{"id":6156,"date":"2011-04-21T21:06:45","date_gmt":"2011-04-22T03:06:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.boulderblueline.org\/?p=6156"},"modified":"2011-04-21T22:03:07","modified_gmt":"2011-04-22T04:03:07","slug":"height-limit-workaround-is-working-in-boulder","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.boulderblueline.org\/?p=6156","title":{"rendered":"Height Limit Workaround Is Working in Boulder"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

A few months ago, a new Boulder resident submitted plans to the city for an accessory structure that exceeded the maximum height limit set by our building code<\/a>.\u00a0 Rather than have the architect design the structure to comply with existing code, the new Boulderite approached the immediate neighbors to sign off on the project and managed to convince the planning staff to approve the height violation in a site review.\u00a0 As a nearby, but not adjacent neighbor, I received a notification about this decision and objected to it, which sent the issue to the Planning Board on April 7th.\u00a0 During the Planning Board discussion, one of the board members wanted to know which neighbor was responsible for bringing the issue to the board, implying that my concerns were not relevant because I did not live adjacent to this specific project. The board ignored my concerns and approved (5-2) the violation of the maximum height primarily because the immediate neighbors did not object.<\/p>\n

I would like the City Council to revisit this decision because the Planning Board ignored the following site review criteria when they approved this height violation:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Building height is supposed to be \u201ccompatible with the existing character of the area.\u201d\u00a0 The architect for this project admits in a letter to the planning staff that this structure \u201cmight feel large\u201d in my neighborhood which is directly adjacent to this neighborhood and is part of the existing character of the area.\u00a0 My property backs up to a lot that will likely be redeveloped with a large accessory structure.\u00a0 There is no alley to buffer me from the adjacent lot and a 20-ft high accessory structure will loom over our backyard.\u00a0 The last thing I want is another 3 feet of height added to that structure.<\/li>\n
  2. The orientation of the building exceeding the height limit is supposed to minimize the \u201cblocking of views from adjacent properties.\u201d\u00a0 The placement of this 52-ft long, 20-ft high accessory structure maximizes the impact on views on the neighboring property as it is situated north and south along the east property line and is placed as close as possible to the side yard setback.\u00a0 Although the adjacent neighbor did not object, that does not change the fact that a large portion of the views to the west will be blocked by this structure.\u00a0 The Planning Board decision to allow 3 more feet in height will magnify that impact.\u00a0 Site review also requires that noise be minimized.\u00a0 The orientation of the building actually maximizes noise to the neighbor to the east as the outdoor condenser of the cooling unit will face that direction.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    I believe the Planning Board decision sets a bad precedent, but planning staff claims that it does not meet the true definition of precedent.\u00a0 However, during the board meeting the Executive Director of the Planning Department stated \u201cthat to the extent that every change causes a little change in the character, that is something that will probably be considered in the next application.\u201d\u00a0 This indicates to me that this decision will likely influence future requests for height violations.\u00a0 One of the board members who voted against this height violation wanted to know the threshold of where the city will draw the line.\u00a0 I have the same concern since the only parameter that appears to be relevant to the Planning Board is the opinion of the directly adjacent neighbors.<\/p>\n

    Land use decisions should be based on our building code, not by whether the immediate neighbors can be convinced to sign off on a project.\u00a0 One purpose of our building code is to \u201cpreserve the character and stability of neighborhoods and conserve property values.\u201d\u00a0 Making decisions based on the opinions of the neighbors, rather than using this guideline, compromises and weakens our building code.<\/p>\n

    If this issue concerns you, please speak during Public Participation at the May 3rd City Council meeting.\u00a0 The height modification that was approved by Planning Board may be revisited by council, but only if at least four members agree to discuss the item.\u00a0 Hopefully the City Council will reverse the decision of the Planning Board.\u00a0 If they don\u2019t, it sends a clear, loud message to the development community that violations of the building code are welcome in this town.<\/p>\n

    April 7 Planning Board Presentation\/Public Hearing: http:\/\/www.bouldercolorado.gov\/files\/PDS\/boards\/audio\/planning\/pb_4_7_11_5a_staff.mp3<\/a><\/p>\n

    April 7 Planning Board Discussion: http:\/\/www.bouldercolorado.gov\/files\/PDS\/boards\/audio\/planning\/pb_4_7_11_5a_board.mp3<\/a><\/p>\n

    April 7 Planning Board packet: http:\/\/www.bouldercolorado.gov\/files\/PDS\/boards\/Planning_Board\/April_2011\/April_7_Packet.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    A few months ago, a new Boulder resident submitted plans to the city for an accessory structure that exceeded the maximum height limit set by our building code.\u00a0 Rather than […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":533,"featured_media":6158,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[309,99],"class_list":["post-6156","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-opinion","tag-development","tag-height-limits"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.boulderblueline.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6156","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.boulderblueline.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.boulderblueline.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.boulderblueline.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/533"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.boulderblueline.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6156"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"http:\/\/www.boulderblueline.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6156\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6173,"href":"http:\/\/www.boulderblueline.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6156\/revisions\/6173"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.boulderblueline.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/6158"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.boulderblueline.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6156"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.boulderblueline.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6156"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.boulderblueline.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6156"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}