Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds director’s determination for SPR-23-0063, denying proposed residence size as submitted
Summary
The Board of County Commissioners voted to uphold the community planning director’s determination on SPR-23-0063 (residence at 4539 Flagstaff Road), concluding the proposal as submitted exceeded the presumptive neighborhood-compatible size and that staff did not have sufficient findings to support the larger design.
The Boulder County Board of County Commissioners on Feb. 11 upheld the director’s determination for SPR-23-0063, an appeal concerning a proposed residence on Flagstaff Road, finding the submission as reviewed by staff exceeded the presumptive size maximum and did not meet the code’s compatibility tests as presented.
Wesley Jeffries of Community Planning and Permitting summarized staff’s review. Jeffries said the board’s analysis relied on the county land-use code’s neighborhood-size analysis; within the defined 1,500-foot neighborhood the median residence size was 3,091 square feet and the code’s presumptive compatible size (125% of the median) was 3,864 square feet. The applicant’s original materials reviewed in the director’s determination described a total of 8,806 square feet of residential floor area; the applicant later submitted revised materials that staff had not analyzed prior to the hearing.
“Within the provisions of the code ... the proposal addresses visibility from roadways and private parcels but does not address public spaces,” Jeffries said in his presentation, and staff concluded the proposed development would likely be more visually prominent from Lost Gulch Overlook and other public vantage points without sufficient topographic or subterranean screening.
Applicant representatives said they submitted revised plans that reduced roof height, narrowed glazing and proposed a live (green) roof; they also offered a donation or conservation easement on another parcel as a mitigation concept. The applicant and architect said the revised materials were provided on Jan. 28 and requested that staff analyze them, but staff said the revised designs had not been subject to the full review that would normally accompany a site-plan modification.
Commissioners discussed procedure and evidence: several said they were limited to acting on the application and analysis that staff had reviewed and that had produced the director’s determination. Others noted the applicant could refile a revised proposal for staff analysis but the hearing before the board was an appeal of the director’s decision, not a new site-plan review.
After deliberation, a motion to uphold the director’s determination carried unanimously. The board did not approve the larger design as it had been submitted and analyzed by staff; the applicant may pursue a revised submittal and further staff review under the county’s land-use process.
Votes at a glance: Motion to uphold the director’s determination (SPR-23-0063) passed with all commissioners present voting in favor.
