02.08.2018 BOZA Packet (FULL)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE GIVEN BY THE CITY OF BOULDER, BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT, AT THE TIME AND PLACE SPECIFIED ABOVE. ALL
PERSONS, IN FAVOR OF OR OPPOSED TO OR IN ANY MANNER INTERESTED IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS, TITLE 9, BOULDER REVISED CODE
1981; MAY ATTEND SUCH HEARING AND BE HEARD IF THEY SO DESIRE. (APPLICANT OR REPRESENTATIVE MUST APPEAR AT THE MEETING.)
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. BOARD HEARINGS
A. Docket No.: BOZ2018-01
Address: 5271 E. Euclid Avenue
Applicant: Luke Jacobs
Setback Variance: As part of a proposal to turn a 1-car attached garage into a 2-car attached garage, the
applicant is requesting a variance to the west interior side yard setback in order to meet the combined
side yard setback requirements of the RE zoning district. The resulting west side yard setback will be
approximately 10 feet where 17 feet is required and approximately 20.2 feet exists today. Section of the
Land Use Code to be modified: Section 9-7-1, BRC 1981.
B. Docket No.: BOZ2018-02
Address: 1730 Bluff Street
Applicant: Tom & Barbara Miller
Floor Area Variance for an Accessory Dwelling Unit: As part of a proposal to establish an Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) within the existing residence, the applicants are requesting a floor area variance to
allow an approximately 1,265 square foot lower level accessory unit where approximately 905 square
feet would be allowed per the ADU size limitations. Section of the Land Use Code to be modified:
Section 9-6-3, BRC 1981.
3. GENERAL DISCUSSION
A. Approval of Minutes: The January 11, 2018 BOZA minutes are scheduled for approval.
B. Matters from the Board
C. Matters from the City Attorney
D. Matters from Planning and Development Services
4. ADJOURNMENT
For more information call Brian Holmes or Cindy Spence at 303-441-1880 or via e-mail holmesb@bouldercolorado.gov. Board packets are available after 4 p.m. Friday
prior to the meeting, online at www.bouldercolorado.gov, or at the Planning & Development Services Center, located at 1739 Broadway, third floor.
* * * SEE REVERSED SIDE FOR MEETING GUIDELINES * * *
CITY OF BOULDER
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
MEETING AGENDA
DATE: Thursday, February 8, 2018
TIME: Meeting to begin at 5 p.m.
PLACE: Council Chambers, 1777 Broadway, 2nd Floor
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 1 of 64
CITY OF BOULDER
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
MEETING GUIDELINES
CALL TO ORDER
The board must have a quorum (three members present) before the meeting can be called to order.
AGENDA
The board may rearrange the order of the agenda or delete items for good cause. The board may not add items requiring
public notice.
ACTION ITEMS
An action item requires a motion and a vote. The general format for hearing of an action item is as follows:
1. Presentations
• Staff presentation.*
• Applicant presentation.*Any exhibits introduced into the record at this time must be provided in quantities of
seven to the Board Secretary for distribution to the board and admission into the record.
• Board questioning of staff or applicant for information only.
2. Public Hearing
Each speaker will be allowed an oral presentation.*
• Speakers should introduce themselves, giving name and address. If officially representing a group, homeowners'
association, etc., please state that for the record as well.
• Speakers are requested not to repeat items addressed by previous speakers other than to express points of
agreement or disagreement. Refrain from reading long documents, and summarize comments wherever possible.
Long documents may be submitted and will become a part of the official record. When possible, these documents
should be submitted in advance so staff and the board can review them before the meeting.
• Speakers should address the Land Use Regulation criteria and, if possible, reference the rules that the board uses
to decide a case.
• Any exhibits introduced into the record at the hearing must be provided in quantities of seven to the Board
Secretary for distribution to the board and admission into the record.
• Citizens can send a letter to Planning and Development Services staff at 1739 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302, two
weeks before the board meeting, to be included in the Board packet. Correspondence received after this time will
be distributed at the board meeting.
3. Board Action
• Board motion. Motions may take any number of forms. With regard to a specific development proposal, the
motion generally is to either approve the project (with or without conditions), to deny it, or to continue the matter
to a date certain (generally in order to obtain additional information).
• Board discussion. This is undertaken entirely by members of the board. The applicant, members of the public or
city staff participate only if called upon by the Chairperson.
• Board action (the vote). An affirmative vote of at least three members of the board is required to pass a motion
approving any action. If the vote taken results in a tie, a vote of two to two, two to one, or one to two, the
applicant shall be automatically allowed a rehearing. A tie vote on any subsequent motion to approve or deny
shall result in defeat of the motion and denial of the application.
MATTERS FROM THE BOARD, CITY STAFF, AND CITY ATTORNEY
Any board member, Planning and Development Services staff, or the City Attorney may introduce before the board
matters, which are not included in the formal agenda.
*The Chairperson, subject to the board approval, may place a reasonable time limitation on presentations.
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 2 of 64
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:
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 3 of 64
2
APPLICATION TYPES
Setback, building separation, bulk plane, building coverage, porch setback and
size, and side yard wall articulation
Sign Variance
Mobile Home Spacing Variance
Size and parking setback requirements for accessory units
Use of mobile homes for non-residential purposes
Parking in landscaped front yard setback
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
As a minimum, the following items MUST be attached, collated and hereby made a
part of this application:
• If applicant is other than owner(s), a written consent of the owner(s) of the property
for which the variance is requested;
• A written statement thoroughly describing the variance request and addressing all
pertinent review criteria for approval - see following pages (3 copies);
• A signed and stamped Improvement Location Certificate or Site Improvement
Survey and legal description by a registered surveyor (3 copies);
• A site development plan including setbacks, elevations, interior layout/floor plans
and any other pertinent exhibits (3 copies);
• A demolition plan clearly differentiating between existing/remaining and proposed
portions of the structure(s) (3 copies);
• Any other information pertinent to the variance request (e.g. neighbor letters,
photos, renderings, etc.) (3 copies);
• Sign Posting Acknowledgement Form - see last page.
NOTE: The applicant is responsible for posting the property in compliance with city
requirements. Signs will be provided to the applicant at the time of submission of
the application. The applicant will be responsible for posting the required sign(s)
within 10 days of the hearing date. Failure to post the required sign(s) may result in
the postponement of the hearing date.
• An electronic file(s) of all materials must be submitted on a CD or thumb drive with
your application;
• An application fee (as prescribed in Section 4-20-43, B.R.C. 1981);
NOTE: SEE SECTION 9-2-3(l), B.R.C. 1981 FOR VARIANCE EXPIRATION INFORMATION
Applicant Signature ______________________________________Date__________
Owner (if other than Applicant) Signature _________________________Date__________
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 4 of 64
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.
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 5 of 64
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.
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 6 of 64
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.
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 7 of 64
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
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 8 of 64
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.
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 9 of 64
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
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 10 of 64
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).
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 11 of 64
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
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 12 of 64
1 of 4
Luke
Jacobs
5271
East
Euclid
Avenue
Boulder,
CO
80303
(303)
378-‐9662
lasal_luke@yahoo.com
January
16,
2018
City
of
Boulder
Planning
&
development
Services
1739
Broadway,
3rd
Floor
Boulder,
CO
80306
(303)
441-‐1880
boulderplandevelop.net
RE:
BOZA
Application
For
5271
East
Euclid
Avenue/Setback
Addition
To
Whom
It
May
Concern:
I
respectfully
submit
my
application
for
review
to
expand
our
existing
single
car
garage
to
a
two-‐car
garage,
with
a
10’
conforming
setback
on
the
west
side
of
the
home.
My
wife
and
I
purchased
5271
East
Euclid
in
July
2017.
This
is
a
ranch
style
home
with
an
attached
single
car
garage,
built
in
1963.
The
lot
is
14,000
sq
ft.,
and
the
square
footage
of
our
home
is
2122,
both
average
to
slightly
below
average
in
size.
With
the
birth
of
our
second
son,
11/26/17,
we
have
found
it
increasingly
difficult
and
unsafe
to
load
and
unload
our
children
in
the
tight
confines
of
our
small
one
car
garage.
Safety
is
especially
compromised,
and
loading
and
unloading
very
difficult,
when
acting
in
a
single
parent
capacity
(e.g.,
one
parent
is
at
work)
with
the
car
parked
outside.
Cars
drive
exceedingly
fast
down
East
Euclid,
cutting
the
corner
between
Baseline
and
55th,
posing
a
serious
safety
concern.
Anyone
with
any
toddler
experience
can
attest
to
how
quick
and
unpredictable
these
little
people
can
be.
A
garage
expansion/addition
will
give
us
the
ability
to
confidently
load/unload
our
children
into
both
cars
in
the
confines
of
a
safe
environment,
sheltered
from
the
elements
(e.g.,
rain,
snow,
ice),
free
from
hazardous
clutter
(e.g.,
bikes,
strollers,
lawn
equipment),
and
most
of
all,
free
from
the
hazards
of
road
traffic.
The
following
addresses
the
BOZA
variance
criteria:
BOZA
VARIANCE
CRITERIA
(h)
CRITERIA
FOR
VARIANCES
(1)
Physical
Conditions
or
Disability
(A)
(i)
5271
was
constructed
in
1963,
and
annexed
in
1975
under
different
regulations.
The
east
side
yard
setback
is
8’,
which
while
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 13 of 64
2 of 4
conforming
to
the
regulations
in
the
1960’s
became
non-‐conforming
during
annexation
with
the
‘75
regulations.
The
proposal
is
for
a
10’
conforming
setback
on
the
west
side
yard
to
build
a
non-‐occupied
garage
addition/extension.
If
the
east
side
yard
setback
was
conforming
to
‘75
regulations
(10’),
there
would
be
more
flexibility
on
what
could
be
done
on
the
west
side
yard
setback
(which
is
currently
20.2’),
enabling
the
garage
extension
to
be
evaluated
under
an
Administrative
Review.
The
garage
extension
will
meet
the
new
regulations
of
a
10’
setback
on
the
west
(proposed)
side,
but
not
the
overall
combined
setback
of
25’.
5271
is
thus
limited
under
the
newer,
super
imposed
side
yard
setbacks,
as
apposed
to
the
original
zoning
that
existed
when
the
house
was
built.
Current
zoning
within
the
zoning
district
requires
one
off-‐street
parking
space
as
a
minimum
for
development,
but
does
not
seek
to
limit
parking
to
one
space.
The
lot
was
subdivided
according
to
the
Boulder
County’s
guidelines
in
the
1960s.
Minimum
lot
sizes
have
since
been
increased,
and
as
a
result
the
site
area
is
smaller
than
would
be
permitted
today,
but
the
home
remains
quite
modest.
Current
maximum
build
coverage
calculations
allow
more
than
3,500
sq
ft.
The
applicant’s
home,
including
the
proposed
garage
addition,
will
be
less
than
2,730sq
ft.
and
only
one
story
in
height.
Within
the
neighborhood,
and
throughout
Boulder,
a
two-‐car
garage
is
most
common,
and
in
this
case
a
two-‐car
garage
has
quickly
become
a
necessary
part
of
a
safe
home
for
the
applicant’s
family.
(ii)
The
motivation
for
this
setback
addition
proposal
is
the
safety
and
well
being
of
the
applicant’s
family.
The
loading
and
unloading
into
vehicles
of,
presently,
a
two
year
old
and
a
newborn
in
the
safety
of
a
closed
and
secure
environment
is
of
primary
concern.
(B)
5271
is
unique.
Homes
in
this
neighborhood
were
built
in
conformance
with
regulations
of
8’
side
yard
setbacks,
although
the
applicants
home
has
a
20’+
side
yard
setback
on
the
west
(proposed)
side.
Presently
83%
of
existing
neighborhood
homes
shown
on
sheet
A-‐1,
“Partial
Neighborhood
Plan”,
include
a
2
or
2+
car
garage.
Additionally,
most
of
the
homes
have
8’
side
yard
setbacks
on
both
sides.
The
requested
variance
for
this
garage
addition
requires
no
encroachment
into
a
conforming
10’
side
yard
setback,
and
will
more
closely
align
with
the
overall
character
of
the
neighborhood.
(C)
100%
of
existing
neighborhood
homes
shown
on
Site
&
Demolition
Plan,
A1,
“Existing
Neighborhood
Study”,
have
garages
located
along
the
front
yard
setback.
No
garages
are
detached,
and
no
garages
are
located
to
the
interior
or
the
rear
of
the
property.
Furthermore,
a
garage
proposed
at
any
other
location
on
the
property,
including
driveway,
etc.,
would
increase
the
overall
construction
footprint
(approx.
500
sq
ft),
utilize
more
resources,
result
in
tree
removal/elimination,
potentially
affect
flood
waters,
and
not
maintain
the
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 14 of 64
3 of 4
essential
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
the
existing
architectural
aesthetics.
A
garage
located
at
any
other
location
will
not
be
consistent
with
the
direct
needs
of
this
proposal,
which
is
to
have
a
safe
and
secure
environment
in
which
to
load/unload
children.
An
existing
garage
extension
is
the
best,
least
impactful
solution.
(D)
Constructed
in
1963,
the
east
side
yard
setback
was
consistent
with
1960’s
regulations.
Purchased
in
this
condition
by
applicant
in
July
2017,
5271
is
now
subject
to
new,
more
restrictive
regulations.
(5)
Requirements
for
All
Variance
Approvals
(A)
An
attached
two-‐car
garage
accessed
from
the
street
is
most
typical
within
the
neighborhood.
As
previously
mentioned,
83%
of
the
existing
neighborhood
homes
include
a
2
or
2
+
garage.
5271
is
one
of
the
few
houses
in
the
neighborhood
that
does
not
utilize
the
original
8’
setback
on
the
west
side
of
the
structure,
which
was
set
forth
in
the
original
development
regulations
prior
to
annexation.
The
proposal
of
a
10’
setback
will
be
consistent
with
existing
regulations,
and
will
also
“balance”
the
essential
character
of
the
neighborhood
by
more
closely
resembling
the
original
zoning
represented
throughout
the
neighborhood.
Both
adjacent
houses,
5251
and
5283,
have
8’
setbacks,
in
addition
to
almost
all
houses
in
the
neighborhood,
including
the
neighbors
directly
across
the
street.
At
present
5271
has
20’2”
between
the
existing
structure
and
the
8’
setback
at
5251
(the
adjacent
neighbor
directly
west
of
the
proposed
variance).
(B)
This
proposal
meets
the
10’
side
yard
setback
regulations.
The
adjacent
property
has
an
8’
setback.
The
combined
setback
between
5271
and
the
adjacent
home
will
be
18’,
more
than
most
of
the
homes
in
the
neighborhood.
The
proposed
garage
addition
will
be
a
single
story
wood
frame
on
spread
footing
covered
with
a
facade
of
wood
siding
and
roofed
in
asphaltic
shingles
to
match
the
existing
neighborhood
homes.
The
design
and
construction
will
complement
the
modest
architectural
aesthetics
of
the
neighborhood,
and
also
add
value.
5251,
the
adjacent
neighbors,
have
expressed
full
support
for
this
project.
They
feel
this
garage
extension
will
improve
the
aesthetics
between
the
two
houses
by
eliminating
a
car
parked
on
a
gravel
pad
on
the
west
side
of
the
applicant’s
property.
They
also
feel
it
will
add
value
to
their
property,
in
addition
to
the
neighborhood.
The
adjacent
neighbors
two-‐car
garage
will
be
adjacent
to
the
proposed
garage
extension.
Included
with
this
application
are
letters
of
approval
from
both
adjacent
neighbor/owners,
in
addition
to
the
two
neighbor/owners
across
the
street
with
the
most
direct
view
of
the
proposed
addition.
(C)
Originally
a
more
standard
sized
garage
was
planned.
However,
upon
much
review,
and
in
keeping
with
current
regulations,
a
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 15 of 64
4 of 4
more
modest
and
minimal
addition/solution
is
proposed.
A
current
standard
two
car
garage
is
24’x24’.
The
existing
single
car
garage
at
5271
is
20’9”x11’3”
(interior
dimensions),
smaller
than
current
standards.
The
combined
proposed
interior
dimensions
will
be
approximately
20’9”x20’,
also
well
below
a
current
standard
two
car
garage.
This
modest
sized
garage
proposal
is
all
that
is
needed
to
satisfy
the
needs
of
the
applicant,
and
conform
to
existing
regulations.
(D)
A
solar
review
has
been
completed.
Please
see
Plan
A-‐1.
No
issues/infringements
were
encountered.
Shadow
cast
by
the
proposed
addition
complies
with
all
regulations.
Regarding
flood
review:
The
proposed
addition
will
be
uninhabitable
garage
space
with
no
plans
to
be
converted
to
habitable
space.
Flood
venting
will
be
incorporated,
and
flood
elevation
numbers
have
been
included
in
the
drawings
A-‐1.
No
immediate
concerns
were
raised
by
Planning
&
Development
Services’
Flood
Reviewer,
Alysha
Geiger.
Our
proposal,
while
modest,
and
in
keeping
with
the
stated
goals
of
the
Planning
Department
and
its
code,
provides
a
safer
and
healthier
home
for
my
family
while
enhancing
the
well-‐kept
and
neat
nature
of
our
neighborhood.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration.
Sincerely,
Luke
Jacobs
Enclosures:
Approval
letter
from
5251
East
Euclid
Ave.*
Approval
letter
from
5290
East
Euclid
Ave.*
Approval
letter
from
5283
East
Euclid
Ave.*
Approval
letter
from
5270
East
Euclid
Ave.*
*The
four
above
letters
represent
the
adjacent
neighbors,
in
addition
to
the
neighbors
across
the
street
with
the
most
direct
view.
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 16 of 64
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 1 of 48
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 1 of 47
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 2 of 47
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 3 of 47
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 4 of 47
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 1 of 43
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 23 of 64
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 24 of 64
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 25 of 64
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 26 of 64
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 27 of 64
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 28 of 64
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 29 of 64
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 30 of 64
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 1 of 34
Miller request – 1730 Bluff Street
1
Written statement describing the variance request and addressing all pertinent review criteria.
Below, we respond to each of the variance criteria and follow with the background that has led us to our
request.
The request for a size variance is based on paragraph 1) Physical Conditions …
(h) CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES
(1) Physical Conditions
(A) There are:
I. Unusual physical circumstances or conditions …peculiar to the effected property.
The hoped for accessory unit is located in the bottom floor of the two story building. It was built
and rented prior to the purchase of the home by the applicants (Tom, Barbara and Annaliese
Miller).
The layout of the unit has the cement foundation of the original house (built in 1951) as the east,
west, north and part of the south exterior walls. To the south is an addition (bump out), also
constructed by a prior owner, that lets in virtually all of the sunlight, the rest of the unit’s small
windows being shaded by an existing deck (built by a prior owner).
The unit has 7’8” ceilings except where the HVAC box-in lowers the ceiling to about 7’. So,
without the sunlit addition, habitability is marginal at best.
(B) The unusual circumstances do not exist throughout the neighborhood.
This configuration and this style house is unique in the neighborhood and the existing
footprint, with the addition, has been there for a number of years
(C) Because of the physical circumstances the property cannot be reasonably be developed in
conformity with the ADU provisions
To meet the ADU size requirement, it would be necessary to wall off access to the primary
light source that makes the unit habitable. Although the unit is now occupied by a 50%
owner, the new mother of a 6 week old baby and her husband, in the future it is anticipated
that the elderly owners (of the other 50%) would either live in that unit or rent to caregivers
or, to help cover costs, renters. Reducing the size of the unit to meet the current ADU
requirement would make the unit greatly undesirable for the owners’ , caretakers’ or
possible renters’ quality of life.
(D) Any unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant.
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 32 of 64
Miller request – 1730 Bluff Street
2
Records are submitted demonstrating that the unit and the rest of the house configuration,
including the deck, were constructed by one or more prior owners. The unit had been
rented as an “in-law” apartment prior to the current owners’ purchase.
(5) Requirements for all Variance Approvals
(A) Would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood
The unit is located where it has been for years, within the footprint of the house, and has fit in the
neighborhood with no exterior change during that time and with as many or more renters in the
house as there are inhabitants now. Not only does the unit have the required single paved parking
space, it has three more spaces, assuring that there will be no negative impact on the neighborhood
due to parking related to the ADU or this variance request.
(B) Would not impair the reasonable use or development of adjacent property
There is no exterior size increase requested and no change to neighbors’ existing ability to develop
their property.
(C) Would be the minimum variance to afford relief and the least modification of the applicable
provisions of this title
We have examined a number of ways to reduce the size of the unit – walls, hallways and significant
modifications to the existing foundation, and each one makes for a remaining smaller unit without
adequate light, and in the case of cuts into the foundation, with the danger of structural damage
and significant construction annoyance of neighbors.
The most logical by-right option (see attached drawing) would result in a small living area (about 12’
X 13’) with no windows and would require removal of the kitchen peninsula, now used for eating, to
access the living area. Additionally, walling off the bulk of the living/dining area would require a
more extensive remodel to eliminate the ADU in the future and convert the house back to single
family use, if desired.
(D) Would not conflict with “solar access”
The unit and the house conform to all solar requirements and since the footprint of the house would
not change, there could be no infringement on solar access of neighboring properties.
(I) FLOOR AREA VARIANCE FOR ADUs
(1) The interior configuration of the house is arranged such that the space to be used as the ADU
cannot feasibly be divided in conformance with the size requirement.
The entire building, built in 1951, is 2716 sq feet and the area requested for variance is the basement
which is 1265 sq ft. or 47% of the entire home. An interior staircase connects the upstairs and
downstairs.
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 33 of 64
Miller request – 1730 Bluff Street
3
The layout of the basement as configured when purchased in 2015 has minimal light except in the single
addition to the south. The rest of the unit has (equally) low ceilings (7’8”) and some lower ceilings (7’)
due to box in of piping at the ceiling. The unit now is anything but spacious and if reduced in size would
have a dark one bedroom, dining room and kitchen with low ceilings and small windows under a large
deck.
(2) That the variance, if granted, meets the essential intent of this title, and would be the
minimum variance that would afford relief;
Cutting space from this unit would make the habitability of it marginal at best. The footprint of
the basement does not cause visual change to the exterior of the house or the interior use of the
house, so your approval of the size variance would have no impact on any neighbors but would
greatly improve the quality of life of or daughter and her family, us or others who one day may
live there as renters, or caretakers.
(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.
To get more light into a unit of reduced size would require cutting into the original foundation to
create larger windows or a walkout door. Even then, the door would be below an existing deck
which would shade the entry. The cost, disruption and potential damage to the foundation of such
an intervention would impose an undue and unnecessary hardship, in our opinion.
Background of the request
Tom and Barbara Miller bought 1730 Bluff Street in March of 2015 with the intent to sell our current
house and move closer to downtown as we age. When we bought the property, the “in-law unit” (as
described by the seller) was occupied by her renters whom we allowed to stay on for a few months. The
original tenants moved out and as we continued to consider our options about the sale of our home in
north Boulder, we rented the house to neighbors who were remodeling their house nearby. Around the
time their remodel was done, the farm where our daughter and son-in-law lived – Frogbelly Farm –
burned down.
Our daughter and her husband, Victor, are moderate wage workers in Boulder (she works for CU’s INVST
program half time and he is a construction worker and artisan bow maker) and could not afford the
going rates for rents in Boulder. They moved into the basement and we rented the upstairs to help pay
the mortgage. Their baby Luca was born December 13, 2017 and the three of them live in the accessory
unit in the basement of 1730 Bluff.
As we considered a number of ways to reduce the size of the basement unit, it became clear to us that
the smaller size, given the configuration of the unit - its low ceilings, small windows cut into the
foundation beneath a shadowing deck, with only one room containing a number of south facing
windows - would make for a marginally habitable space at best, because the, already minimal daylight in
most of the unit, would be greatly diminished.
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 34 of 64
Miller request – 1730 Bluff Street
4
It remains our intent either to continue having our daughter Annie and Victor live there with their new
baby or to move in ourselves, if they move out. We seek this size variance for the basement unit to keep
the living quarters there as habitable as possible to make for a better quality of life for us, our childrens’
family or caretakers for us if we move into the upstairs. We have arranged (or are arranging, depending
on the date your read this) for Annie to become a 50% owner of the property (via a Life Estate) for the
purposes of complying with the ADU requirement.
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 35 of 64
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 36 of 64
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 37 of 64
1
Hello Marcy, 1/30/15
As discussed I’m including the pictures of the 4 sides of the property (1730 Bluff) along with a Google
map that shows positioning of the improvements. Also attached in a separate document is our
application form.
I look forward to hearing from you and thank you for the help.
Best,
Tom Miller
4775 6th Street
Boulder, CO 80304
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 38 of 64
2
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 39 of 64
3
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 40 of 64
4
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 41 of 64
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 42 of 64
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 43 of 64
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 44 of 64
1730 BLUFF LOWER LEVEL
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 45 of 64
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 46 of 64
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 47 of 64
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 48 of 64
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 49 of 64
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 50 of 64
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 51 of 64
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 52 of 64
January 5, 2018
You’ll be getting a letter soon from the City of Boulder about a request by our friends
and neighbors at 1730 Bluff, Tom and Barbara Miller and their daughter, Annie Miller,
and son-in-law, Victor Kuhn and their 3 week old baby, Luca. Annie, a legal owner with
her parents, and Victor have been living there since early 2016. Before they bought the
property there was a series of renters. Annie is a part time administrator for the INVST
program at CU and Victor is a construction worker and artisan bow and arrow creator in
Boulder.
We like the Millers and want them for our neighbors and they will be good for our
neighborhood. So, we are supporting their application for what the city calls an ADU –
Accessory Dwelling Unit. The good news about an ADU is that it remains owner
occupied and must accommodate off street parking for the unit. The rest of the
conditions have to do with the size of the unit. All the occupancy safety and good
neighbor rules apply.
On Wednesday, January 17, Annie, Victor, Tom, and Barbara plan to ask the City’s
Board of Zoning Adjustment (BOZA) to permit them to dedicate the basement to the
ADU which requires special permission – a variance – because the basement is 1247
sq. feet. This is 47% of the house and the ordinance only permits up to 1000 sq feet or
33% of the house, whichever is less.
We hope you’ll join us in supporting their request. If you do, they’d be benefitted by a
letter of support – a simple short note or a “YES” in reply to this email.
You can reply to us with your support or any concerns or questions. We’ll pass your
comments on to them. We believe they will be contacting you by U.S.mail in mid-
January to introduce themselves and invite you to an open house to meet you and let
you can see what their request entails.
Looking forward to hearing from you,
Scott Allman and Sue
1720 Bluff Street
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 53 of 64
1
Wyler, Robbie
From:S. M. Allman <scott.m.allman@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, January 11, 2018 7:24 AM
To:Richard Stephen Tucker 2
Cc:Allman Susan; Valerie Tucker; Tom Miller
Subject:Re: Miller ADU application
Thank you Richard and Valerie. Em‐mail is now forwarded to Tom and Annie.
Tom ‐ I do not have Annie's e‐mail address so please forward their kind comments to her.
‐Scott
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 9:15 AM, Richard Stephen Tucker 2 <richardstucker@comcast.net> wrote:
Scott/Sue—Valerie and I have your letter of January 8, 2018 regarding the Millers’ application for a variance on the
basement at 1730 Bluff. We have no objection to their request. Victor and Annie are lovely neighbors and we are
supportive of their request. They keep the property immaculate and we are confident that they will continue to do so
in the future. You have our permission to give a copy of this email to the Millers as well as to Victor and Annie. The
Millers and Victor and Annie, in turn, have our permission to provide a copy of this email to the Boulder Zoning Board
of Adjustment. Please let us know if we can help in any other respect. Richard/Valerie Tucker
Richard S. Tucker
richardstucker@comcast.net
1719 Mapleton Avenue
Boulder, CO 80304
720.381.0710 H
214.202.9457 C
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 54 of 64
TO: City of Boulder
FROM: Alan Canner and Claudia Naeseth, homeowners/residents 1725 Bluff Street since 1983
RE: Letter of support for Miller request for size variance and ADU at 1730 Bluff Street
DATE: 1/24/2018
We are writing in support of the request by our directly-across-the-street neighbors of the past two
years, Annie Miller and Victor Kuhn, 1730 Bluff Street, to be granted an ADU without having to reduce
the size of their dwelling unit or remove their kitchen.
With the high cost of housing in Boulder and the shortage of units, we need more, not fewer, units.
Annie and Victor present the most advantageous of the scenarios: by being allowed to continue to live
in their unit, they are able to rent another portion of their house to help pay the mortgage, with the
homeowners living on-site to assure that the renters meet the high standards of good-neighborliness
that we Bluff Street neighbors enjoy. Indeed, Annie and Victor have proved themselves to be good
neighbors, and we hope that you grant their request so that we can help to keep this young family in our
neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration.
Alan J. Canner and Claudia E. Naeseth
1725 Bluff Street
Boulder, CO 80304
alan.canner@colorado.edu
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 55 of 64
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 9:15 AM, Richard Stephen Tucker 2 <richardstucker@comcast.net>
wrote:
Scott/Sue—Valerie and I have your letter of January 8, 2018 regarding the Millers’ application
for a variance on the basement at 1730 Bluff. We have no objection to their request. Victor and
Annie are lovely neighbors and we are supportive of their request. They keep the property
immaculate and we are confident that they will continue to do so in the future. You have our
permission to give a copy of this email to the Millers as well as to Victor and Annie. The Millers
and Victor and Annie, in turn, have our permission to provide a copy of this email to the Boulder
Zoning Board of Adjustment. Please let us know if we can help in any other
respect. Richard/Valerie Tucker
Richard S. Tucker
richardstucker@comcast.net
1719 Mapleton Avenue
Boulder, CO 80304
720.381.0710 H
214.202.9457 C
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 56 of 64
January 5, 2018
You’ll be getting a letter soon from the City of Boulder about a request by our friends
and neighbors at 1730 Bluff, Tom and Barbara Miller and their daughter, Annie Miller,
and son-in-law, Victor Kuhn and their 3 week old baby, Luca. Annie, a legal owner with
her parents, and Victor have been living there since early 2016. Before they bought the
property there was a series of renters. Annie is a part time administrator for the INVST
program at CU and Victor is a construction worker and artisan bow and arrow creator in
Boulder.
We like the Millers and want them for our neighbors and they will be good for our
neighborhood. So, we are supporting their application for what the city calls an ADU –
Accessory Dwelling Unit. The good news about an ADU is that it remains owner
occupied and must accommodate off street parking for the unit. The rest of the
conditions have to do with the size of the unit. All the occupancy safety and good
neighbor rules apply.
On Wednesday, January 17, Annie, Victor, Tom, and Barbara plan to ask the City’s
Board of Zoning Adjustment (BOZA) to permit them to dedicate the basement to the
ADU which requires special permission – a variance – because the basement is 1247
sq. feet. This is 47% of the house and the ordinance only permits up to 1000 sq feet or
33% of the house, whichever is less.
We hope you’ll join us in supporting their request. If you do, they’d be benefitted by a
letter of support – a simple short note or a “YES” in reply to this email.
You can reply to us with your support or any concerns or questions. We’ll pass your
comments on to them. We believe they will be contacting you by U.S.mail in mid-
January to introduce themselves and invite you to an open house to meet you and let
you can see what their request entails.
Looking forward to hearing from you,
Scott Allman and Sue
1720 Bluff Street
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 57 of 64
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 58 of 64
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 59 of 64
From:Tom Miller
To:Wyler, Robbie
Subject:1730 Bluff letter of support 7
Date:Wednesday, January 31, 2018 12:46:54 PM
Robbie, here’s another letter of support for our variance request that you can add to our files.
Thank you,
Tom
From: judy hersh <judyhersh@msn.com>
Date: January 31, 2018 at 10:53:07 AM MST
To: "annaliese.miller@gmail.com" <annaliese.miller@gmail.com>
Subject: Your request
Good Morning, Annaliese - I am Dan Hersh’s wife, Judy. I live at 1700 Bluff St.
Boulder, CO 80304. I support your application for the ADU at the size of your
existing downstairs.
Judy Hersh
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 60 of 64
CITY OF BOULDER
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
ACTION MINUTES
January 11, 2018, 5 p.m.
1777 Broadway, Council Chambers
Board Members Present: Jill Lester (Chair), David Schafer, Michael Hirsch,
Ellen McCready
Board Members Absent: N/A
City Attorney Representing Board: Erin Poe
Staff Members Present: Robbie Wyler, Cindy Spence, Jay Sugnet
1. CALL TO ORDER:
J. Lester called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m.
The board heard Item 3D (1) prior to the Board Hearing items.
2. BOARD HEARINGS:
A. Docket No.: BOZ2017-23
Address: 5400 Spine Road
Applicant: Greg Fair
Variance for Parking/Backing Surfaces Within Landscape Setbacks: As part of a
proposal to bring the site’s parking surfaces into compliance, the applicant is requesting a
variance to the front (west) landscape setback as well as the side adjacent to street (north
and south) landscape setback regulations of the BC-2 zoning district. This would to
allow for modification of two parking surfaces that would result in adequate backing
distance behind some of the proposed stalls as well as provide needed turnaround areas in
both lots. The subject north and south side yards are adjacent to Odell Place & Lookout
Road respectively and require a 20-foot landscape setback because of the adjacency rule
which requires a front yard setback when an adjacent property fronts the same street. The
resulting front (west) yard setback would be approximately 17 feet 10 inches where 20
feet is required, and 20 feet exists today. The resulting north side yard setback would be
approximately 14 feet 8 inches where 20 feet is required, and 21 feet exists today. The
resulting south side yard setback would be approximately 15 feet where 20 feet is
required, and 25 feet exists today. Section of the Land Use Code to be modified: Section
9-9-6, BRC 1981.
Staff Presentation:
R. Wyler presented the item to the board.
Board Questions:
R. Wyler answered questions from the board.
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 61 of 64
Applicant’s Presentation:
Greg Fair, the applicant, Peter Weber, with Coburn Architecture, and Carol Adams, with
Studio Terra, presented the item to the board.
Board Questions:
Peter Weber, representing the applicant, answered questions from the board.
Public Hearing:
No one from the public addressed the board.
Board Discussion:
• M. Hirsch stated that the proposal would improve the parking, comply with a master
plan modification, change use, and the proposed patio would help integrate the building
with the surrounding residential. He would support the item.
• E. McCready agreed. She added the property next door has a very consistent setback and
would align with this location. The proposed landscape would be a significant
improvement.
• D. Schafer agreed. The plan would positively affect the quality of the existing
neighborhood.
• J. Lester agreed.
Motion:
On a motion by E. McCready, seconded by D. Schafer, the Board of Zoning Adjustment
approved 4-0 the application (Docket 2017-23) as submitted.
B. Docket No.: BOZ2017-24
Address: 2060 Neher Lane
Applicants: Marietta & Duncan Axisa
Variance for Setback: 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.
Staff Presentation:
R. Wyler presented the item to the board.
Board Questions:
R. Wyler answered questions from the board.
Applicant’s Presentation:
Marietta Axisa, the applicant, presented the item to the board.
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 62 of 64
Board Questions:
There were no questions from the board.
Public Hearing:
Peter Ewing spoke in support of the project.
Board Discussion:
• M. Hirsch stated that a need for the addition and a hardship have been clearly
demonstrated. He would support the proposal.
• D. Schafer stated that the proposed solution would not affect the neighborhood.
• E. McCready agreed. She appreciated the included analysis with the application.
• J. Lester said the proposal is very straight forward and would support it.
Motion:
On a motion by D. Schafer, seconded by M. Hirsch, the Board of Zoning Adjustment
approved 4-0 the application (Docket 2017-24) as submitted.
3. GENERAL DISCUSSION:
A. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by D. Schafer, seconded by J. Lester, the Board of Zoning Adjustments
voted 4-0 to approve the November 9, 2017 minutes.
B. Matters from the Board
• J. Lester informed the board that she would not be attending the February 8, 2018
BOZA meeting.
• The board conducted a brief overview regarding the ADU discussion held at the
beginning of the meeting and the submittal of a Letter to Council.
C. Matters from the City Attorney
• There were no matters from the City Attorney.
D. Matters from Planning and Development Services
1) Discussion with Planning and Development Services staff to provide background on
City Council’s direction on revising the regulations pertaining to Accessory Dwelling
Units and generate Board discussion and feedback to staff on the draft why/purpose
statements and the list of focused code changes.
Staff Presentation:
J. Sugnet presented the item to the board.
Board Discussion:
• J. Lester disclosed that she had been contacted by Council Member Mary Young
and will be discussing the ADU matter with her directly. She asked the other
BOZA members to assist her with information as to why BOZA did not submit a
Letter to Council, specifically addressing the ADU matter and process. She stated
that City Council said they would like to table this matter. J. Lester said that she
would hate to lose any momentum regarding the ADU process and get some
feedback from the board to take to Council Member Young.
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 63 of 64
• E. McCready said that BOZA has addressed ADUs and their inconsistencies in
past Letters to Council, recently as last year. From this board’s standpoint, it is
important to have clarity regarding the interpretation of the criteria for
ADU/OAUs, as it is for variances.
• M. Hirsch added that the criteria surrounding ADU/OAUs needs to be done
correctly and properly. Therefore, it would be better to see a proper ordinance
than a rushed ordinance.
• J. Lester said that currently, the process is not being rushed. Generally, she
would like to see the criteria cleaned up.
• D. Schafer said that it would be worth the prioritization of that attention to clarify
the regulations because it could become a solution to solving Boulder’s housing
problem. Currently, it feels arbitrary and borders on unfair based on what is
allowable across the city.
• M. Hirsch stated that he has been concerned regarding where ADU/OAU would
be allowed and who would benefit.
• E. McCready stated the regulation of 450 square foot vs. building coverage has
been confusing. She questioned at what level would someone come to BOZA for
a variance vs. something that staff could review. The five-year requirement could
be re-examined regarding new construction vs. speculative.
• J. Lester suggested creating a ratio to create ADUs to avoid duplex situations.
• M. Hirsch said the ratio of roof to floor area seems very ridged. He would like to
see more diversity in how that regulation is written.
• J. Lester summarized that the board would like to remind City Council that the
ADU/OAU discussion should be a priority and to continue the momentum.
4. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the board at this time, BY MOTION
REGULARLY ADOPTED, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 6:39 P.M
APPROVED BY
_________________________________
Board Chair
_________________________________
DATE
02.08.2018 BOZA Packet Page 64 of 64