05.10.2018 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.: BOZ2017-21
Address: 816 Arapahoe Avenue
Applicant: Jose Jimenez Palacios & Yumi Roth
Variance for Setback: (Item Continued From the November 9, 2017 BOZA Meeting) As part of a
proposal to allow an existing 48 square foot detached shed to remain in the front yard of a single-family
home, the applicants are requesting a variance to the front (north) and interior side (east) yard setback
requirements for an accessory structure in the RMX-1 zoning district. The resulting front yard setback
will be approximately 35 feet where 55 feet is required and 35 feet exists today. The resulting interior
side yard setback will be approximately 1.2 feet where 3 feet is required and 1.2 feet exists
today. Section of the Land Use Code to be modified: Section 9-7-1, BRC 1981.
B. Docket No.: BOZ2018-05
Address: 1753 Columbine Avenue
Applicants: Tim & Lynette Fuller-Rowell
Floor Area Variance for an Accessory Dwelling Unit: As part of a proposal to establish an Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) within the existing residence located within the RL-1 zoning district, the applicants
are requesting a floor area variance to allow an approximately 1,160 square foot lower level accessory
unit where approximately 1,000 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.
C. Docket No.: BOZ2018-10
Address: 1019 14th Street
Applicant: Kevin Rieder
Separation Variance: The newly constructed building at 1005 14th Street was built adjacent to the
existing building at 1019 14th Street, both on the same lot and in the RH-5 zoning district. As
constructed, the minimum required and proposed 6’-0” separation between buildings was not provided.
The distance between the two buildings at the existing west corner of the 1-story addition of 1019 14th
St to the north wall of newly built 1005 14th St is 5.9' (or 5'-10 13/16"). As a result, the applicant is
requesting a variance to the required 6’-0” separation requirement to allow the existing building(s) to
remain as constructed. The resulting separation will be 5'-10 13/16" where 6’-0” is required. Section of
the Land Use Code to be modified: Section 9-7-1, BRC 1981.
D. Docket No.: BOZ2018-11
Address: 3166 8th Street
Applicants: Adrian Sopher & Marybeth Keigher (Sopher Living Trust)
Variance for Setback & Building Separation: As part of a proposal for a rear single-story addition,
new covered front porch, and façade/roof modifications to an existing nonstandard house, the applicants
are requesting a variance to both side yard setbacks (north & south) for compliance with the minimum
and combined side yard setback regulations of the RL-1 zoning district. The resulting north side yard
setback will be approximately 4.8 feet where 8.75 feet is required and 5 feet exists today. The resulting
south side yard setback will be approximately 6.25 feet where 10.2 feet is required and 6.3 feet exists
today. Additionally, the applicants are requesting a variance to the building separation regulations. The
building separation between the existing house and existing detached garage will be approximately 5.2
CITY OF BOULDER
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
MEETING AGENDA
DATE: Thursday, May 10, 2018
TIME: Meeting to begin at 5 p.m.
PLACE: Council Chambers, 1777 Broadway, 2nd Floor
feet where 6 feet is required and 4.5 feet exists today. Section of the Land Use Code to be
modified: Section 9-7-1, BRC 1981.
E. Docket No.: BOZ2018-12
Address: 945 University Avenue
Applicant: Buddy Kring
Building Coverage Variance for an Owners Accessory Unit (OAU): As part of a proposal to allow
for consideration of a potential OAU within an existing detached building with approximately 670
square feet of building coverage, the applicants are requesting an OAU building coverage variance in the
RMX-1 zoning district. The proposed building coverage variance would allow the existing,
approximately 670 square foot building coverage to remain, where 500 square feet would be allowed per
the OAU size limitations. The floor area of the potential OAU itself would comply with the code
limitation of 450 square feet. Section of the Land Use Code to be modified: Section 9-6-3, BRC 1981.
** ITEM 2E POSTPONED ANTICIPATED FOR JUNE 14, 2018 BOZA MEETING **
F. Docket No.: BOZ2018-13
Address: 320 20th Street
Applicants: Amy Nack & Justin Ebert
Setback Variance: (Scope of Work Has Been Revised From the Previously Approved BOZ2017-
15) As part of a proposal to construct a new two-story single-family house primarily within the same
footprint of a now demolished single-story nonstandard house, the applicants are requesting a variance
to both the front (west) and side adjacent to street (south) setback regulations of the RL-1 zoning
district. Only portions of the former home’s below-grade foundation exists today. The resulting front
(west) yard setback will be approximately 23 feet where 25 feet is required. The resulting south side
yard setback will be approximately 17 feet where 25 feet is required. The subject south side yard is
adjacent to King Avenue and requires a 25-foot setback due to the adjacent property fronting on the
same street. Section of the Land Use Code to be modified: Section 9-7-1, BRC 1981.
G. Docket No.: BOZ2018-14
Address: 3325 Folsom Street
Applicant: Chad Smith
Setback Variance: (Scope of Work Has Been Revised From the Previously Approved, and Expired
BOZ2017-05) As part of a proposal for a rear single-story addition to an existing nonstandard house
located on a nonstandard lot, the applicant is requesting a variance to both side yard setbacks (north &
south) for compliance with the minimum and combined side yard setback regulations of the RE zoning
district. The resulting north side yard setback will be approximately 15.2 feet where 15.8 feet is
required and where approximately 8.4 exists today. The resulting south side yard setback will be
approximately 9.2 feet where 16.6 feet is required and 9.2 feet exists today. Section of the Land Use
Code to be modified: Section 9-7-1, BRC 1981.
3. GENERAL DISCUSSION
A. Approval of Minutes: The February 8, 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 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.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 3 of 183
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:
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 4 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 5 of 183
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.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 6 of 183
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.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 7 of 183
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.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 8 of 183
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
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 9 of 183
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.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 10 of 183
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
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 11 of 183
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).
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 12 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 13 of 183
Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application
Written Statement Page 1 of 17 18-Apr-2018
JIMENEZ / ROTH RESIDENCE
816 Arapahoe Avenue
Boulder, Colorado
Board of Zoning Adjustment (BOZA) Setback Variance Application
PROJECT NARRATIVE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Board of Zoning Adjustment (BOZA) Setback Variance Application has been
prepared for the proposed yard and garden shed at the Jimenez/Roth Residence, located at
816 Arapahoe Avenue in Boulder, Colorado.
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
We purchased the property in 2004. Our single family residence was expanded in 2012-
13 with a new 488 SF building addition connected to the south side of the existing home.
A new 273 SF one car garage was also constructed at the same time. In order to preserve
the streetscape and modesty of the original home, we opted to build in the rear of our lot
rather than expand into the front yard. In the RMX-1, that setback would have been 25’
where our house currently sits at 45’. Our home is currently 1,527 SF with no basement.
No additional floor area can be added to the existing house due to the floodplain
development regulations, unless the original solid brick house is elevated to the flood
protection elevation of ~3’ above ground level (which is significantly cost prohibitive).
The site is heavily impacted by the regulatory floodplain. The entire site is located within
the 100-year floodplain. About 30% of the site is also located in the conveyance and high
hazard zones. This includes part of the Gregory Creek stream bed, which transects the
property and alters the landscape. About 40% of the site is also located in the regulatory
wetland area, which also restricts development.
The site is zoned RMX-1. The setbacks are as follows:
Table 7-1 Form and Bulk Standards – B.R.C. 1981 Zoning RMX-1 – Form Mod. D
Principal Building and Uses Accessory Building and Uses
Front: 25’ Front: 55’
Side 5’ minimum
15’ total
Side 0’ or 3’
Rear: 25’ Rear: 0’ or 3’
*NARRATIVE HAS BEEN REVISED BY APPLICANT SINCE NOVEMBER 9, 2017 BOZA MEETING*
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 14 of 183
Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application
Written Statement Page 2 of 17 18-Apr-2018
Figure No. 1 – Overall Site Aerial
Figure No. 2 – Site Location Plan
Project Site
Project Site
*NARRATIVE HAS BEEN REVISED BY APPLICANT SINCE NOVEMBER 9, 2017 BOZA MEETING*
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 15 of 183
Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application
Written Statement Page 3 of 17 18-Apr-2018
Figure No. 3 – 100-Year Regulatory Floodplain, Conveyance and High Hazard Zones
(from the City’s website).
Figure No. 4 – Map of the site showing the regulatory wetland boundary (from the City’s
website).
Project Site
*NARRATIVE HAS BEEN REVISED BY APPLICANT SINCE NOVEMBER 9, 2017 BOZA MEETING*
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 16 of 183
Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application
Written Statement Page 4 of 17 18-Apr-2018
Figure No. 5 – Photograph of the proposed yard and garden shed.
*NARRATIVE HAS BEEN REVISED BY APPLICANT SINCE NOVEMBER 9, 2017 BOZA MEETING*
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 17 of 183
Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application
Written Statement Page 5 of 17 18-Apr-2018
3.0 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
We are requesting a front yard setback variance for the construction of a small 5.5’ x 8.3’
(45 sq. ft.) yard and garden shed. The existing building meets the principal building setback
requirements. The yard and garden shed is located 35’ from the front property line, where
55’ is required. The shed is located 1.3’ from the side property line where 0’ is required.
We are currently in discussions with the adjacent property owner and are working towards
obtaining a maintenance easement once the BOZA setback variance and floodplain
development permit has been approved.
4.0 DISCUSSION
Background:
We both teach at the University of Colorado. We have lived in the house for 14 years. We
have a four year old son, and an elderly parent who visits regularly (and will in the future
move into this house so that we may assist with her care). As one of us, Jose-Luis Jimenez,
is a climate scientist, we have chosen a lifestyle that minimizes our carbon footprint, e.g.
we walk to work most days and when possible run errands on our bicycles or on foot. This
is a mixed neighborhood with a high proportion of student rentals for which the upkeep
rate is variable, and with high tenant turnover. We strongly believe (as one of our neighbors
said in her letter of support to us) that “long term residents are vital anchors in building
community in our neighborhood,” and over the last 14 years we have consistently
maintained and improved the character of the neighborhood. E.g. we routinely clean up
trash and animal waste during weekends, not just on our property but on the surrounding
streets and properties.
Lot Restrictions:
Our existing single family residence is a total of 1,527 SF with no basement nor usable
attic. Our main residence cannot be expanded at all due the 100-year floodplain
development regulations. The entire site is located within the 100-year floodplain. The
back of the property and a substantial fraction of the east side (about 30% of the property
area) are located in the conveyance and/or high hazard zones, including the Gregory Creek
stream bed. About 40% of the property area is located in the regulatory wetland zone.
These conditions limit the accessory building options at the site. The City’s floodplain
development regulations prohibit basements and taller crawl spaces in the floodplain,
which severely limits the interior storage options. The roof is shallow and there is no attic
storage. Exterior storage is limited by the Conveyance, High Hazard, and Regulatory
Wetland zones in the back of the property, which limit construction of new structures.
In addition, the lot is long and narrow, and there is literally nowhere where such a small
yard and garden shed could be located while complying with all the required setbacks and
regulations, and without blocking critical access from the parking and loading/unloading
area into the property and professional work space. See Appendix 1 for a plan of the site
with all the limitations shown.
*NARRATIVE HAS BEEN REVISED BY APPLICANT SINCE NOVEMBER 9, 2017 BOZA MEETING*
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 18 of 183
Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application
Written Statement Page 6 of 17 18-Apr-2018
Use and Safety:
There is a small storage shed at the back of our home, that we use for car-related and bike-
related items, required all-weather storage for electric bikes, larger professional sculpture
tools (e.g. chop saw, table saw etc.) and other personal items which need to be stored in a
dry location. These items are frequently accessed, and it would not be practical to keep
them at a distant storage unit. The one car garage is currently being used as a professional
art studio for Yumi Janairo Roth (http://www.yumijroth.com).
Figure No. 6 – Sample large-scale sculptures produced in studio
The garage/studio space is compact and there is a need for large 2D and 3D sculpture
projects to move around the space. The space has to be kept very clean to avoid soiling the
artwork, and there is a need for storing various art supplies, tools, and past projects.
Therefore, garden, automotive, e-bike, and large tool storage opportunities in the garage
are not feasible. Moreover because of the scale of Yumi’s work and the frequency of her
exhibition schedule, she needs free, clear, and direct access to the studio and workspace to
safely load and unload crates of sculpture, ranging from 250-350 lbs, raw materials, and
large power tools.
*NARRATIVE HAS BEEN REVISED BY APPLICANT SINCE NOVEMBER 9, 2017 BOZA MEETING*
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 19 of 183
Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application
Written Statement Page 7 of 17 18-Apr-2018
Figure No. 7 – Unloading and moving crated sculpture to studio
We built the small yard and garden shed mainly for the purpose of storing frequently used
lawn equipment, gardening supplies, tools, a larger mosquito trapping device (to protect
our family from West Nile virus) strollers and other outdoor items in a secure location.
These items are frequently used, so that an offsite storage would not be feasible. Many
homeowners may just pile some of these items on the side of the house. However, this is
not possible for items like the mosquito trap, which needs to be protected from the elements
during winter, and well as e.g. the strollers. Moreover, there are multiple shears, branch
saws, digging tools and lawnmover that would be dangerous for our son, as well as for his
grandmother. It is also important to keep the tools dry to avoid oxidation of metal parts and
rotting of wood parts, and to keep them away from raccoon, dog (and sometimes human)
excrement, which is frequently found around the property. We also wanted to screen the
items from view, and wanted a secure space for our tools and equipment. There are times
when homeless individuals are found camping in the creek on, or just feet from our
property. Intoxicated students often enter the property on weekend nights, and we have had
to call Boulder Police more than once on such occasions. So, the desire to have these items
stored securely is a real need in our neighborhood. Otherwise, valuables left unattended
would be damaged or stolen or present a safety hazard to individuals coming onto the
property and a liability to us.
Most families would have the opportunity to store items inside, either in a basement,
crawlspace, or larger garage attached to the house. These opportunities are not available
to us. We have made due with our modest residence and lack of interior storage spaces.
But there are still some storage and safety requirements that we would like to meet with
the proposed yard and garden shed.
*NARRATIVE HAS BEEN REVISED BY APPLICANT SINCE NOVEMBER 9, 2017 BOZA MEETING*
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 20 of 183
Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application
Written Statement Page 8 of 17 18-Apr-2018
Precedent:
We understand that not setting precedent is one important consideration when evaluating
a variance request. We believe that this request, if approved, would not set a precedent for
two main reasons:
Ours is a unique lot with a stream bed that transects and limits the property. It is narrow
and has an extreme number of complex limitations on its development, which other
single family homes in our neighborhood do not have. Moreover, it abuts a corner lot
whose principal structure faces 9th Street. Thus, a similar variance request for a different
neighbor would fail to qualify for a variance unless it had a similarly extreme set of
restrictions.
There are two properties in our immediate vicinity that have been granted front yard
setback variances for accessory structures. The historic property at 800 Arapahoe
received a front yard setback (46’ when 55’ is required) for an accessory structure (case
BOZ2015-00010). The City of Boulder-owned property at 929 Marine St. includes a
<100 sq. ft. shed with ~42 front yard setback. Both properties and accessory structures
are shown below.
800 Arapahoe Ave 929 Marine St.
Figure No. 8 – Properties with accessory structures inside the 55’ front yard setback
Sight Lines:
The typical front yard setback is designed so that all homes on a block have a uniform
distance from the road to give a pleasant visual appearance of uniformity, and leave sight
lines open along the whole block. Therefore, we would never ask for an accessory structure
on the west side of our own front yard, nor would it be appropriate in our neighbor to the
west’s front yard as the sight lines in those areas are currently unbroken and respect the
uniform fronts of the principal structures on the lot. However, our yard is the effective
endcap to the street, with a natural stream, a dense line of large trees and hedge row, and a
fence line which we designed to match the style of our home, an d even a concrete barricade
*NARRATIVE HAS BEEN REVISED BY APPLICANT SINCE NOVEMBER 9, 2017 BOZA MEETING*
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 21 of 183
Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application
Written Statement Page 9 of 17 18-Apr-2018
over Gregory Creek where it passes under the street. All of these features combined give
the visual appearance of an endcap to the block, and break the sight lines. On the other side
of these natural dividers is a corner lot where their back yard faces our front yard, further
giving our yard the appearance of a natural end to the uniformity. Therefore, we placed the
yard and garden shed along these features, not haphazardly protruding into the uniform
front yard spaces, but grounded to and resting on a natural endcap where all of these other
items give this accessory structure visual foundation. Likewise the large mature trees and
hedge row give the shed an appearance of being insignificant against the backdrop, further
blending it into the surroundings. Great effort was put into designing the materials to
coordinate with the natural wood fencing, the architectural style of the home, the aesthetic
of the city, and the natural appearance of the mature tree line. So while we understand the
intent of the front yard setback rules on typical lots, our lot is not typical (more so because
of the actual physical and regulatory restrictions of the site), and therefore in our unique
situation we feel the location of the yard and garden shed follows the intended spirit of the
setbacks by aligning structures such that sight lines are uniform and coordinated with the
other elements.
5.0 SETBACK 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
The entire site is located within the 100-year floodplain. The back and east side of
the property are located in the conveyance, high hazard, and/or regulatory wetland
zones, including the Gregory Creek stream bed which further minimizes available
level ground. Additionally, along the west side of our property is a 20’ x 3’
easement. The property is narrow and due to the required setbacks there is literally
no alternative space to locate an accessory structure. These conditions limit the
storage options at the site.
The City’s floodplain development regulations prohibit basements and taller crawl
spaces in the floodplain, which severely limits the interior storage options. Exterior
storage is limited by the Conveyance and High Hazard Zones in the back of the
property.
*NARRATIVE HAS BEEN REVISED BY APPLICANT SINCE NOVEMBER 9, 2017 BOZA MEETING*
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 22 of 183
Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application
Written Statement Page 10 of 17 18-Apr-2018
(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
The 4 year old and the 74-yr old parent need to be safe from tools such as saws,
shears, lawnmower, weedwacker, shovels, fertilizer and other chemicals, etc.
B. The unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood or
zoning district in which the property is located; and
As noted in Section A, the entire site is located within the regulatory 100-year
floodplain, much of it is located within the conveyance, high hazard, and/or
regulatory wetland zones, and the property is long and narrow, and made narrower
by the conveyance flood zone and the Gregory Creek stream bed on the east side,
leading to lack of any alternative locations for a small yard and garden shed. These
conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood. In particular, most adjacent
single family lots are larger, regularly shaped, and do not have the flood, wetland
or stream bed limitations.
In addition, the proposed location is quite far from the front edge of the property
(35’), much farther than most houses in this neighborhood are from their front
property lines (typically 12’ further to the west).
C. Because of such physical circumstances or conditions the property cannot reasonably
be developed in conformity with the provisions of this chapter; and
As noted in Section A, the entire site is located within the regulatory 100-year
floodplain, much of it is located within the conveyance, high hazard, and/or
regulatory wetland zones (including the Gregory Creek stream bed). The property
is long and narrow, leading to lack of any alternative locations for a small
accessory structure. These conditions precludes development in conformity with
the zoning requirements.
D. Any unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant.
As noted in Section A, the entire site is located within the regulatory 100-year
floodplain and much of it is located within the conveyance, high hazard, and/or
regulatory wetland zones, including the Gregory Creek stream bed. The property
is long and narrow, with usable terrain narrowing further at the south end, leading
to lack of any alternative locations for a small accessory structure. These
hardships have not been created by the applicant.
*NARRATIVE HAS BEEN REVISED BY APPLICANT SINCE NOVEMBER 9, 2017 BOZA MEETING*
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 23 of 183
Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application
Written Statement Page 11 of 17 18-Apr-2018
(5) Requirements for All Variance Approvals
A. Would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the lot
is located;
The proposed yard and garden shed will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood. The properties located on Arapahoe Ave. between 7th and 9th St.
include only 2 single family homes (ours and the historic Hannah Barker house),
4 rental duplex/triplex, and 4 large multi-family rental and condominium
complexes, and one office building. The dates of constructions range from 1870s to
early 2000s and the structures are heterogeneous in scale and style.
The proposed yard and garden shed is small, modest, and matches the architectural
character of our home. It would not alter the architectural character of the
neighborhood. The yard and garden shed is integrated into the landscape,
surrounded by mature shrubs and trees that we carefully maintain. The yard and
garden shed abuts the rear of an adjacent property, which faces 9th Street (1655 9th
St).
In addition, the owners of all 6 the adjacent and/or closest properties on Arapahoe
Ave have written to support this variance. This include the owners of the two
Historic properties in this area (the Highland School and the Hannah Barker
House), one of which has recently received a front yard setback variance for an
accessory structure (case BOZ2015-00010). See letters in Appendix 2 at the end of
this document.
B. Would not substantially or permanently impair the reasonable use and enjoyment or
development of adjacent property;
The proposed yard and garden shed will not impair the reasonable use and
enjoyment or development of adjacent property. The main entrance of the adjacent
property faces 9th St., and the shed abuts the rear of their property, about 75 ft from
*NARRATIVE HAS BEEN REVISED BY APPLICANT SINCE NOVEMBER 9, 2017 BOZA MEETING*
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 24 of 183
Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application
Written Statement Page 12 of 17 18-Apr-2018
their main structure. We have been in discussions with the adjacent neighbor and
they are agreeable to this proposal. In fact, the closest adjacent neighbor has
written a letter in support of this variance request (as have all other adjacent and
nearby neighbors), which is attached in Appendix 2.
C. Would be the minimum variance that would afford relief and would be the least
modification of the applicable provisions of this title; and
The proposed yard and garden shed will be the minimum variance that would afford
significant relief and would be the least modification of the applicable provisions
of this title. The shed cannot be moved farther away from the front property line to
increase the setback distance, as it would then fail to respect the proper setback vs.
the main house. The shed is small, only 5.5’ x 8.3’ and only 6’ tall. This would
constitute the least modification to the zoning requirements.
D. Would not conflict with the provisions of Section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C.1981.
The proposed yard and garden shed will not conflict with the solar access
requirements. The property is located in Solar Access Area II, which is protected
with a 25 foot solar fence. The 6’ tall shed would not violate the solar fence.
*NARRATIVE HAS BEEN REVISED BY APPLICANT SINCE NOVEMBER 9, 2017 BOZA MEETING*
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 25 of 183
Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application Written Statement Page 13 of 17 18-Apr-2018 APPENDIX 1 – MAP OF SITE SHOWING LIMITATIONS ON SHED LOCATION *NARRATIVE HAS BEEN REVISED BY APPLICANT SINCE NOVEMBER 9, 2017 BOZA MEETING*05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 26 of 183
Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application
Written Statement Page 14 of 17 18-Apr-2018
APPENDIX 2 – LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM NEIGHBORS
Map showing the adjacent properties for which the owners have provided letters supporting
this variance
*NARRATIVE HAS BEEN REVISED BY APPLICANT SINCE NOVEMBER 9, 2017 BOZA MEETING*
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 27 of 183
Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application
Written Statement Page 15 of 17 18-Apr-2018
*NARRATIVE HAS BEEN REVISED BY APPLICANT SINCE NOVEMBER 9, 2017 BOZA MEETING*
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 28 of 183
Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application
Written Statement Page 16 of 17 18-Apr-2018
*NARRATIVE HAS BEEN REVISED BY APPLICANT SINCE NOVEMBER 9, 2017 BOZA MEETING*
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 29 of 183
Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application
Written Statement Page 17 of 17 18-Apr-2018
6.0 SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS
The following materials have been prepared and included with this Board of Zoning
Adjustment (BOZA) Setback Variance Application.
1. Board of Zoning Adjustment (BOZA) Application Form
2. Written Statement
3. Improvement Survey Plat
4. Site Development Plan
5. Sign Posting Acknowledgement Form
6. Electronic Files
7. Application Fee
*NARRATIVE HAS BEEN REVISED BY APPLICANT SINCE NOVEMBER 9, 2017 BOZA MEETING*
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 30 of 183
802 Marine Street
Boulder CO
October 9, 2017 `
Dear Board of Zoning Adjustment:
This letter is to express my views on Docket No. BOZ2017-21, a proposed variance for setback. The
property at 816 Arapahoe Avenue seeking a variance is close to my property, at 802 Marine Street. I
cannot attend the hearing on October 12 (per a mailed notice I received), so I am emailing my
comments.
My principal concern relates to the effects of reducing required open spaces. Zoning laws governing
how much of one’s land can be covered have a very important role in managing stormwater runoff and
protecting the area from flooding and/or spreading contaminants. The amount of uncovered ground that
can absorb rainwater is a key factor in reducing damage from runoff. During the major flooding in
Boulder a few years ago, a big factor in that neighborhood was from water running in the streets and
over yards, and into houses, because the land available for absorption was supersaturated. Further
diminishing the land available to absorb rain water and overflowing creeks is not in the public interest
for either private or public property.
Boulder has dedicated substantial resources to studying flooding risks and possible mitigation of these
risks. Reducing runoff has been adopted in multiple cities, including Philadelphia and Washington, DC,
as a successful strategy for improved water quality and avoiding costly renovation/expansion to water
management infrastructure. As a home owner, the increased flood risk has already cost me a lot; my
insurance has increased by thousands of dollars per year. Since the big flood (and within existing zoning
law, as I understand it), two houses were moved onto what had been a large yard just a block away,
between Marine and Arapahoe in the 900 block. And the frequency of rain fall appears to be increasing
in Boulder. Please do not further diminish percolation in that neighborhood.
I believe that this requested variance might not meet one or more of Boulder’s variance criteria:
The first paragraph of Boulder’s Administrative Setback Variance Criteria (https://www-
static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/PDS/forms/115.pdf) states that:
Certain variance applications are considered by the Board of Zoning Adjustment at a public
hearing. The city planning staff may consider variance requests for up to 20% of the required
setback (e.g. a proposed 20 foot setback where 25 feet is required). These administrative setback
variances for up to 20% of the setback requirement must be considered through an administrative
review application.
This 20% maximum is also stated in 9-2-3(c)(1). The hearing announcement states that the front yard
setback requested by 816 Arapahoe Avenue would result in 35 feet where 55 feet is required. This 20-
foot reduction in setback would exceed the 20% limit noted in Boulder’s criteria document, and on this
issue alone appears unqualified for approval.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 31 of 183
9-2-3(h)(1) speaks to Physical Condition or Disability. The description of the variance request does not
establish physical circumstances or conditions , or disability, that require a variance.
9-2-3(h)(5)(A) protects ”the essential character of the neighborhood.” The buildings in this
neighborhood are quite varied, allowing for lots of differences. Having a shed out front, however, is not
a common feature, and seems inherently unattractive, which affects the character of the neighborhood.
9-2-3(h)(5)(B) Given the increased risk of stormwater damage to neighbors, it might “substantially or
permanently impair the reasonable use and enjoyment” of adjacent property. As noted above, it does
appear to increase neighborhood risk of damage.
Furthermore, allowing property owners to ignore zoning laws by granting variances after the fact is
unfair to neighboring properties. It also signals others that such violations will be tolerated.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment,
Odelia Funke, PhD
Information on the importance of open spaces for preventing runoff and expensive engineering fixes:
https://water.usgs.gov/edu/runoff.html
http://www.silverhillinstitute.com/pdf/dealing_with_storm_water_management.pdf
“…[R]educing the velocity of storm or surface water runoff…is done by increasing the contact time of runoff water with soil
and vegetation. This decreases the flow rate of water and may result in the removal of contaminants as well it can reduce the
potential of erosion. When flow rate is reduced, infiltration, filtration and absorption of storm water runoff can occur on a
site. This may result in improved water quality. The increased infiltration that happens in these open spaces can also lead to
ground water recharge.”
http://phillywatersheds.org/what_were_doing/green_infrastructure
https://doee.dc.gov/src
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/0710058.pdf
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/0710058.pdfhttp://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/nps/NPS_Pollution/Storm
water_Runoff/sw_main.htm
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 32 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 33 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 34 of 183
Fuller-Rowell – 1753 Columbine Ave.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 35 of 183
Fuller-Rowell – 1753 Columbine Ave.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 36 of 183
Fuller-Rowell – 1753 Columbine Ave.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 37 of 183
Fuller-Rowell – 1753 Columbine Ave.
Background of the request
Lynette and I purchased the house in 1990 when we moved to Boulder from London, and
have lived in the house as a single family dwelling for 28 years. The house is a good size,
and has been ideal to raise our three sons, the youngest was born in 1990 so has lived in
Boulder all his life. All three sons now have their own places and are gainfully employed, so
we are empty nesters.
Our oldest son is married with two young daughters. His family recently moved back to
Boulder from New York, and bought a house just two blocks away on Bluebell Ave. One of
the reasons they moved close by was so that we can help with the grandchildren. We
currently share the care giving of the grandchildren, since they both work full-time. Since
our grandchildren live round the corner, we really want to stay in the neighborhood.
We love the neighborhood and would like to “age in place.” The house has become too big
for us, but opportunities to downsize are limited in the neighborhood. I will reach
retirement age next year so income will drop significantly. Lynette had to retire from her
work recently after being diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis. We hope the
supplementary income from renting out the basement will help to pay the mortgage, and
the expense of maintaining an older home. Hence the wish to apply for the ADU, in order to
make good use of the space and help with the rising cost of living in Boulder as we retire.
We also enjoy the prospect of interaction that renting out part of our house will involve.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 38 of 183
Fuller-Rowell – 1753 Columbine Ave.
Written statement describing the variance request and addressing all pertinent
review criteria
The size variance request is based on paragraph (1) Physical Conditions
(h) CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES
(1) Physical Conditions
(A) The proposed accessory unit is the Basement of a three-story Cape Cod
style building, which was built in 1946. The floor and walls of the
basement are concrete, which support the upper two stories of the house.
With the internal framing the walls are 1ft. 2 inches thick, the total area
of which are 170 sq.ft., which is included in the current ADU size
calculation. The grade of the land slopes from West to East, rendering the
West, North, and South sides of the basement mostly below grade. On
these sides, small windows in the area above grade allow some light into
the area. On the East side, the grade is cut out to enable walk out from the
basement. More than 50% of the natural light to the Basement is supplied
from the East through a larger window in the bedroom and double patio
doors with sidelights in the laundry/mudroom. A stairwell on the North-
East corner connect the Basement to the main part of the house.
(B) Floral Park has many different house styles and the Cape Cod
construction is unique to the neighborhood. The existing footprint has
not changed since its construction in 1946.
(C) The current area of the basement, excluding the mechanical/ furnace
room and stairwell is currently 1160 sq. ft., which is the area proposed
for the accessory dwelling unit (ADU), and is 36% of the total of all three
levels of the house. To meet the 1000 sq. ft. maximum size limitation or
1/3 of the total area, the only feasible way would require constructing a
wall across the laundry/mud room from North to South, in order to
exclude 160 sq.ft. . This wall would reduce the natural light to the ADU by
50%, making the space greatly undesirable for the owners and future
renters. Therefore, to meet the size restriction would lead to unnecessary
remodeling work of walling off a portion of the Basement, chopping the
room space into two small undesirable spaces. In contrast the current
open area on the East side produces a light and airy space with direct
access to the outside through the double patio doors to a small patio
seating area.
(D) The layout of the house and floor area of each level has been unchanged
since it’s original construction in 1946. It has had only one or two
previous owners, and was purchased by us in 1990.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 39 of 183
Fuller-Rowell – 1753 Columbine Ave.
(5) Requirements for All Variance Approvals
(A) Would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
The footprint of the house has been unchanged since its construction and will be
unchanged by this application. No external changes are proposed so would have no impact
on the character of the neighborhood.
(B) Would not impair the reasonable use or development of adjacent
property.
There is no exterior size increase requested and no change to neighbor’s existing ability to
develop their properties.
(C) Would be the minimum variance to afford relief and the least
modification of the applicable provisions of this title
We have tried to think of alternative ways to reduce the size that would not have the
negative impact of removing 50% of the natural light and making the space undesirable. A
wall running East-West towards the north side separating the laundry area and keeping the
natural light in the ADU, would only reduce the size by 70 sq.ft., so would not subtract
enough area to meet 1000 sq.ft. requirement.
The basement contains ductwork in the ceiling for the forced air furnace heating for the
whole house, which would make the construction of the partition wall difficult, and would
require re-routing of a lot of the existing forced air ductwork.
To replace the lost natural light to the ADU would require excavating the grade around the
house and cutting into the concrete foundation walls to increase the size of the windows on
the South and West side of the Basement. This would be major structural change that could
impair the integrity of the basement foundation walls, which support the two upper stories
of the house.
If a future owner wanted to convert the house back to a single family dwelling, remodeling
work would be required to remove the partition wall.
We also consulted with Boulder company RHAB architecture and planning, 1301 Walnut
St., and they concluded there was not a straightforward way to modify the space to meet
the size requirement, without building the wall from the North to South of the
laundry/mud room that would remove 50% of the natural light of the ADU. Furthermore,
with the forced air heating ductwork below the floor joist it is impractical to construct a
permanent partition because there are no convenient anchor points in the ceiling to
support a new wall structure, at suitable locations, without extensive rerouting of existing
ductwork.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 40 of 183
Fuller-Rowell – 1753 Columbine Ave.
(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 would be no infringement on solar access of neighboring
properties.
(i) FLOOR AREA VARIANCE FOR ADUs
(1) The interior 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 basement floor area is the footprint of the whole three-story dwelling. The upper levels
sit above the basement area, and are similar in their size with the exception of the concrete
area on the Southeast corner of the main level, and the reduction on the upper level due to
the traditional sloping room Cap Cod style construction. The only way to reduce the size of
the ADU area is to build an unnecessary wall across the laundry/mud room area. That
construction would reduce to light to the ADU by 50% and make the area very undesirable.
Alternatives either do not reduce the area sufficiently, or would require major structural
changes to recover the natural light potentially impacting the integrity and safety of the
whole dwelling
(2) That the variance, if granted, meets the essential intent of this title, and would be
minimum variance that would afford relief.
Approval of the size variance would have no impact on any neighbors and would greatly
improve the quality of life for the renters, or the owners if it was used returned as a single
family dwelling in the future.
(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.
The reduced height in some areas of the basement due to the ceiling ductwork for the
forced air heating system for the entire dwelling, would feel very cramped and
claustrophobic without natural light.
As described above, replacing the lost natural light to the ADU would require excavating
the grade around the house and cutting into the concrete foundation walls to increase the
size of the windows. This would be major structural change that could potentially impair
the integrity of the foundation.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 41 of 183
Fuller-Rowell – 1753 Columbine Ave.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 42 of 183
Fuller-Rowell – 1753 Columbine Ave.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 43 of 183
Fuller-Rowell – 1753 Columbine Ave.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 44 of 183
Fuller-Rowell – 1753 Columbine Ave.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 45 of 183
Fuller-Rowell – 1753 Columbine Ave.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 46 of 183
Fuller-Rowell – 1753 Columbine Ave.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 47 of 183
Fuller-Rowell – 1753 Columbine Ave.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 48 of 183
Fuller-Rowell – 1753 Columbine Ave.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 49 of 183
Fuller-Rowell – 1753 Columbine Ave.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 50 of 183
Fuller-Rowell – 1753 Columbine Ave.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 51 of 183
Fuller-Rowell – 1753 Columbine Ave.
Support Letters
To gather neighborhood opinion, the following letter was circulated to close neighbors:
1753 Columbine Ave.
Boulder,
CO 80302
Dear Neighbors,
We are applying to the city to use our basement as an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU).
Making it an official ADU means we can put a full size fridge and microwave, etc. in the
basement, and rent it out to no more than 2 people. We have an off street parking space
assigned for any renter we might have. As you know, we are empty nesters, and having
lived in the house for 27 years we would like to stay on, and also make use of the space that
we longer need. Our basement is self-contained with it’s own entrance on 18th Street. We of
course plan to continue to live on the main and upper level of the house. Please come over
and chat if you need more information.
The city has a size limit of 1000 square feet for ADUs, the area of our basement is 1160 sq.
ft. so we are applying to the city for a variance in order to have the space approved. As part
of the application it helps to have letters of support, or lack of objection, from our
neighbors. We are approaching you as our long-standing neighbors to ask you if you would
be willing to agree to allow us use the basement in this way. If you are willing, please send
an email to the address below simply saying you do not object, that we can include in the
application. If you want to add anything else that would help the application that would be
great. We have to submit the application by Wednesday of next week, March 21st, if you are
able to respond before that date.
Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns and thanks so much for giving this
your consideration.
Sincerely,
Tim and Lynette Fuller-Rowell
Email: tim.fuller-rowell@noaa.gov
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 52 of 183
Fuller-Rowell – 1753 Columbine Ave.
The neighbor most impacted by the ADU would be the family immediately across the street
from the ADU entrance on 18th St. Below is the response from Kristin and Matt Moseley at
1805 Columbine Ave..
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 53 of 183
Fuller-Rowell – 1753 Columbine Ave.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 54 of 183
Fuller-Rowell – 1753 Columbine Ave.
The following are additional responses, so far:
Kent and Robin Taylor
1730 Columbine Ave.
Bonnie and Andy Oriel
1703 Columbine Ave.
To date we have not had any negative responses.
3/21/18, 11:00 AMNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Mail - Accessory Dwelling Unit at 1753 Columbine Avenue
Page 1 of 1https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=e051fbd7af&jsver=7NKBh…view=pt&msg=16246a5f988710eb&search=inbox&siml=16246a5f988710eb
Tim Fuller-Rowell - NOAA Affiliate <tim.fuller-rowell@noaa.gov>
Accessory Dwelling Unit at 1753 Columbine Avenue
Kent Taylor <kdtboulder@outlook.com>Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:41 PM
To: "tim.fuller-rowell@noaa.gov" <tim.fuller-rowell@noaa.gov>
Cc: "rmtboulder@gmail.com" <rmtboulder@gmail.com>
Tim and Lynette,
We do not object to the accessory dwelling unit variance you propose. You are great neighbors and deserve to use
the property as you propose.
Kent and Robin Taylor
3/18/18, 11:16 AMNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Mail - the Fuller Rowell's ADU application
Page 1 of 1https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=e051fbd7af&jsver=7NKBhY…h=adv&as_query=from%3A(abcoriel%40aol.com)&siml=16231387cdc47656
Tim Fuller-Rowell - NOAA Affiliate <tim.fuller-rowell@noaa.gov>
the Fuller Rowell's ADU application
BONNIE ORIEL <abcoriel@aol.com>Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 5:50 PM
To: tim.fuller-rowell@noaa.gov
Hi Tim and Lynette,
Andy and I have no objections to your using your extra space as an ADU. You have always been good neighbors and
therefore we look forward to the same
in the future.
Bonnie and Andy Oriel 1703 Columbine Ave.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 55 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 56 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 57 of 183
1
Brandon Williams
From:Jessica Ramer <jessica@zargoinvest.com>
Sent:Friday, March 23, 2018 3:19 PM
To:Kevin Rieder
Cc:Brandon Williams; John Pugh
Subject:Re: Zoning Variance Consent Letter
Ok by us
Thanks,
Jessica Ramer
303-548-0374
Jessica@ZargoInvest.com
Right-click
here to
download
pictures. To
help protect
your privacy,
Outlook
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
Office: 1136 Pearl St. Suite 205 Boulder, CO 80302
Mail: PO Box 271028 Louisville, CO 80027
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 3:19 PM, <riederreal@aol.com> wrote:
See Attached.
D. Kevin Rieder
Rieder Real Estate, LLC
303.810.1074
This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or, have received
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy and delete all copies of this e-mail and any
attachments. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly prohibited.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brandon Williams <bwilliams@sophersparn.com>
To: D Kevin Rieder <riederreal@aol.com>
Cc: jessica <jessica@zargoinvest.com>; john <john@zargoinvest.com>
Sent: Fri, Mar 23, 2018 3:09 pm
Subject: RE: Zoning Variance Consent Letter
Great. Also, I need a signature on the second page of this application as the Owner. I think either of you are okay to sign
since 14th & Euclid LLC is listed as the owner on the other application documents for these projects.
Please sign, scan and send back to me. FYI – There will be an application fee that the City will need to get started. I plan
to have them tell me the fee when I go to submit so I don’t assume the wrong fee. I will be in touch about that amount
when I submit the package.
Thanks again,
Brandon
Brandon Williams
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 58 of 183
2
1731 15th Street | Suite 250 | Boulder, CO 80302
303 442 4422 x242 | www.sophersparn.com
From: D Kevin Rieder [mailto:riederreal@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 3:00 PM
To: Brandon Williams
Cc: jessica@zargoinvest.com; john@zargoinvest.com
Subject: Re: Zoning Variance Consent Letter
Brandon,
I am ok with this if John and/or Jessica are.
Kevin
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 23, 2018, at 14:54, Brandon Williams <bwilliams@sophersparn.com> wrote:
Hi Kevin and Jessica,
As part of the Zoning Variance for 14th & Euclid, I am going to submit, per Kirk Moors’s email to me, one
requirement is that I need “written consent of the owner(s) of the property for which the variance is
requested.” To cover bases, can I get both of your consent? I believe I can include an email in the
application, so feel free to reply to this.
Thanks much,
Brandon
Brandon Williams
<image001.gif>
1731 15th Street | Suite 250 | Boulder, CO 80302
303 442 4422 x242 | www.sophersparn.com
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 59 of 183
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
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 60 of 183
MEMORANDUM
To: Brian Holmes, Senior Planner / Zoning Administrator - CITY OF BOULDER
From: Adrian Sopher - SOPHER SPARN ARCHITECTS LLC
Project: 1019 14th Street -- BOZ2018-00010
Date: April 24, 2017
Re: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
RE: Board of Zoning Adjustment Variance Written Statement
The building at 1005 14th St was recently built adjacent to the fraternity at 1019 14th Street per the Horizontal
Control Plan in the approved Technical Documents (TEC2016-00008). The distance between the two buildings at
the west corner of the 1-story addition of 1019 14th St to the north wall of 1005 14th St is 5.9 feet (or 5'- 10
13/16"). Per the Boulder Revised Code, two buildings must be separated by 6 feet. This proposal is to allow for
the 5.9' separation.
The Horizontal Control Plan submitted by the Civil Engineer shows a 5.9’ (shown at the southeast corner of the
1019 addition) and was approved by the city in Technical Documents review. The Architectural Site Plan showed a
6’ separation between the two structures (shown at the southeast corner of the 1019 addition) and was likewise
approved by the city.
The reason for the discrepancy between the drawings is that the two documents noted the separation between
the structures in two different locations relative to the existing structure (which is an addition to the rear of the
landmarked 1019 14th Street Fraternity House at the front of the property).
That addition is out of square with the original structure and the platted lots of the subdivision by 1 3/16”. Since
the two documents, are both correctly identifying the distance between the existing 1019 addition and the newly
constructed 1005 structure, the contractor likewise, did not notice a discrepancy. It was only after the property
was surveyed after construction that city staff identified that the building was built at a distance less than the
required separation. The discrepancy was not known to exist by the engineer, the architect, the contractor, or the
city reviewers who approved the documents.
(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.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 61 of 183
4/23/18
Zoning Variance Narrative v2 180423.docx
Page 2 of 5
(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
The unusual physical circumstance that exists on this site is that a portion of the existing building located at
1019 14th Street (which was a non-contributing addition to the original historic structure) was built slightly
askew from the remainder of the original fraternity building and the platted lot.
When Sopher Sparn documented the location of the new structure on 1005 14th Street, drawings showed that
the 6’-0” setback between structures was to be maintained. However once constructed, it became apparent
that though the new construction was built to maintain the 6’-0” separation at the point at which it was
documented (the southeast corner of the addition), because of the slight inconsistency of the 1019 addition’s
construction, the southwest corner of the addition, was actually 1 3/16” closer to the new building than Land
Use Code allows.
The city likewise approved the Technical Documents at 5.9’ separation between structures, which was noted
as such by the civil engineer, who documented the building separation based on a different corner than the
architect. The condition that we all now find ourselves in is that a 1 3/16” mis-alignment exists. This in and of
itself, is not significant, but because it creates a condition whereby the minimum LUC requirement is not met,
it constitutes and irregularity and hardship if relief is not granted by the board.
(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;
Not applicable.
and (B) The unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood or zoning
district in which the property is located;
This condition, as far as we know, is only applicable on this lot and in relation to the existing conditions of this
site’s previous construction.
and (C) Because of such physical circumstances or conditions the property cannot reasonably be
developed in conformity with the provisions of this chapter;
At this point, all structures are constructed. The offending new construction, having been built 1 3/16” less
than the required 6’ separation, would create a substantial hardship if it were to be removed. A much more
likely outcome would be the demolition of 1 3/16” of the previous addition to 1019 14th if the applicant is
required to maintain the 6’ separation between structures.
Requiring the applicant to do so would present an unnecessary hardship and an unreasonable requirement,
since there is no benefit to the community or anyone for that matter, to not allow a variance of 1 ¼” to that
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 62 of 183
4/23/18
Zoning Variance Narrative v2 180423.docx
Page 3 of 5
setback requirement. (The separation requirements for life safety issues are already addressed by the
applicant and are not an issue relative to the Land Use Code separation requirement).
Without the variance approval, the properties cannot reasonably be developed – or in this case, occupied.
and (D) Any unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant.
In as much as not knowing that the existing addition to 1019 was out of square, the hardship was not 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;
We do not have information as to the original construction date of the addition to 1019. However our
presumption is that the structure was built prior to that date. If the variance is not granted, we would be
forced to demolish a portion of that structure. So that being the case, not having to do the demolition and
then reconstruction is unquestionably an unnecessary use of resources.
(B) The proposed addition will be an integral part of the structure of the building;
The forced demolition of 1 3/16” of an existing structure would make for an unreasonable and un-integral
addition to that structure. Therefore the granting of the variance would allow for a more integrated addition
to the principle structure.
(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;
The new construction of 1005 14th Street meets current energy codes, and other modifications to 1019 14th
Street (being done for life safety purposes) are significant improvements with new windows, roof insulation
and wall insulation.
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.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 63 of 183
4/23/18
Zoning Variance Narrative v2 180423.docx
Page 4 of 5
There is no doubt that any change to the 1019 rear addition should the variance not be granted, would be
significantly wasteful of resources and not cost effective.
(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;
All structures on the property are compliant with the requirements of the Solar Access ordinance, and the
proposed variance will have no impact on the solar envelope allowed for buildings on the property.
(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;
The proposed buildings and variance will have no impact on the solar envelope allowed for buildings on the
property.
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.
The addition is compliant with the regulation.
(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 certificate 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.
The original 1019 Fraternity House at the front of the property is a designated Landmark. Requiring the
demolition of a portion of the rear of the building would require a Landmark Alteration. The granting of a
variance would alleviate that requirement.
(5) Requirements for All Variance Approvals
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 64 of 183
4/23/18
Zoning Variance Narrative v2 180423.docx
Page 5 of 5
(A) Would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the lot is located;
The variance would not alter the neighborhood character and would not constitute a change that would be
noticeable.
(B) Would not substantially or permanently impair the reasonable use and enjoyment or development of
adjacent property;
The variance would not impair the reasonable enjoyment of any neighboring property.
(C) Would be the minimum variance that would afford relief and would be the least modification of the
applicable provisions of this title;
The variance is indeed minor, and of almost no impact.
and (D) Would not conflict with the provisions of Section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C.1981.
See responses to criteria (4) above – no conflict.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 65 of 183
EEEEXISTING 1019 14TH ST. BUILDINGEXISTING 1027 BUILDING NEW 1005 14TH ST. BUILDING(RECENTLY COMPLETED)BLDG SEPARATION
6' - 0"
5' - 10 7/8"
14TH STREETEUCLID AVENUE6' TALL TRASH ENCLOSURE|1731 15th Street | Suite 250 | Boulder, CO 80302 | 303.442.4422 | www.sophersparn.com1019 14TH STREETBOULDER, COLORADO 8030203/23/18 1" = 20'-0"1ZONING VARIANCE SITE PLAN05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 66 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 67 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 68 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 69 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 70 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 71 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 72 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 73 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 74 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 75 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 76 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 77 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 78 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 79 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 80 of 183
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT (BOZA) VARIANCE APPLICATION
Sopher Residence. 3166 8th Street:
Written Statement
Our request for variance is in relation to the following items addressed in the staff review comments to the
Building Permit Application for PMT2018-00605…
Project Application Review Comment from April 4, 2018: Land Use (Robbie Wyler)
SETBACKS 1 of 2: It appears the combined side yard setback
requirements are not being met with both the proposed rear (east)
bedroom addition as well as the proposed front (west) porch addition.
Existing north and south side yard setbacks are 5 feet 5 inches & 6 feet
relatively speaking. This means any new development on the lot shall
be no less than 9 feet from the north property line and 9 feet 7 inches
from the south property line in order to meet the 15-foot combined side
yard setback requirements for the RL-1 zoning district. As proposed,
the rear addition is shown at 5 feet 5 inches from the north property line
where 9 feet is required, and the front porch addition is shown at around
6.5 feet from the south property line where 9 feet 7 inches is required.
SETBACKS 2 of 2: Please see Boulder Revised Code Section 9-7-2 for
additional information on combined side yard setback requirements.
Please review and revise the as needed to ensure compliance with this
section of the Code. Also, should there be any design modifications as
a result of this comment, please ensure all associated plans pages and
documents are revised accordingly. Additional comment may follow
upon resubmittal and review of revised or additional materials.
BOZA please note: We have had the property survey updated since the one submitted wasn’t stamped, and that
survey is now attached.
In relation to the deficiency stated above…
VARIANCE REQUEST #1 – Reduce the combined side yard setbacks to a cumulative 11’-1”
from 15’ (a 26.00% reduction), with a minimum setback of 4’-10” on the north side (where 8’-
9” is required), and 6’-3” on the south side (where 10’’-2” is required).
North Side Yard Setback of bedroom addition proposed to align with existing structure at 5’ – In order to add the
bedroom to the rear of the house to maintain separation from the existing accessory structure and have room for
the access to the basement apartment, we need to align the bedroom exterior wall with the exterior wall of the
existing house (see Site Plan). That wall is 5’ from the north property line. Since the south side of the house is
built to 6.4’ from the property line, 8.6’ setback is required because the combined sideyard setbacks are required
to be 15’. We also request an additional 2” setback reduction for exterior insulation on the existing structure.
South Side Yard Setback of dormer and porch addition proposed at 7’-5”, inset 1’ from existing structure –
Likewise, since we are trying to create a shed dormer in the living room and enlarge our front porch – though it
would not increase the roof height of our one-story structure, the dormer and porch would be built 7’-5” from the
south property line (offset 1’-0” from the existing building face, which is built at 6’-5” from the south property
line). Since the north side of the house is built to 5’ from the property line, 10’ setback is required because the
combined side yard setbacks are required to be 15’. This would then need a reduction in the setback for the new
construction of the porch and the dormer of 2’-7”. However since we are also requesting an additional 2” setback
reduction for exterior insulation on the existing structure, we are requesting an overall setback reduction on the
south side to 6’-3” to allow for that added insulation and finish.
Combined Side Yard Setback request proposed at 11’-4” – Therefore because the existing house construction is
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 81 of 183
4/23/2018
Sopher R BOZA appl 180422
Page 2 of 6
un-insulated concrete block masonry, we are intending to add insulation to the exterior surface of the structure, as
well as to the interior, where feasible. This will add a nominal 2” of wall thickness on each side of the structure,
and therefore reduce each sideyard setback by that amount. Consequently, we are requesting that the combined
setback requirement be reduced to a nominal 11’-4” overall.
When the house was built, it was clearly not non-conforming at the time. We have submitted the approved plans
supporting a 5’ setback on each side. Subsequent code changes have created a circumstance whereby anything
previously built cannot meet the current standards, and so any change to the property requires this process. If the
intent of creating such non-conformance status to be applied across the existing fabric of the city, then it surely
wasn’t intended to preclude the small changes as we are attempting to do.
We are not trying to do anything extravagant. We are just trying to build a 12’-6” x 14’-6” bedroom. We can’t get
any smaller and make it accessible. If we take 2.5’ out of the width, it can’t be done without tearing down our
accessory structure, which is where my wife paints and works. If the north setback reduction is not supported, we
will not be able to do the addition.
To accomplish the addition, we are simply requesting that we be able to add our bedroom in alignment with the
exterior (north) wall of the existing structure. If we can’t do this, and w e must move the addition to 8’-9” from the
north property line (aligning with the 15’ combined setback requirement), we will be
unable to maintain the separation requirement to the existing accessory structure
unable to provide adequate access to the downstairs ADU
unable to maintain the window from our Kitchen / Dining to the backyard.
Additionally, we would be unable to add exterior rigid insulation to the structure, which today is an
uninsulated concrete block construction and has no insulation on the outside walls.
The other part of the house impacted by setbacks is our ability to add a shed dormer to let more light into our
Living Room, and a porch large enough to hold a table and chairs. Both are adjacent to the south property line.
Our existing residence has only a 7’6” ceiling height. With the renovation, we are hoping to raise the ceiling height
within the existing ridge line. We are simply trying to add a dormer to let in some light and make our property
more livable. Again, this apparently is affected by the overall 15’ combined setback requirement. We therefore
request that to reduce the combined sideyard setbacks as stated above.
Project Application Review Comment from April 4, 2018: Land Use (Robbie Wyler)
SEPARATION: Please verify that building separation is being
maintained between any modifications to the house and the existing
detached structure. No less than a six-foot separation is required. Note
that building separation takes into consideration roof overhangs and any
structural feature greater than 30 inches above finished grade. Review
and revise as needed.
In relation to the deficiency stated above…
VARIANCE REQUEST #2 –Reduce the separation requirement from 6’ to 5’.
Our existing accessory structure is built to within 5’-8” from the principle structure, building-face to building-face.
We cannot tell you why that’s the case, but it is. This condition occurs for a length of ±14’ where the two
structures face one another.
The current overhangs on the principle building are 14” and 12” on the accessory structure. Since our property
slopes, these overhangs exist at differing heights (our accessory structure sits ±3’ below the principle building), so
they are actually at a distance of 4’-5.5” apart.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 82 of 183
4/23/2018
Sopher R BOZA appl 180422
Page 3 of 6
We recognize that this may be problematic and want to do everything that we can to reduce the amount of
encroachment, so we are proposing to do the following:
Reduce the length of wall of the accessory structure that is less than 6’ separation from the principle structure,
from 14’ to 7’ in length. (Reducing the length of the encroachment any further would require the removal of a
wall that supports the electrical panel in the accessory building, and the entire structure would have to be
rewired electrically).
Reduce the size of the overhangs on both the principle and accessory structure to a minimum dimension that
is practical for water protection, from the existing lengths to 4”.
Because we still need to make the energy efficiency improvements noted previously, we will need to be able to
add exterior rigid insulation to the outside of the principle structure. Therefore, we request that the building
separation be allowed to be reduced to 5’-0” to accommodate this. This is the minimum amount of variance
needed to support the renovation.
(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;
Our home site is constricted by the physical location of structures that have existed here since before we have
owned the property, which has been since 1979. These are:
1. The original residence, which was built to what was likely the allowable sideyard setbacks at the time of
construction as shown in the ILC, at 5’-5” on the north and 6’-0” on the south.
2. The garage, which also pre-existed that date and was built to a rearyard setback of ±19’ from the property
line along the alley behind our property. The alley has a 15’ ROW.
(Please refer to ILC).
My wife is 69 and I am 65 years old. Our intention is to do a small addition that allows us to continue living in
the home until we die. Over the years, we have raised three boys in our small house, which has 1250 sf on the
main level. My wife paints and works in the accessory structure, which was once a garage.
In order to raise additional income over the years, we have used the downstairs as an ADU, which we
renovated and had approved by the city in 1983. It has remained in license since that time. Over the years
when we could afford to, we let the boys live down there, and when we couldn’t, we rented it out.
The boys, now adults (our eldest, R., is 42) have moved out. However we have found that this is not
something that we can rely on. R. is has suffered with Bipolar Disorder since he was a young adult. He has
had to move back into the basement apartment multiple times over the last twenty years. He is staying with
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 83 of 183
4/23/2018
Sopher R BOZA appl 180422
Page 4 of 6
us – this current time for the last 2.5 years – with his girlfriend. We are glad to have the ability to offer them a
place to stay while they need it, but it’s a small house for us all; and we’re getting old.
We would like to have a home that supports us a little better, while still leaving room for our son R. – or a
caretaker – to be here if we need to have that. Or rent it if we must, for supplemental income.
In that regard, all we are trying to do is to build a bedroom for ourselves that has access to a bathroom and a
closet. For the last 40 years, that has been a luxury that has eluded us – with the boys growing up, we shared
a single 5x8 bathroom on the main level – the level we live on. We are proposing adding a bedroom off the
back of the house – just a bedroom. This then allows to create an accessible bathroom and closet in what is
generally our existing bedroom. We are also reconfiguring how we live, so that it more supports an open and
shared lifestyle:
relocating the kitchen
adding a small new entry and porch large enough to seat 4 people and hold our grille
bringing more light into our living area by adding shed dormers within the existing roof line.
We are proposing to do almost all of this within our existing building perimeter.
While we believe that this is a reasonable desire for our property, we have limitations because of the
configuration of the existing structures. Not being allowed these adjustments will fundamentally make the
addition we are proposing untenable, and we will abandon our attempt to do the changes to make our home
livable for us as we continue to age in place. While that may not be of concern to anyone but ourselves, we
anticipate the follow will occur:
we will not be able to have a bedroom that will allow us to age-in-place, so we will sell the house.
Because of the questionable viability of the existing layout for a family and the difficulty we are finding in
doing an addition, it is almost certain that any new buyer will tear down the house.
Any new house built on the site will be much like all the others we see going up under similar conditions
in our neighborhood, where builders will…
o maximize the above-grade floor area for the site
o build a full basement
o sell the new updated property for over $2m.
This is a certainty in our neighborhood.
and (B) The unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood or
zoning district in which the property is located;
Homes like ours were once quite common in Newlands: small single-story houses under 1500 sf with partial
basements and detached one-car garages in the rear. Nothing particularly striking about many of them, and
certainly ours isn’t anything special, being stucco over concrete block with no wall insulation and steel frame
windows.
Houses like ours today, are rare, but they aren’t special. Most houses like these have been torn down. It has
been historically difficult to do small improvements such as we are attempting to do. It is far more common
that they are simply torn down and new larger houses are built. And these new houses are then able to m eet
setback requirements since they don’t have to deal with the pre-existing conditions that are as significant as
ours (relative to the requirements of the Land Use Code).
and (C) Because of such physical circumstances or conditions the property cannot reasonably be
developed in conformity with the provisions of this chapter;
While we can’t say that is impossible to meet all the requirements of the code, given the existing conditions of
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 84 of 183
4/23/2018
Sopher R BOZA appl 180422
Page 5 of 6
the property and the configuration of the existing structures – we can however say that doing so would be
cost prohibitive for our circumstance. It would also likely be foolish financially, even if we could afford to do
so as a renovation. It would make much more sense to tear everything down and start from scratch than to
try to do a compliant renovation, given all the circumstances noted above.
and (D) Any unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant.
All of the structures that we are trying to renovate were here when we bought the property in 1976. Though
our home has been good to us, it is limited, and has been for the 42 years since it was purchased.
(2) Energy Conservation
(A) The variance will permit construction of an addition to a building that was constructed on or
before January 1, 1983;
We do not have information as to the original construction date. However we have found a building permit
attached, that is from 1947.
(B) The proposed addition will be an integral part of the structure of the building;
The addition will be an integral part of the principle structure.
(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;
The addition will meet current energy codes and the principle building will be significantly improved with new
windows, roof insulation and wall insulation.
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.
To meet all the requirements within existing setbacks as stated before would be prohibitively expensive. It
would be more viable to demolish all structures on the site and start afresh, in meeting the energy codes.
(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;
Both the existing structures on the property are compliant with the requirements of the Solar Access
ordinance, and the proposed addition will have no impact on the solar envelope allowed for buildings on the
property.
(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;
The proposed additions will have no impact on the solar envelope allowed for buildings on the property.
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.
The addition is compliant with the regulation.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 85 of 183
4/23/2018
Sopher R BOZA appl 180422
Page 6 of 6
(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 certificate
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.
The site is not a part of designated historic district, the buildings are not landmarked, and though the original
structure is greater than 50 years old, it is not considered of historic significance.
(5) Requirements for All Variance Approvals
(A) Would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the lot is
located;
The variance would not alter the neighborhood character and would not constitute a change that would be
noticeable.
(B) Would not substantially or permanently impair the reasonable use and enjoyment or
development of adjacent property;
The variance would not impair the reasonable enjoyment of any neighboring property.
(C) Would be the minimum variance that would afford relief and would be the least modification
of the applicable provisions of this title;
The variance is indeed minor, and of almost no impact.
and (D) Would not conflict with the provisions of Section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C.1981.
See responses to criteria (4) above – no conflict.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 86 of 183
5441'
5442'
5443'
5444'50' - 0"125' - 0"
EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDING
ONE-STORY BUILDING WITH BASEMENT
25'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK 25'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK
5' 0" SIDE YARD SETBACK
6.4' SIDE YARD SETBACK LOCATION OF LOW POINT. 5440.90'
EXISTING RIDGE HIGH POINT TO REMAIN. 5461.6'
EXISTING BRICK WALKWAY
EXISTING CONCRETE WALK
EM
GM
WM
STREET TREE
ELECTRIC CAR CHARGING STATION
RELOCATE METERS TO HERE
GENERAL SITE PLAN NOTES:
1. ALL DIMENSIONS TO FACE OF FOUNDATION WALL OR STRUCTURAL
STRATA, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
2. VERIFY ALL SITE PARAMETERS (PROPERTY BOUNDARIES, EASEMENTS
AND SETBACKS) PRIOR TO STAKING TO DEMOLITION AND
CONSTRUCTION.
3. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
AND TO ARRANGE PROPER DISCONTINUANCE AND/OR RELOCATION
PRIOR TO DEMOLITION.
4. PROVIDE TREE AND SHRUB PROTECTION FOR EXISTING LANDSCAPING,
ESPECIALLY FOR MATURE TREES MARKED TO BE SAVED.
5. PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM BUILDING PERIMETER; 10%
MINIMUM SLOPE FOR FIRST 10'. IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT SITE GRADING BE
PROVIDED TO PREVENT INFILTRATION OF SURFACE WATER INTO THE
FOUNDATION SYSTEM. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR GRADING AND
DRAINAGE.
6. MECHANICALLY COMPACT ALL FILL AROUND THE BUILDING, INCLUDING
THE BACKFILL. IMPROPER BACKFILL COMPACTION CAN CAUSE
SETTLEMENT OF EXTERIOR SLABS SUCH AS WALKS, PATIOS AND
DRIVEWAYS.
7. DISCHARGE ROOF DOWN SPOUTS AND ALL OTHER WATER COLLECTION
SYSTEMS MINIMUM 5' BEYOND PERIMETER OF STRUCTURE
8. NO IRRIGATION WITHIN 5' OF THE FOUNDATION. AVOID HEAVY
WATERING OF ANY FOUNDATION PLANTINGS.
5' EXISTING. 4'10" REQUESTED WHERE 8' 9" IS REQUIRED
6'-5" EXISTING. 6'-3" REQUESTED WHERE 10'-2" IS REQUIRED
PROPERTY LINE
25'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK
5'-0" EXISTING SIDE YARD SETBACK
EXISTING COVERED PORCH
PROPOSED COVERED PORCH
PROPOSED COMBINED SIDE YARD
SETBACK 11'-1" WHERE 15'-0" IS REQUIRED
6'-5' EXISTING SIDE YARD SETBACK
25'-0" REAR SETBACK
PROPOSED
ADDITION
50' - 0"125' - 0"
EXISTING RESIDENCE
EXISTING ACCESSORY
BUILDING
PRINCIPLE BUILDING SETBACK Date:NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATIONRelease of these documents contemplates further cooperation among the owner, his contractor, and the architect. Design and construction are complex. Although the architect and his consultants have performed their services with due care and diligence, they cannot guarantee perfection. Communication is imperfect and every contingency cannot be anticipated. Any errors, omissions, or discrepancy discovered by the use of these documents shall be reported immediately to the architect. Failure to notify the architect compounds misunderstanding and increases construction costs. A failure to cooperate by simple notice to the architect shall relieve the architect from responsibility for all consequences arriving out of such changes. The designs and plans are copyright and are not to be used or reproduced wholly or in part without the written permission of SSArchitects. The drawings and specifications are instruments of service and shall remain the property of the Architect whether the project for which they are made is executed or not. COPYRIGHT SSArchitects.Do not scale from drawing. Verify all dimensions on site.Project No:Drawn By:Item:4/9/2018 6:22:43 PMG0.403166 8TH STREETBOULDER, COLORADO 803041709002/14/2018AuthorSITE PLAN 1/16" = 1'-0"1 SITE PLAN
1/16" = 1'-0"2 SETBACK DIAGRAM
PROJECT DATA
BUILDING CODE:2012 IRC
BOULDER REVISED CODE -
TITLE 9 LAND USE CODE
IBC USE AND OCCUPANCY:R-3 (SINGLE-FAMILY)
CONSTRUCTION TYPE:TYPE V-B
ZONING DESIGNATION:RL-1
SPRINKLER SYSTEM:N/A
SOLAR ACCESS ZONE:I (12' SOLAR FENCE)
LOT AREA: 6,250 SQ. FT. (0.14 ACRES)
ALLOWABLE BUILDING COVERAGE:2,260 S.F.
EXISTING BUILDING COVERAGE: 1,738 S.F.
PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE:2,000 S.F.
EXISTING LOWER LEVEL SF:800 SF
EXISTING MAIN LEVEL SF:1,250
PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL SF:800 SF
PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL SF:1,539 SF
ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT:35'-0"
EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT (TO REMAIN): 20.7' (5461.6' USGS) FROM
BUILDING LOW POINT
PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT:UNCHANGED
LOW POINT ELEVATION:5440.9' (USGS)
NUMBER OF STORIES:1 PLUS BASEMENT
ROOF FIRE CLASS:CLASS A
ROOF DESIGN WIND SPEED (V 3SEC ASD): 120 MPH
ROOF EXPOSURE CATEGORY:C, 3-SECOND GUST
SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY:B
SNOW LOAD:30 PSF
- PROPOSED
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 87 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 88 of 183
A
3
2
1
B C
MASTER
FAMILY RM
OFFICE
LIVING RM
KITCHEN
DEMO WALLS,
DOORS, SHELVING,
AND STAIR
9'-1" x 15'-5"9'-5" x 9'-9"
NOOK
6'-10" x 9'-3"
9'-6" x 7'-2"
9'-9" x 11'-9"
BATH
6'-6" x 5'-0"
12'-2" x 17'-9"
DINING
10'-0" x 10'-10"
FIREPLACE
EM
WM
WOOD FLOOR
TO REMAIN
GM
SUB PANEL6' - 5 3/4"DEMO PORTION OF WALL
AND ROOF. RE:
PROPOSED PLAN
EXISTING
ACCESSORY BUILDING
2
SK0.0
5' - 8"
4' - 8"
DEMO WALLS FOR NEW
WINDOW BUMP OUT.
RE: PROPOSED PLAN
DEMO WALL, DOOR,
AND WINDOWS FOR
ADDITION
DEMO DOORS AND
STORAGE
EXISTING ROOF OVERHANG
GROUND FLOOR
100' - 0"
NEW PORCH ROOF
PLATE
108' - 0"
E
X.
C
L
E
A
R
A
N
C
E
4' - 5 1/2"
1' - 0"
EX. CLEARANCE
4' - 8"
BASEMENT
LIVING RM
ACCESSORY
BUILDING
WALL KEY
EXISTING
DEMOLITION
PROPOSED
FLOOR OR ROOF
AREA TO BE
DEMOLISHED
Date:NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATIONRelease of these documents contemplates further cooperation among the owner, his contractor, and the architect. Design and construction are complex. Although the architect and his consultants have performed their services with due care and diligence, they cannot guarantee perfection. Communication is imperfect and every contingency cannot be anticipated. Any errors, omissions, or discrepancy discovered by the use of these documents shall be reported immediately to the architect. Failure to notify the architect compounds misunderstanding and increases construction costs. A failure to cooperate by simple notice to the architect shall relieve the architect from responsibility for all consequences arriving out of such changes. The designs and plans are copyright and are not to be used or reproduced wholly or in part without the written permission of SSArchitects. The drawings and specifications are instruments of service and shall remain the property of the Architect whether the project for which they are made is executed or not. COPYRIGHT SSArchitects.Do not scale from drawing. Verify all dimensions on site.Project No:Drawn By:Item:4/9/2018 3:37:46 PMSK0.03166 8TH STREETBOULDER, COLORADO 803041709004/09/18AuthorEX. / DEMO GROUND FLOOR PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING / DEMO GROUND FLOOR PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING BUILDING CLEARANCE
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 89 of 183
UP
UP
GROUND FLOOR
100' - 0"
NEW PORCH ROOF
PLATE
108' - 0"5' - 5"
REDUCE ROOF
OVERHANGS TO 4"
CLEAR
5' - 1 1/2"4"
BASEMENT
LIVING RM
ACCESSORY
BUILDING
NEW SHEATHING TO
MEET ENERGY
REQUIREMENTS
A
3
2
1
B C
A2.01
2
A2.011
A2.00
1
A2.00 2G0.00
2
SK0.1
KITCHEN
MASTER
BATH
CLO.
FRONT PORCH
FAMILY RM
OFFICE
LIVING RM
BATH
9'-5" x 9'-9"9'-6" x 7'-2"
9'-9" x 11'-9"
6'-6" x 5'-0"
BATH
+36"
12'-6" x 17'-9"
12'-10" x 14'-10"
100
101102
103
105106110
109
107
13R@7 1/4"12' - 3 1/4"108
111
S
S
GM
CLO.
DW
R 6' - 0"5' - 10"24' - 2"
PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDING
5' - 1 1/2"
WALL KEY
EXISTING
DEMOLITION
PROPOSED
FLOOR OR ROOF
AREA TO BE
DEMOLISHED
Date:NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATIONRelease of these documents contemplates further cooperation among the owner, his contractor, and the architect. Design and construction are complex. Although the architect and his consultants have performed their services with due care and diligence, they cannot guarantee perfection. Communication is imperfect and every contingency cannot be anticipated. Any errors, omissions, or discrepancy discovered by the use of these documents shall be reported immediately to the architect. Failure to notify the architect compounds misunderstanding and increases construction costs. A failure to cooperate by simple notice to the architect shall relieve the architect from responsibility for all consequences arriving out of such changes. The designs and plans are copyright and are not to be used or reproduced wholly or in part without the written permission of SSArchitects. The drawings and specifications are instruments of service and shall remain the property of the Architect whether the project for which they are made is executed or not. COPYRIGHT SSArchitects.Do not scale from drawing. Verify all dimensions on site.Project No:Drawn By:Item:4/9/2018 3:37:46 PMSK0.13166 8TH STREETBOULDER, COLORADO 803041709003/27/18AuthorPROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED BUILDING CLEARANCE
1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 90 of 183
GROUND FLOOR
100' - 0"
321
NEW PORCH ROOF
PLATE
108' - 0"
2
AD3.0
GROUND FLOOR
100' - 0"
LOWER LEVEL
92' - 2 1/2"
A B C
NEW PORCH ROOF
PLATE
108' - 0"
1
AD3.0
Date:NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATIONRelease of these documents contemplates further cooperation among the owner, his contractor, and the architect. Design and construction are complex. Although the architect and his consultants have performed their services with due care and diligence, they cannot guarantee perfection. Communication is imperfect and every contingency cannot be anticipated. Any errors, omissions, or discrepancy discovered by the use of these documents shall be reported immediately to the architect. Failure to notify the architect compounds misunderstanding and increases construction costs. A failure to cooperate by simple notice to the architect shall relieve the architect from responsibility for all consequences arriving out of such changes. The designs and plans are copyright and are not to be used or reproduced wholly or in part without the written permission of SSArchitects. The drawings and specifications are instruments of service and shall remain the property of the Architect whether the project for which they are made is executed or not. COPYRIGHT SSArchitects.Do not scale from drawing. Verify all dimensions on site.Project No:Drawn By:Item:4/9/2018 3:37:43 PMAD2.03166 8TH STREETBOULDER, COLORADO 803041709002/14/2018AuthorEXISTING WEST & SOUTH ELEVATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING WEST ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 91 of 183
GROUND FLOOR
100' - 0"
LOWER LEVEL
92' - 2 1/2"
3 2 1
NEW PORCH ROOF
PLATE
108' - 0"
2
AD3.0
GROUND FLOOR
100' - 0"
LOWER LEVEL
92' - 2 1/2"
ABC
NEW PORCH ROOF
PLATE
108' - 0"
1
AD3.0
Date:NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATIONRelease of these documents contemplates further cooperation among the owner, his contractor, and the architect. Design and construction are complex. Although the architect and his consultants have performed their services with due care and diligence, they cannot guarantee perfection. Communication is imperfect and every contingency cannot be anticipated. Any errors, omissions, or discrepancy discovered by the use of these documents shall be reported immediately to the architect. Failure to notify the architect compounds misunderstanding and increases construction costs. A failure to cooperate by simple notice to the architect shall relieve the architect from responsibility for all consequences arriving out of such changes. The designs and plans are copyright and are not to be used or reproduced wholly or in part without the written permission of SSArchitects. The drawings and specifications are instruments of service and shall remain the property of the Architect whether the project for which they are made is executed or not. COPYRIGHT SSArchitects.Do not scale from drawing. Verify all dimensions on site.Project No:Drawn By:Item:4/9/2018 3:37:45 PMAD2.13166 8TH STREETBOULDER, COLORADO 803041709002/14/2018AuthorEXISTING EAST & NORTH ELEVATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING EAST ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 92 of 183
GROUND FLOOR
100' - 0"
LOWER LEVEL
92' - 2 1/2"
A B C
NEW PORCH ROOF
PLATE
108' - 0"
1
A3.00
R S
J
C
B
C
G
EE
I I
EXISTING SKYLIGHT TO REMAIN
1
A3.01
25 YEAR CLASS "A" ARCHITECTURAL
ASPHALT SHINGLES, TYP. AT ALL ROOFS
NEW LOW -E TRIPLE PANE
FIBERGLASS WINDOWS, TYP.
TRIM BAND
NOTE: TOPOGRAPHIC LOW POINT (5440.9' USGS)
4" VERTICAL WOOD SIDING
115.01'5461.6'
2-COAT STUCCO WITH SMOOTH FINISH
GROUND FLOOR
100' - 0"
321
NEW PORCH ROOF
PLATE
108' - 0"
2
A3.00 25 YEAR CLASS "A" ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALT
SHINGLES, TYP. AT ALL ROOFS
4" VERTICAL WOOD SIDING
2-COAT STUCCO WITH SMOOTH FINISH
NOTE: TOPOGRAPHIC LOW
POINT (5440.9 USGS)
NEW LOW -E DOUBLE PANE METAL
CLAD WINDOWS, TYP.
A A A
KLKLK
NM
115.01'5461.6'
100
Date:NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATIONRelease of these documents contemplates further cooperation among the owner, his contractor, and the architect. Design and construction are complex. Although the architect and his consultants have performed their services with due care and diligence, they cannot guarantee perfection. Communication is imperfect and every contingency cannot be anticipated. Any errors, omissions, or discrepancy discovered by the use of these documents shall be reported immediately to the architect. Failure to notify the architect compounds misunderstanding and increases construction costs. A failure to cooperate by simple notice to the architect shall relieve the architect from responsibility for all consequences arriving out of such changes. The designs and plans are copyright and are not to be used or reproduced wholly or in part without the written permission of SSArchitects. The drawings and specifications are instruments of service and shall remain the property of the Architect whether the project for which they are made is executed or not. COPYRIGHT SSArchitects.Do not scale from drawing. Verify all dimensions on site.Project No:Drawn By:Item:4/9/2018 6:34:05 PMA2.003166 8TH STREETBOULDER, COLORADO 803041709002/14/2018AuthorPROPOSED WEST & SOUTH ELEVATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 93 of 183
GROUND FLOOR
100' - 0"
LOWER LEVEL
92' - 2 1/2"
3
2
1
NEW PORCH ROOF
PLATE
108' - 0"
2
A3.00
A A A A T A
HHH
U
E
101
EXISTING SKYLIGHT TO REMAIN
25 YEAR CLASS "A" ARCHITECTURAL
ASPHALT SHINGLES, TYP. AT ALL ROOFS
NEW LOW -E TRIPLE PANE
FIBERGLASS WINDOWS, TYP.
TRIM BAND
NOTE: TOPOGRAPHIC LOW POINT (5440.9' USGS)
115.01'5461.6'4" VERTICAL WOOD SIDING
2-COAT STUCCO WITH SMOOTH FINISH
5' - 1"2
SK0.1
GROUND FLOOR
100' - 0"
LOWER LEVEL
92' - 2 1/2"
ABC
NEW PORCH ROOF
PLATE
108' - 0"
1
A3.00
O O M
E
EXISTING SKYLIGHT TO REMAIN
1
A3.01
25 YEAR CLASS "A" ARCHITECTURAL
ASPHALT SHINGLES, TYP. AT ALL ROOFS
115.01'5461.6'
NEW LOW -E TRIPLE PANE
FIBERGLASS WINDOWS, TYP.
TRIM BAND
NOTE: TOPOGRAPHIC LOW POINT (5440.9' USGS)
2-COAT STUCCO WITH SMOOTH FINISH
Date:NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATIONRelease of these documents contemplates further cooperation among the owner, his contractor, and the architect. Design and construction are complex. Although the architect and his consultants have performed their services with due care and diligence, they cannot guarantee perfection. Communication is imperfect and every contingency cannot be anticipated. Any errors, omissions, or discrepancy discovered by the use of these documents shall be reported immediately to the architect. Failure to notify the architect compounds misunderstanding and increases construction costs. A failure to cooperate by simple notice to the architect shall relieve the architect from responsibility for all consequences arriving out of such changes. The designs and plans are copyright and are not to be used or reproduced wholly or in part without the written permission of SSArchitects. The drawings and specifications are instruments of service and shall remain the property of the Architect whether the project for which they are made is executed or not. COPYRIGHT SSArchitects.Do not scale from drawing. Verify all dimensions on site.Project No:Drawn By:Item:4/9/2018 3:37:40 PMA2.013166 8TH STREETBOULDER, COLORADO 803041709002/14/2018AuthorPROPOSED EAST & NORTH ELEVATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 94 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 95 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 96 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 97 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 98 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 99 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 100 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 101 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 102 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 103 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 104 of 183
Page 1
Architecture
Planning
Interiors
Environmental
Design
K y l e C a l l a h a n & A s s o c i a t e s , A r c h i t e c t u r e
2 9 7 5 V a l m o n t R o a d , S u i t e 1 0 0
B o u l d e r C o l o r a d o 80301 303.5 4 5 . 2 0 0 7
A r c h i t e c t u r e
K y l e C a l l a h a n A s s o c i a t e s
&
April 16, 2018
Board of Zoning Adjustment (BOZA) Variance Application
Owner’s Accessory Unit (OAU) – Size requirements variance for accessory units
945 University Avenue, Boulder
Homeowner’s statement
21 years ago when Ellen Dale and I moved into 945 University Avenue with our seven
children all of the permanent resident neighbors came to greet us and half-jokingly
asked us to swear a pact that none of us would move out. We would stay the solid
family stalwarts in this mixed student neighborhood. That is what we have done. In
2001 Ellen and I opened BurntToast Restaurant on the Hill. Having a family
restaurant on the Hill, bringing a community of the student and the general Boulder
population together was important to us. Through rising real estate values we have
watched as it has become more and more difficult for middle class families to move
into Boulder. Most of our children have grown and moved on though they all
consider Boulder to be their home. Youngest daughter, Bry just graduated from CU
and is applying to graduate school for the Fall. Oldest daughter, Erin now lives in
Boise and has 2 young children of her own. Her husband, a USGS geologist has been
trying to transfer back here for a year now; we think that will happen in a year. Our
son and daughter, Mac, and Melissa will be getting married this April and May
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 105 of 183
Page 2
A r c h i t e c t u r e
K y l e C a l l a h a n A s s o c i a t e s
&
respectively. What seemed for a few years like a shrinking family is now again a
growing family.
Our purpose in seeking an OAU is to allow for some of that growth in our family
home. It would be a good thing for us to keep our family around us as we get older;
and to allow them a landing spot in Boulder. We are still the stalwart adults and family
on University Avenue, and we are still active members of our community.
The recent history of the detached accessory structure
The detached accessory structure on this lot was constructed in 1998 as a replacement
for the original 1 car garage building that formerly existed in a similar position onsite.
At the time of construction, the garage and studio served the growing family by
providing covered parking and a moderate amount of storage space on the first floor.
The second floor served as a home office and studio space for the adults.
The new structure is larger by a fair bit than the original 1 car garage, shown in its
approximate position with a dashed red rectangle in the image below. The new
accessory structure, built in 1998, has parking space for two cars and storage on the
first floor. Additionally, on the first floor, is a mechanical / utility room that contains
the heating equipment for the second-floor finished space.
First
Floor
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 106 of 183
Page 3
A r c h i t e c t u r e
K y l e C a l l a h a n A s s o c i a t e s
&
The second floor of the accessory structure is accessed from an exterior stair located
on the east side of the structure. The second floor has a studio space and bathroom.
Second
Floor
The first floor of the accessory structure – with parking / storage and the utility room
– amounts to 670 square feet of space. The second floor of the accessory structure is
one large studio-style room and a bathroom containing 411 square feet of space.
Directly south of the studio space and also on the second floor is a partly-cantilevered
open deck with 272 square feet of space.
Current needs for space
Times and need for space change with the dynamics of all families. Having retired
from life as restaurant owners, and with the kids having moved along to start their
adult lives, Buddy and Ellen no longer use this second-floor space of the accessory
structure for home office and studio functions. Rather than just lose the use of the
space, they have identified alternative uses for the second-floor studio and wish to
convert this studio to an Owner’s Accessory Unit (OAU). In doing so, they can
envision one of several uses over the near and long term for the second-floor studio:
1. As a residence for one of their children as they become established, providing
an affordable opportunity for living near home and in Boulder.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 107 of 183
Page 4
A r c h i t e c t u r e
K y l e C a l l a h a n A s s o c i a t e s
&
2. Accommodations for a resident caregiver should that become a need for any
of the family members.
3. As a rental unit providing the family with a source of income on through
retirement.
Scope of Work
To convert the existing second-floor studio to an Owner’s accessory unit would
require few minor changes to the interior of the studio, and no changes to the exterior.
However, the existing building is slightly out of conformity with the strict definition of
an OAU as outlined in BRC section 9-6-3(a) (4) (B) (v) (g). This section of the
Boulder Revised Codes states that an accessory structure that contains an OAU must
have a coverage of less than 500 SF, and that the OAU does not itself exceed 450 SF.
The studio within this structure contains only 411 square feet of space and thus
conforms with the definition of an OAU. However, the accessory structure in its
entirety, due to the size of the garage portion of the main floor plus the second-floor
cantilevers, has a coverage of slightly over 670 square feet, exceeding the maximum
allowed coverage for a detached OAU by 170 SF (+/- 30%).
There are several minor Architectural details that are also not in conformance with the
description of an OAU as contained in the BRC, including the roughly flat roof.
When constructed, the homeowner and builder were not considering the building as
an OAU, but simply as an accessory structure with office / studio space. As such, a
flat roof enabled them to erect the structure and stay within the height regulations. An
OAU would normally require the installation of a pitched roof but is also allowed to
extend to 25’ in height. Although it would be feasible to “cap” this structure to
conform to the design requirements of an OAU, we recommend against it. Doing so
would not increase the usefulness of the building and would cause the building to have
more mass.
We are presenting these narrative descriptions, data and plans to the Board of Zoning
Adjustment for consideration of granting a variance from the size requirements of an
OAU per section 9-2-3 (d) (6) of the BRC.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 108 of 183
Page 5
A r c h i t e c t u r e
K y l e C a l l a h a n A s s o c i a t e s
&
Board of Zoning Adjustments Variance Criteria
(1) Physical Conditions or Disability
(A) (i) Unusual Physical Conditions
The hardship encountered by the owners to conform to the definition for an OAU
for this accessory structure lies, to a large degree, in the fact that it is an existing
building constructed in 1998 with a different plan for its use in mind. The original
planned use of this structure contemplated an accessory structure for use by the
family for the parking of two cars, storing multiple bicycles and other toys, and
providing space for conducting home business as well as exercise. Although the
parking and toy storage seem to remain as viable uses of the main floor for the
structure, the use of the second floor as a studio and office space is no longer
required.
The unusual physical condition which we must overcome is that the building
already exists and functions, albeit for a use that is no longer required by the
owners. To convert the second floor of the building to the habitable portion of an
OAU would entail little interior and no exterior work. To adapt the first floor,
however, would require removal of a significant portion (over 30%) of the existing
structure to bring it into compliance with the rules for OAU coverage. This
demolition would reduce significantly the parking and storage availability onsite for
the owner and future occupants of an OAU, all the while increasing the clutter at
the site with the displacement of items currently stored within the garage. Further,
the existing second floor open deck provides useful and necessary open space for
the use and enjoyment of the residents of the OAU. This deck would be
significantly reduced in size and proportion, rendering it less than useful.
It would be far more disruptive to the occupants of the home and to other
residents in the neighborhood, as well as costly to the owners and serving of no
useful purpose, were the first floor garage area to be modified / partly demolished
in order to conform to the size limits of an OAU.
(A) (ii) Owner’s physical disability
At this time, the owners are perfectly able. However, there is no lifetime guarantee
on that. The owners wish to remain here in this house and can envision a time
when they may want the services of an in-home caregiver. One of the possible
long term uses of the OAU is to provide for that future use. So, although not
immediate, but potentially imminent, this factor is a strong consideration.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 109 of 183
Page 6
A r c h i t e c t u r e
K y l e C a l l a h a n A s s o c i a t e s
&
(B) These conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood
This home resides in a portion of University Hill that is densely populated with
rentals and multiple apartments per dwelling unit. That’s a direct response to CU
being practically next door. Many, if not all, of those multiple dwelling properties
are not occupied by the owners of the property, but simply serve as rentals with
offsite owners or property managers. The project at 945 University would be fairly
unique in that the owners are committed to the neighborhood and intend to live
there for a good long time.
(C) Because of such circumstances the property cannot reasonably be
developed
This property, including the basic structure for the OAU, is already developed, and
as such we could not state that the project could not be reasonably developed. To
create an OAU that conforms to the City regulations would involve reversing
some existing development – cutting back on the main floor garage / storage space
– thus creating a 1 car garage where two exist today. That does not seem
reasonable. The form of the structure is onsite today and has been since 1998.
Reducing the size would create much more substantial hardship for the owner by
eliminating a portion of their existing enclosed parking. That would also be a
detriment to the neighborhood – increasing clutter and surface parking where
enclosed parking and storage of vehicles and personal belongings now exists.
(D) Any unnecessary hardship was not created by the applicant
It would be incorrect to state that this hardship was not created by the
homeowner/applicant because, to a certain extent, it was. The current owners
built the accessory structure just as it is today in 1998. It was, however, built for a
different purpose (Home office/studio/parking/storage), and was not originally
intended to serve the purpose of providing an OAU. The needs of the owners
having changed, and further the demand for small efficient dwellings in this
neighborhood and throughout Boulder has increased, Is the true source of the
hardship. The owners did indeed construct this accessory structure, and thus
initiated the hardship 20 years ago, by not anticipating that someday they may wish
to convert the studio to an OAU.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 110 of 183
Page 7
A r c h i t e c t u r e
K y l e C a l l a h a n A s s o c i a t e s
&
(2) Energy Conservation
(A) The variance will permit construction of an addition to a building
constructed on or before January 1, 1983
N/A
(B) Proposed addition is an integral part of the building
N/A
(C) The proposed addition will qualify as a “solar energy system”
N/A
(D) The cost to construct per regulations would be substantially greater than the
cost of construction without this variance approval
N/A
(3) Solar Access
(A) The volume of the part of the lot in which buildings may be built per code
has been reduced substantially by the provisions of the BRC Section 9-9-17
N/A
(B) The proposed building or object will not interfere with the basic solar access
protection provided by BRC Section 9-9-17
Maintaining the structure as it currently exists onsite, with the flat roof, will
preserve light and access to solar at the home and accessory structure due north –
across the alley. Although the form of the existing structure is not fully in
compliance with the regulations governing the form of an OAU in that it does not
currently have a pitched roof, neither does the existing structure reach 25’ in
height, as is allowed by the regulations governing the form of an OAU. We
choose to keep the current flat roof form, and thus the height of the structure,
unchanged.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 111 of 183
Page 8
A r c h i t e c t u r e
K y l e C a l l a h a n A s s o c i a t e s
&
(C) The volume of the proposed building outside of the setback will not exceed
the volume that the building has been reduced as a result of provisions of
BRC Section 9-9-17
N/A
(4) Designated Historic Property
The property could be reasonably developed in conformity with provisions of
the BRC, but the building has been designated as an individual landmark or
recognized as contributing to a designated historic district. Review of an
alteration certificate pursuant to Chapter 9-11, “Historic Preservation” of the
BRC, the approving authority has found that development in conforming
locations on the lot would have an adverse impact upon the historic character of
the individual landmark or the contributing building and the historic district (if
a district is involved).
N/A
(5) Requirements for all variances
(A) The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or
district in which the lot is located
Approval of this variance request will have no effect on the character of the
neighborhood and district. In consideration of this approval requirement, one
must recognize that there will be no additional construction on the exterior of the
building, no refinishing of the exterior, and no changes that would affect the
outward appearance at all. The extent of the changes involve minor interior
retrofits within the existing shell.
In terms of the effect that the change in use to an OAU from a studio would have
on the neighborhood, one must consider the makeup of the current neighborhood.
Many of the adjoining properties are homes converted into rental apartments, and
of those, very few are owner-occupied. The change from studio to OAU will have
no discernable effect on current neighborhood dynamics or makeup.
Now one should consider the effect on the neighborhood if the variance is NOT
approved. The owners would be required to reduce the size of the building
footprint, thus reducing the amount of space allocated for storage and further limit
the covered and enclosed space for parking vehicles to only 1. That action would
allow the accessory structure to be brought into compliance with regulations
governing the form of an OAU, but would also significantly alter the current
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 112 of 183
Page 9
A r c h i t e c t u r e
K y l e C a l l a h a n A s s o c i a t e s
&
neighborhood character, and not as an improvement but as a detraction due to less
enclosed parking and storage being provided.
(B) The variance would not substantially or permanently impair the reasonable
use and enjoyment or development of the adjacent property
There would be no physical changes to the structure that would have any impact
on the use and enjoyment of the adjacent properties. In that all of the adjoining
properties, except 958 Grandview which is located diagonally across the alley, are
rentals, it is clear that this OAU conversion would not impair the reasonable Use
and Enjoyment of those properties.
(C) The variance would be the minimum variance that would afford relief and
would be the least modification of the applicable provisions of this title
This is the least variance that is acceptable to afford relief. To require any
additional demolition of the garage portion of the accessory structure is inviting
significant cost and storage challenges.
(D) The variance would not conflict with the provisions of Section 9-9-17 of the
BRC - “Solar Access”
There is no conflict with the solar access regulations in the BRC.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 113 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 114 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 115 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 116 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 117 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 118 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 119 of 183
900 MAGNOLIA DRIVE NEDERLAND, CO 80466 303-884-2922
________________________________________________________________________
4/24/18
To: Board of Zoning Adjustments (BOZA)
From: Lisa Kistner, AIA on behalf of Justin Ebert, owner, and Amy Nack, owner
Re: 320 20th Street Boulder, CO
Attachments: Variance Request Packet, Site Survey, Application, Letter of Consent
Background Information:
The owners, Amy Nack and Justin Ebert, bought this house in 2015, with the intention of renting until
they could relocate from the suburbs to Boulder, making it owner occupied.. The Nack-Eberts have six
children between them from their previous marriages. This means the residence has to accommodate the
children still in school, the children coming back from college, and eventual grandchildren visiting, while
allowing the parents some personal space in the form of a master bedroom suite on the second floor.
The Nack-Eberts are committed to a home that instead of maximizing size like their suburban home,
allows for connection to outdoor living spaces, keeping livable space outside. The outdoor space is as
important as any indoor space, which means they are sensitive to maintaining open space on their
property. They wanted to work with the footprint of the current house for economy as well as to honor the
footprint.
The project was granted a unanimous approval under BOZ2017-15, in July of 2017. However, since that
approval, unforeseen conditions including extensive need for asbestos mitigation, poor original
construction techniques, and most importantly structural issues with the walls, floors, and foundation
required the removal of some of the original walls. It was brought to our attention that this extensive
repair work does not fall in the approval from 2017. So, we must re-apply for a variance with the newly
discovered information.
The form of the original approved residence has not changed, except for the removal of a balcony on the
east side, replaced by a shading device. The look of the building remains the same, except for a few
window changes and some siding material changes due to revelations as the design progressed into a
building construction set. The arguments about location on the former footprint, along with the detailing
of bulk mitigation design techniques remain the same. We contend that the spirit of the original footprint
is maintained with the end product being the same as the originally approved end product, except for
those minor changes listed above.
1
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 120 of 183
The arguments of unjust restriction on the reasonable development of the property due to not only the
physical characteristics of the lot, but the solar restrictions on volume remain identical. We have the exact
same issues, compounded now with extensive structural and quality issues.
_________________________________________________
Project Proposal: Relief of front-as-side yard setback of 25’ to 17’ and minimal relief of front yard
setback from 25’ to 23”to accommodate new siding, insulation, and bulk mitigation tactics on the existing
walls.
The proposed structure was primarily a second floor addition of a master bedroom suite on a single family
residence. The existing residence is nonstandard in that the first floor is 17.4’ from the property line,
where there is a current 25’ front-as-side yard setback due to adjacency.
The addition on the main floor is minimal, added to regularize the footprint in some areas, while relieving
appearance of flattened bulk. The addition is 103 sqft on the main level and 619 sqft on the second floor.
The basement has an addition of 151 sqft to support a bump out that is within the by-right setback, and a
rebuilding of crawlspace into basement space, where we found poor soil conditions, requiring the footings
to be put at original basement grade anyway. The second floor addition follows the footprint of the
existing one story house. This places that new second story into the front as side yard setback (off King
Avenue) by 57 sqft, which is the existing encroachment of the current nonstandard structure except for a
small added area at the front entry. The encroachment into the front yard setback (off 20th street), is 6”
for allowance of new insulation and stone façade work. There is a less than 2’ encroachment for the stair
mass to the west, which in effect replaces the existing bulk of the fireplace to be removed.
In 2007, an administrative variance was granted (ADR 2007-010153) for a scheme where the applicant
wished to add a master suite to the upper floor. That design extended further east over the ground plane
than our proposal. It was never realized, but lends credence to our argued limits on reasonable
development.
In 2017, a BOZA variance was granted (BOZ2017-15) based on this being an addition/remodel of the
existing building. As the homeowner started the asbestos mitigation process, they learned that there was
extensive asbestos in the joint compound of the walls, requiring 6800 sf of removal. The mastic in the
basement as well as vinyl tile also required removal. With this removal, the condition of the walls, the first
floor, and the basement slab were revealed. Through previous work, prior to purchase by the current
owner, the walls on the main level and the floor had notches and holes in structurally critical areas for
wiring and plumbing systems. The floor was unlevel and does not meet current requirements for integrity.
The basement slab had curbs under existing walls. The slab was in poor condition. The basement had
some walls with cracks, which had to be removed. The crawl space to the east did not have a foundation
that met frost line. The foundation wall on the walk out of the house (east side) did not meet frost line
either. The foundation wall in the 1970s addition (east side) jogs and is not in line with the rest of the
house. The footings in the original house are not to current standard. There is no rebar in the foundation
either.
The new proposal follows the exact footprint of what is left of the existing building, except where noted,
while allowing for a home that follows current structural requirements, has insulation that follows new
2
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 121 of 183
energy code, and provides usable space in the basement. Regarding the basement walls, if necessary, we
can keep what currently exists, which would require extensive patching and underpinning. In building a
main floor that meets current building and structural practice, we require a lower slab, which requires
underpinning to the existing foundation. It is preferred to remove the basement walls entirely and repour
with the exact same footprint. Nothing will change in how the building appears from the exterior.
However, the building will be soundly built and of excellent quality. If the owners had known the extent of
damage, they would have proposed a new foundation in the same footprint from the start. Even with an
empty property and new build, the circumstances detailed below would still require a variance for any
reasonable development. Staying within the footprint with a new build still honors the original request in
the best way possible given the unforseen conditions.
_________________________________________________
Criteria for Variances:
The proposed project has validity based on two parts of the BOZA variance criteria, (h)(1) Physical
Conditions or Disability and (h)(3) Solar Access.
(h)(1)
(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
Response:
Please reference Page 2 and 5 of Variance Request Supporting Materials
The lot at 320 20th Street, platted in the 1908 Interurban Park neighborhood, is one of the thinnest north
to south lots in the neighborhood, at an average of 60’ in width. When the house was built in 1955, this
was seen as an appropriate size for a residential lot in this neighborhood, in part because the setback of
the house reflects an older zoning of a side yard. This allowed the house to create a thoughtful figure
ground relationship with the surrounding environment.
The south side of the original building is set back 17.4’ from the property line, reflecting what was
probably a 15’ side yard setback at the time. However, by current zoning code, the adjacency of the house
to houses that are facing King Avenue on the same block at 2065 King Avenue and 303 21st Street
requires this yard to be a “front as side” yard, which pushes that setback to 25’. When one overlays this
onto a 61.92’ wide (on the west side) and 58.31’ wide (on the east side) lot, there is a substantial cut of
space available for logical development.
Compounding the restrictions, the recently adopted revised 100 year floodplain takes over the southeast
part of the envelope for reasonable development.
3
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 122 of 183
The physical condition of having a pre-existing house whose footprint is respected in the proposed new
addition, makes it logical to continue that second story line above the house where necessary, in part to
avoid bulking out any more to the east part of the lot than created by the original house.
In addition, the solar shadow protection is especially impactful for an east to west platted lot. The point of
livable space on a second floor begins at approximately 37’ from the southern property line as pictured on
the Site Plan Analysis (Page 2). With 25’ of setback, this leaves 12’ of buildable width. Further taking away
at least a foot for the two exterior walls, the interior space is approximately 10’ in width north to south. By
even the most frugal standards, this makes an addition above the existing structure unfeasible. The
concept of moving that amount of structure out to the east to increase space by right only makes a longer
“bowling alley,” while increasing the bulk of the structure on the south façade and ruining the open space
on the lot.
That thin rectangle of second floor possibility eventually gets cut on the diagonal by the downsloping solar
fence.
(B) The unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood or zoning
district in which the property is located;
Response:
Please reference Page 5 of Variance Request Supporting Materials
The Interurban Park and Floral Park subdivisions of the East Chautauqua neighborhood have very few
lots that are east-west orientation. Of those lots, none have the same size restrictions of narrowness or
front as side setback due to adjacency, coupled with the flood restrictions. The general character of lots in
the RL-1 zoning district, where east-west oriented, do not typically suffer from the adjacency rules that
dictate the 25’ setback.
(C) Because of such physical circumstance or conditions the property cannot reasonably be
developed in conformity with the provisions of this chapter;
Response:
Again, the “by right” buildable width of the second story, given all the unusual circumstances of this lot, is
approximately 10’ of interior space. We contend that it is also reasonable to follow the building envelope
due to structural logic and building coverage logic. The exercise of expanding the house on a single story
will push into building coverage issues, not to mention creating a large amount of bulk on the King
Avenue façade.
(D) Any unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant.
Response:
4
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 123 of 183
The existing building footprint was in place when the owners purchased the property. The structural
issues with the existing house were not created by the owners, and were unknown until recently
discovered during the demolition process. The homeowners have not contributed to the hardship of this
lot.
(h)(3)
(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
Response:
Please reference Page 2, 6, and 7 of Variance Request Supporting Materials
The east-west orientation of the property, coupled with the slope of the property down to the east,
restricts a substantial amount of buildable volume. The administrative variance granted for a similar
proposal in 2007 argued this point successfully. The volume reduction is 40%. While this understandably
protects the neighbor to the north, it also renders this lot unexpandable, given the other zoning
constraints, namely the south setback.
(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;
Response:
Please reference Page 7 of Variance Request Supporting Materials
As shown in the Solar Shadow Analysis, we are within the 12’ solar fence restriction for the new addition
at all points.
(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.
Response:
Please reference Page 6 of Variance Request Supporting Materials
As indicated on Page 6, Drawing 4, the volume of the proposed building outside the setback lines is 2898
CF. This is substantially less than the reduced buildable volume: 40,015 CF. In fact, the proposal
increases only a minimal amount of the volume, in a logical and deferential manner to the bulk for both
the lot to the north and the streetscape.
(h)(5) Requirements for All Variance Approvals
(A) Would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the lot is
located;
5
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 124 of 183
Response:
The lower Chautauqua neighborhood supports and eclectic mix of architectural styles and forms. While
some houses are traditional in nature, at 1900 King Avenue, we have the 1958 Usonian gem, the
Sampson-Wood house by Tician Papachristou. The proposed style of the house uses natural materials to
soften the façade, while colors take their cue from tree bark and other natural site based objects.
The more pressing concern to this neighborhood is the elusive balance between the building bulk and the
ground plane. With the market dictating owners staying in place instead of moving to larger homes,
remodels and additions have the threat of maximizing the volume on the site until the cap of the building
coverage. The proposed design places the new build over the old footprint in order to keep the ground
plane open.
On the south facing elevation (Page 12), breaking up the form into distinct shapes allows for
compositional balance and relief of bulk.
Form 1: Placing the deck above the entry allows for that corner to step from the ground plane to the taller
portion of the house, thereby mitigating corner bulk. The detail of glass not only as a window at the first
floor entry, but as a part of the deck railing creates a visual levity between this form and the rest of the
house. This repeats on the west elevation (Page 14) making that whole corner element feel deconstructed
from the whole.
Form 2: The upper floor shed roof stops short of the building envelope in order to be sensitive to what a
plane of 25’ façade would look like on the south elevation. As noted on the west elevation analysis (page
15), this is almost 2’ lower than what would be allowed by right.
Form 3: The master bedroom and living room form is only approximately 21’ from the ground plane. This
face takes full advantage of passive solar and green design principles, with brise-soleils allowing winter
sun in, but summer sun out.
Form 5: This wing of the L shape, placed on the current foundation with the same location on the main
level walls, though changing roof form, maintains it spot approximately 37’ from the property line.
Form 6: The stair form translates the existing bulk of the fireplace chimney into a form that breaks up the
west façade.
Form 7: The former wing’s roofline is reworked from a 5:12 hip to a 4:12 shed in order to appropriately
connect to the additional floor. The walls are built on the same footprint as the previous main level walls.
(B) Would not substantially or permanently impair the reasonable use and enjoyment or
development of adjacent property.
Response:
6
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 125 of 183
Knowing we had an issue with developable space on this lot, we had the option to request a variance from
the setback restriction or from the solar access restriction. We felt that invading the solar access of the
neighbor to the north would create a permanent impedance, unmitigatable by architectural or design
means. With the variance from setback restriction, we could make design decisions, like keeping the
overall height lower than the allowable, mitigating the feel of bulk through form and material choices, and
keeping a sense of openness to the property through minimal extension of the current building envelope.
(C) Would be the minimum variance that would afford relief and would be the least modification of
the applicable provisions of this title;
Response:
The new house is not meant to fill the lungs of the allowable space. We are only looking for a reasonable
extension above of the original building footprint, which allows for logical structural connection to the
remaining elements of the house if deemed necessary and allows us to work with form to keep in the spirit
of the neighborhood. The main form follows this logic. Some of the other elements not yet explained are
developed in order to keep that “minimum” requirement in mind.
1) Form 4 (Page 12) The original design featured a balcony off the master bathroom, which allowed
for some connection to the outside, as well as shade and rain protection for the lower floor. The
balcony was removed due to budget and use constraints, replaced by a more subtle, simple shade
structure.
2) Form 1 (Pages 12 and 14) The entry/deck is an area of minimal divergence from the “over the
current footprint” basis. However, it follows the form of the existing front porch space. This
divergence is because of the strong western winds that create a difficult usage of the entry door
facing west. A switch to an entry facing King Avenue protects from that wind. The extra space is
required to make that a viable amount of entry space without having to move the stair mass,
which is itself limited by solar shadow to at least this far to the south.
3) Form 3 (Page 14) The entry porch roof would be allowable in the side yard setback if it were part
of a wrap around porch from the front yard (west side). That porch on the west side would only
add unnecessary bulk to the corner. We ask to allow for the minimal coverage from the rain at the
entry point, an extension of 3’ from the entry form, and only 2’ from the existing south wall on the
original first story.
4) Form 6 (Page 12 and 14) The stair form extends only as far as the existing chimney form in order
to break up the mass of the western façade.
5) The existing western walls are currently within 4” of the 25’ setback. Though within the setback,
we would like 3” of addition leeway (24’-8” front yard setback) in order to allow room for more
insulation and thicker siding materials.
We feel that these small movements allow the proposed project to better integrate with the site conditions
and bulk mitigation. Please refer to page 15 of the Variance Request Supporting Materials for further
investigation of our attempt at minimal impact.
(D) Would not conflict with the provisions of Section 9-9-17, “Solar Access,” B.R.C. 1981.
7
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 126 of 183
Response:
With the setback variance, we are able to create a structure that does not conflict with the provisions of
the Solar Access code.
We hope we have adequately explained our reasons for requiring leeway in removing the ailing pieces of
the building, while maintaining the original intent of honoring the house footprint as it stood in 2017.
Please see the attached letters from the contractor, Elton R. Construction, and the engineer, LT
Engineering. The end result will be nearly identical to the one approved last year. None of the variance
request bases noted on page 1 of the supporting materials has changed in this process. The fundamental
changes that bring us back to BOZA involve necessary fixes to unforeseen conditions. We aim to fix these
problems in a way that brings structural integrity and energy efficiency to the final product, while keeping
in the spirit of the originally approved residence.
Thank you for considering the proposed project variance requests.
Sincerely,
Lisa Kistner, AIA
8
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 127 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 128 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 129 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 130 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 131 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 132 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 133 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 134 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 135 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 136 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 137 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 138 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 139 of 183
1 VIEW FROM CORNER OF 20th + KING 1CONTENTS:
COVER SHEET: PG 1
EXISTING SITE PLAN ANALYSIS PG 2
DEMOLITION PLAN PG 3
PROPOSED SITE PLAN PG 4
NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS PG 5
VOLUME ANALYSIS PG 6
SOLAR SHADOW ANALYSIS PG 7
BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN PG 8
FIRST FLOOR PLAN PG 9
SECOND FLOOR PLAN PG 10
NORTH ELEVATION PG 11
SOUTH ELEVATION PG 12
EAST ELEVATION PG 13
WEST ELEVATION PG 14
WEST ELEVATION ANALYSIS PG 15
MAXIMUM F.A.R. AND BUILDING COVERAGE CALCULATIONS
MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA: 3903 SF
MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE: 2853 SF
______________________________________________________
EXISTING FLOOR AREA:
BASEMENT: 1554 SF
ACTUAL PER EXPOSED CALCULATION:
19’ EXPOSED on 194.58’ PERIMETER: 9.7%: 150 SF
ACTUAL COUNTED BASEMENT: 150 SF
MAIN FLOOR: 1602 SF
______________________
TOTAL FLOOR AREA MAIN BUILDING:1752 SF
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: +288 SF
______________________
TOTAL FLOOR AREA:2040 SF
______________________________________________________
PROPOSED FLOOR AREA:
BASEMENT: 1705 SF
ACTUAL PER EXPOSED CALCULATION:
19’ EXPOSED on 194.58’ PERIMETER: 9.7%: 165 SF
ACTUAL COUNTED BASEMENT: 165 SF
MAIN: 1705 SF
2ND FLOOR: 619 SF
______________________
TOTAL FLOOR AREA MAIN:2489 SF
FUTURE ANTICIPATED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: +600 SF
______________________
TOTAL FLOOR AREA (PROPOSED):3089 SF
79% OF MAXIMUM
______________________________________________________
PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE:
MAIN FLOOR:1753 SF
DECK ABOVE GRADE: 147 SF
FUTURE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: + 724 SF
______________________
TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE (PROPOSED)2624 SF
91% OF MAXIMUM
CONCLUSION: UNDER ON FLOOR AREA AND BUILDING COVERAGE, EVEN
WITH FUTURE REMODEL/ADDITION TO GARAGE (ACCESSORY STRUCTURE)
VARIANCE REQUEST BASIS
SECTION 9.2.3. h(1)(A)(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
and
SECTION 9.2.3. h(3):
(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.NACK-EBERT REMODEL/ADDITION320 20th STREET BOULDER, COVARIANCE REQUEST SUPPORTING MATERIALSPAGE:4/24/1805.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 140 of 183
1 SITE PLAN—ANALYSIS OF SITE
Scale: 1” : 10’ 2PROPERTY LINE
BY RIGHT SETBACKS
25'-0"25'-0"5'-0"25'-0"
REVISED 100 YEAR FLOODPLANE
ZONE WHERE SOLAR SHADOW DISALLOWS SECOND
FLOOR ON CURRENT HOUSE
SIDE AS FRONT SETBACK: 25’-0”
BY RIGHT POSSIBLE SECOND FLOOR SPACE ABOVE
EXISTING FIRST FLOOR SPACE
FORMER BUILDING FOOTPRINT; FOOTPRINT OF
EXISTING FOUNDATION LEVEL
SIDE SETBACK: 5’-0”FRONT SETBACK: 25’-0”REAR SETBACK: 25’-0”PROPERTY LINE: 150.12’ S88°23’56” W
PROPERTY LINE: 149.93’ N 89°46’41”E
PROPERTY LINE: 61.92’ N00°04’16”WPROPERTY LINE: 58.31’ S 00°12’18”EROOF LINE OF DEMOLISHED HOUSE, MAIN LEVEL
ROOF LINE OF DEMOLISHED PORCH
ROOF LINE OF FUTURE
37'-6"NACK-EBERT REMODEL/ADDITION320 20th STREET BOULDER, COVARIANCE REQUEST SUPPORTING MATERIALSPAGE:4/24/1805.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 141 of 183
1 DEMOLITION PLAN
Scale: 1” : 10’ 3DEMOLISHED FIRST FLOOR
WALLS DUE TO STRUCTURAL
AND QUALITY CONCERNS
PROPERTY LINE
BY RIGHT SETBACKS
SIDE AS FRONT SETBACK: 25’-0”
SIDE SETBACK: 5’-0”FRONT SETBACK: 25’-0”REAR SETBACK: 25’-0”PROPERTY LINE: 150.12’ S88°23’56” W
PROPERTY LINE: 149.93’ N 89°46’41”E
PROPERTY LINE: 61.92’ N00°04’16”WPROPERTY LINE: 58.31’ S 00°12’18”EREMOVED PORCH ROOF AND CONCRETE WORK
REMOVED EXISITNG HIP ROOFS
REMOVED GABLE ROOF
REMOVED EXISTING
FIREPLACE AND CHIMNEY
FOR MORE DEMOLITION NOTES, REFER
TO FLOORPLANS
NACK-EBERT REMODEL/ADDITION320 20th STREET BOULDER, COVARIANCE REQUEST SUPPORTING MATERIALSPAGE:4/24/1805.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 142 of 183
1 SITE PLAN—PROPOSED
Scale: 1” : 10’ 4BRISE-SOLEIL BELOW
17'-0"23'-0"
PROPERTY LINE BY RIGHT SETBACKS25'-0"25'-0"5'-0"25'-0"
PROPERTY LINE: 150.12’ S88°23’56” W
SIDE AS FRONT SETBACK: 25’-0”
SIDE SETBACK: 5’-0”FRONT SETBACK: 25’-0”REAR SETBACK: 25’-0”PROPERTY LINE: 149.93’ N 89°46’41”E
PROPERTY LINE: 61.92’ N00°04’16”WPROPERTY LINE: 58.31’ S 00°12’18”E350 20th STREET
PROPOSED FRONT SETBACK: 23’-0”PROPOSED SIDE AS FRONT SETBACK: 17’-0”
PROPOSED SETBACKS
BUILDING
FOOTPRINT 4:121/4:124:12FUTURE 1-CAR
GARAGE; BUILT
BY RIGHTMAIN SHED ROOF
FLAT ROOF BELOW
BRISE-SOLEIL BELOW
DECK BELOW
4’-0” CONCRETE SIDEWALK
KING AVENUE (40’ R.O.W)
OUTDOOR DECK @
SECOND FLOOR BELOW
FRONT PORCH ROOF @
FIRST FLOOR BELOW 3'-3"CONCRETE PAD @
GROUND LEVEL BELOW
PATH TO SIDEWALK @
GROUND LEVEL BELOW
54495448 5447544654455444544354425450 544354445445544654475448
5449 54425449.4
5460.6
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
1/4:121/4:12NACK-EBERT REMODEL/ADDITION320 20th STREET BOULDER, COVARIANCE REQUEST SUPPORTING MATERIALSPAGE:4/24/1805.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 143 of 183
1 INTERURBAN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD
LOTS SIMILAR TO 320 20th STREET 5SIMILAR LOTS OVERCOME ISSUES EITHER BY
—NONSTANDARD USE PREDATING SOLAR
ACCESS CODE (9-9-17, BRC, 1981), OR
—WITH VARIANCE, OR
—WITH LACK OF ADJACENCY CONDITION, OR
—WITH LARGER LOT SIZE/ LARGER N/S ASPECT
330 17th STREET
LOT AREA: 5811 SF
2 STORY ALREADY—PROBABLY NONSTANDARD PER
SOLAR SHADOW; CLOSE TO KING AVENUE
1805 KING AVENUE
LOT AREA: 9512 SF
PROBABLY NONSTANDARD PER SOLAR SHADOW
301 19th STREET
LOT AREA: 9753 SF
300 19th STREET
LOT AREA: 7396 SF
BOZA VARIANCE GRANTED
BOZ2014-00002
2195 KING AVENUE
LOT AREA: 10042 SF
LARGER N/S LOT LINE
320 20th STREET
LOT AREA: 9008 SF
NACK-EBERT REMODEL/ADDITION320 20th STREET BOULDER, COVARIANCE REQUEST SUPPORTING MATERIALSPAGE:4/24/1805.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 144 of 183
1 VOLUME ANALYSIS—VIEW FROM WEST2VOLUME ANALYSIS— PERSPECTIVE
3 VOLUME ANALYSIS—
VIEW FROM SOUTH
4 VOLUME ANALYSIS—
NEW VOLUME IN SETBACK CALCULATIONS 6GIVEN SETBACKS, ALLOWABLE BUILDING VOLUME:
AREA OF 3015 SQFT X 33’ (APPROXIMATE ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT) = 99,495 CF BUILDABLE
AREA OF DISALLOWED SPACE DUE TO SOLAR SHADOW: ((413.5+386.8)/2)X100 = 40,015 CF REDUCTION
CONCLUSION: 40% REDUCTION IN BUILDABLE SPACE
NEW ADDED VOLUME IN THE SETBACK (SEE DRAWING 4): 2898 CF
NEW ADDED VOLUME AS A PERCENTAGE OF REDUCED VOLUME: 2898 CF/40015CF = 7.2%
31'-4"12'-0"33'-0"TILTED PLANE IS ANGLE OF SUN
AT 10:00 AM AND 2:00 PM ON
WINTER SOLSTICE (12/21)—20.7°
33’ ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
DISALLOWED BUILDING
VOLUME DUE TO SOLAR
SHADOW
ALLOWED BUILDING
VOLUME
BUILDING ENVELOPE
EXTRUDED TO SHOW
ACTUAL CONTOUR DATA
BUILDING LOT
BUILDING ENVELOPE
EXTRUDED TO SHOW
CONTOUR
BUILDABLE VOLUME
SUN SHADOW PLANE
12'-0"BUILDING LOT
BUILDING ENVELOPE
EXTRUDED TO SHOW
CONTOURS
BUILDABLE VOLUME
SUN SHADOW PLANE
61'-11"
31'-4"
150'-1"
100'-0"25'-0"25'-0"
MASTER BDRM PLUS BUMP OUT: 78.5 SF X 26.83’ L = 2106 CF
MASTER BATHRM ONLY SHED: 64 SF X 3.83’ L = 245 CF
DECK: 10 SF X 7.5’ = 75 CF
NEW ENTRY SPACE: 63 SF X 7.5’ = 472 CF
TOTAL : 2898 CF OF ADDED VOLUME IN THE SETBACK
ANALYSIS
NACK-EBERT REMODEL/ADDITION320 20th STREET BOULDER, COVARIANCE REQUEST SUPPORTING MATERIALSPAGE:4/24/1805.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 145 of 183
1 SOLAR SHADOW ANALYSIS SITE PLAN
1” = 20’
2 SOLAR SHADOW ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS 7PROPERTY LINE: 150.12’ S88°23’56” W
PROPERTY LINE: 149.93’ N 89°46’41”E
PROPERTY LINE:61.92’ N00°04’16”W
FUTURE GARAGE
STRUCTURE, NOT
IN SCOPE
MAIN SHED ROOF
FLAT ROOF
BELOW
BRISE-SOLEIL
BELOW
OUTDOOR DECK @
SECOND FLOOR BELOW
FRONT PORCH ROOF @
FIRST FLOOR BELOW
CONCRETE PAD @
GROUND LEVEL BELOW
PATH TO SIDEWALK @
GROUND LEVEL BELOW
EXISTING CONCRETE
DRIVEWAY
A
B
D E F
GH
IJ
C
Roof Element Description Elevation of Roof Element (y)
10:00 AM 2:00 PM 10:00 AM 2:00 PM 10:00 AM 2:00 PM
A SE Corner of Lower Shed Roof 5464.9 5446.5 5443.4 18.4 21.5 16.96 25.175
B NE Corner of Lower Shed Roof 5459.5 5445.5 5444.5 14 15 5.3 7.95
C NW Corner of Lower Shed Roof 5459.5 5448.5 5448.3 11 11.2 -2.65 -2.12
D NW Corner of Stair Volume 5469.1 5448.7 5448.2 20.4 20.9 22.26 23.59
E NE Corner of Stair Volume 5469.1 5448.65 5447.8 20.45 21.3 22.39 24.65
F NE Corner of Upper Shed Roof 5467.5 5447.6 5446.25 19.94 21.29 21.045 24.62
G SE Corner of Upper Shed Roof 5474.5 5447.9 5444.8 26.6 29.7 38.69 46.905
H SW Corner of Upper Shed Roof 5474.5 5448.7 5447.3 25.8 27.2 36.57 40.28
I SE Corner of Stair Volume 5469.1 5448.7 5447.5 20.4 21.6 22.26 25.44
J SW Corner of Stair Volume 5469.1 5448.7 5447.6 20.4 21.5 22.26 25.175
Elevation of Grade at Property Line (x)Relative Height of Roof Element (h)Length of Shadow (L)
NOTES:
SOLAR FENCE OF 12’ in RL-1 ZONING
CONCLUSION: NO POINTS OF PROPOSED
RESIDENTIAL REMODEL AND ADDITION
VIOLATE BRC 9-9-17.NACK-EBERT REMODEL/ADDITION320 20th STREET BOULDER, COVARIANCE REQUEST SUPPORTING MATERIALSPAGE:4/24/1805.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 146 of 183
1705 SF PROPOSED 1 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN—PROPOSED
Scale: 1/8” : 1’ 8
LOCATION OF JOG IN FOUNDATION WALL
LOCATION OF FOUNDATION NOT MEETING
FROST LINE REQUIREMENTS; REBUILD FOUNDATION
IN THIS AREA
LOCATION OF FOUNDATION FROM PREVIOUS
REMODEL NOT PLUMB
NEW FOUNDATION UNDER
NEW ENTRY
BEDROOM
15’X11’
GAME ROOM
17’x 22’
FULL
BATH
CL.
BEDROOM
16’x 11’
BEDROOM
18’X13’
NEW STAIR
BUMPOUT ABOVE
EXISTING EXTERIOR BASEMENT WALLS TO REMAIN WHERE STRUCTURALLY ABLE
SLAB REMOVED AND LOWERED TO ACCOMMODATE NEW LOWER CEILING
HEIGHT AND FIX POOR SLAB CONSTRUCTION AND CURBS
RESULTING IN BETTER INSULATION AND RADON CONTROL
FURR WALLS FOR INSULATION TO CURRENT CODE
NEW STAIR
NEW EGRESS WINDOW AND WINDOW WELL
MECHANICAL
12’X14’
CL.
STAIR
UP
CL.
NEW FULL BASEMENT ABOVE
DEFECTIVE PREVIOUSLY
EXISTING CRAWLSPACE
NEW FULL BASEMENT
NACK-EBERT REMODEL/ADDITION320 20th STREET BOULDER, COVARIANCE REQUEST SUPPORTING MATERIALSPAGE:4/24/1805.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 147 of 183
1705 SF PROPOSED 1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN—PROPOSED
Scale: 1/8” : 1’ 9DINING ROOM
19’x15’
KITCHEN
18’x15’
LIVING ROOM
26’x21’
LIBRARY
11’x12’
FULL
BATH
ENTRY
LDRY
DECK
STAIR
PORCH
1’-8” x 9’-9”
ADDED AS
NEW BUILD
6’-11” x 4’-1”
ADDED AS
NEW BUILD
7’-7” x 5’-5”
ADDED AS
NEW BUILD
EXISTING EXTERIOR WALLS ARE REMOVED
DUE TO STRUCTURAL AND QUALITY ISSUES
EXTERIOR WALLS ARE REPLACED IN SAME LOCATION
AND AT SAME HEIGHT AS ORIGINAL
EXCEPT WHERE NOTED AS ADDITION
NEW WALLS ARE 2x6 FOR ENERGY CODE REQUIREMENTS
5450.1
5449.4
5449.4
5450.1
NACK-EBERT REMODEL/ADDITION320 20th STREET BOULDER, COVARIANCE REQUEST SUPPORTING MATERIALSPAGE:4/24/1805.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 148 of 183
1 SECOND FLOOR PLAN—ALL NEW WORK
Scale: 1/8” : 1’
MASTER BEDROOM
18’x15’
PATIO
BRISE SOLEIL
BELOW @
FIRST LEVEL
STAIR
CLOSET
BATHROOM
BRISE-SOLEIL
DECK BELOW
617 SF PROPOSED 10DN
5460.6
5460.6
NEW SHED ROOF
PORCH ROOF BELOW @ FIRST LEVEL
REMOVAL OF EXISTING HIP AND GABLE ROOF
ALL NEW WORK AT SECOND LEVEL
NACK-EBERT REMODEL/ADDITION320 20th STREET BOULDER, COVARIANCE REQUEST SUPPORTING MATERIALSPAGE:4/24/1805.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 149 of 183
1 NORTH ELEVATION
Scale: 1/8” : 1’ 11DOTTED LINE INDICATES
LOCATION OF APPROXIMATE
ORIGINAL BUILDING BULK
NEW SHED ROOF BEYOND
STAIR VOLUME BEYOND
NEW SHED ROOF
NACK-EBERT REMODEL/ADDITION320 20th STREET BOULDER, COVARIANCE REQUEST SUPPORTING MATERIALSPAGE:4/24/1805.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 150 of 183
1 SOUTH ELEVATION
Scale: 1/8” : 1’ 25'-6"15'-11"20'-1"122'-0"ACTUAL FRONT SETBACK 25’-0”PROPOSED FRONT SETBACK 25’-0”FORM 1: ENTRY AND UPPER DECK
FORM 2: UPPER FLOOR SHED ROOF
FORM 3: MASTER BEDROOM/LIVING ROOM
21'-2"FORM 4: SUN SHADE
FORM 5: EXISTING EAST WING
DOTTED LINE INDICATES APPROXIMATE
ORIGINAL BUILDING BULK
NACK-EBERT REMODEL/ADDITION320 20th STREET BOULDER, COVARIANCE REQUEST SUPPORTING MATERIALSPAGE:4/24/1805.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 151 of 183
1 EAST ELEVATION
Scale: 1/8” : 1’ 13DOTTED LINE INDICATES
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
ORIGINAL BUILDING BULK
NEW SHED ROOF AND WALLS
OVER EXISTING
FOOTPRINT
4
12
4
12
NEW BUILDING OVER EXISTING
FOOTPRINT
NACK-EBERT REMODEL/ADDITION320 20th STREET BOULDER, COVARIANCE REQUEST SUPPORTING MATERIALSPAGE:4/24/1805.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 152 of 183
1 WEST ELEVATION
Scale: 1/8” : 1’ 148’-0”ACTUAL FRONT/SIDE SETBACK 25’-0”PROPOSED FRONT/SIDE SETBACK 17’-0”BECAUSE SOUTH AND WEST LOT LINES ARE NOT PERPENDICULAR,
SETBACK VARIES AS SEEN FROM WEST ELEVATION; REFER TO SITE
PLAN SETBACK FOR MORE ACCURATE DEPICTION OF PROPOSED SETBACK
LINE OF ORIGINAL BUILDING
FORM 1: ENTRY/DECK
FORM 2: UPPER SHED ROOF
FORM 3: MASTER/LIVING ROOM
FORM 6: STAIR FORM
FORM 7: FRONT PORCH ROOF
NACK-EBERT REMODEL/ADDITION320 20th STREET BOULDER, COVARIANCE REQUEST SUPPORTING MATERIALSPAGE:4/24/1805.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 153 of 183
1 WEST ELEVATION ANALYSIS
Scale: 1/8” : 1’ 15BY RIGHT
ALLOWABLE
PROFILE
ORIGINAL
HOUSE
PROFILE
BULK PLANE
1'-7"NACK-EBERT REMODEL/ADDITION320 20th STREET BOULDER, COVARIANCE REQUEST SUPPORTING MATERIALSPAGE:4/24/1805.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 154 of 183
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: 1,653 sf *Total gross floor area proposed: 2,934 sf
*Total building coverage existing: 1,722 sf *Total gross building coverage proposed: 2,679 sf
*Building height existing: 15'8" (above low pt)*Building height proposed: 17'3" (above low pt)
*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:
3325 FOLSOM ST
RESIDENTIAL
REDUCTION OF TOTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK DUE TO EXISTING NON-CONFORMING
SETBACKS IN RE ZONE.
Chad Smith
3325 Folsom Street (303)330-3623
Boulder CO 80304 casmith32@me.com
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 155 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 156 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 157 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 158 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 159 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 160 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 161 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 162 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 163 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 164 of 183
April 12, 2018
City of Boulder Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway, Third Floor
Boulder, CO 80306
RE: Setback Variances for 3325 Folsom Street
We are planning an addition onto the west side (rear yard) of an existing home at 3325 Folsom Street and
are requesting variances for the side yard setbacks.
The Owner’s goal is to provide an energy-efficient remodel that allows efficient space utilization, adding a
slightly larger living space, master suite, and storage area/rec area suitable for family living and aging in
place; while maintaining the majority of the living space on a single story and being as unobtrusive as
possible, and not required to building a new home.
Note - we submitted for a variance one year ago, that was unanimously approved 4-0, for a similar scope
of work (single-story addition) but have since changed the design to be more cost effective and efficient
with new square footage. Although revised, the new design maintains the same side yard setbacks,
existing structure facing the street, and single-story addition, that were previously approved.
Our request for variance specifically references paragraph (1) Physical Conditions, of the Criteria for
Variances:
(H) Criteria for Variances (1) Physical Conditions
(H)(1)(A)
(i) The existing lot is unusually long and narrow, which, along with today’s current combined setback
requirement of 25’ for RE-zoned lots, prevents us from building a modest single-story addition per
the design goals without added cost and complexity and/or scraping and building new, which is
currently cost-prohibitive for the Owner.
The existing structure was built at a time when the zoning was different, and/or the side-yard
setback requirements were different. Per today’s side-yard setback requirements, the existing
setbacks are now, non-conforming/unusual for the zone. In addition, the lot size of 13,295 s.f.
does not meet the minimum required 15,000 s.f. for RE lots.
(ii) The addition we are planning will allow the Owner to age in place with his family, including new
basement space for much needed storage, a rec room space, larger master bedroom and
accessible-ready bath, as well as a wider doorway/opening from garage to house.
(H)(1)(B)
The condition described in (H)(1)(A) is unusual, as compared to the majority of RE zoned lots in the
surrounding neighborhood/RE zoned lots, many of which have existing structures with side-yard setbacks
that already meet today’s combined side-yard setbacks for additions or have more uniform lots that allow
easy adherence to the side-yard setback requirements.
(H)(1)(C)
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 165 of 183
The circumstances outlined above in (H)(1)(A), prevent the current remodel design to be implemented in
conformity to present side-yard setback requirements, restricting the ability to provide a reasonable
addition to meet our design goals.
• South Side Yard – On the South, we are requesting a setback of 9’-2”, equal to that of the
existing structure. This is a reduction of 7’-4 7/8” from the required side yard setback of 16’-7
3/8”, which would align with the existing south wall, in order to create a larger master bedroom
area and accessible-ready bathroom;
This is done in a manner that has the least impact on the existing spaces and allows for better
utilization of the space and aging in place. The floor plan helps illustrate how much of the existing
layout is being preserved. The master bath, hallway and closet are the only reconfigured walls
(shown with dark solid hatch); the rest will remain in place.
Due to the existing setbacks and layout of the original house on an already narrow lot, an addition
would need to be setback 16’-7 3/8” from the south side yard (according to the current required
setbacks). This would pose a significant impact on the design, imposing an inefficient use of
space, imbalanced exterior and requiring pushing back the addition, which would encroach on the
existing structures in the west-facing yard. (See attached site plan showing the required setbacks
(dashed)).
In order to create an accessible sleeping area and bathroom, it would have to be relocated
adjacent to the west wall of the existing kitchen, which would require a major reconfiguration of
the interior spaces to make sense from a functional and circulation standpoint, and additionally,
add significant cost.
• North Side Yard - On the north, we are requesting a reduction of 7-1/2” in setback. The location of
the new north wall addition is driven by the size of the opening between the house and garage,
which we are widening to allow for a 36” wide door and adequate clearance on the swing side.
Currently, there is 30” wide door from garage to house, with no room on the swing side. This is
inadequate for ramp and wheelchair accessibility, which is a major concern for aging in place.
(H)(1)(D)
The design/plan as proposed, along with the requested variance on side-yard setbacks does not impose
any known, or unnecessary hardships.
(H) Criteria for Variances (5) Requirements for All Variance Approvals
(H)(5)(A)
The property is over 50 years old and has been pre-approved, administratively by Landmarks, in
large part due to maintaining the 1-story design that is characteristic of the neighborhood.
(H)(5)(B)
The addition is setback equal or greater than currently exists, so the proximity to neighbors is
maintained. Neighbors have approved previous plan with same setbacks requested in this
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 166 of 183
application.
(H)(5)(C)
We are asking for the minimum variance, similar to the way second story additions to non-conforming
structures are allowed by BRC 9.7.1.6 Existing Nonstandard Side Yard Setbacks for Existing Single-
Family Detached Dwelling Units: A second story addition that does not comply with the minimum
interior or combined side yard setbacks may be added to an existing single family detached dwelling
unit subject to the following:
(A) The interior side yard setback for the existing single family detached dwelling unit complied
with the setback requirements in existence at the time of initial construction and was not
created by a variance or other procedure;
1. In 1965, when this structure was built, the setback requirements were different. The
lot to the north and south have similar setback characteristics and were built
during the same time period. There are no records of approved setback variances
for the existing main house.
(B) The resulting interior side yard setback will not be less than five feet and combined side yard
setbacks will not be less than ten feet;
2. The setback we are requesting are greater.
(C) That portion of the building in the side yard setback shall vertically align with the existing first
story wall.
3. The south wall of the new addition aligns with the existing. The new north wall is
setback further than the existing.
4. Although this code was intended for second story additions, the design of this
addition is much more modest. It is not visible from the street and does not impact
neighbors in a negative way. Rather it creates more total setback than currently
exists.
(H)(5)(D)
The addition does not impact neighbors with solar shadowing.
In summary, we are requesting a setback of 15’-2” to the north, resulting in a total combined side yard
setback of 24’-4” where 25’ is required. To the south, we are requesting a setback of 9’-2”, where 10’ is
required, resulting in total combined of 17’6-5/8”, where 25’ is required.
Thank you for considering this request. Please don’t hesitate to call me with any questions: (303) 523-
2202 or email: michelle@ultraliteliving.com
Sincerely,
Michelle W. Lee, Architect
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 167 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 168 of 183
c Ultralite Living The use of these plans and specifications is restricted to the original site for which they were prepared. Re-use, reproduction or publication by any method
in whole or in part is prohibited, unless authorized by Michelle Lee. Ownership of the design, plans and specifications is solely with Michelle Lee.
SHEET NUMBER:
SHEET TITLE:
ISSUE:
11-30-16
PROJECT No:
201636
3200 CARBON PLACE S-209BOULDER CO 80301
303.523.2202michelle@ultraliteliving.com
Smith Remodel & Addition3325 Folsom StreetBoulder, Colorado 80304DATE:
Vicinity Map
@AT
&AND
ABV.ABOVE
A.C.ASPHALTIC CONCRETE
AC AIR CONDITIONING
ACT.ABOVE COUNTERTOP
ACOUST. ACOUSTICAL
ADDN'L. ADDITIONAL
ADJ.ADJACENT
AFF.ABOVE FINISH FLOOR
AGG. AGGREGATE
ALUM. ALUMINUM
ALT.ALTERNATE
ARCH. ARCHITECTURAL
AVG. AVERAGE
BD.BOARD
BF.BOTH FACES
BF.BOTH FACES
BIC.BUILT-IN CABINET
BLDG. BUILDING
BLK.BLOCK
BLK'G. BLOCKING
BLW BELOW
BRZ. BRONZE
BTM. BOTTOM
BTR. BETTER
BTWN. BETWEEN
BVL.BEVELED
BW.BOTH WAYS
CAB. CABINET
CBC CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
CCR CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
CEC CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC CODE
CF CUBIC FEET
CFC CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
CLG. CEILING
CJ.CONTROL JOINT
CLR. CLEAR
CMC CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE
CMU CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT
CNTR. COUNTER
C.O.CLEAN OUT
COL. COLUMN
COMP. COMPOSITION
CONC. CONCRETE
CONN. CONNECTION
CONT. CONTINUOUS
CONTR. CONTRACTOR
CPC CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE
CT.CERAMIC TILE
DBL. DOUBLE
DET.DETAIL
DEPT. DEPARTMENT
D.F.DOUGLAS FIR
DIA.DIAMETER
DIM.DIMENSION
DIV.DIVISION
DN DOWN
DW DISHWASHER
DWG. DRAWING
(E)EXISITNG
EA.EACH
EJ.EXPANSION JOINT
ELECT. ELECTRIC/ELECTRICAL
ELEV. ELEVATION
EMER. EMERGENCY
EN.EDGE NAIL
EOP. EDGE OF PAVEMENT
EOS. EDGE OF SLAB
EQ.EQUAL
EQUIP. EQUIPMENT
EXT.EXTERIOR
FA.FIRE ALARM
FACP FIRE ALARM CONTROL PANEL
FAU FORCED AIR UNIT
FFE.FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION
FG.FIXED GLASS
FH.FIRE HYDRANT
FIN.FINISH
FLR.FLOOR
GA.GAUGE
GALV. GALVANIZED
GC.GENERAL CONTRACTOR
GFI.GROUND FAULT INTERRUPTER
GI.GALVANIZED IRON
GLB. GLUED LAMINATED BEAM
GND. GROUND
GSM. GALVANIZED SHEET METAL
GYP. BD. GYPSUM WALL BOARD
HB HOSE BIBB
HC HOLLOW CORE / HANDICAP
HDWR. HARDWARE
HORIZ. HORIZONTAL
HP.HIGH POINT
HT.HEIGHT
HTG. HEATING
HVAC HEATING/VENTILATION/AIR CONDITIONING
HW.HOT WATER
ID.INSIDE DIAMETER
ID.INSIDE DIAMETER
INCL. INCLUDED
INFO. INFORMATION
INSUL. INSULATION
INT.INTERIOR
INF.INFRARED
LAM. LAMINATE
LB.POUND
LF.LINEAL FOOT
LVL.LAMINATED VENEER LUMBER
MAX. MAXIMUM
MECH. MECHANICAL
MFR. MANUFACTURER
MH.MAN HOLE
MIN.MINIMUM
MIR.MIRROR
MIR.MIRROR
MISC. MISCELLANEOUS
MW.MICROWAVE
MOD. MODULE
MTL. METAL
(N)NEW
NEC NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE
NIC.NOT IN CONTRACT
N/A NOT APPLICABLE
NTS. NOT TO SCALE
O/OVER
O.C.ON CENTER
O.D.OUTSIDE DIAMETER
OFD. OVERFLOW DRAIN
OH.OVERHEAD
OPP. OPPOSITE
PERF. PERFORATED
PLAM. PLASTIC LAMINATED
PLYWDPLYWOOD
PNT.PAINT
PP.POWER POLE
PSF POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT
PT.PRESSURE TREATED
PVC. POLY VINYL CHLORIDE
PVMT. PAVEMENT
PUE. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
QT.QUARRY TILE
QT.QUARRY TILE
R.RISER
RAD. RADIUS
RD.ROOF DRAIN
RDWD. REDWOOD
REINF. REINFORCING
REF.REFRIGIERATOR
REQ'D REQUIRED
RET.RETAINING
REV. REVISION
RM.ROOM
RO.ROUGH OPENING
SC.SOLID CORE
SC.SOLID CORE
SCHED. SCHEDULE
SD SOAP DISPENSER
SDR. STORM DRAIN
SECT. SECTION
SEZ STREAM EASEMENT ZONE
SF SQUARE FOOT/FEET
SHT.SHEET
SHLVS.SHELVES
SHWR. SHOWER
SIM.SIMILAR
SLR. SEALER
SPECS. SPECIFICATIONS
SQ.SQUARE
S&P SHELF & POLE
SS SANITARY SEWER
S.S.D. SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS
S.ST. STAINLESS STEEL
STD. STANDARD
STL.STEEL
STOR. STORAGE
STRUCT. STRUCTURAL
SUSP. SUSPENDED
S.W.SHEARWALL
T.TREAD
TC.TRASH COMPACTOR
TEL.TELEPHONE
TEMP. TEMPERED
T&G TONGUE & GROOVED
TV TELEVISION
TYP.TYPICAL
UBC UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
UFC UNIFORM FIRE CODE
UMC UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE
UON UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
UPN UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE
VCT VINYL COMPOSITION TILE
VENT. VENTILATION
VERT. VERTICAL
VIF.VERIFY IN FIELD
VNR. VENEER
W/WITH
WC.WATER CLOSET
WD.WOOD
W.WASHER
WH.WATER HEATER
W/O WATER HEATER
WP.WATER PROOF
YD.YARD
Abbreviations
PROJECT
SITE
Design Team
OWNER:
Project Data
Sheet Index
ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS
A0.1 PROJECT DATA, ENERGY COMPLIANCE,
GENERAL NOTES, BULK PLANE
A2.1 FLOOR PLANS
CHAD SMITH
3325 FOLSOM STREET
BOULDER, COLORADO 80302
TEL: (303) 330-3623
ARCHITECT:
ULTRALITE LIVING
1300-C YELLOW PINE AVE
BOULDER, COLORADO 80304
TEL: (303) 523-2202
MICHELLE W. LEE
CONTRACTOR:
OWNER / TBD
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: V, NONSPRINKLERED
CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY:
OCCUPANCY GROUP: R-3
APPLICABLE CODES:
JURISDICTION:
CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
1739 BROADWAY
BOULDER CO 80302
TEL: (303) 441-1880
General Notes
1. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE WORK OF ALL
TRADES & CONTRACTORS.
2. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND
REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES OR INCONSISTENCIES TO THE OWNER.
3. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING
ALL REQUIRED BUILDING PERMITS, LICENSES, & APPROVALS FROM ALL
OF THE GOVERNING AGENCIES & AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION PRIOR
TO COMMENCING WITH THE WORK.
4. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING
ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE & OCCUPY
THE WORK.
5. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.
6. A COPY OF THE CITY APPROVED PLANS BE ON SITE AT ALL TIMES
DURING CONSTRUCTION.
7. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PATCH & REPAIR TO RESTORE ANY
EXISTING FINISHES DAMAGED OR DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER.
8. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
SCHEDULING, & THE ORDERING OF ALL MATERIALS AND COORDINATION
OF THE WORK, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL TRASH & DEBRIS REMOVAL
FROM THE SITE ON A DAILY BASIS & MAINTAIN THE PREMISES IN A CLEAN
AND ORDERLY FASHION. THE CONTRACTOR WILL CLEAN THE SITE AND
REMOVE ALL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS BEFORE TURNING IT OVER TO THE
OWNER.
10. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE SAFETY.
11. THE DRAWINGS OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN COMPILED
FROM OWNER SUPPLIED DOCUMENTS OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION.
THE ARCHITECT MAKES NO WARRANTY FOR THE ACCURACY OR
COMPLETENESS OF THE EXISTING INFORMATION RECORDED.
CONTRACTOR TO ALERT THE ARCHITECT IN WRITING OF ANY
DISCREPANCIES FOUND BETWEEN THE EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS AND
THOSE FOUND THE DRAWINGS.
12. ALL MATERIALS. PRODUCTS & SYSTEMS ARE TO BE INSTALLED
ACCORDING TO THE MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS & INSTALLATION
INSTRUCTIONS.
2012 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC) WITH LOCAL AMENDMENTS
IN TITLE 10 OF BOULDER REVISED CODE
2012 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE (IRC)
2017 CITY OF BOULDER ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE (COBECC)
2012 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE (IFC)
2012 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE (IMC)
2012 INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING CODE (IPC)
2012 INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE (IFGC)
2012 INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE (IPMC)
2017 NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE (NEC)
DEMO BACK PORCH, DECK, AND ENCLOSED SUNROOM (730 SF).
NEW FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (780 SF), BASEMENT ADDITION (780 SF),
FRONT PORCH ADDITION (111 SF), BACK PORCH ADDITION (506 SF)
INTERIOR REMODEL AREA (204 SF)
ASSOCIATED MEP & STRUCTURAL, REPLACE EXISTING ROOF AND
WINDOWS.
DESCRIPTION OF WORK:
SEC-TOWN-RANGE:19-1N-70
PROPERTY INFO:
PARCEL NO:146319401012
SUBCOMMUNITY:BROAD ACRES
LEGAL:N70’ OF LOT7 BROADACRES SUB
ZONING:RE
FIRST FLOOR (existing to remain): 1,069 SF
GARAGE (existing to remain): 305 SF
AREA TABLUATIONS:
FIRST FLOOR ADDITION: 780 SF
MAX. ALLOW. FLOOR AREA: 4,502 SF
MAX. ALLOW. BLDG. COVERAGE 3,709 SF
STUDIO (existing to remain): 432 SF
STORAGE SHED (existing to remain): 123 SF
PORCH BACK (WEST):675-150=525 SF
TOTAL RESULTING FLOOR AREA: 3,366 SF
PORCH FRONT (EAST): 111 SF
Furnished
Wall Finish
Exterior
LEGEND
O=Owner
GC=General Contractor
Exterior Windows and Doors
Roof Membrane
Wall Lighting
Patio & Pavers
Planters
Deck
Irrigation System & Landscape Lighting
Roof Penetrations
Utilities (from point of connection)
Water
Gas
Electric
Sewer
Responsibility Schedule
Installed
O GC O GC
The General Contractor is responsible for all work described in the
construction documents. Conflicts between this schedule and the rest of
the contract documents will be brought to the architects attention prior to
beginning work.
Interior
Structural Foundation and Floor
Floor Finish
Millwork
Wall & Ceiling Insulation
Daylighting Devices, Extensions, Finish Trim
Doors
Plumbing Fixtures
Lighting
Appliances
Wall Framing
A0.1
A3.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA4.1 BUILDING SECTIONS
A4.2 BUILDING SECTIONS
A5.1 WALL SECTIONS
A6.1 RCP & ELECTRICAL PLAN
A1.1 PERSPECTIVE VIEWS
C1 IMPROVEMENT SURVEY
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:
PAUL GALLAGHER
GEBAU STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
1121 BROADWAY #201
BOULDER, COLORADO 80302
TEL: (303) 444-8545
TOTAL BLDG. COVERAGE: 3,234 SF
04-10-18
A1.0 SITE PLAN
COVER SHEET
A2.2 ROOF PLAN
BASEMENT ADDITION: 780 SF
SIDE STOOP (NORTH): 18 SF
DECK AT STUDIO (existing to remain): 320 SF
A2.0 DEMOLITION PLAN AND ELEVATIONS
YEAR BUILT:1965
PARCEL AREA: 13,295 SF
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 169 of 183
c Ultralite Living The use of these plans and specifications is restricted to the original site for which they were prepared. Re-use, reproduction or publication by any method
in whole or in part is prohibited, unless authorized by Michelle Lee. Ownership of the design, plans and specifications is solely with Michelle Lee.
SHEET NUMBER:
SHEET TITLE:
ISSUE:
11-30-16
PROJECT No:
201636
3200 CARBON PLACE S-209
BOULDER CO 80301
303.523.2202
michelle@ultraliteliving.com
Smith Remodel & Addition3325 Folsom StreetBoulder, Colorado 80304DATE:
West Side (Back)
A0.2
04-10-18
EXISTING PHOTOS
East Side (Front)
SE Corner (Front)NW Corner (Back)
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 170 of 183
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:ISSUE DATE:REVISIONS:PROJECT No:A0.3PERSPECTIVEVIEWS04-10-18201636Smith Remodel & Addition3325 Folsom StreetBoulder, Colorado 803041NORTHEAST (REAR) PERSPECTIVE2SOUTHEAST (FRONT) PERSPECTIVE3NORTHWEST (FRONT) PERSPECTIVE4SOUTHWEST (REAR) PERSPECTIVENEW ROOF OVERHANG, ASPHALT SHINGLESREPLACE EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFNEW GABLE END WITH EXPOSED WOOD BEAMSNEW COLUMNS, TYP. 4EXISTING BRICK WALLS TO REMAININ PLACE. NEW STUCCO WALLSAT ADDITION, TYP.NEW WOOD DECK LANDINGAND STEP DOWN TO GRADERECLAD EXISTING GARAGESTRUCTURE WITH STUCCOREMOVE PORTION OF EXISTING BRICK. EXTEND EXISTING WALL TO MEET TO NEW PORCH ROOF. RECLAD WITH VERTICAL CEDAR SIDINGNEW PORCH ROOF, ASPHALT SHINGLESEXISTING BRICK WALLS TO REMAIN IN PLACENEW STEEL COLUMNS (2)NEW CONCRETE LANDING AND STEPSREPLACE EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFNEW ROOF RIDGE, BEYONDEXISTING BRICK WALLS TO REMAIN IN PLACEEXISTING ROOF RIDGENEW ROOF RIDGENEW PORCH ROOF SUPPORTED BY (2) NEW STEEL COLUMNS BELOWNEW PORCH ROOFNEW STUCCO WALLS @ ADDITIONNEW CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALLAND WINDOW WELLNEW PORCH OVERHANGNEW ADDITION, STUCCO WALLSEXISTING GARAGE, REMOVE EXISTING SIDING AND RECLAD WITH STUCCO SYSTEMEXISTING ROOF. REFINISH WITH NEW ASPHALT SHINGLESNEW SKYLIGHTS, TYP. 4NEW COLUMNSTO SUPPORT ROOF OVERHANG05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 171 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 172 of 183
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 173 of 183
DOOR SCHEDULE DOORFRAME FRAME DETAILSREMARKSNO. SIZE TYPE MATL.FIN.MATL.FIN. HEADJAMBSILL1013'-0" x 6'-8" A WD/GL STAIN WD STAINSG102 4'-0" x 6'-8"B WD STAIN WD STAINEXISTING1032'-4" x 6'-8"B WD STAIN WD STAINEXISTING104 2'-6" x 6'-8"B WD STAIN WD STAINEXISTING104A 2'-7" x 6'-8"- WD STAIN WD STAINEXISTING FOLDING DRS105 2'-6" x 6'-8"B WD STAIN WD STAINEXISTING105A 2'-6" x 6'-8" B WD STAIN WD STAINPOCKET DOOR105B 5-0" x 6'-8"C WD STAIN WD STAINSLIDING CLOSET DRS106 2'-0" x 6'-8"B WD STAIN WD STAINEXISTING107 2'-8" x 6'-8"B WD STAIN WD STAIN108 2'-8" x 6'-8"B WD STAIN WD STAIN109 2'-6" x 6'-8"B WD STAIN WD STAINPOCKET DOOR109A 2'-4" x 6'-8"B WD STAIN WD STAIN110 2'-6" x 6'-8" B WD STAIN WD STAINPOCKET DOOR11111'-0" x 7'-0"E WD/GL STAIN WD STAINSG112-- - - - -NOT USED1132'-8" x 6'-8"B WD STAIN WD STAIN1142'-6" x 6'-8"A WD/GL STAIN WD STAINSG115 2'-8" x 6'-8"B WD STAIN WD STAINEXISTING116 2'-8" x 6'-8"B WD STAIN WD STAIN116A 2'-8" x 6'-8" B WD STAIN WD STAIN1175'-0" x 6'-8" D WD/GL STAIN WD STAIN*TEMPERED GLASS118 9'-0" x 8'-0"F HM/GL PTD HM PTDSGA2'-9 1/2"VIF 4'-0"5'-11"1A2.11/4" = 1'-0"FLUSH DOORRE: SCHED.RE: SCHED.RE: SCHED.RE: SCHED.SINGLE FRENCHDOORINSULATED STEEL & GLASSSECTIONAL OVERHEADDOORRE: SCHED.RE: SCHED.2A2.11/4" = 1'-0"100'-0"T.O. FIN. FLR.* ON THE PLANS INDICATES A DOOR THAT REQUIRES SAFETY GLAZING100'-0"T.O. FIN. FLR.NOTES:1. All hardware to be selected by Owner and coordinated with G.C.2. Package is subject to additional electronic / security devices - G.C. to coordinate.3. Provide stops as required.4. Provde weatherstripping at all exterior doors.5. Provide saftey glazing as required by code.6. Window sizes are approximate unit sized and NOT rough openings. Manufacturer shalldictate required rough window opening requirements after field measurement is verified.7. Door sizes are approximate unit sized and NOT rough openings. Contractor shall determineexact RO required for door and frame.8. All windows and glass doors to have U-Value of .32 or better.DOOR & WINDOW ABBREVIATIONS:AC - ALUMINUM CLAD WOODALUM- THERMALLY BROKEN ALUMINUMD.B. - DARK BRONZE ALUMINUMHM - HOLLOW METALMFR - MANUFACTURERPTD - PAINTEDSG - SAFETY GLAZINGSTL - STEELRE: SCHED.RE: SCHED.DOUBLE SLIDINGCLOSET DOORSDOUBLE FRENCHDOORRE: SCHED.PER MANUFACTUERRE: SCHED.PER MANUFACTUER
SLIDING PATIODOORXX2'-9 1/2"VIF 4'-0"3'-10"4'-9 1/2"VIF 2'-0"1'-11"2'-9 1/2"VIF 4'-0"3'-11"2'-9 1/2"VIF 4'-0"2'-11"2'-9 1/2"VIF 4'-0"2'-11"BCDEF2'-8"
VIF
4'-4"2'-6"G2'-8"
VIF
4'-4"2'-6"H6'-9 1/2"
7'-0"
7'-0"
2'-2"
VIF
4'-10"9'-0"7'-0"J6'-9 1/2"6'-9 1/2"6'-9 1/2"6'-9 1/2"6'-9 1/2"
2'-8"
VIF
4'-4"6'-0"7'-0"K2'-2"
VIF
4'-10"6'-0"7'-0"LRE: SCHED.PER MANUFACTUER 2'-0"3"2'-6 1/2"3"2'-6 1/2"3"2'-0"8'-0"2'-0"10"M115 LF of 182 LF OFEXISTING WALL(SHEATHING & FRAMING)TO BE PRESERVED (63%)DEMO EXISTINGCONC. PAVERSDEMO EXISTINGWOOD DECKDEMO EXISTINGCRAWLSPACEACCESS. REFERTO PLAN FOR NEWLOCATIONDEMO EXISTINGPORCH SHEDROOF ANDCOLUMNDEMO EXISTINGSUN ROOM;SALVAGE DOORSDEMO PORTIONOF EXTERIORBRICK WALLDEMO &RECONFIGUREKITCHENDEMO CLOSETSDEMO PORTIONOF WALL ANDSALVAGE DOORDEMO WALLSSALVAGE DOOREXTENT OF DEMO (919 SF)DEMO PORTION OFBRICK VENEERRE:PLAN & ELEVDEMO/SALVAGEGLASS PANELSSHIFT/REUSETOILET EAST. RE: PLANSHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:ISSUE:04-10-18PROJECT No:2016363200 CARBON PLACE S-209BOULDER CO 80301303.523.2202michelle@ultraliteliving.comSmith Remodel & Addition
3325 Folsom Street
Boulder, Colorado 80304DATE:FOR PERMITDEMO PLAN &WINDOW/DOOR SCHEDULESA2.0NORTH1A2.1DEMO PLAN1/4" = 1'-0"05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 174 of 183
1A4.12A4.11A4.22A4.2826 SFUNFINISHED1A4.312SHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:ISSUE DATE:REVISIONS:PROJECT No:A2.0BASEMENTFLOOR PLAN04-10-18201636Smith Remodel & Addition3325 Folsom StreetBoulder, Colorado 803041/4" = 1'-0"1BASEMENT05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 175 of 183
17'-2"45'-8"6'-9 1/2"16'-4 1/2"16'-4 1/2"11'-1"11'-1"3'-5"1A4.12A4.11A4.22A4.272 SFKITCHEN348 SF(E) LIVING ORDINING247 SFMASTERBEDROOM273 SFEXISTINGGARAGE53 SFM. BATH93 SF(E) BED. 261 SF(E) BATH131 SF(E) BED. 331 SFW.I.C101*103104A104102105106107111110*105A1131141A4.3301 SFFLEX SPACE23 SFPWDR.63 SFMUD ROOM57891661113123410SHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:ISSUE DATE:REVISIONS:PROJECT No:A2.1FLOOR PLAN04-18-18201636Smith Remodel & Addition3325 Folsom StreetBoulder, Colorado 803041/4" = 1'-0"1LEVEL 1DOOR SCHEDULENO.SIZETYPE MATL. FIN.FRAME FRAME DETAILSREMARKSWidth Height MATL. FIN. HEAD JAMB SILL101* 3' - 0" 6' - 8" A WD/GL STAIN WD STAIN SG102 2' - 6" 6' - 8" B WD STAIN WD STAIN EXISTING103 2' - 4" 6' - 8" B WD STAIN WD STAIN EXISTING104 2' - 6" 6' - 8" B WD STAIN WD STAIN EXISTING104A 2' - 7" 6' - 8" - WD STAIN WD STAIN EXISTING FOLDING DRS105 2' - 6" 6' - 8" B WD STAIN WD STAIN EXISTING105A 5' - 0" 6' - 8" C WD STAIN WD STAIN SLIDING CLOSET DRS106 2' - 8" 6' - 8" B WD STAIN WD STAIN107 3' - 0" 6' - 8" B WD STAIN WD STAIN110* 2' - 6" 6' - 8" A WD/GL STAIN WD STAIN EXISTING111 3' - 0" 6' - 8" B WD STAIN WD STAIN EXISTING113 9' - 0" 8' - 0" F HM/GL PTD HM PTD SG114 2' - 4" 6' - 8" B WD STAIN WD STAIN POCKET DOOR121 4' - 0" 3' - 0"122 2' - 0" 6' - 8"123 3' - 0" 6' - 8" B WD STAIN WD STAIN POCKET DOOR126 12' - 0" 6' - 8"WINDOW SCHEDULEMARKHEIGHTWIDTHSILLHEIGHTHEADHEIGHTMATERIALFRAMEMATERIALWINDOWTYPENOTES13' -0"4' -0"4' - 9" 7' - 9"VINYL SLIDER22' -0"2' -0"5' - 8" 7' - 8"VINYL SLIDER34' -0"3' -11"3' - 8" 7' - 8"VINYL SLIDER45' -0"6' -0"3' - 0" 8' - 0"VINYL SLIDER56' -0"3' -0"1' - 0" 7' - 0"VINYL FIXED66' -0"3' -0"1' - 0" 7' - 0"VINYL FIXED76' -0"3' -0"1' - 0" 7' - 0"VINYL FIXED82' -0"4' -6"4' - 0" 6' - 0"VINYL FIXED92' -0"4' -6"4' - 0" 6' - 0"VINYL FIXED10 2' -0"4' -6"5' - 0" 7' - 0"VINYL FIXED11 2' -6"3' -0"4' - 6" 7' - 0"VINYL FIXED12 3' -0"3' -0"3' - 0" 6' - 0"VINYL SLIDER13 2' -6"3' -0"4' - 6" 7' - 0"VINYL FIXED14 4' -0"2' -0"VINYL SKYLIGHT15 4' -0"2' -0"VINYL SKYLIGHT16 2' -6"12' -0"7' - 2" 9' - 8"VINYL TRANSOM17 4' -0"2' -0"VINYLSKYLIGHT184' -0"2' -0"VINYL SKYLIGHT05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 176 of 183
1A4.12A4.11A4.22A4.22" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"3" / 12"3" / 12"EXISTING RIDGENEW SLOPED ROOF ASPHALT SHINGLESREPLACE ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFINGNEW ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING W/ CONT. ICE AND WATER SHIELDNEW SLOPED PORCH ROOFLINE OF BRICK BELOWLINE OF NEW FRAME WALLS BELOW1A4.312' - 0"LINE OF NEW FRAME WALLS BELOWLINE OF EXISTING WALLS BELOW47' - 8"42' - 2"27' - 11"28' - 7 1/2"16' - 10"0' - 9 1/2"11' - 8 1/2"25' - 11"NEW SKYLIGHT, TYP. (4)SHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:ISSUE DATE:REVISIONS:PROJECT No:A2.2ROOF PLAN04-18-18201636Smith Remodel & Addition3325 Folsom StreetBoulder, Colorado 803041/4" = 1'-0"1ROOF05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 177 of 183
c Ultralite Living The use of these plans and specifications is restricted to the original site for which they were prepared. Re-use, reproduction or publication by any method
in whole or in part is prohibited, unless authorized by Michelle Lee. Ownership of the design, plans and specifications is solely with Michelle Lee.
SHEET NUMBER:
SHEET TITLE:
ISSUE:
PROJECT No:
201636
3200 CARBON PLACE S-209
BOULDER CO 80301
303.523.2202
michelle@ultraliteliving.com
Smith Remodel & Addition3325 Folsom StreetBoulder, Colorado 80304DATE:
100'-0"
T.O. FLOOR
108'-0"
T.O.P.
106'-2"
T.O.P.
99'-2"
T.O. FLOOR
100'-0"
T.O. FLOOR
108'-0"
T.O.P.
100'-0"
T.O. FLOOR
108'-0"
T.O.P.
106'-8"
WND. HD.
99'-2"
T.O. FLOOR
106'-2"
T.O.P.
100'-0"
T.O. FLOOR
108'-0"
T.O.P.
106'-8"
WND. HD.
Demo existing enclosed
porch
Demo portion of existing roof
Demo concrete stoop
Demo existing enclosed porch
Remove existing door
and concrete stoop
Demo existing enclosed
porch
Remove and relocate
existing meters to south
elevation
Refer to plan for portions
of wall to be removed for
new hallway
A3.0
Demo portion of existing roof
04-10-18
4
A3.2 1/4” = 1’-0”
NORTH ELEVATION
3
A3.2 1/4” = 1’-0”
WEST ELEVATION
2
A3.2 1/4” = 1’-0”
SOUTH ELEVATION
1
A3.2 1/4” = 1’-0”
EAST ELEVATION
DEMO
ELEVATIONS
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 178 of 183
LEVEL 10' -0"ROOF15' -7"T.O. EXISTING ROOF14' - 0 1/2"T.O. NEW ROOF15' - 7"NEW ASPHALT SHINGLES AT NEW AND EXISTING ROOFSREMOVE EXISTING SIDING AND REPLACE WITH NEW STUCCO SYSTEM OVER ON EXISTING GARAGE FRAMINGVERTICAL WOOD SIDINGNEW COLUMNNEW SKYLIGHTS14PORCH ROOF13' -3"LEVEL 10' -0"ROOF15' -7"T.O. NEW ROOF15' - 7"T.O. EXISTING ROOF14' - 0 1/2"NEW STUCCO WALLS AT ADDITIONNEW ASPHALT SHINGLES NEW COLUMNS, (4)675161113LEVEL 10' -0"ROOF15' -7"T.O. NEW ROOF15' - 7"T.O NEW PORCH ROOF13' - 3"T.O. EXISTING ROOF14' - 0 1/2"EXISTING BRICK TO REMAINNEW ASPHALT SHINGLES AT NEW AND EXISTING ROOFSNEW STUCCO WALLS AT ADDITION9810NEW WINDOWSNEW COLUMNNEW 4x4 COLUMNNEW SKYLIGHT15PORCH ROOF13' -3"LEVEL 10' -0"ROOF15' -7"NEW ASPHALT SHINGLES AT NEW AND EXISTING ROOFSNEW ADOBE FINISH AT EXISTING GARAGEEXISTING BRICK TO REMAINNEW SLOPED PORCH ROOFT.O. NEW ROOF15' - 7"T.O. EXISTING ROOF14' - 0 1/2"REPLACE EXISTING WINDOWS1234PORCH ROOF13' -3"SHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:ISSUE DATE:REVISIONS:PROJECT No:A3.1EXTERIORELEVATIONS04-10-18201636Smith Remodel & Addition3325 Folsom StreetBoulder, Colorado 803041/4" = 1'-0"1NORTH ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"2WEST ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"3SOUTH ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"4EAST ELEVATION05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 179 of 183
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.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 180 of 183
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. McCready 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.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 181 of 183
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 BOZA may grant a
variance to the maximum floor area allowed for an accessory dwelling unit under
Subsection 9-6-3(a), 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
(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.
• 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 staff’s 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.
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 182 of 183
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 Chair
_________________________________
DATE
05.10.2018 BOZA Packet Page 183 of 183