2017-24_2060 Neher Ln_Disposition Packet
N O T I C E
FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE CITY OF BOULDER BOARD OF ZONING
ADJUSTMENT DISPOSITION OF ZONING CASE
DOCKET NUMBER 2017-24
CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE OF THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 9-
7-1, B.R.C. 1981 AT 2060 NEHER LANE OF MARIETTA AND DUNCAN AXISA, WHOSE MAILING ADDRESS
IS 2060 NEHER LANE, BOULDER, COLORADO, 80304.
On January 11, 2018, the City of Boulder Board of Zoning Adjustment, a quorum being present, held a public
hearing, after giving notice as required by law, on the application for the following variance:
As part of a proposal to construct a two-story addition to the back (south side) of a single-family house as well
modify an existing roof and wall along the home’s eastern side, the applicants are requesting a variance to the east
minimum and combined interior side yard setback as well as the west combined interior side yard setback
requirements for a principal structure in the RR-1 zoning district. The resulting east side yard setback (from the
existing & modified roof & wall) will be approximately 11 feet 9 ¼ inches where 29 feet 10 ½ inches is required and
11 feet 9 ¼ inches exists today. The resulting west interior side yard setback (from the new addition) will be
approximately 19 feet where 28 feet 2 ¾ inches is required and 10 feet 1 ½ inches exists today. Section of the Land
Use Code to be modified: Section 9-7-1, BRC 1981.
Based on our field investigation and the relevant testimony, exhibits, and other evidence introduced at the
hearing, and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981, we find by a
preponderance of the evidence that the criteria for granting a variance have been met, and grant the variance as
requested:
This variance is limited to the use and structure for which it was requested, including the location on the lot and
maximum height, as approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustment.
This variance was approved by the vote of 4-0.
EXECUTED this 11th day of January 2018, effective as of, January 11, 2018.
Jill Lester, Presiding Officer of the Board at the Meeting
By: ____________________________________________
Robbie Wyler, Secretary to the Board of Zoning Adjustment
This decision constitutes a final decision as of the date of the hearing at which it was reached. If a variance was
granted, the variance expires within 180 (one hundred eighty) days from the date on which it were granted unless a
building permit for such variance is applied for within such period.
CITY OF BOULDER
Planning and Development Services
1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, Colorado 80306-0791
phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-3241 • email plandevelop@bouldercolorado.gov
www.boulderplandevelop.net
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 1 of 92
Revised May 2017
400.pdf
City of Boulder Planning and Development Services
1739 Broadway, third floor • PO Box 791 • Boulder, CO 80306
Phone: 303-441-1880 • Fax: 303-441-3241 • Web: boulderplandevelop.net
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT (BOZA)
VARIANCE APPLICATION
APPLICATION DEADLINE IS 4:00 P.M. ON THE THIRD WEDNESDAY OF EACH MONTH.
MEETING DATE IS 5:00 P.M. ON THE SECOND THURSDAY OF THE FOLLOWING MONTH.
Submittal of inaccurate or incomplete information will result in rejection of the application.
STAFF USE ONLY
Doc. No. _______________ Date Filed _________________Zone______________Hearing Date _____________
Application received by: Date Fee Paid Sign(s) Provided
GENERAL DATA
(To be completed by the applicant.)
• Street Address or General Location of Property:
• Legal Description: Lot Block Subdivision (Or attach description.)
• Existing Use of Property:
• Description of proposal:
*Total floor area of existing building: *Total gross floor area proposed:
*Total building coverage existing: *Total gross building coverage proposed:
*Building height existing: *Building height proposed:
*See definitions in Section 9-16-1, B.R.C. 1981.
Name of Owner:
• Address: Telephone:
• City: State: Zip Code: Email:
Name of Contact (if other than owner):
• Address: Telephone:
• City: State: Zip Code: Email:
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 2 of 92
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 3 of 92
3
CITY OF BOULDER
Planning and Development Services
1739 Broadway, third floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, Colorado 80306
Phone: 303-441-1880 • Fax: 303-441-3241
E-mail: plandevelop@bouldercolorado.gov • Web: www.boulderplandevelop.net
NOTICE TO APPLICANTS
Dear Applicant,
As you begin to prepare your “Variance Application,” the Board of Zoning Adjustment
would like to offer you some information a nd suggestions that we hope you will find
helpful. (These comments are directed primarily to those seeking setback adjustments. If
you are requesting another type of variance from the board, please contact Planning and
Development Services.)
The Board of Zoning Adjustment is made up of five members who are appointed to five-
year terms by the Boulder City Council. Our purpose is to grant or deny your application for
a variance. Our rules and procedures require a positive vote of three members of the board
in order for your application to be approved. If one member of the board is absent or
removes himself or herself from the hearing, a vote of two in favor and two opposed has
the same effect as denial. However, in this case, you are automatically entitled t o present
the application again at the next scheduled meeting.
Please also note that the board is not a policy-making board such as the City Council or
Planning Board. The purpose of the Board of Zoning Adjustment is to implement policy.
So, while we understand that there may be social/ economic/ political issues that you
believe are relevant to your application, those issues are not part of the criteria by which
your application will be judged.
Remember that you are asking the board to change the “standard” code requirements for
you because of your unique situation. It is important for you to realize that the “burden of
proof” lies with you, and that only if you are successful in convincing us that you have met
the criteria, will you receive the variance that you are requesting. Please be as complete as
you can in furnishing us the necessary information to properly consider your application.
Depending on the complexity or scale of the project, you might consider providing
information in addition to that required by the “Application Requirements.” This additional
information could include renderings (artistic-type drawings that are often in color), models,
and written information as to the existing and proposed square footage of the structure.
Lastly, the board tries to maintain a relaxed, somewhat informal atmosphere. However,
we are a quasi-judicial board, and our decisions are for all intents and purposes final, and
the only appeal of our decision is in District Court, provided that appeal is filed within 30
days from the date of our decision. Also, you should keep in mind that if your request is
denied because you have, in our opinion, failed to meet one of more of our criteria, you
may not resubmit the same request for a variance for one year, unless it c ontains
“substantial” revisions.
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 4 of 92
4
While you can be assured that we will give you and any other parties a full hearing, we
occasionally must end discussion either when the discussion is not providing any new
information or when practical time constraints require us to move on.
Planning and Development Services can provide you with additional information and input
for the application. We suggest that you schedule a review of your application with the staff
and allow yourself enough time to take their comments into account. The staff will let you
know their recommendation to the board if you contact them 48 hours prior to the hearing
time. Please do not contact board members prior to the meeting to discuss your case. We
can only answer the most general procedural questions and are not permitted to discuss
the specifics of you case.
We hope these comments are helpful in the preparation of your application.
Sincerely,
Board of Zoning Adjustment
Section 9-2-3 (d) B.R.C. (1981)
(d) Board of Zoning Adjustment (BOZA): The BOZA may grant variances from the
requirements of:
(1) Setback and separation requirements listed in section 9 -7-1, "Schedule of Form and
Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981;
(2) The building coverage requirements of chapter 9-10, "Nonconformance Standards,"
B.R.C. 1981;
(3) The spacing requirements for mobile homes of section 9-7-10, "Mobile Home Park
Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981;
(4) The porch setback and size requirements of section 9 -7-4, "Setback Encroachments
for Front Porches," B.R.C. 1981;
(5) The size and parking setback requirements for accessory units of subsection 9-6-
3(a), B.R.C. 1981;
(6) The total cumulative building coverage requirements for accessory buildings of
section 9-7-8, "Accessory Buildings in Residential Zones," B.R.C. 1981;
(7) The use of a mobile home for nonresidential purposes subject to the requirements of
subsection 10-12-6(b), B.R.C. 1981;
(8) The parking requirements of subsection 9-9-6(d), B.R.C. 1981, with regards to
parking in landscaped front yard setbacks;
(9) Sign code variances and appeals as permitted by subsection 9-9-21(s), B.R.C.
1981; and
In granting any variance, the board may attach such reasonable conditions and safeguards
as it deems necessary to implement the purposes of this title.
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 5 of 92
5
BOZA VARIANCE CRITERIA
(h) CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES
The BOZA may grant a variance only if it finds that the application satisfies all of the
applicable requirements of paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of this Subsection and the
requirements of paragraph (5) of this Subsection.
(1) Physical Conditions or Disability
(A) There are:
(i) Unusual physical circumstances or conditions, including,
without limitation, irregularity, narrowness or shallowness
of the lot, or exceptional topographical or other physical
conditions peculiar to the affected property; or
(ii) There is a physical disability affecting the owners of the
property or any member of the family of an owner who
resides on the property which impairs the ability of the
disabled person to utilize or access the property; and
(B) The unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist
throughout the neighborhood or zoning district in which the
property is located; and
(C) Because of such physical circumstances or conditions the
property cannot reasonably be developed in conformity with the
provisions of this chapter; and
(D) Any unnecessary hardship has not been created by the
applicant.
(2) Energy Conservation
(A) The variance will permit construction of an addition to a building
that was constructed on or before January 1, 1983;
(B) The proposed addition will be an integral part of the structure of
the building;
(C) The proposed addition will qualify as a "solar energy system" as
defined in Section 9-16, "Definitions," B.R.C. 1981, or will
enable the owner of the building to reduce the net use of energy
for heating or cooling purposes by a minimum of 10% over the
course of a year of average weather conditions for the entire
building; and
(D) The costs of constructing any comparable addition within
existing setback lines so as to achieve comparable energy
purposes would be substantially greater than the cost of
constructing the addition which is proposed for the variance.
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 6 of 92
6
(3) Solar Access
(A) The volume of that part of the lot in which buildings may be built
consistent with this code has been reduced substantially as a
result of the provisions of Section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C.
1981;
(B) The proposed building or object would not interfere with the
basic solar access protection provided in Section 9-9-17, "Solar
Access," B.R.C. 1981; and
(C) The volume of the proposed building to be built outside of the
building setback lines for the lot will not exceed the amount by
which the buildable volume has been reduced as a result of the
provisions of Section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981.
(4) Designated Historic Property
The property could be reasonably developed in conformity with the provisions
of this chapter, but the building has been designated as an individual
landmark or recognized as a contributing building to a designated historic
district. As part of the review of an alteration certif icate pursuant to Chapter
9-11, "Historic Preservation," B.R.C. 1981, the approving authority has found
that development in conforming locations on the lot or parcel would have an
adverse impact upon the historic character of the individual landmark or the
contributing building and the historic district, if a historic district is involved.
(5) Requirements for All Variance Approvals
(A) Would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or
district in which the lot is located;
(B) Would not substantially or permanently impair the reasonable
use and enjoyment or development of adjacent property;
(C) Would be the minimum variance that would afford relief and
would be the least modification of the applicable provisions of
this title; and
(D) Would not conflict with the provisions of Section 9-9-17, "Solar
Access," B.R.C.1981.
(i) FLOOR AREA VARIANCES FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
The BOZA may grant a variance to the maximum floor area allowed for an
accessory dwelling unit under Subsection 9-6-3(a) "Accessory Units," B.R.C. 1981,
only if it finds that the application satisfies all of the following applicable
requirements:
(1) That the interior configuration of the house is arranged in such a manner that
the space to be used as the accessory dwelling unit cannot feasibly be divided
in conformance with the size requirements;
(2) That the variance, if granted, meets the essential intent of this title, and would
be the minimum variance that would afford relief; and
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 7 of 92
7
(3) That the strict application of the provisions at issue would impose an undue
and unnecessary hardship on the individual and that such hardship has not
been created by the applicant.
(j) VARIANCES FOR PARKING SPACES IN FRONT YARD SETBACKS
The BOZA may grant a variance to the requirements of Section 9-9-6, “Parking
Standards,” to allow a required parking space to be located within the front yard
setback if it finds that the application satisfies all of the following requirements:
(1) The dwelling unit was built in a RR-1, RR-2, RE, or RL-1 zoning district.
(2) The dwelling unit originally had an attached carport or garage that met the off-
street parking requirements at the time of initial development or, at the time of
initial construction, an off -street parking space was not required and has not
been provided;
(3) The garage or carport was converted to living space prior to January 1, 2005;
(4) The current property owner was not responsible for the conversion of the
parking space to living area and can provide evidence as such;
(5) A parking space in compliance with the parking regulations of Section 9-9-6
cannot reasonably be provided anywhere on the site due to the location of
existing buildings, lack of alley access, or other unusual physical conditions;
(6) Restoring the original garage or carport to a parking space would result in a
significant economic hardship when comparing the cost of restoration to the
cost of any other proposed improvements on the site; and
(7) The proposed parking space to be located within the front yard setback space
shall be paved, shall comply with Section 9-9-5, “Site Access Control,” shall
not be less than 9 feet in width or more than 16 feet in width, and shall not be
less than 19 feet in length. No parking space shall encroach into a public right
of way or obstruct a public sidewalk.
SIGN CODE VARIANCE CRITERIA
(Excerpt from Section 9-9-21(s), B.R.C. 1981)
(s) APPEALS AND VARIANCES
(1) Any aggrieved person who contests an interpretation of this chapter which
causes denial of a permit, or who believes a violation alleged in a notice of
violation issued pursuant to paragraph 9-9-21(t)(2) or (3), B.R.C. 1981, to be
factually or legally incorrect, may appeal the denial or notice of violation to the
BOZA or Board of Building Appeals in a manner provided by either such
board under the procedures prescribed by Chapter 1-3, “Quasi-Judicial
Hearings,” B.R.C. 1981, or may, in the case of a denial, request that a
variance be granted. An appeal from a denial and a request for a variance
may be filed in the alternative.
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 8 of 92
8
(A) An appeal from an interpretation which causes denial of a permit or
from a notice alleging a violation of Subsections 9-9-21(l), “Structural
Design Requirements,” 9-9-21(m), “Construction Standards,” 9-9-
21(n), “Electric Signs,” and 9-9-21(o), "Sign Maintenance,” B.R.C.
1981, shall be filed with the BOZA.
(B) An appeal from any other interpretation alleging any other violation of
this chapter shall be filed with the BOZA.
(C) An appellant shall file the appeal, request for variance, or both in the
alternative with the BOZA within fifteen days from the date of notice of
the denial or the date of service of the notice of violation. The appellant
may request more time to file. If the appellant makes such request
before the end of the time period and shows good cause therefore, the
City Manager may extend for a reasonable period the time to file with
either board.
(2) No person may appeal to or request a variance from the BOZA if the person
has displayed, constructed, erected, altered, or relocated a sign without a
sign permit required by paragraph 9-9-21(b)(2), B.R.C. 1981. The boards
have no jurisdiction to hear an appeal nor authority to grant any variance from
the permit requirements of this chapter. But the BOZA has jurisdiction to hear
an appeal of a notice of violation alleging violation of the permit requirements
if the appeal is from the manager’s interpretation that a permit is required, and
the appellant’s position is that the device is not a sign or that it is exempt from
the permit requirements under Subsection 9-9-21(c), “Signs Exempt from
Permits,” B.R.C. 1981.
(3) An applicant for an appeal or a variance under this Section shall pay the fee
prescribed by Subsection 4-20-47(b), B.R.C. 1981.
(4) Setbacks, spacing of freestanding and projecting signs, and sign noise
limitations are the only requirements which the BOZA may vary. If an
applicant requests that the BOZA grant such a variance, the board shall not
grant a variance unless it finds that each of the following conditions exists:
(A) There are special physical circumstances or physical conditions,
including, without limitation, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign
structures, or other physical features on adjacent properties or within
the adjacent public right of way that would substantially restrict the
effectiveness of the sign in question, and such special circumstances
or conditions are peculiar to the particular business or enterprise to
which the applicant desires to draw attention and do not apply
generally to all businesses or enterprises in the area; or
(B) For variances from the noise limitations of subparagraph 9-9-
21(b)(3)(L), “Sound,” B.R.C. 1981, the proposed variance is temporary
in duration (not to exceed 30 days) and consists of a temporary
exhibition of auditory art; and
(C) The variance would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter and
would not adversely affect the neighborhood in which the business or
enterprise or exhibition to which the applicant desires to draw attention
is located; and
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 9 of 92
9
(D) The variance is the minimum one necessary to permit the applicant
reasonably to draw attention to its business, enterprise, or e xhibition.
(5) If an applicant requests that the Board of Building Appeals approve alternate
materials or methods of construction or modifications from the requirements
of Subsections 9-9-21(l), “Structural Design Requirements,” 9-9-21(m),
“Construction Standards,” 9-9-21(n), “Electric Signs,” and 9-9-21(o), “Sign
Maintenance,” B.R.C. 1981, the board may approve the same under the
standards and procedures provided in the city building code, Chapter 10-5,
“Building Code,” B.R.C. 1981.
(6) Except as provided in Subsection (8) of this Section, the BOZA has no
jurisdiction to hear a request for nor authority to grant a variance that would
increase the maximum permitted sign area on a single property or building, or
from the prohibitions of paragraph 9-9-21(b)(3), “Specific Signs Prohibited,”
B.R.C. 1981. But the BOZA has jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a permit
denial or of a notice of violation alleging that a sign would exceed the
maximum permitted sign area or is prohibited if the appellant’s position is that
the sign does not exceed such area or is not prohibited by such Subsection.
(7) The BOZA or Board of Building Appeals may make any variance or alternate
material or method approval or modification it grants subject to any
reasonable conditions that it deems necessary or desirable to make the
device that is permitted by the variance compatible with the purposes of this
chapter.
(8) The City Manager’s denial or notice of violation becomes a final order of the
BOZA or Board of Building Appeals if:
(A) The applicant fails to appeal the manager’s denial or order to the board
within the prescribed time limit;
(B) The applicant fails to appeal the order of the board to a court of
competent jurisdiction within the prescribed time limit; or
(C) A court of competent jurisdiction enters a final order and judgment
upon an appeal filed from a decision of the board under this chapter.
Ordinance No. 5377 (1991).
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 10 of 92
SIGN POSTING REQUIREMENTS
APPLICANT’S ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM
Required for Certain Land Use Review, Administrative Review, Technical Document Review, and Board of
Zoning Adjustment Applications
I, , am filing a Land Use Review, Administrative Review, Technical
for the property
(PRINT PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION)
and agree to the following:
1. I understand that I must use the sign(s) that the city will provide to me at the time that I file my application. The sign(s)
will include information about my application and property location to provide required public notice.
2. I am responsible for ensuring that the sign(s) is posted on the property described above in such a way that meets the
requirements of Section 9-4-3(c), B.R.C. 1981 (listed above), including visibility of the sign(s) and time and duration of the
sign(s) posting, and including reposting any signs that are removed, damaged, or otherwise displaced from the site. As
necessary, I shall obtain a replacement sign(s) from the city for reposting.
3. I understand that certain future changes to my application, including but not limited to, changes to the project description
or adding a review type, may require that I post a new sign(s). The city will notify me if such a reposting is required and
provide me with a necessary replacement sign(s).
4. I understand that failing to provide the public notice by sign posting required by the city’s land use regulation may result
in a delay in the city’s issuing a decision or a legal challenge of any issued decision.
NAME OF APPLICANT OR CONTACT PERSON DATE
Please keep a copy of this signed form for your reference. If you have any questions about the sign posting requirements or to
obtain a replacement sign, please call 303-441-1880.
CITY CODE REQUIREMENT FOR SIGN POSTING OF LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATIONS -
Excerpt of Section 9-4-3(c), B.R.C. 1981: Public Notice of Application: The city manager will provide the following public
notice of a development review application:
(1) Posting: After receiving such application, the manager will cause the property for which the application is filed to be posted with a
notice indicating that a development review application has been made, the type of review requested, and that interested persons may
obtain more detailed information from the planning department. The notice shall meet the following standards:
(A) The notice shall be place on weatherproof signs that have been provided by the City and placed on the property that is
the subject of the application.
(B) All such notice shall be posted no later than ten days after the date the application is filed to ensure that notice is posted
early in the development review process.
(C) The signs shall be placed along each abutting street, perpendicular to the direction of travel, in a manner that makes
them clearly visible to neighboring residents and passers-by. At least one sign shall be posted on each street frontage.
(D) The signs shall remain in place during the period leading up to a decision by the approving authority, but not less than
ten days.
(E) On or before the date that the approving authority is scheduled to make a decision on the application the city manager
will require the applicant to certify in writing that required notice was posted according to the requirements of this section.
(PRINT NAME OF APPLICANT OR CONTACT PERSON)
Document Review, or BOZA application [on behalf of]
located at
(PRINT NAME OF OWNER(S) IF OTHER THAN APPLICANT/CONTACT)
. I have read the city's sign posting requirements above and acknowledge
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 11 of 92
Duncan & Marietta Axisa
2060 Neher Lane
Boulder CO 80304
3039977365
mariettaxisa@yahoo.com
20th December, 2017
Board Of Zoning Adjustment BOZA
City of Boulder Planning and Development Services
This letter is to inform you that we are seeking a variance to the combined side yard
setback requirements for the west and east interior side yards to allow for a single-story
rear addition with a partial basement. We are requesting a west setback of 19ft (for the
new addition) where the by-right west setback is 28’- 2 ¾”. The existing east setback is
11’-9 ¼”. We are also requesting a variance on the east side to change the by-right
setback from 29’-10 ½ “ to 26 ft. to allow for a deck. We are also seeking permission to
make changes to the existing structure that currently violates these side yard setback
requirements. We’d like to make the east wall 24” taller and the minor south-facing roof
steeper at the master bedroom.
Here we describe the history associated with the purchase of our property and what we
know about it so far.
Earlier this year we resided in Newlands on the west side of 4th street in a tri-level house
that had three separate staircases leading to the main floor: one staircase from the
entrance to the main level, one to the three upstairs bedrooms and another to the
garage. Though we really loved this neighborhood, we reluctantly decided to sell the
property on 4th since it could not work for us any longer because of these three main
reasons: (1) the garage, bedrooms and main level were all accessible by staircases and
we needed them all in one level, (2) the 8 ft ceilings limited natural light, (3) we didn’t
have a basement except for the entry hall/mudroom. The crawl space was wasted
space and could not be utilized. Also, the crawlspace was the main cause of having the
house flood during the 2013 Boulder floods. We are very opposed to having a crawl
space in a future home after the unpleasant and traumatic experience we had to go
through in 2013.
Our needs led us to sell our house on 4th and to find a one-story house with a
basement. After two years of looking for a suitable property in Newlands with no
sucess, we opted to look outside of Newlands and stumbled onto 2060 Neher. We were
very cautious before buying 2060 Neher since we knew that for the house to fit our
needs, we would need to include an addition on the west side. The current house is a
ranch house with a basement that has 11’-9 ¼” east side setback and 10’-1” west side
setback. The basement is dark due to low ceilings.
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 12 of 92
Before we decided to purchase our property at 2060 Neher over a year ago (August and
September 2016), we went to the city seven times to discuss this property and to
understand the limitations to the existing layout of the structure. Given we were
purchasing this home, in part, to accommodate our aging parents and have our son’s
bedroom in the main level as the master, we knew that it was critical that we add two
bedrooms on the west side of the property to have the master and the two bedrooms on
the same level.
Two of the times we visited the city, we managed to talk with Mr. Brian Holmes about
the zoning of this property. It was pointed out by Mr. Holmes that this property was
zoned RR-1 which meant that it needed a 40 ft combined side setback. What Mr.
Holmes highlighted to us is that for this type of zoning, the minimum lot area per
dwelling was 30,000 sq ft and 2060 Neher is almost half the size at 16,020sq ft. Mr.
Holmes described to us that 2060 Neher does not meet this minimum requirement
(please refer to copy of the Intensity Standards given to us during one of these visits –
Appendix 1). While at the city while we were reviewing the different zoning
requirements, it was noticed that 2060 Neher is more fitting of the RE zoning. RE zoning
requires a minimum lot size of 15,000 sq ft and the side yard setback is only 10 ft. If
2060 Neher was RE zoned this variance would not be even needed.
Considering this creates a significant hardship because of the constraint of a non-
conforming lot in this RR-1 zoning, we could apply for a variance to be able to include
the addition that we need. The variance would provide us with a west setback of 19 ft
(for the new addition) where the by-right setback is 28’- 2 ¾”.
We had asked Mr. Holmes if this variance would be easily attainable, since if not we
would not purchase this property. Mr. Holmes had informed us that it should be
attainable considering the fact that the minimum lot requirement for this zoning is not
remotely being met. This property is zoned the same as other lots in the Carolyn
Heights neighborhood where the average size of the lots are 38,255sq ft and 2060
Neher is less than half at 16,020 sq ft. The limitation requirement becomes excessive
for this zoning that is applicable to 2060 Neher, which is the smallest one from the
whole neighborhood in this zoning. This factor that was clearly explained to us during
our visits had influenced our decision to purchase the property. Our understanding was
that it was achievable to include this addition on the main level and increase the height
of the ceilings. Based on this strategy and guidance, we studied various options and we
have determined that this 19 ft variance is the very minimum variance that would allow
for this addition to meet our needs.
The proposed setback of 19 ft from the west property line variance application and a
variance to make the east wall 24” taller for our 2060 Neher home, meets two
categories: 1st category “Physical Conditions or Disability” and the 5th category
"Requirements for All Variance Approvals". Below is a brief outline for the sub-points
under these two categories:
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 13 of 92
1 A (i) The lot is zoned as RR-1 where the minimum lot area that should fall under this
zoning should be a minimum of 30,000 sq ft lot. In turn the side setbacks are 40 feet
combined which for 2060 Neher that is only 16,020 sq ft i.e. almost half of the size of
the minimum requirement. This combined setback requirement is excessive and
creates a hardship. 2060 Neher is the smallest size lot in the whole neighborhood of
Carolyn Heights (refer to breakdown of lot sizes listed and plotted – Appendix 2). It
would restrict us by-right to include the addition in the middle of the property which in
turn means that the two bedrooms would be positioned in front of the living space (refer
to 5C why this is not feasible). Other by-right locations of the addition (refer to Appendix
5 Fig A1.3) would mean that we remove large healthy trees which takes away from the
neighborhood and property character. It is crucial for us to keep the large trees intact
since these trees have been there for a very long time and they are ‘old growth’ and
cutting any of these healthy trees down would adversely affect the neighborhood. We
would want to make sure that preservation of these different variety of large existing
trees remain when including this addition. We spent a significant amount of time
looking at different design options to make sure that the trees are not affected in any
way during our planning phase. In addition, we are also restricted to add a second story
due to height limitations and the latter would not provide us the critical requirement to
have a single level ranch house that addresses our needs.
1 A. (ii) This addition is required to accommodate aging family members, including
Duncan's father, who is disabled and needs a guest bedroom on the main floor to avoid
any staircase. Our son Luke, age 6, needs a bedroom on the main level relatively close
to us because he has recurrent croup incidents that need immediate intervention during
the middle of the night where good airway management is carried out with a steroid
inhaler and a humidifier. Luke has frequent night terrors where he runs out of his
bedroom to the master bedroom during the middle of the night, so a main level bedroom
is needed for him to avoid any staircase for safety. Our need is to add the two
bedrooms with a shared bathroom on the main level, since the rest of the requirements
are already existing in the main level. These include master bedroom with ensuite
bathroom, living/kitchen/dining, a small enclosed office (since Marietta works from
home) and a mudroom. Even if the staircase was not an issue which is not the case
please note that the lower level ceiling height ranges from 6’-6” to 7’-9” which is
inadequate.
1 B. Carolyn Heights neighborhood is all RR-1 zoned where all 76 lots with the
exception of 14 lots are larger in size than the minimum lot size requirement of 30,000
sq ft. 2060 Neher is the smallest lot out of the 76 lots in the neighborhood, and at
16,020 sq ft it is less than half the size of the average lot size (38,255 sq ft) and almost
half the minimum lot size requirement. Please refer to the breakdown of the lot sizes in
the Carolyn Heights (eMap – Appendix 2). All these lots are being treated with the
same restrictions with the RR-1 zoning. These setbacks are clearly intended for large
lots that make up the rest of this zone (lots larger than 30,000 sq ft), but
2050/2060/2070/2080 Neher Lane seem to be an exception where these four lots have
an average size of 17,613 sq ft and approximately half the size lot in this type of zoning.
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 14 of 92
2060 Neher seems to be more conforming to RE zoning where the minimum lot size
requirement is 15,000 sq ft. 2060 Neher is non-conforming to the RR-1 zoning and in
turn makes the limits extremely challenging both for the building envelope and the
allowable height.
1 C. This property which is a ranch house with a basement sits on a sloped lot from
north to south and has an irrigation ditch and sewer main that crosses the south part of
the property. It is surrounded by very mature, beautiful and healthy trees which gives
the property the character it has. This property was built back in 1963 prior to it being
zoned RR-1. There is a west setback of 10’-1 1/2” and an east setback of 11’-9 ¼”.
Our neighbor Peter Ewing and Jane Ewing have been living next door at 2050 Neher
since the 1960s when the properties were originally built. Mr. Ewing informed me that
these four lots on the south side of Neher lane were permitted to build closer to the
property line in exchange for the lot owners granting an easement for a sewer line
linked to Centennial Middle School. The school sewer line on these four properties was
outside the developed portion of the city since these properties were not within city
boundaries at that time. This might explain why these houses on Neher were built with
different side setbacks than the remaining original old houses in Carolyn Heights that
are still present in the neighborhood.
There is also a sewer easement that creates a significant negative impact on the
buildable area on our property in the southern part of the lot since the sewer easement
is 30’ wide. The setback for the ditch extends 29’-5” into the lot at the west property
line.
A week before applying for this variance we were made aware by our neighbor Mr.
Ewing that back in 2007 the previous owners had applied for a variance (refer to
Appendix 3 - Approval BOZ2007-00019). The city had granted the previous owners an
addition in the same location that we propose. The city had granted the previous
owners to add the addition to the south of the garage and up to the west edge of the
garage i.e. 10 ft west side setback. In this application we are only asking for a 19 ft west
setback. The previous owners and we came to the same conclusion that the west side
behind the garage is the best location to include an addition. By referencing the
previous owners’ application, it is evident that they studied similar options and by-right
plans. In both cases the conclusion was that the location of the addition would be best
suited in this west location. In our case this proposed side setback of 19 ft from the west
property line is the least variance that will provide relief.
A comparison of the typical RR-1 lot size to 2060 Neher is shown in the extracted image
labeled Figure 1 that was presented in the past to the city in the BOZA case for the
previous owners (refer to file named “BOZ2007-00019 case”). This image clearly puts
into perspective the hardship imposed with this type of RR-1 zoning on our lot in
comparison to a typical lot of 30,000 sq ft where the actual average lot size in Carolyn
Heights is even larger at 38,255 sq ft.
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 15 of 92
Figure 1: 2060 Neher compared to typical RR-1 lot
Due to the RR-1 zoning requirement an imposed 40 ft combined side setback was
applied to this property, thus inhibiting the logical and appropriate location for an
addition in this non-conforming lot size. We have explored other by-right configurations
and they do not work due to limitations of the building height, the preservation of the
existing plan of the property, further impact on the neighbors and surrounding mature
trees. The addition is most reasonable at the west side of the house where it is only
visible to one neighbor on the west side (refer to photo images of the property from the
back - Figures 2 and 3). The location proposed, will have the least impact for the
neighbors and the overall neighborhood character.
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 16 of 92
Figure 2: Image taken from the south of 2060 Neher
Figure 3 – Image taken from southwest of 2060 Neher
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 17 of 92
In the proposed addition, we opted to include a partial basement which will be left
unfinished. If it was only a crawlspace it would limit the light coming in from the south
side in the rest of the basement area and also it will not be visually pleasing from the
south side. We have dealt with a crawlspace in the previous house and we had an
unpleasant experience. It is also a waste of space. Considering that the lot is already
slopping downwards it would make sense to make a partial basement and leave it
unfinished. Eventually we will be able to grow into this house and when our son
becomes a teenager that space can be used in the future as a recreational space.
We belief that the plans proposed are a reasonable solution due to zoning constraints
on this relatively smaller lot size and also addresses our needs to have all the required
space in one floor area. We are trying to add what is needed and at the same time
preserving the existing house plan.
Due to the RR-1 zoning, we are requesting for a variance in the east wall so that it is 24”
taller as this wall is in violation of the 15’ minimum and the combined 40’ side yard
setbacks. This slight increase is critical for us to have higher ceilings and let in as much
natural light as possible. Refer to drawing A3.5. Right now, the house has low ceilings
and makes the space look crammed and dark. By increasing the ceiling height, it will
give the rooms more natural light and will make the rooms look substantially bigger
without expanding sideways. This change to the roof will also allow the east elevation
to be symmetrical, where it currently is not, so that it will look much better. We also want
to make the roof on the south side of the master bedroom to have a steeper pitch to
raise the window on the south side to bring in more light. This is a minor change.
We are also requesting a variance on the east side to change the by-right setback from
29’-10 ½ “ to 26 ft. to allow for a deck since the current RR-1 zoning will not allow us to
have a deck in front of the complete span of the south living space wall. Therefore the
deck has to stop in the midst of the exterior door leading from the living space and it will
not be able to connect like it currently is with the master bedroom exterior door.
We have tried our best to work with the space that is currently existing and preserving
the surrounding trees while proposing a reasonable plan to balance the excessive
restrictions imposed on 2060 Neher lane.
1 D. We bought this property in 2016, after a period of three months intently and
cautiously looking into the restrictions for this type of RR-1 zoning. The existing property
at 2060 Neher was constructed prior to this type of zoning was associated with the
property. The house was built in unincorporated Boulder County and then the zoning
was established and the whole Carolyn Heights neighborhood was all designated in the
RR-1 zone. Therefore, this hardship has been there well before we purchased this
property.
5 A. The addition will be tucked in the west corner and can only be seen from the west
of the property therefore it will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The house
will be preserved to remain a ranch house with a basement and not impact any of the
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 18 of 92
large trees that gives the property its character. We are not opting for a large two-story
house that will alter the overall character of the neighborhood but we are preserving and
working with what currently is existing and simultaneously make it fit our needs with this
addition.
5 B. The only neighbor impacted by the proposed addition is the one to west of 2060
Neher. The owners of this property Peter Ewing and Mary Ewing at 2050 Neher are not
opposed to this addition and we have their full support. They have signed a letter to this
effect (Refer to Appendix 4). It will not impose any solar shadows onto their property
and it won’t block any of their views because we are keeping the addition to a single
story. We have talked with both the owners to the west (2050Neher) and the east side
(at 2070 Neher) about this new addition and both owners are in favor of the location of
this addition and both owners have signed a letter showing their approval (refer to
appendix 4). In fact, Mr. Ewing the owner of 2050 Neher is planning to attend the BOZA
hearing to support our case. He was also present in the BOZA hearing back in 2007
supporting the previous owners of 2060 Neher for a similar but larger addition in the
west side of the property.
5 C. Considering this lot is zoned under RR-1, the requirements imposed on the size of
the lot makes it very difficult to develop elsewhere besides the west side of the property.
Due to specific needs that were highlighted in section 1A.i, a second story is not a
possible option for us.
We looked at some options for a single story to develop by-right. In the first case (not
drawn) we looked at placing the addition to the south of the existing kitchen, dining, and
living rooms. Putting an addition in such a location has several drawbacks:
1) Putting two bedrooms to the south of the kitchen and living space obviously
cannot work as it would block the southern light exposure and therefore it would
result in a less energy efficient building. Also, the roofs would not work.
2) It will limit natural light in the kitchen/living/dining area which is the area most
used during the day.
3) It will block access to the back yard from the kitchen/living area.
4) It would require at least cutting down a large healthy tree which for us is very
important to preserve since it gives the property this unique character.
5) It would impact both neighbors much more than what we are requesting with this
variance. This option was discussed during an informal meeting with the owners
of 2070 Neher and they are strongly opposed to this type of addition.
6) An addition at this location (i.e. south of the existing living/dining) will not allow us
to capitalize on passive solar, whereas the proposed west location will be able to
do so.
7) It will separate the yard space into two smaller yards which will make the yard
space unusable.
8) Placing the addition in the middle in the south side will put us closer to the
irrigation ditch which is not recommended.
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 19 of 92
9) An addition in this location means that to access the deck area you need to go
through the bedrooms which is not practical.
10) The deck has to stop in the midst of the exterior door leading from the living
space to the deck and it will not be able to connect like it currently is with the
master bedroom exterior door.
There is one other remaining by-right option shown in A1.3 (refer to Appendix 5 Fig
A1.3) that we have explored. It is to the west with a 28’ 2 ¾” west setback which has
the following drawbacks:
1) This option will leave us with inadequate bedroom width.
2) It will impact more the neighbor to the west of our property since the addition has
to be extended further to the south since the space is narrower and longer.
3) It will also mean that we have to remove a beautiful old growth tree which we are
trying our best to preserve.
4) In addition it will impose a bigger footprint on nature since this space will take
more lot coverage.
5) Since the roof will exceed the height limit it will block sunlight from the main living
spaces.
6) It creates a long dark hallway to access the bedrooms.
Approval of the variance to the combined side yard setback requirements for the west
and east interior side yards and increased height of 24” on the east side and increasing
the variance on the east side to change the by-right setback from 29’-10 ½ “ to 26 ft. will
allow us to include the addition needed on the west side and provide us with higher
ceilings and to allow for a deck. Therefore this variance package approval will give us
the relief needed to all the drawbacks noted in the three options above.
5 D. Approval to include the addition and other minor changes will not conflict with the
provision of Solar Access.
We hope that this information gives you sufficient information about our motives to
improve on the existing property.
Best Regards,
Marietta & Duncan
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 20 of 92
Appendix 1 – Minimum lot required for RR-1
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 21 of 92
Appendix 2 - Breakdown of lot sizes plotted and listed
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 22 of 92
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 23 of 92
Appendix 3 - Approval BOZ2007-00019
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 24 of 92
Appendix 4 – Signed letter from owners of 2050 and 2070 Neher
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 25 of 92
Appendix 5 A set of actual, by-right and proposed plans and elevations for 2060 Neher
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 26 of 92
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 27 of 92
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 28 of 92
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 29 of 92
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 30 of 92
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 31 of 92
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 32 of 92
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 33 of 92
AXISA RESIDENCEBOZA − SETBACK VARIANCE − DECEMBER 2017 ELEVATION SOUTH PROPOSED
ELEVATION SOUTH EXISTING
A3.119’ PROPOSED SETBACKPROPOSED SIDE YARD SETBACK ENCROACHMENT (HATCHED)EXISTING SIDE YARD SETBACK ENCROACHMENT (HATCHED)PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE28’−2 3/4" REQUIRED SETBACK
28’− 2 3/4" REQUIRED SETBACK45°LOW POINT WITHIN 25’12’−0"28’−8" LIMITACACAACAACACACACACACACACCACCACACACCACACACACACCACCCCCAAACCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK45°12’−0"PROPERTY LINE11’−9 1/4" 11’−9 1/4" EXSTG SETBACKEXSTG SETBACK28’−6" BUILDING HEIGHT29’ 10 1/2" REQUIRED SETBACK45°12’−0"SOLAR SHADOWSOLAR SHADOWPROPERTY LINE45°12’−0"53°53°NOTE: BULK PLANE @ 45° IS LESS RESTRICTIVE THAN SOLAR SHADOW53°53°SOLAR SHADOWSOLAR SHADOW29’ 10 1/2" REQUIRED SETBACK3’−0"EDGE OF EXISTING ROOFEXSTG SETBACKLOW POINT WITHIN 25’10’−1 1/2"24’−6"26’−0"26’ REQUESTED SETBACK FOR NEW DECK24’ APPROX.21’−6" APPROX.BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 34 of 92
AXISA RESIDENCEBOZA − SETBACK VARIANCE − DECEMBER 2017 ELEVATION EAST PROPOSED
ELEVATION EAST EXISTING
A3.2PROPOSED MINOR CHANGES TO EXISTING NON−CONFORMING WALL (HATCHED)2’18’−6" existingBOZA Disposition of Approval Page 35 of 92
AXISA RESIDENCEBOZA − SETBACK VARIANCE − DECEMBER 2017 ELEVATION NORTH EXISTING
ELEVATION NORTH PROPOSED
A3.3PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEBOZA Disposition of Approval Page 36 of 92
AXISA RESIDENCEBOZA − SETBACK VARIANCE − DECEMBER 2017 OUTLINE OF EXISTING STRUCTUREELEVATION WEST PROPOSED
ELEVATION WEST EXISTING
A3.4BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 37 of 92
AXISA RESIDENCEBOZA − SETBACK VARIANCE − DECEMBER 2017 SECTION LOOKING EAST PROPOSED
A3.5SECTION LOOKING NORTH AT MASTER BEDROOM PROPOSED
8’−0"EXISTING CEILINGPROPOSED CEILING2’EDGE OF EXISTING ROOF10’ NEW ROOFLIVING ROOMMASTER BEDROOM8’−0"9’−6"new scissor trussexisting flat ceilingnew ceilingBOZA Disposition of Approval Page 38 of 92
Flatirons, Inc.Surveying, Engineering & Geomaticswww.FlatironsInc.com16406BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 39 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 40 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 41 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 42 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 43 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 44 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 45 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 46 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 47 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 48 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 49 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 50 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 51 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 52 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 53 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 54 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 55 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 56 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 57 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 58 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 59 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 60 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 61 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 62 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 63 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 64 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 65 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 66 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 67 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 68 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 69 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 70 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 71 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 72 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 73 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 74 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 75 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 76 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 77 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 78 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 79 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 80 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 81 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 82 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 83 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 84 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 85 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 86 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 87 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 88 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 89 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 90 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 91 of 92
**PAST BOZA APPROVAL_BOZ2007-00019**BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 92 of 92