Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - BOZABA - 4/12/2001BOARll OP' 70NINU AllJ[1STMENT AND iiUII~DING AI'P~ALS April 12, 2001 5 p.m. 177713iroadway, Council Chaanbers ~3oard Menibers I'resent: William Sawyers, Chair; Ruc9y FCarUurg, Ro~iiir 73yers, Conrad Lattes l~oaed MernUer Absent: Scott Gessler, Vice-Chair SCaff Nlembera Peeserii: Watt Fricke, Crary Kretschtriei°, Ileicli Straszewski CALL'f~ ORll~R Mr_5awyers c,alled Ll~e rneeCiug to ord,e,r at 5 p.m. 1VIr. Harbur ~ read the followifig oalh of office, "I Rndy Hacbur~ do solexnnly swe~r, afPirn~i, ti~iat..I witl support the conslituCion oP thc United States of America and oF thc state of Colorado in I:he charCer ~i5d ordinances oP Che City of ,Boulder, and ~aithfally perforn~i the dnties of the office as t~ mamber of the Board oP Zoning Adjt~stment and Building Appeals (BOLABA) in which I am about to entec" Mr_I.aftes ino_ved to nc~tnittat~ William Saw~e~s as Chair. Ms_By~rs seconded the motion,_The, molion was ap~roved bv a vote of 4-O, Mr. Gessler wa~ absent Ms. Byers nto~ved to nominate Mr_ Gessler as Vice-Chair. Mi°. L,alCes seconded the rnotion. 'I'he motiori was approved bv a vofe of 4-0, Mr. Gessler was absent, Mr_ Saw ers reviewed Che rules of the lioard. ~aau» cnsrs llocket No.: 2001-3 Applicant: T~ rances Cottingham-I£elly Address: 160( 4'h Sh•eeC The applicant is proposing to demolish nn existing detaclied single farnily dwelling uniti and replace it with a new single family dwelling imit. The propased frontyard setback will Ue 16.4 feet, where 25 feet is required. The side adjacent a street setback will be 17 Feet, wher•e 25 feet is required. Section of the Land Use Regulations to be varied: Section 9-3.2-1, B.R.C.,1981. Mr. Saw,yers disclosed ex-parCe contact in regards to this properCy. He said a year ago he looked at the properCy with Yhe owner to do a remodel of the existing gazage, but was not conuacted for the job. Mr. Kretscl~mer presented the case to the board. He said Che lot is appruximately 6,050 square feeL, which is relauvely suiall in comparison to othcr homes in the neighborhood. Becaase it is a corner lot and tlie adjacent sideyard along Marine shares a property line with the l~ouse ,irnmediately to the east, there is an adjacency issue. Due to the adjacency issue, the applicant is required to have a 25- fooC setback. A portion of the lot iu the rear yard is impacted Uy a private sewer easement, which clips the northeast corncr of ehe building envelope. 'The proposed stiucture is approximately 3,200 syuare feet on two floors and includes a oue-cai• garage. The applicanC is claiming that the corner lot adjacency issue adversely inipacCS Che size of the building envelope on the lofe Thr, resulting envelope is 20 feet in width. Staff bclieves that a r~ecluction of a side adjacent to 1'~he ~freet is warranted. StafP recommended tha~ the frontyacd setUack adjacent to 4°i 5treeC be maintained. This would require rcmoving approximaCely eight ancl a half feet from the front of the llouse. It appears that the house could be movecl approximately two feet to thc east without encroacYiing into Che sewer easeinent. On the soulh side, which is tl~e side adjaceut to the street, staFf found that the selback could be continued Por the length of the building envelope. Staff suggested cl~at a considerable recess be provided aC Che center entry to Che house. Staff recommended approval of fhe side adjacenT. to the street with a larger setback, prefer~bly where tl~e entry exists, and a four-foot recess, af thaC location, to provide vi5ualrelief and architectural character along the south Pagade. Staft did not recon~mend the ~ProriCyard setbz~clc ruluction or setback reducrion on the west side. Applicant's Presentatian Pl~i,llip Kellp, 1606 A"' SCreet, Houlder, said meeting the existing setbaclcs oP'L5 feet on the west, south and east side would result it'i a veiy long and narrow sri•~icture. H'e reviewed Che botindary survey with the board. He said the house was built as a self-macie structure in 1947 and is falling apart. TY~ey intend to tt~ke down the structure and build a new one in its place. IIe said therc is corisiderable neighborhooci supporC For the proposal and noted that the ncw sti~ucture would improve d1e look and feel of tl~e neighborhood. 1=~rances ColCin~ham ICelly, 1606 4'~ Strcet, Sonlder, requesCCd tY~t~t the board grant their requ~;st. She presented design plans and a ntodel of the ~~roposed ho~ise to the boartl. Mr. Lattes asked how long the applicants have lived in the house. Ms. CoCtingham-K.ellv said she purchased the house in May 1998. Mr. I.atCes aslccd if the applicants planned Co puY a gara~a on thc property. Ms. Cottingham-I~e~ replied yes, a one car atLached garage on thc easC end. Ms. Bvers asked the applicants to review the status of the easement. Mr. Kelly said they r~rc currently in thc ~rocess of a pre-] iCigation settlement. Ms. Bvers asked if the easement would be Pormalized and recorded. ?. Ronest Cook, AtCorneV represeuting the applicant's, said the pipeline, as it exists today, was a recorded easement. The title company uiissed it, the city had i~o records of it, and the builders discovered it on the fiist day of consh•uction. He said there was a great effort to t~•y to relocate the pipelinc. The titled insurance company assisi:ed in Che process and offered to pay tUe neigl~bor money Co relocate the pipeline. He said the neighbo,r's demand was astronomical Por the cost and the insurance cornpany and ownei;s have essentially g'rven up. At thie point, the applicants are stuck with the pipe and Chis is tl~e ePfort to move forward with the project. Ms. F3~ asked what is the nati~re of the ~asement documenT that w~s recorded and c~iissed. Mr. C'ook said iC is a simple non-descriptive easement, au easement for a pipcline across the lot. It is defined only by the fact that it exists, and presurnably in perpetuity. Mc. Harbtiirg said there appeared to be a couple of fcct of slack where the house could move to the east. Ms. Cottingham-Ksl~ said thr house, as cl~nwn in the plans, is fotu• feet fron~i the pipe, lor pracrical purposes. NTr. Harbui~; asked if the applicanls would consider an open porch, rather than an ez~closed enkiyway, on thc wes[ side. Mr. ICelly said he could agrea Co an open porch. PubEic ~Iearin~ ~nthia Murray, 423 Mariue 5lrect, :Boulder, asked whaC thc applicant~s ii~tentions were in regards to the open pit in Che backyard. Ms. CottitiQ~ham-I~all~ replied, as soon as the case is setlled, the pit will be ~filled up. Virainia Cottingharn. 513 Yle~sant Street, Boulder spoke in supporC of the proposal. She said the proposal woulc~ l~ave ~ti positive and aesthctic impacC on U~e corner of 4`~ and Mari~ie strcets. With tt~e exception of oue neighbor, the applicants have unanimous support on their project from fheir neiglibors. The proposed home keeps within the eclectic architectural displace of Marine. She said Che proposed house is in the existing fooCprint of Clie current abode and will bc smaller than the homes across Che street. Joel Baker, %35 College, R_oulde,r• spolce in suppor[ o1'the proposal. I3oard Discussion Mr. L~ttes agreed th~t Che 20-~Foot wide builcling envelope ereates a hardslup. fIe snpporCecl a variance on Marine SL~~eeC, but troC a variancs on the west side, on 4"' Sta~eet. f~Te said the wall on Marine SCreet is imposing. He suggested some breaks in the elevations. He agreed that there shoulci Ue an effort to step the Uuilding back from the first floor to the second floor. If the Piist and second floar rem~in as wide as showci in the plans, he did not see minimal relief. Ms. Byers supported the proposed setback on Che south side, and concurred with Mr. Lattee with regard to the 4°i St~~eet setback. Shc said the lot is a skinny, awkward corner lot, which is a valid hardship. However, she did not think the entiryway was the minimal relief. She was also concerned with the mass of the south face oP the proposed strueCure. Mr. Hlrbure concurred with the comments ~uade hy Mr. Lattes and Ms. Byers. He favored an ope~i porch, instead o~P an enclosed front entr~way. He agreed with Che stafP recomrnei'idation that a considerable reces5 be provided at Che center entry Co thc house. Mr_SawVel's said iri ocder to reduce tlie mass on the sh•eet elevaCion there shorald be a 25 Poot setbaclc on the wese side, a recess niche of three to four i'eet, aud some sort of porch ora the west elcvation to keep the mass clown. He also supported the gables as shown in the plans eubmitted to the board at the meeCing. 1Vlotion Ou a moCion by Mr. Sawyers, seconded by NL~. Lattes, t1~e Board of Zoninp~ Adjustinent ~nd [~uildiug Appeals ~tpp~roved (4-0, Mr. C;essler was absent) the vu~iance as requested sul7ject, laowever, Lo the following condiGons: 1) the center entry on the souCh side, which is approximately 11 feeC in wiclth, shall be recessed four feet on both the upper and lower stories; 2) tihe west setback shall be '15 feet, buL a covered porch meetin; the porch ordinance is allowed - porch can be as wide as the west e;levation. No de,ck above the porck~ is approved; 3) the rcvised architec;tural elevations submitCed at Che rtieeUng showing the dormers on tl~e soutti side are approved; and 4) the so~rtt~ sefback of 17 feet is approved. Docket No.: 2001-4 Applicants: Randy I3aily a~icl l)onna Werner° Address: 306710u' Strcet 7'he applicants ar~e proposing to build a liabitable basement under ~n existing str•ucture. 'Chc structure was granted a variance in 1989 (Docket #89-27). The proposed tenbitable area ancl related improvements fi'all within the previons variance area. The previous and proposed irnprovements are located i~i the rear yard setback. The setback i~ approximately 18 fect, where 25 feet is required. Section of the Lancl TJse Regulations to be varled: Sectinn 9-3.2-1, B.R.C., 1981. Staff Presentation Mr. KreCSahmer presented Che case to the board. In 1989, the current. applicanYs were granCed a variance to creaCe a second stoty addition above tl~c exisCing residcnce. The applicauYs are now proposing to excavate tmcler the entire existing resideuce and buiid a walkouC basernenY. The blsement will create tloor area for a family room, bedroom, bathroorn, and storage and mechanical areas. Staff said the basement under the house is non-descript and has minimal, if any, impact on 4 adjacenc properties. T`he proposnl with the large excava~ion, on the soukh sidc oi' the strueture, is considerable. A large recessed Uuried coui~Cyard wiYh,in essence, a w11k out basement may Ue visible from the strecC or adjacent properties. Staff supports a variance to place the basement nnc~er thc house, with the required emergency secondary access windows. Staff also believes that the amount oF excavation and the accessoiy structures introduce elements not normally found in tlie neighborl~ood. SIaTY recommends approval of the basement, bnt not the large excavation, only Che nunimuin necessary 1'or egress purposes. Ms. Bveis ~.cked whaC is the l~ardship ou t}~is application. Mr _Kretscliu?er said the liu~dship is the location of the house or~ the lol. The hotise i5 set far back on the lot and a significanC portion of the house is in the rear yard setback. [-Ie clarified that staff is not recommending doors. ApplicanC's Prese~rtadion Randv ~3aiPy. 30G7 10°i St~~eet~ 13oulciers reviewed his proposal with the board. Since thcy originally bonght the house, Chey now have the need for more splce in order to accomrnodafe their children and a mother-in-law. 'Chey do not want to impose on lhe neighbors or disturb their fronCyarde ile said lhe intention with the reeassed patio courCyard is to create a tmique place, not,jtiist a bas~nient with window wells. interior access to the lower level is by way of int~crior stairs. He saSd it is veiy difficult to move flirnit~ire dowu into ihe space, because the stairs are so limited in widkl~. H'e said the storage space would add a at~~uchiral-strengtl~iening component to [he retaiuing wall. Ixi addition, he intends to bring lighC into the space in ord~r to receive passive heat. Doniia Wernei; 3067 10~~ Strect, Bo~ilder, said their proposal is more Livtib]e for everyone. She w~s not sure how the r,orridor space wo~ild impact tlic neiglibors. _Rr. H'arburg asked the applicants to consider bringing up Che ~rade from ttie basemenl level to the botfom of thc window level. Mr. Stiwyers askecl if the applicant would consider putting lhe well ou the east sidc. Mr. Bailv said if he put thc well on thc elst side, lie would Jose the cxisting open covered front porch, which is also the fi•onl oP the house. Mr. Sawyers asked if the applicanCs had future plans to bnild on tlie east side. Mr. Bailv said he had no future plans ~t this Cime. Mr. Sa~ers asked if Cl~e applicanC would agree to a restriction on that part of the property. Mr. Bailv replied t}iaC he wanted to kecp his ~ptions opeu, and would be hesitant to agree to a restriction limiting expansion on the east side. Public Hearing No one from the public addressed the board. Koard Discussion Mr. Lattes supported the basement. Ms_B~rs did not see a hardship. She said there is plenty of` room to expand to Che aast. Skie said Cl~e applicants have expressed their unwillingness to encumber their pmperCy with the lirnitation to the east, which could result in fiitut•e buildout oF the space, She siipported the base~ment only, wifh window wells, with an encumbrance agaiust any development in tl~e fronC yar•d. She did nol support the design elemenCs as proposed by the applicants. Mr. Harburg supported d~e basement, bul was generally not iri Pavor oP the storage area or bridge. He said the bridge over would not fit with the character of Yhe neigl~baa•hood if it were visible fi°om Che front sYrect. Mr•. T3ai~ clarified that although he was liesitant, he would agree to a rest~~iction on F~it~ire bidlcling on the east side. Mr. 5awvers was concerned over potential fut~re building on Che east side. He said the lot.lias been fiilly developed to its maximnm use, and Cherefore the front yard should not be further developed. Mr. Lattes said taking away more than 30 fcet oF buildable lot in the front is uot reasonable. 1VIodion On a Ttiotion byMr. Lattes, seconcicd by fl~Ir. Sawyers, the Board of'Loning AdjustmenC lrid I3uilding Appcals approvcd (3- l, Ms. Byers opposed and Mr. Gessler was abscnt) thc~ variance as requested subject, however, to the following conditiou: Chere shall be a rcetricfion on future building~ on Che east sidc of the lot that will prevent any devclopinenC wilt~in 49 fcet of the easl property lilie. GF.NL+'RAL DISCUSSION Matters frmn the Plaarning llepartment Mr. I<ref:schmer said there will be a BOZABA U~aining at the next meetirig. AD,TOURNI;MEN'C 'I'he meeting adjourned at 6:A5 p.m. 6