ace reduction re uested**? if es s ecifY % p o q t Y p ) pen space reduction requests may only be made for properties in the RH-I or RH-2 zoning district. 89 Agenda Item 5B Page 27 of 51 Projects with non-residential uses (existing or proposed) Existing Proposed Total # of lots 4 4 Total # buildings 1 1 Size of each building 32865 32865 Total floor area 32865 32865 Floor area ratio Total building coverage Number of stories 2 2 Maximum building height 34 34 Ratio of non-residential floor area to number of parking spaces 300:1 300:1 Ratio of non-residential floor area to residential floor area n/a What type of building code occupancy classification is required? 11 Projects with a mix of non-residential and residential uses In addition to the information above, please describe the proposed project, and any project characteristics or requested variations of the mixed-use project. 90 Agenda Item 5B Page 28 of 51 USE REVIEW WRITTEN STATEMENT Submit with your application. For your convenience, this form is also available as an electronic form on the Planning and Development Services web site at www.boulderplandevelop.net . You may type in your responses in the electronic form, and then print it to attach to your written statement. KEY INFORMATION Please provide the following information. Please type or print complete, detailed responses. Please also select use categories from the Boulder Revised Code Land Use Charts (Section 9-6-1(d)). EXISTING PROPOSED Use of existing building and land: Proposed use of buildings and land: cku'a'k LZ..ULA <'r-koyI 6'~ '-k 1v fbfi-q~-" IV~i FrYIO✓✓t~N JID Vl g 4 1~1 V~LS i ~ DT S~L~ SG~iDar 'r'~~ Hours of operation: Hours of operation: vtc, ~b~r, do Number of employees: Number of employees. (Please iindicate full and part time) (Please indicate full and part time) ~,4ie'4s1~1 5 --t ~1nr7, Zi74 e"M V.~t Q'u ~5'y7n` CyrY'&4 15 F l GtrnA I FF +'r Fi•;,41 7-vi f e, W vl I C'4' T(J. :Ywl'te"AtJ . f:?[- ~.MA 13 P1 cL1 1'vlLL~( ..~/i~.1F f K:, , iyAe l r lViiN,j kn 91 Agenda Item 513 Page 29 of 51 Estimated number of trips to site per day: Estimated number of trips to site per day: (Please indicate mode of transportation used (Please indicate mode of transportation used to reach the site.) to breach the site.) Ap-w-?d illil: i 110(( tr~1~s ~l dferC{e .t04~ "LL- yid ?2- ~ Net~~ rVtaCE[~ 44 -1 0s v%,i "L U CkXY Pooid ICWLAA iM (s S (ir~cv1S reinrv ors fr~S_ l~ S(h 1~ SCtt, G~vTS Q[.t2r ~lz,,~ "1~> > r OLLu,~0^M1 ' tit Uses on tadjacent / surrounding properties: Narrative In the space provided below or in an attached letter, please type or print a narrative describing the proposal in specific detail. Only one written narrative is necessary per development project. 92 Agenda Item 5B Page 30 of 51 USE REVIEW APPLICATION NARRATIVE Mt. Zion Lutheran Church was established in 1956 at its current location at 1680 Balsam. • On July 3, 1986, the Planning Board approved a special review request for a preschool and daycare center to serve a maximum of 20 children. • On February 11, 1988, the Planning Board approved an expansion of the existing day care center/pre-school and an addition of a kindergarten to serve a maximum of 60 children. • On June 1, 1989, the Planning Board approved a proposal to add grades 1-8 and 60 students in the existing day care/preschool/kindergarten for a total of 120 students. • On May 15, 1997 the Planning Board approved an expansion from 120 students to 175 students concurrent with approvals for a new school wing to be constructed. The original proposal was for 220 students. In the time since the construction of the new school wing, Mt. Zion Lutheran Church's congregation has decreased in size, and the school enrollment has concomitantly decreased as well. In response to this situation, the Board of Trustees of the Church invited Watershed School to become a lessee and to operate their existing program serving students in grades six through twelve on the premises. Mt. Zion will continue to operate a preschool program. Watershed School has an innovative approach to education, which emphasizes the teaching of critical thinking and citizenship through active engagement with the community. Watershed's curriculum, with an emphasis on sustainability, active lifestyles, and community service, is highly compatible with the values Boulder is best known for. Watershed's move to 1680 Balsam will allow growth in enrollment to a level that can sustain the school financially, and will provide enhanced educational and recreational facilities that support the mission of the school. No significant changes in use are anticipated. The school has already been approved for use as a secondary school, based on the previous approval for grades six through eight. The current use will expand the secondary grades served to include grades nine through twelve. Because of the different age profile of the Watershed School students, a much higher percentage of students will arrive at school by bus, or other alternative modes of transportation, than would have been the case with students in younger grades. Because of this, we expect to maintain, or likely reduce, the level of impact of transportation from that which was approved in 1997. 93 Agenda Item 5B Page 31 of 51 CRITERIA In the space provided below, please indicate how the proposal will meet the Use Review criteria. 1. Consistency with Zoning and Non-conformity. The use is consistent with the purpose of the zoning district as set forth in Section 9-5-2, "Zoning Districts Established", B.R.C. 1981, except in the case of a non-conforming use; a (tee D+~~t c~~ ; ~ ' ,r e .sAkLe y se, zu 1 r v o-ovj1 L~ Led W: W-e 0-v-!2, --edge j 2. Rationale. The use either: (A) Provides a direct service or convenience to or reduces adverse impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; (B) Provides a compatible transition between higher intensity and lower intensity uses; (C) Is necessary to foster a specific city policy, as expressed in the BVCP, including without limitation, historic preservation, moderate income housing, residential and non-residential mixed uses in appropriate location, and group living arrangements for special populations; OR .n if Q(V- QSA i,S <S C! k B'Va ?k 2:13 + ~~f~~ E~ nc~v~ ~rbtccr~t 2. I`, wL ,Jvre of tcY4 ~i✓r~1~o~s ~~etv~cs 2 :Z~ ~5~, +n~~.S viceS$ar ~us~a~rrwtEmv, y ~ GAS w+ i~~ TRC)P*. (D p01~~s . i y (5+, - ur ► v ~ cal; `rs~ (D) Is an existing legal non-conforming use or a change thereto that is permitted under subsection (e) of this section. 94 Agenda Item 5B Page 32 of 51 3. Compatibility. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development or change to an existing development are such that the use will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact on the use of the nearby properties; t6,V(<4 ~V s6L C~tlf''~GdtC!s L'S. 4. Infrastructure. As compared to development permitted under Section 9-6-1, "Permitted Uses of Land", B.R.C. 1981, in the zone, or as compared to the existing level of impact of a nonconforming use, the proposed development will not significantly or adversely affect the infrastructure of the surrounding area, including without limitation, water, wastewater, and storm draining utilities and streets. 5. Character of Area. The use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. R'r1 CkLzA0 YV~~.SVEC~ ~U`L O't7[S ~ G f)Lf~iNfU✓`#Cl ~L1.S1~ Vt f'1~1 i~I(f1Lj a'°+[.1~J l i! Vk 1 4 AS ~t E' trs sl1~.s?~ P~ca"' _ 6. Conversion of Dwelling Units to Non-Residential Uses. Conversion of Dwelling Units to Non- Residential Uses: There shall be a presumption against approving the conversion of dwelling units in the residential zoning districts set forth in Subsection 9-6-1(d), B.R_C. 1981, to non-residential uses that are allowed pursuant to a use review, or through the change of one non-conforming use to another non- conforming use. The presumption against such a conversion may be overcome by a finding that the use to be approved serves another compelling social, human services, governmental, or recreational need in the community including, without limitation, a use for a day care center, park, religious assembly, social service use, benevolent organization use, art or craft studio space, museum, or an educational use. 95 Agenda Item 5B Page 33 of 51 ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR MODIFICATION TO NON-CONFORMING USES: A A non-conforming use is described as any use of a building or use of a lot that is not permitted under Section 9-6- 1, "Schedule of Permitted Uses of Land", B.R.C. 1981, but excludes a conforming use in a non-standard building or on a non-standard lot; a legal existing use that has been approved as a conditional use or a use review use, or a use approved pursuant to a valid special review or a use review approval. A non-conforming use also includes an otherwise conforming use, except a single dwelling unit on a lot, that does not meet the parking and residential density requirements, including, without limitation, the requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit; useable open space per dwelling unit, or required off-street parking requirements for Section 9-6-1, "Schedule of Bulk Requirements", B.R.C. 1981. 1. Reasonable Measures Required: The applicant has undertaken all reasonable measures to reduce or alleviate the effects of the non-conformity upon the surrounding area, including without limitation objectionable conditions, glare, visual pollution, noise pollution, air emissions, vehicular traffic, storage of equipment, materials and refuse, and on-street parking, so that the change will not adversely affect the surrounding area; 2. Reduction in Non-Conformity / Improvement of Appearance: The proposed change or expansion will either reduce the degree of non-conformity of the use or improve the physical appearance of the structure or the site without increasing the degree of non-conformity; 3. Compliance with this Title / Exceptions: The proposed change in use complies with all of the requirements of this title: (A) Except for a change of a non-conforming use to another non-conforming use; and (S) Unless a variance to the setback requirements has been granted pursuant to Section 9-2-3, "Variances", B.R.C. 1981, or the setback has been varied through the application of the requirements of Section 9-2-14, "Site Review", B.R.C. 1981; and 96 Agenda Item 513 Page 34 of 51 4. Cannot Reasonably be Made Conforming: The existing building or lot cannot be utilized or made to conform to the requirements of Chapters 9-6, 9-7, 9-8, and 9-9, "Use Standards°, "Form and Bulk Standards", "Intensity Standards", and "Development Standards", S.R.C. 1981; and 5. No Increase in Floor Area Over Ten Percent: The change or expansion will not result in an increase in floor area of more than ten percent of the existing floor area. 6. Approving Authority May Grant Zoning Variances: The approving authority may grant the variances permitted by Subsection 9-2-3(d), B.R.C. 1981, upon finding that the criteria set forth in Subsection 9-2- 3(h), B.R.C. 1981, have been met. i 97 Agenda Item 5B Page 35 of 51 Watershed School relocation to Mt. Zion Lutheran Church and Preschool TDM Plan for Use Review - Spring 2011 1680 Balsam Overview: Watershed School has a demonstrated history of supporting alternative transportation amongst its students, staff, and families, and has a strong TDM plan in place for its current operations at 205 Canyon Boulevard. At our new location, 1680 Balsam, we anticipate continuing this trend, enhanced by the centrality of the new site in regards to public transportation. Watershed School plans to have approximately 75 students enrolled in August 2011, in grades six through twelve, and 115 students by August 2015. Both currently, and at full capacity, we have very few students eligible to drive a vehicle, and of those students, only a small percentage do not/will not use alternative transportation or participate in carpools. Currently, we only have 4 students who regularly drive themselves to school and are not part of a carpool. From our inception, we have sought to be both good neighbors and good stewards of our environment and community. Now in our 7th year of operations, we have a very strong track record in support of these aims. In 2006, we expanded the grades served at the school. At that time, neighborhood input was sought by the Planning Department staff about the school and its relations with the neighbors. Only one neighbor expressed an opinion in writing to the staff, and it was very supportive of the school. We have also demonstrated our commitment to the environment with our transportation demand management plans. We strongly encourage all members of the school community to use alternative transportation. In our most recent survey of Watershed School families, we asked respondents to "indicate which mode of transportation will be used by the student to travel to and from school at least three days per week, on average." The results are: THIS YEAR Bicycle 15% Walk/Skateboard/Scooter 9% Public Transportation 65% Carpool 38% Other 15% *Note: respondents may select more than one option, so percentages add up to more than 100% NEXT YEAR (AT 1680 BALSAM): Bicycle 18% Walk/Skateboard/Scooter 9% Public Transportation 68% Carpool 38% 98 Agenda Item 5B Page 36 of 51 Other 21% *Note: respondents may select more than one option, so percentages add up to more than 100% We are very pleased that our community embraces the school's environmental ethic so extensively, as reflected in these numbers. Transit Among the ways that we have encouraged such strong participation in public transportation is by offering our employees an EcoPass, and by facilitating the purchase of transit passes by our students. We fully expect to continue these efforts, and many parents have indicated that the proximity of the new school site to the "SKIP" bus line, e:~tA<( 2-0V will encourage their increased use of public transportation. Parking Management The current configuration of 100 automobile parking spaces is more than adequate to support the intended use. Mt. Zion Lutheran Church and Preschool will use the east lot, which offers 50 parking spaces, and Watershed School will use the west lot, which offers 50 parking spaces. For regular business operations, Watershed School uses an average of only 18 automobile spaces per day, exclusive of parking spaces reserved for school- owned vehicles (4 vehicles)_ Bicycle Parking Many of our students and staff currently use their bicycles to travel to and from the school, and the existing 25 bike parking spaces can accommodate our regular use. Bicycle/Pedestrian Access The site provides safe and convenient access to school via local bike lanes along Balsam, 13d', and 20th, as well as sidewalks along Balsam and Alpine to access the school from nearby transit stops. Evaluation and Monitoring We will continue to survey our community each year to identify the patterns in use. We will also send out at the beginning of each school year a letter encouraging and facilitating the use of alternative transportation and carpools. Summary Because of the different age profile of the Watershed School students in relation to the Mt. Zion Lutheran School student profile, a much higher percentage of students will arrive at school by bus, or other alternative modes of transportation, than would have been the case with students in younger grades. Because of this, we expect to maintain, or likely reduce, the level of impact of transportation from that which was approved in 1997. 99 Agenda Item 513 Page 37 of 51 Attachment D FOX NFICIM Z R AN S POR TAT ION G R0 UP May 26, 2011 Mr. Jason Berv, Ph.D. Head of School The Watershed School 205 Canyon Boulevard Boulder, CO 80302 Re: Traffic study report for the proposed relocation of the Watershed School to the Lutheran Church at 1680 Balsam Ave. in Boulder Dear Mr. Berv, At your request, I have completed a traffic study to document the traffic and parking impacts associated with the proposed relocation of the Watershed School from its existing location at 205 Canyon Blvd. to the Mt. Zion Lutheran Church at 1680 Balsam Blvd. It is my understanding that the Watershed School will move into the church school building and the existing Mt. Zion Lutheran Early Childhood Center (daycare/preschool) will remain in the church building as well. This traffic study has: • documented the existing traffic and parking patterns at the two separate school facilities; • projected their combined traffic and parking when the two facilities are merged into the same site and the student population at both has expanded to the full potential allowed at the site (115 students at the Watershed School in grades 6 - 12 and 60 children at the Early Childhood Center); • projected the traffic and parking under the historic approved school use which could have had 115 students in grades K - 8 and an additional 60 children at the Early Childhood Center. In this context, this report attempts to answer the specific traffic related questions raised by Michelle Mahan with the development review staff at the City of Boulder. Findings are summarized below by topic: 1. Existing Traffic and Parking at the Watershed School The Watershed School currently has 52 students at its existing location, with 15 full time and 4 part time staff members. The following traffic and parking patterns were observed and are also documented in Table 1: P.O. BOX 1 9768, BOULDER, C❑L❑RADO 80308-2768 100 PHONE: 303-652-3571 ■ FAX: 303-772-2329 OR 30ggAg ~e6 §6766be38of51 Mr. Jason Berv May 26, 2011 Page 2 of 6 AM Peak Hour: 7:30 to 8:30 AM • 61 trips accessed the school with 38 in and 23 out • AM trip rate of 1.17 trips per student • Maximum number of vehicles parked = 20 • AM peak parking rate of 0.38 vehicles per student • All parking was within the 30 space school lot. No parking is available on adjacent roadways. • Typical duration of parent drop off = 2 minutes PM Peak Hour: 2:30 to 3:30 PM • 56 trips accessed the school with 24 in and 32 out • PM trip rate of 1.08 trips per student • Maximum number of vehicle parked = 29 • PM peak parking rate of 0.56 vehicles per student A number of students were observed arriving and departing by carpool. There were also a number of students observed walking or biking to/from school, even though it was a rainy day when data was collected. 2. Existing Traffic and Parking at the Mt. Zion Early Childhood Center The Mt. Zion Early Childhood Center currently has 32 children (age 4 or younger) that attend the facility and 7 full time staff members. An aerial photograph of the existing church and parking lots is attached. It is my understanding that at one point in the past the church school site was approved to have as many as 115 students in grades K-8 and 60 children in the Early Childhood Center. Now only the preschool uses the facility. The following traffic and parking patterns were observed. Parking and traffic data are also included in Table 1: Site Access: • Two parking lots. East lot has 56 spaces. West lot has 57 spaces. • On-street parking space along the church frontage (church side of the street only): 16 spaces on Balsam, 11 spaces on Alpine, and 16 spaces on 17th. Total room for 43 on-street parked vehicles. • At the time that data was collected for this study, there were no vehicles parked along the curbside frontage of the Church site. • Total on-street and off-street parking available = 156 spaces. • The west parking lot provides the primary access to the Early Childhood Center. There is one-way flow through the parking lot with all vehicles entering from Alpine and exiting onto Balsam. The majority of parents and staff use the west lot to access the facility. The east lot has a driveway onto 17th Street. 101 Agenda Item 5B Page 39 of 51 Mr. Jason Berv May 26, 2011 Page 3 of 6 AM Peak Hour: 8:30 to 9:30 AM • 24 trips accessed the site with 16 in and 8 out • All traffic accessing the church site was included in the count and most is believed to be related to the Early Childhood Center, but there were a few vehicles that may have been accessing the Church as well. • AM trip rate of 0.75 trips per student • Maximum number of vehicles parked = 18 • AM peak parking rate of 0.56 vehicles per child • All parking was within the school lot. No parking observed on adjacent roadways. • Typical duration of parent drop off = 4 to 5 minutes. PM Peak Hour: 3:00 to 4:00 PM • 9 trips accessed the site with 5 in and 4 out • PM trip rate of 0.28 trips per student • Maximum number of vehicle parked = 8 • PM peak parking rate of 0.25 vehicles per student. 3. Fall 2015 - Projected Traffic and Parking The Watershed School anticipates moving in to the church site by the fall of 2011 and will occupy the western side of the building (the Early Childhood Center will relocate to the eastern side of the building). By the fall of Year 2015 it is projected that the student enrollment will have increased to its maximum allowable level of 115 students in grades 6 - 12. It is my understanding that student parking and parent pick-up and drop-off activity will use the western parking lot. Watershed School staff will be allowed to use the east parking lot as well. For this analysis it has been assumed that the attendance at the Early Childhood Center has increased to its maximum allowable capacity of 60 children. The projected traffic access and parking at the new Watershed and Mt. Zion site are detailed in Table 1 for the fall 2015 planning horizon. The existing traffic and parking rates from each facility have been applied to the combined facility with the expanded stud ent/chi Id ren population. For this analysis, it is conservatively assumed that the peak inbound and outbound hours for the two facilities will coincide with each other. It is projected that: • The combined site will generate 180 vehicle trips in the AM peak hour (113 in and 67 out) and 141 trips in the PM peak hour (62 in and 79 out). 102 Agenda Item 5B Page 40 of 51 Mr. Jason Berv May 26, 2011 Page 4 of 6 • There will be a peak parking occupancy of 77 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 79 vehicles in the PM peak hour. It is anticipated that the majority of the Watershed School traffic will access the site from Alpine Street and the majority of the Early Childhood Center traffic will access the site from 17th Street. It is anticipated that this level of traffic and parking demand will be easily accommodated by the site and the surrounding roadways. The Watershed student access traffic will circulate through the west lot where there will be plenty of parking for parents and students (assuming that staff parks in the east lot). The Early Childhood Center traffic and the staff from the Watershed School will be easily accommodated by the east parking lot and the access from 17th Street. It is likely that some parents will utilize the church curbside frontage to pick-up or drop-off students. This will lessen the demand on the two parking lots and help disperse traffic on the surrounding roadways and intersections. There should be no issues with school or church related parking in the surrounding neighborhood. 4. Traffic and Parking based on the Historic Approval at Mt. Zion Church School and Early Childhood Center For comparison, this study has projected the traffic and parking that would have been generated if the Mt. Zion Church School had reached its full potential as defined by the historic approved use at the site. It is my understanding that the Church School could have had up to 115 students in grades K-8 and an additional 60 children at the Early Childhood Center. To make these projections it was necessary to develop an estimated trip generation rate for the K-8 student population at the Church School. To do this we compared the difference in Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates for both public and private schools, with and without high school aged students. What we observed was that schools that do not have high school aged students typically generate 7% more traffic per student than schools where some of the students are older and can drive themselves or are more likely to use alternative transportation. We then applied this rate increase to the existing rates that were quantified at the Watershed school that does include some high school aged students. This approach was necessary to develop a Boulder specific school trip generation rate since historic studies have documented that national average trip rates tend to underestimate school trip making in Boulder. This same 7% rate increase was applied to the parking utilization rate documented at the Watershed School. 103 Agenda Item 5B Page 41 of 51 Mr. Jason Berv May 26, 2011 Page 5 of 6 The anticipated traffic and parking demand for this historically approved planning horizon is also included in Table 1. It is projected that the Church School and Early Childhood Center would have generated the following: • 190 vehicle trips in the AM peak hour (120 in and 70 out) and 150 trips in the PM peak hour (66 in and 84 out). a peak parking occupancy of 81 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 84 vehicles in the PM peak hour. 5. Transportation Demand Management It is my understanding that the Watershed School strongly encourages the use of alternative travel modes to the single occupant vehicle for access to the school. The TDM plan submitted by the school highlights the multi-modal opportunities for school access. With this relocation, the school will be four blocks from the high frequency SKIP transit route along Broadway and two blocks from the 204 Route along 19th Street. This should result in a higher level of bus transit access than currently exists. The new school site is also much more centrally located in the Boulder community and has better access to the City's extensive grid of on-street and off- street bicycle facilities. This should also increase the bicycle mode share for school access. Finally, the school site can easily accommodate parking for carpools and vanpools and their use should be encouraged. If the school is successful in increasing the number of students and staff who use alternative travel modes to access the site, then the traffic and parking estimates detailed above will be conservatively high. I do not recommend enforcing a limit on the student's ability to drive to school, as this would likely result in students simply parking off-site, on-street in a residential neighborhood where it may become an issue for some residents. In conclusion, it is projected that the traffic and parking generated by the expanded Watershed School can be comfortably accommodated by the Mt. Zion Church site and surrounding transportation facilities. In addition, I anticipate that the Watershed School will generate less traffic and parking than if the site had been utilized to its full potential as previously approved for the Mt. Zion Church School. I hope that the information in this traffic study report is helpful. Please let me know if you have any questions. 104 Agenda Item 5B Page 42 of 51 Mr. Jason Berv May 26, 2011 Page 6 of 6 Sincerely, Fox Higgins Transportation Group, LLC William C. Fox, P.E. Principal Attachment: aerial photograph of proposed school site Table 1 - Vehicle Trip and Parking Generation Estimate 105 Agenda Item 5B Page 43 of 51 Mt. Zion Lutheran Church / Watershed School Site . loT.- t ' 4 st e 9 - , i■ 56 parking spaces ' 1 57 parking spaces. 46 L • 43 on-street parking spaces around Church frontage rA1x?fw]D-(U 106 Agenda Item 5B Page 44 of 51 FH 11019 Watershed School Relocation Traffic 5/2612011 Study Watershed School Relocation to the Mt. Zion Lutheran Church Site Fox Table 1. Vehicle Trip and Parking Generation Estimates Existing Conditons at the Separate School Sites: AM Peak Hour Traffic PM Peak Hour Traffic Trips and Parking by Planing Horizon Land Use Size Unit Rate"' Total In Out Rate"' Total In Out Vehicle Trips Spring 2011 (Separate Sites) Watershed School 52 Students 1.17 61 38 23 1.08 56 24 32 Spring 2011 (Separate Sites) Mt. Zion Lutheran Early Childhood Center 32 Children 0.75 24 16 8 0.28 9 5 4 Total Vehicle Trips: 85 54 31 65 29 36 Maximum Parking Occupancy Spring 2011 (Separate Sites) IWatershed School 52 Students 0.38 20 0.56 29 Spring 2011 (Separate Sites) Zion Lutheran Early Childhood Center 32 Children 0.56 18 0.25 8 Total Parked Vehicles: 38 37 Historic Approval at Mt. Zion Church School: AM Peak Hour Traffic PM Peak Hour Traffic Trips and Parking by Planing Horizon Land Use Size Unit Rate' Total In Out Rate21 Total In Out Vehicle Trips Historic Approval Mt. Zion - Grades 1 -8 115 Students 1.26 145 90 55 1.16 133 57 76 Historic Approval Mt. Zion Lutheran Early Childhood Center 60 Children 0.75 45 30 15 0.28 17 9 8 Total Vehicle Trips: 190 120 70 150 66 84 Maximum Parking Occupancy Historic Approval Mt. Zion - Grades 1 -8 115 Students 0.41 47 0.60 69 Historic Approval Mt. Zion Lutheran Early Childhood Center 60 Children 0.56 34 0.25 15 Total Parked Vehicles: 81 841 1 Proposed 115 Student Watershed School Plus Mt. Zion Early Childhood Center at Max. Potential: AM Peak Hour Traffic PM Peak Hour Traffic Trips and Parking by Planing Horizon Land Use Size Unit Rate(') Total In Out Rate'' Total In Out Vehicle Trips Fall 2015 (Combined Site) Watershed School - Grades 6 - 12 115 Students 1.17 135 83 52 1.08 124 53 71 Fall 2015 (Combined Site) Mt. Zion Lutheran Early Childhood Center 60 Children 0.75 45 30 15 0.28 17 9 8 Total Vehicle Trips: 180 113 67 141 62 79 Maximum Parking Occupancy Fall 2015 (Combined Site) Watershed School - Grades 6 - 12 115 Students 0.38 44 0.56 64 Fall 2015 (Combined Site) Mt. Zion Lutheran Early Childhood Center 60 Children 0.56 34 0.25 15 Total Parked Vehicles: 77 791 1 1. Trip and parking rates based on observations at existing school facilities 2. Trip rates adjusted based on a comparison of ITE rates that indicate that trip rates go down by approximately 7% when the school includes high school age students. Some are more likely to use alternative modes and some can drive themselves. In this case, the Watershed School trip rates have been increased by 7% to reflect Mt. Zion School with grades K - 8. 107 Agenda Item 5B PRAQ d4;@Ar5r1tion.xls Attachment E CITY OF BOULDER Planning and Development Services + 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 j_ phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-3241 • web boulderplandevelop.net CITY OF BOULDER LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS DATE OF COMMENTS: May 6, 2011 CASE MANAGER: Karl Guiler PROJECT NAME: Mt. Zion Lutheran Church and School LOCATION: 1680 BALSAM AVENUE COORDINATES: N04W06 REVIEW TYPE: Use Review REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2011-00029 APPLICANT: JASON BERV DESCRIPTION: USE REVIEW: Request to modify a previous special review approval for a private school at the site to permit the addition of grades nine through twelve for the Watershed School where the previous approval was for pre-Kindergarten to eighth grade. Despite the increase in grade levels, student enrollment is not proposed to exceed the previously approved maximum of 175 students. REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: None identified. 1. REVIEW FINDINGS In general, staff supports the continued use of the site as a school and agrees that the facility would be appropriate for the proposed Watershed School. As the applicant is aware, there are neighborhood concerns related to traffic and parking that must be addressed prior to action on the Use Review. Therefore, prior to the formulation of a staff recommendation on the Use Review, additional information is required to conclude on the potential traffic and parking impacts the school may pose. While staff understands that the school has a high reliance on alternative modes of travel, adherence to the objectives of lowering trips and the need for parking on the site must be substantiated with an engineered prepared study and a strong Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/Management Plan. See 'Transportation' comments below. The applicant may elect to update the Management Plan to align with any updated TDM Plan. Staff has provided draft conditions of approval that would apply to the use if approved by Planning Board. See Section VI below. These conditions are subject to modification prior to Planning Board and may be altered at the discretion of the board at the public hearing. At this time, Planning Board is tentatively scheduled for June 2, 2011. However, holding this date will depend on the ability to address the 'Transportation' comments below with sufficient time for staff to review and prepare a staff recommendation to Planning Board. The traffic and parking information is necessary for staff to conclude on the Use Review criterion below: Compatibility: The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development or change to an existing development are such that the use will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties or for residential uses in industrial zoning districts, the proposed development reasonably mitigates the potential negative impacts from nearby properties, Please submit three copies of the information directly to the Case Manager, Karl Guiler once completed. Staff will review and prepare a formal recommendation to the Planning Board once received. II. CITY REQUIREMENTS Fees Please note that 2010 development review fees include a $131 hourly rate for reviewer services following the initial city response (these written comments). Please see the P&DS Questions and Answers brochure for more information about the hourly billing system. Address: 1680 BALSAM AV Page 1 108 Agenda Item 5B Page 46 of 51 Legal Documents Julia Chase, City Attorney's Office, Ph. (303) 441-3020 Prior to signing a Development Agreement, if approved, the applicant shall provide the following: 1) a title commitment current within 30 days of signing the agreement; and 2) proof of authorization to sign on behalf of the owner. Neighborhood Comments Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Staff has received a number of comments on the application from neighbors and members of the Watershed School. These written comments will be faxed to the applicant for review. Most objections to the school relate to the potential for traffic and parking impacts on the neighborhood as iterated at the April 25, 2011 neighborhood meeting. Other concerns that were raised related to potential issues with the church's tax status as a result of the addition of the school at the site. Transportation (Michelle Mahan, 303-4414417) 1. In order to support the proposed combined use and verify whether or not it will increase trips generated by the site, a traffic analysis and parking study must be performed and submitted by a licensed transportation engineer. The traffic engineer should note that the ITE trip generation rates vary considerably for schools since detail is not provided on the percentage of students who use the bus, drive, are picked-up/dropped-off, or use other alternate modes. In addition, daycare and preschool facilities vary widely in their operational characteristics dependent on the ages of the children. This should be taken into consideration when the expected trips are calculated. Proposed Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies should also be taken into consideration (see additional TDM comments below). In addition to providing expected trip generation, distribution, and assignment, for the combined use, the study must also provide the following data for each existing site (including both the preschool, daycare, kindergarten, and grades 1-8 students at the Mt. Zion Lutheran Church and the grades 6-12 students at the Watershed School)_ • Existing traffic counts during both the am and pm peak hours for the existing uses; • Total number of faculty/staff; • Total number of students in each age bracket; • Total number of employee parking spaces provided and utilized; • Total number of student drop-off parking spaces provided and utilized; • Total number of additional nearby on-street parking spaces utilized for employee parking or student drop-off parking; • Total number of student drop-off vehicles during both the peak arrival and departure hours, including the maximum number of drop-off vehicles present at any one time during the peak hour; • Total number of employees on-site during the peak arrival and departure hours; and • Average turn-over for vehicles accessing the facility during peak arrival and departure hours. 2. The application states: "Because of the different age profile of the Watershed School students, a much higher percentage of students will arrive at school by bus, or other alternative modes of transportation than would have been the case with students in younger grades". However, the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan does not demonstrate a significant enough shift away from single-occupant vehicle use to alternate modes through the use of TDM strategies in accordance with section 9-2-14(h)(2)(D) of the Boulder Revised Code. Staff would recommend that the following TDM strategies be considered: • Providing (rather than only facilitating the purchase of) eco-passes for all employees and local monthly passes at the youth discount (currently $39.50 per month) for all age-appropriate students for the first three years following certificate of occupancy issuance. In order for eco-passes to be given adequate time to become institutionalized within the community, a minimum of 3 years is necessary; • Establishing a van-pool to pick-up and drop-off students. An option is to work with DRCOG to set up ridesharing and vanpools with iSchoolpool software (free service of DRCOG); • Providing preferential parking for car-pooling vehicles; • Limiting who is allowed to drive to campus (e.g. faculty and seniors) and/or charging for parking and utilizing the funds toward subsidizing transit passes; and • Establishing an Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) to promote alternate mode use and conduct annual surveys. Address: 1680 BALSAM AV Page 2 109 Agenda Item 5B Page 47 of 51 III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS Area Characteristics and Zoning History Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 According to city records and previous applicant statements, Mt. Zion Lutheran Church was established in 1956 at the subject site. Previous statements indicate that the over 3 acre site was acquired to permit future church growth and eventual development of a school. Following the initial Planning Board approval to permit a preschool and day care center for a maximum of 20 children at the site in 1986, several subsequent expansions have occurred: • 1988: Planning Board approval of additional Kindergarten with a maximum of 60 children. • 1989: Planning Board approval of addition of grades 1 through 8 with a maximum of 60 children for the existing pre-school and Kindergarten and 60 children for grades 1 through 8 totaling a maximum of 120 children. • 1997: Planning Board approval of an expansion of the facility from 15,115 square feet to 32,865 square feet, a maximum of 175 students [60 students in pre-K & Kindergarten, 115 students in grades 1 through 8] and a 10% parking deferral (10 parking spaces). These deferred spaces have now been constructed. Flood Control Katie Knapp, 303-441-3273 A portion of the property is located within the 100-year floodplain. Any development within the 100-year floodplain will require a floodplain development permit. Land Uses Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) land use designation for the site is Low Density Residential. Landscaping Elizabeth Lokocz 303.441.3138 Additional landscape standards may be required at the time of building permit review based on the value of the proposed work. See Section 9-9-12(b) BRC 1981 for a list of thresholds and requirements. Review Process Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-4414236 Private schools require Use Review approval pursuant to Chapter 9-6, "Use Standards," B.R.C. 1981. The criteria pertaining to this application are found in Sections 9-2-15(e) of the Land Use Regulations and staff responses are found in Section V of this document. Because the use is a non-residential use within a residential zoning district, Planning Board review and decision is required. Zoning Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 The project site is zoned RL-1, Residential - Low 1. This zoning district is primarily used for established detached residential development. IV. NEXT STEPS Submit three copies of the requested traffic and parking information (see `Transportation' comments) directly to Case Manager for analysis. The Case Manager will pass the information to the city's transportation engineer. This information should be submitted as quickly as feasible in order to allow staff adequate time to review and prepare a staff recommendation to Planning Board. If there is not sufficient time to review prior to the June 2"6 Planning Board date, a later date may have to be scheduled. V. CITY CODE CRITERIA CHECKLIST The following responses are a work in progress and will be finalized as part of the staff recommendation to Planning Board following review of the requested parking and traffic information. Criteria for Review: No use review application will be approved unless the approving agency finds all of the following: Address: 1680 BALSAM AV Page 3 110 Agenda Item 5B Page 48 of 51 (1) Consistency With Zoning and Nonconformity: The use is consistent with the purpose of the zoning district as set forth in section 9-5-2, "Zoning Districts," B.R.C. 1981, except in the case of a nonconforming use; RL-1 zoning generally contain single-family detached residential dwelling units at low to very low residential densities. It is not uncommon that schools are located within such districts, if it is demonstrated that the school will not adversely impact the neighborhood. (2) Rationale: The use either: (A) Provides direct service or convenience to or reduces adverse impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; (B) Provides a compatible transition between higher intensity and lower intensity uses; (C) Is necessary to foster a specific city policy, as expressed in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, including, without limitation, historic preservation, moderate income housing, residential and nonresidential mixed uses in appropriate locations, and group living arrangements for special populations; or (D) Is an existing legal nonconforming use or a change thereto that is permitted under subsection (f) of this section; (3) Compatibility: The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development or change to an existing development are such that the use will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties or for residential uses in industrial zoning districts, the proposed development reasonably mitigates the potential negative impacts from nearby properties; (4) Infrastructure: As compared to development permitted under section 9-6-1, "Schedule of Permitted Land Uses," B.R.C. 1981, in the zone, or as compared to the existing level of impact of a nonconforming use, the proposed development will not significantly adversely affect the infrastructure of the surrounding area, including, without limitation, water, wastewater, and storm drainage utilities and streets; No physical expansion of the school is proposed. The proposal to modify the school to include grades nine through twelve with no increase in enrollment will not result in increased capacity demands for water, wastewater, or stormwater utilities. Traffic impact? (5) Character of Area: The use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area; and The school is existing and is not proposed to expand. (6) Conversion of Dwelling Units to Nonresidential Uses: There shall be a presumption against approving the conversion of dwelling units in the residential zoning districts to nonresidential uses that are allowed pursuant to a use review, or through the change of one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use. The presumption against such a conversion may be overcome by a finding that the use to be approved serves another compelling social, human services, governmental, or recreational need in the community including, without limitation, a use for a daycare center, park, religious assembly, social service use, benevolent organization use, art or craft studio space, museum, or an educational use. Not applicable to a non-residential use. VI. Proposed Conditions On Case (subject to change) 1. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the use shall be in compliance with the Applicant's written statement dated on file in the City of Boulder Department of Community Planning and Sustainability. Further, the Applicant shall ensure the school is operated in compliance with the following restrictions: a. Use the property as a private secondary school; Address: 1680 BALSAM AV Page 4 111 Agenda Item 5B Page 49 of 51 b. The maximum number students enrolled at the school on the site shall not exceed 175 students. Specifically, enrollment in daycare, Pre-Kindergarten and Kindergarten shall not exceed 60 students and students within Grades 6 through 12 shall be limited to 115 students. Grades 1 through 5 are not permitted under this approval. c. Hours of operation for the school shall be 6:30am to 5:30pm for the school and church, Monday through Friday, and 8:00am through 3:00pm on Sunday for the church. d. Evenings and Saturdays? 2. All school staff and students shall park in designated on-site parking areas, and shall not park in the surrounding neighborhood. 3. The Applicant shall provide notice to neighboring property owners and tenants of major events through newsletters, including the time and date of meetings and events that occur outside of regular class time. 4. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring the use shall be in compliance with the Applicant's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) dated , on file in the City of Boulder Department of Community Planning and Sustainability. 5. No later than June 2, 2013, the Applicant shall submit for the review and approval of the Planning Director an updated written statement that describes the school's consistency with this approval, any communications with the neighborhood, and hold a neighborhood meeting to determine and access that the use is continuing to meet the Use Review criteria in minimizing impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. 6. The Applicant shall not expand or modify the approved use, except pursuant to subsection 9-2-15(h), B.R.C. 1981- 7. The Applicant shall otherwise comply with all previous conditions contained in the Development Agreement for. . (i.e. Planned Unit Development #P and Subdivision Agreement for #S ) with the exception of those elements modified by this approval. Address: 1680 BALSAM AV Page 5 112 Agenda Item 5B Page 50 of 51 chment F } 'I ARCH 7 aI IT$C a,' s o TiJxB Q a 1448 Pennsylvania St. _ U Denver, Colorado VI II :_I I I 1 j 80203-2012 303.830.0575 FAA 303-830.8836 i `P=~..... . U7 207 Canyon 1 n s I' Suite Suite 301 _d t r, Colorado " • : _ ~i i~ I r J it 803 303.4 .443.4935 PAX 303.944.5826 % AMENDED P.U.D_ ti o, aa 111 uaa SUBMITTAL ~ 1 1 allq I a n x USE REVIEW i` i r-I 3 eta. SITE REVIEW 1 I U S 3s 1~ `,N l " a a ~ -7~---[E•'-'-Q----zT-'-' °T7--'-ti , i t , ~ / rG a4tii ~ U "3i14>fdla+x F ~~'r I ~ P ti II q S}~ c v I r NNW 0 i 7,11 Z i p 0 U /1 ] co i ~ 811 p 8f Pu zJZ W u z I,.. a w St JQ = wp % 7). C d U a 9. Z J > 0 $ t pill W W 4- C/1 w ".a o l ~I! pop < ~ 1 r ' it , Z pI' 1 `l -V w 0 Z w co W w p n a y ps I y T. aaM II = 0 diA C a 4j Q u1 T a F T-T ~ Illlllll ~ V ~ W I } 1~ ~s - 1 t I ' ~ x 1 r J ' ' t' R ❑ PLANNING BOARD REVIEW `.s.. ..A.. ~ i t ten? I} tL 9= L a' al a 3`__=1il ' i I 'S I Q I i 4s 6- ~4 z Sa ~y 1N H Rt yc 4Qo `S r SKL W a r t e _ 'r a r w t C\ S q5 ! } il, cxtc~rto e* DV( MAY 15. 1947 9508 02PRE LLJ r \ r _•~r V 1~ 0. ~'ll~ Zn -,I 2p,1t) S rrrrr~ - - - 2 < H ti 3 - PHASE ONE I 1 4 v i. n a~ I SITE PLAN " - BUILDING ELEVATIONS A-1 113 Agenda Item 5B Page 51 of 54