Loading...
02.08.2018 BOZA Summary Minutes_signed CITY OF BOULDER BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT ACTION MINUTES February 8,2018,5 p.m. 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers Board Members Present: Jill Lester(Chair), David Schafer, Michael Hirsch, Board Members Absent: Ellen McCready City Attorney Representing Board: Erin Poe Staff Members Present: Brian Holmes, Robbie Wyler, Cindy Spence, Carolyn Fahey 1. CALL TO ORDER: J. Lester called the meeting to order at 5:06 p.m. 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. Staff Presentation: R. Wyler presented the item to the board. Board Questions: R. Wyler and B. Holmes answered questions from the board. Applicant's Presentation: Luke Jacobs, the applicant, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Luke Jacobs, the applicant, and Tara Parkes, the applicant's architect, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: No one from the public addressed the board. Board Discussion: • M. Hirsch stated that the setbacks in the neighborhood are tight and the proposal will keep existing street scape similar. He would approve as submitted. • D. Schafer agreed. The addition would not have any additional impact on the neighbor. He had no objection to the proposal. • J. Lester agreed. Motion: On a motion by D. Schafer, seconded by M. Hirsch. the Board of Zoning Adjustment approved 3-0 (E. McCreadv absent the application (Docket 2018-01) as submitted. 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. Staff Presentation: R. Wyler presented the item to the board. Board Questions: R. Wyler and B. Holmes answered questions from the board. Board Disclosures: • J. Lester said that she knew the applicant and his wife socially, however the relationship has not been ongoing and she can remain impartial. • M. Hirsch stated that he previously had a business relationship with the applicant in which the applicant's company had rented a space from him for approximately five years. The relationship was strictly business and he can remain impartial. Applicant's Presentation: Tom Miller, the applicant, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Tom Miller, the applicant, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: John Driver, a neighbor to the east, spoke in support of the project. Board Discussion: Key Issues to Consider: BRC 9-2-3(i)—Variances to ADU Floor Area: (i) Floor Area Variances for Accessory Dwelling Units. The BQZA may grant a variance to the mavimttm floor area allowed for an accessory dwelling unit tinder Subsection 9-6-3(a), B.R.0 1981, only if it finds that the application satisfies all of die following applicable requirements. (1) That lite interior configuration of the hoose is arranged in sttch a manner that the space to be used as the accessary 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 (3) That the strict application of the provisions at issue would impose an u ndtte and unnecessary hardship on the individual and that such hardship has not been created by the applicant. • M. Hirsch stated that in the past, there has been hardship in carving out space. In this case, there may be options in looking at the floorplan, however the board should be cautious in setting precedent regarding the size of this ADU going forward. • D. Schafer said that currently the floorplan has inefficiently used space. Carving off space could cause hardship as it would degrade the quality of the space. "Feasibly be divided" is the crux of the discussion. In addition, the prior use patterns by prior owners of the home has had no impact to the neighborhood. • J. Lester stated that upon a site visit, there could be ways to constrain the space without losing the natural light. She would prefer to not approve the proposed as is. She said she agreed with staffs recommendation, that the proposal is not the minimum and the applicant could comply if things were done. • D. Schafer questioned if the ADU would be based on the size or number of occupants. The space can only support a couple residents. Then regarding undue and unnecessary hardship, the disruption and cost of construction and the resulting poor quality of space would be unreasonable. He said it would not affect the impact on the neighborhood. • The board discussed feasible reconfigurations of the floor space that would not cause undue hardship to the applicant or tenants. • M. Hirsch said this is a unique situation and the board cannot find a feasible way to make the ADU smaller without causing undue hardship and a burden to the applicant. • J. Lester reiterated that it may be feasible but not reasonable. • All board members do not see a feasible way to reduce the size. • J. Lester summarized by saying that the board will not address policy and only consider the three criteria. Regarding criteria#1, the consensus was that the ADU could not be reasonably reconfigured or divided to conform to the size requirements. Regarding criteria #2, the consensus was that the minimum variance would be meeting the essential intent of the title. • M. Hirsch, regarding criteria #3, said that it would be an undue hardship. • J. Lester added that the board is not approving any non-compliance with health and safety that need to be addressed. The structure will need to be in compliance with building codes. Motion: On a motion by M. Hirsch, seconded by J. Lester, the Board of Zoning Adjustment approved 3-0 (E. McCready absent) the application (Docket 2018-02) 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 3-0 (E.McCready absent) to approve the January 11, 2018 minutes. B. Matters from the Board • J. Lester informed the board that she met with Council Member Mary Young to discuss the upcoming discussions regarding the ADU/OAU ordinance. She suggested that the board remind City Council every year in their Letter to Council the ongoing OAU/ADU concerns. • D. Schafer inquired if the board rules could be altered to have the new chair take over at the following meeting rather than at the meeting they are elected at. The board agreed to discuss board rules and election procedures at the next meeting in March 2018 when four members are present. C. Matters from the City Attorney There were no matters from the City Attorney. D. Matters from Planning and Development Services There were no matters from the Planning and Development Services. 4. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the board at this time, BY MOTION REGULARLY ADOPTED, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 6:52 P.M APPROVED BY Board h '' oa d C air-'-- DATE 2�0