Minutes - BOZABA - 8/9/2001BOARD Or 7.ONING ADJLISTMENT AND 13UlI.DING APPLALS
August 9, 2001
5 p.m.
1'~7ry Iiroadway, Council Chambers
YSoaed 1Ylerril~ers 1'rese~at: Robin f3yers, ScoCt Gessler Vice-Chair, R~idy ~Iarburg,
Conrad Lattes, William Sawyei~s, Chair
Staff 1Vlernbers Prese-~t: ~TVaIL Fricke, Brian Hol~mes, Heidi Slraszewska
CALL, TO O12DF,12:
M'r. Saw~ers called the meeting to arder at 5:00 p.m.
~30ARD CASPS:
Mr. Sawyers reviewed the rules of the boarcl.
1D<~cket Noa 2001-9
~PP~ieant: I.iz ~chwaecer~bach-'Di Leo
A~Idress: 2n03 ~31aff' ~treet
The a~plica~xt is prog~osing to replnce a~id expai~tl a~s existie~g t'ront pae•clx, 'Clie a•esiiltin~;
'r~xtex•ior side yard setback cxu•rently i4 und will be 2.3 teet, wllere S feeC is required. Sectic~n
nf the Y,and Use RegalaCioFa~ to be varied: 5ectiori 9~3.2-Y, Boulder Revised Cocie 1)$1.
Staff Pi•esentation
Mr. Holmes presented the case to the board. The zoning is M12-E. The sU°ucture w~is built in
1904, at which Cime the hoiyie and cxisting porch enciroachect inCo the intei~ior sideyard setback.
The proposed new porch was designed to benefit from the porch encroachment regulationso Duc
to the age oP the structure and the existing encroachment, staff recommended that the Board of
'Loning Adjustment and Building Appeals approve Che variance for pocket No. 2001-9.
Applicarit's Presentation
Ms. Schwarzenbach-Di L,eo, 2403 Bluff Street, Boulder, eaid the porch ordinance allows for an
inviCing entryway. During the demolition of a portion of the stoop and the overhang, iC was
deterrriined that there was an issue in the corner.
Ms. Bvers asked the applicant to state the asserCed hardsl~ip.
Ms. Schwarzenbach-Di Leo said if Yhe vari~tnce is c~ot granted a cutout will exist on the entryway.
The hardsbips are the age of the house and the location of the house on the lot.
Mr. 5~iwyeis asked if the applicant had plans showing building etevations, specifically the front
elevaCion oP the building.
Ms. SchwarzenUach-Di I=ea did uot have plans C1~aC show elevaCions.
Mr. T.,attes lsked if the entire porch would be covered.
Ma~Schwarzenbach-Di Leo replied yes,
Mr. Gessler asked the applicaut to discuss the diainage issues.
Ms~Schwarzenbach-Di I.eo said there was no gutter in the old stoop, thcre are ctacks in the corner
portion o'f the wall stoop and the ytrucCUre is p~~rtly on a ivbbic foundation.
Ms.~ers said it appears that the porcb could still be a wrap ati~onnd arid stay within t~h~; sel:bziclcs,
il_just wonld uut Y~e quiCe as wide ou the east side.
Ms• Byers askec~ if Che existing str~ichire is non-conformiug.
Mr. FTohncs said the existing structure is non-sCandard.
Ms. Sehwarzenbacli-Di I.co review~d the plaz~s with tt~e board.
Mr. Sawvers said iP khe declc is 30" or ]ess, then a variance is not re,quixed.
Mr. FIarbu~ said Cl~e location of the colrmin is Cl~e problen~i. He sttid if the applicant ca~itilevered
tl~e beam, then a vadanec would uot be required.
Public IIeai°ing
No one from Yhe public addressed Y.he baord.
Board Discussion
Mr. Gessler supporCed the stafP recommendation. He said the age oP CUe house, the location of the
door in relation to 1'.he setback ai~d tl~e drainage issues pose tiardships. IIe said Che proposed
vadance is the minimum relief because of the modest square Pootage aren being requested. Ile
said a(lhough moving thc column back essenlially fwo and a half feet creafes a more struchirally
sound building, it does not impact on the project.
Mr. HarUur~ coucurred with Mr. Gcssler. He said moving the colurnti two and a half feet. back
seems impracticai
2
Mr. Lattes supparted the variance. FIe was convinced that the location of the building along the
properry line constitated a hardship.
Motion
On a motion by Mr. LatCes, seconded by Mr. Gessler, the Boa~~d of lonin~ aa;iisCment and
Bui(din~Ap~~cals un_animouslv al~~ved_~-0~~ocket N~. 2001_9 as subinitted,
Docket Nc~,. 2001-10
Applicant: Ron Keifel
Address: 995 Qtica Avenae
1'he applicanl is proposir3g to build a single story addition on an existing founc~aiaon to the
rear of tlie residence. 'rhe owner ~v~s grarrted a v~riance fu :I )SG (Doclcet #$6-33), teF-a
~tr•a~e-~a~wo-steFy-a~k~i~~»~a: A ~~er~~it was iysued For the gax•age/addition in 1987, and the
garage poe•tion was completed in 198~. 'I'hc fo~mdaCion tbr the tw~i~story addition was butlt
and irispecCed but tlio pd•ojecC was never compieted. ~'he applicant now p-°oposes ta
com~rleCe a si~igle stary aridition oci tlie existiug founc~ation. 'd'he coe~-binecl total side yarr~
setback will be 9.1 feet, where 15 f~eQ is reqirie•ed. Sectiori of the L„~nd CJse Regi~l~tions tc~ be
varied: ~5ection I-3.2-y, ]ffionlder• Itevise~i Code 198i.
Staff Presentation
Mr. [3olmes presented the case to the board. The zoning is L,R-E. Staff recommended that the
Board of Zoning Ad,jusC ~nd Baildrug Appeals either deny or approve the v~u•iance witk~ the
following coudition: the addition shall be stepped back froin the east property line to meet the
combined toial sideyard setb~clc rer.~uirenlents.
Mr_Laltcs asked i~f a variance would be necessaiy if U~c sideyard setbacke were being meC.
Mr. Holmes said the existing foundalion encroaches irdo tl~c aeCbacks. }Ie said staff rccommcnds
that any fuhit•e additione cornply with the combined totzil sideyard setbacks. He said staFi` is of the
opiniou tYiat thc expired permit for the fonndalion was issucd in error.
Applicant's 1'resentation
Mark Ponder 629 ParCridee Circie, Golden, snid a sideyard variance was granT.cd in 1986. 'Phe
applicant intended to complete the addikion ~~nd Che garage, approved by the city, but dtiic to
Extenuating circuuistances, tl~e applicanC was nol able to finish the addition. The fo~mdation does
not cncroacl~i into the five-foot~ setback requiremenYs on the e~st side. I~Ie said Yhe proposed
structure is smaller in height than what wae iniCiatly reqtiiested. He said Che proposed prqjecC
contributes ro the value of the neighborhood. I~e said the foundation w~,s put in with good faiCh to
proceed witli the projecC.
Ron Keifel 995 Utica Boulder, said he was available for questions.
Ms. B.yers asked why a sign was noC posteci on che property.
Mr. Ponder said he did not rcceive a sigu when he submitted the application,
Mr, Lattes asked if the neighbors were noCified.
Mr. Keifel said neighbors living within a 300-foo[ radius oP his properCy were notified by mail.
l~lr. Gessler asked what was the reason Por the delay.
Mr._,I~eifel said he lived in Europe I'or fivc years as a professional bicyclisC. The project was not a
priocity at that time and was put on the back burner
Ms_B.~s askPd what is the asserted hardship.
1_V1r~KeiFe1 said they wo~ild like to use Che exisling foundation.
Mr. Keifel said in19R7 lie presEnted plans wiYh the approved vuiance to the Bulltling lle~~~~~Pment,
at whieh time the Ruilcling DeparCment granted hirn permissi~n to hegin conste~teCic~n ori #he
foundation.
Mr. Fricke noted for the record tbat the permit might have bee~i issued in en°or.
Mr_Saw_yers ~sked the applicant to address Lhe ass~rted hardship and explain why Che cutreci[
proposal is the mitlim~nn relief.
Mr. KeiPel said accese to lhe backyard is 1 problem. Li order to auceas the backyard, one must go
through the garage, down the steps, and ouC the back door to the backyard.
Public IIearing
No one from the public addressed the board.
Board Discussion
Mr. LaYtes was uol eonvinced that a hacdehip exists. He ~aid that there is plenty of room to build
on the property without the need Lor a variance.
Ms. Byers conr.urred with Mr. LaCtes. She said Lhe hardship threshold h1s not becn met. She
wo~ild consider supporting Che sta'ff recommendaCion to step back the addition frorn the east
property line to meet the comUined total sideyard setback rcquirements.
Mr. Gessler coucurred with Ms. Byers.
4
Motion
On a motion b~Ms. Byers, seconded b~Mr. Gessler, the Board of Zonin,g Adiustment and
Buildin~ A~peals denied (5-Ol Docket No. 2001-10 as submitted_
'Phe Board of lonin~Adjuetmei~C and Building Appcals ap~roved 5=0~ the a~licant to utilize the
non-conPormin~ nortion of the existii~g foundation on the cast side, that wouid be in violation of
tlie Cc~tal side~rd sctback, far a structure in the nature of a deck~notwithsCandingnon-conformitv
with t6c 30" deck reciuiremenC to match existin~ flaor level.
Docket No.: 2001-11
Applicants: David I~rnnel $c Stacey Steees
Address: 517 I'ine 3Creet.
The applicant is reqaesting to vary tl~e rear yard setback for a~aorck, which was
consCructed witt~in the setback. The rea-dt"rng rcar yar~i setback is 229 ftiet, wliere 25 fceC is
required. ~eciion of thc I,~nd ilse 12egulaiion~ ta be vari~: ~,cetit~~r'l ~3.2a1, Bordder Revised
C',ude 19R1.
Staff ~'resentalio~i
Mr. Holmes distributed two letters Prom the public to the board. In adciiGon he stated thaC l~e
received a phone call fi•om a iteighUnr supporCing the piroposaL IIe presenCed khe case to the
board. 'I'he property is zoned LR-E. 'I'he piroposal originally wenl bei'ore the Landmtuks
Preservation Advisory 13oard (L,PAB) Desi~n Review Committee aud i°eceived an Alteratiion
CerGficate. Th~ permit was reviewed and was found to bc in compli~nce with the zoning
regulations, specifically witl~ regard to lhe rear yard setback. A perirut was issuecl ai~d the
t~uilding was c;onstr~~cted, A rear yard setback verification was submitted that showed an
encroachment. At tl~at time an Administralive Varilnce was submitted usiug hisCOric cciteria as
justiPication with no A1Ceration Certificate froiti the LPAB Desigti Review Conzmittee. This
Administralive Variance was denicd. Tlie LPA$ Dzsign Rcview Committc;e itidicrated that
although the project did noC apset the hi5toi~ic nature of the neighborl~ood and/or strucCure, they
did not siipport the proposal subjecC to criteria 4. In addition, lie said there was 1ri error in lhe
initial newspaper advertisement, and thereYore the puLlic noCification recluirements were nof inet,
per the B.RC. 198 ] .
Baard Discussion
Mr. Gessler said in order to enable the Board of Zoning Adjuslmenl ~nd I3uildiiig Appeals to
consider Criteria 4, the LPAB Design Review Committee nmst 1'irst issue a Landmarks AlteraCion
Certificate stating that the applicant can not build elsewhere on the lot, as a reasonable alternaCive.
Steven Bosber 1256 I.ce Hill Drive E~oulder, said the house was buili as drawn and was ap~roved
by the LPAB Design Review Conimittee as drawn. He said lhey have a Laudmarks Alteration
Certificate for the project that was built. He said there was an error on the site plan drawings that
were used througUout the process. The confusion occurred when staff felt thaC the I.PAB Design
IZeview Committee hacl to be involved with the variance process.
Motion
On a motion by Ms. BB eti rs, seconded bv Mr. Saw,~the Board of Zonii~Adlustment and
Buildine Apneals continued (5-Ol Docket No. Ol-1 1 to Che date certain of Se_ptember 13, 2001.
llue to the proUlem of published notice on this ~plication,, the Uoard 1 reed to hear public
testixnony at toni~Ys meeting, and agreed w take additional testimonv al the S~tember 13, 2001
~3oard of 7~onin~ A~stment and T3uildin~ A~eals meeti~_
Public Testuttoixy
No one from the puUlic acldressed tl~e board.
AD,i0LTR1VEM~N'I'
Tl~e meeting adjourncd at 5:30 p.rn.