Loading...
2018-10_1019 14th Street_Disposition Packet N O T I C E FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE CITY OF BOULDER BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT DISPOSITION OF ZONING CASE DOCKET NUMBER 2018-10 CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE OF THE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 9-7-1, B.R.C. 1981 AT 1019 14TH STREET OF KEVIN RIEDER, WHOSE MAILING ADDRESS IS 1526 SPRUCE STREET, SUITE 260, BOULDER, COLORADO 80302. On May 10, 2018, the City of Boulder Board of Zoning Adjustment, a quorum being present, held a public hearing, after giving notice as required by law, on the application for the following 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. Based on our field investigation and the relevant testimony, exhibits, and other evidence introduced at the hearing, and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981, we find by a preponderance of the evidence that the criteria for granting a variance have been met, and grant the variance as requested. This variance is limited to the use and structure for which it was requested, including the location on the lot and maximum height, as approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustment. This variance was approved by the vote of 5-0. EXECUTED this 10th day of May 2018, effective as of, May 10, 2018. Jill Lester, Presiding Officer of the Board at the Meeting By: ___________________________ Brian Holmes, Secretary to the Board of Zoning Adjustment This decision constitutes a final decision as of the date of the hearing at which it was reached. If a variance was granted, the variance expires within 180 (one hundred eighty) days from the date on which it were granted unless a building permit for such variance is applied for within such period. CITY OF BOULDER Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, Colorado 80306-0791 phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-3241 • email plandevelop@bouldercolorado.gov www.boulderplandevelop.net BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 1 of 15 BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 2 of 15 BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 3 of 15 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 BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 4 of 15 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 BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 5 of 15 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 BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 6 of 15 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. BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 7 of 15 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 BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 8 of 15 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. BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 9 of 15 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 BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 10 of 15 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. BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 11 of 15 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 PLANBOZA Disposition of Approval Page 12 of 15 BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 13 of 15 BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 14 of 15 BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 15 of 15