Loading...
06.21.2018 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 May 10, 2018 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. 3. GENERAL DISCUSSION A. Approval of Minutes: The May 10, 2018 BOZA minutes are scheduled for approval. B. Matters from the Board C. Matters from the City Attorney D. Matters from Planning and Development Services 4. ADJOURNMENT For more information call Brian Holmes or Cindy Spence at 303-441-1880 or via e-mail holmesb@bouldercolorado.gov. Board packets are available after 4 p.m. Friday prior to the meeting, online at www.bouldercolorado.gov, or at the Planning & Development Services Center, located at 1739 Broadway, third floor. * * * SEE REVERSED SIDE FOR MEETING GUIDELINES * * * CITY OF BOULDER BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING AGENDA DATE: Thursday, June 21, 2018 TIME: Meeting to begin at 5 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers, 1777 Broadway, 2nd Floor 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 1 of 37 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. 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 2 of 37 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: 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 3 of 37 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 4 of 37 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 5 of 37 Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application Written Statement Page 1 of 20 29-May-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’ 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 6 of 37 Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application Written Statement Page 2 of 20 29-May-2018 Figure No. 1 – Overall Site Aerial Figure No. 2 – Site Location Plan Project Site Project Site 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 7 of 37 Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application Written Statement Page 3 of 20 29-May-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 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 8 of 37 Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application Written Statement Page 4 of 20 29-May-2018 Figure No. 5 – Photograph of the proposed yard and garden shed. 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 9 of 37 Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application Written Statement Page 5 of 20 29-May-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 aligns with the city’s climate change plans. 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 unless the entire original brick home is raised 3 ft to be above the current base flood elevation level (see below: Development potential for 816 Arapahoe Avenue). 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 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 10 of 37 Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application Written Statement Page 6 of 20 29-May-2018 area into the property and professional work space. See Appendix 1 for a plan of the site with all the limitations shown. Development potential for 816 Arapahoe Avenue: On May 14, Yumi met with a Project Specialist (Matt Thompson) in Planning and Development to better understand how our lot could be developed. If we were to raise the original 1950 structure by 3 ft to conform to current flood regulations, our lot (8922 sq ft) and zoning (RMX-1) would allow us to have total building area of 4190 sq ft with total building coverage of 2834 sq ft (compared with current built area and coverage of 1836 sq ft). Due to floodzone restrictions in our back area we would need to realize any addition on the north side of the lot, essentially the front yard. Based on our home’s current location and the front and side yard setbacks for RMX-1, we could build an additional 667 sq ft as well as add a 240 sq ft covered front porch in what is currently our front yard. The principal face of our house currently sits 45 ft from the property line. This development would move the front face to 25 ft and the front porch to 17 ft from the property line adjacent to Arapahoe Avenue. Moreover, once we accounted for solar setbacks, we could build a 1754 sq ft second floor over the front yard addition and the existing house. The possible new front year development area is shown in Figure 6, while the possible second floor is shown in Figure 7. We have been sensitive about how we developed our property, hoping to preserve the original principal structure as it faces Arapahoe Avenue. We added modestly to our home in 2014, building what we could at rear of our house. That addition is barely visible from the front yard, a feature that many residents in the neighborhood appreciate. Certainly the site could accommodate a much larger structure, 3 times the size of our current home. This would clearly substantially change the character of the neighborhood, it would also be cost prohibitive for anyone but the wealthiest residents or developers. The 45 sq ft shed represents the most modest and minute addition that provides our family with maximum utility while still preserving the character of the neighborhood. 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 11 of 37 Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application Written Statement Page 7 of 20 29-May-2018 Figure No. 6: Illustration of the potential area that could be developed in the front yard of 816 Arapahoe, if the 1950 structure was elevated by 3 ft to comply with flood regulations. Top: plan view within the survey of the property. Bottom: illustration on a photograph. In this illustration the main building complies with the 25 ft front yard setback as well as the side setbacks, and the front porch is allowed to extend to a 17 ft setback per city code. 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 12 of 37 Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application Written Statement Page 8 of 20 29-May-2018 Figure No. 7: Illustration of the potential area that could be developed as a 2nd floor for 816 Arapahoe, if the 1950 structure was elevated by 3 ft to comply with flood regulations. Top: plan view within the survey of the property. Bottom: illustration on a photograph. In this illustration the main building complies with the 25 ft front yard setback as well as the side setbacks, and the front porch is allowed to extend to a 17 ft setback per city code. 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 13 of 37 Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application Written Statement Page 9 of 20 29-May-2018 We feel so strongly about our need for the front shed that we would be happy to submit to a condition of development from the city, essentially agreeing to remove the 45 sq ft structure should we ever further develop the site based on our allowable building area and coverage. 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. 8 – 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. 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 14 of 37 Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application Written Statement Page 10 of 20 29-May-2018 Figure No. 9 – 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. 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 15 of 37 Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application Written Statement Page 11 of 20 29-May-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 and with electrical power. Both properties and accessory structures are shown below. 800 Arapahoe Ave 929 Marine St. Figure No. 10 – 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, and even 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 16 of 37 Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application Written Statement Page 12 of 20 29-May-2018 a concrete barricade 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. 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 17 of 37 Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application Written Statement Page 13 of 20 29-May-2018 Exterior storage is limited by the Conveyance and High Hazard Zones in the back of the property. (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. 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 18 of 37 Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application Written Statement Page 14 of 20 29-May-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; 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 19 of 37 Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application Written Statement Page 15 of 20 29-May-2018 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 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. 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 20 of 37 Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application Written Statement Page 16 of 20 29-May-2018 APPENDIX 1 – MAP OF SITE SHOWING LIMITATIONS ON SHED LOCATION Arapahoe AveTurner AlleyNot possible because of flood ot wetland zones 55’ front setback House Pre-existing 4’ easement to neighbor (before we owned) Exit Pathway Setbacks Art Studio Driving Access for Large Materials and Artworks 8 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 21 of 37 Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application Written Statement Page 17 of 20 29-May-2018 APPENDIX 2 – LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM NEIGHBORS Map showing the adjacent properties for which the owners have provided letters supporting this variance 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 22 of 37 Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application Written Statement Page 18 of 20 29-May-2018 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 23 of 37 Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application Written Statement Page 19 of 20 29-May-2018 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 24 of 37 Jimenez / Roth Residence BOZA Variance Application Written Statement Page 20 of 20 29-May-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 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 25 of 37 802 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. 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 26 of 37 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  06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 27 of 37 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 28 of 37 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 29 of 37 CITY OF BOULDER BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT ACTION MINUTES May 10, 2018, 5 p.m. 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers Board Members Present: Jill Lester (Chair), David Schafer, Michael Hirsch, Ellen McCready, Jack Rudd Board Members Absent: None City Attorney Representing Board: Erin Poe Staff Members Present: Brian Holmes, Robbie Wyler, Cindy Spence, Kirk Moors, Alysha Geiger, Carolyn Fahey 1. CALL TO ORDER: J. Lester called the meeting to order at 5:04 p.m. 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. D. Schafer recused himself. Staff Presentation: R. Wyler presented the item to the board. Board Questions: R. Wyler, B. Holmes and A. Geiger answered questions from the board. Applicant’s Presentation: Jose Jimenez, the owner and applicant, presented the item to the board. 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 30 of 37 Board Questions: Jose Jimenez, the owner and applicant, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: No one from the public addressed the board. Board Discussion: • M. Hirsh said this would be a precedent issue by allowing sheds in front yards. He said it should not be allowed, the use would not be appropriate and it would set precedent. There is too much density on this property. • J. Lester said that some of the evidence presented by the applicant could be defined as hardships, however the discussed area is highly transitional. She said that would speak more to security issues than the location of the shed. The design of the structure is not a concern. The board must look at the criteria concerning hardship. The applicant’s arguments do not justify a hardship. The existing studio is a choice. The board needs to determine if the site is constrained by size and floodplain to allow the shed in the current location. • E. McCready agreed. The hardship is the floodplain layers, storage is limited and it is a small lot. She said hardship does exist. The existing shed is small and offers minimal relief and it is well integrated. She stated that Criteria 1 and 5 are being met. • J. Rudd said that all properties have constraints and he does not see a hardship. The applicant has already done a good job overcoming those existing hardships (floodplain) with creativity. • M. Hirsch added that Criteria h(1)(c) stated that “cannot reasonably be developed in conformity with the provisions of this chapter”. He said that is substantial development potential on the remaining property regardless of the floodplain. He stated there is plenty of buildable square footage remaining on the parcel. • J. Lester asked that staff quantify that the shed and the square footage could be placed on other areas of the property to show there are not physical restraints causing a hardship. • E. McCready suggested that if the shed were attached to the principle home, then it would be allowed. The existing shed is a tradeoff and minimal relief compared to a large garage that would be allowed and would grow the home forward. • J. Lester agreed that the existing shed is minimal. • The board offered the applicant the opportunity to withdraw or continue their application. Motion: On a motion by E. McCready, seconded by J. Lester, the Board of Zoning Adjustment approved 2-2 (J. Rudd, M. Hirsch opposed; D. Schafer recused) the application (Docket 2017-21) as submitted. The Board of Zoning Adjustment granted a continuance of the application (Docket 2017-21) to the next Board of Zoning Adjustment scheduled meeting for June 14, 2018. D. Schafer rejoined the meeting. 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 31 of 37 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. Staff Presentation: R. Wyler presented the item to the board. Board Questions: R. Wyler, B. Holmes and K. Moors answered questions from the board. Applicant’s Presentation: Tim Rowell, the owner and applicant, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Tim Rowell, the owner and applicant, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: No one from the public addressed the board. Board Discussion: • The board offered a continuance to the applicant due to building code compliance issues that need to be addressed for the variance to be adequately determined. The applicant decided to address the board and move forward. • D. Schafer stated that building code compliance is not the issue at hand today. The board could consider offering a variance on the condition that the applicant bring the space up to code and get obtain a rental license. The variance could include a maximum 160 square foot deviation from the code limits. • J. Lester agreed. • M. Hirsch said that there would be an easier way to bring this space into compliance in terms of square footage. He recommended the applicant consider a continuance because the application could change and the applicant would be asking for less of a variance. • D. Schafer said he does not favor a continuance because it would not change the board’s conversation. It goes back to the intention and how the square footage would be measured. The impact on the neighborhood and the number of people living there will be the same. • J. Rudd agreed. Motion: On a motion by D. Schafer, seconded by J. Lester, the Board of Zoning Adjustment approved 3-2 (E. McCready and M. Hirsh opposed) the application (Docket 2018-05) as 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 32 of 37 submitted with the following condition that at building permit application the accessory dwelling unit will need to demonstrate current code compliance for all improvements that have been previously unpermitted, that a rental license be acquired before it is rented out, and that the variance request shall not exceed 160 sq. ft. 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. Staff Presentation: B. Holmes presented the item to the board. Board Questions: B. Holmes and K. Moors answered questions from the board. Applicant’s Presentation: Stephen Sparn, representing the applicant, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Stephen Sparn, representing the applicant, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: No one from the public addressed the board. Board Discussion: • J. Rudd said that he believes the measurement was a mistake and that there is no advantage. Survey points on The Hill can be wrong. He stated that he supports staff’s recommendation to approve the application. • M. Hirsch said that it is not a mistake on the applicant’s part. It would be a minimal variance and the measurement result is in part due to the exterior window trim. Motion: On a motion by M. Hirsh, seconded by J. Rudd, the Board of Zoning Adjustment approved 5-0 the application (Docket 2018-10) as submitted. 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 33 of 37 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 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. Staff Presentation: R. Wyler presented the item to the board. Board Questions: R. Wyler answered questions from the board. Applicant’s Presentation: Adrian Sopher and Marybeth Keigher, the owners and applicants, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Adrian Sopher, the owner and applicant, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: No one from the public addressed the board. Board Discussion: • M. Hirsch stated that he appreciated the conceptual plan in keeping the home at one- story in that neighborhood rather than going to two stories. • J. Lester said that she would need to understand the hardship. • Staff explained how the requested variance would meet Criteria 1 and 5. • E. McCready agreed the variance would meet the criteria. The hardship would not be created by the applicant. It is the existing structures on the site which were built to code at the time. The request is modest. • D. Schafer said the impact on the neighborhood would be minimum and they would not be encroaching any closer to the neighbors. Motion: On a motion by E. McCready, seconded by J. Lester, the Board of Zoning Adjustment approved 5-0 the application (Docket 2018-11) as submitted. 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 34 of 37 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. Staff Presentation: R. Wyler presented the item to the board. Board Questions: R. Wyler answered questions from the board. Applicant’s Presentation: Lisa Kistner, representing the applicant, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Lisa Kistner, representing the applicant, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: No one from the public addressed the board. 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 35 of 37 Board Discussion: • J. Lester stated that this resubmittal does not appear to be any different from what had been previously approved other than requesting slightly less of a variance. • M. Hirsh said the applicant initially was expecting the foundation to have some integrity and it was discovered that it did not. Motion: On a motion by D. Schafer, seconded by M. Hirsch, the Board of Zoning Adjustment approved 5-0 the application (Docket 2018-13) as submitted. 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. Staff Presentation: R. Wyler presented the item to the board. Board Questions: R. Wyler answered questions from the board. Applicant’s Presentation: Michelle Lee, representing the applicant, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Michelle Lee, representing the applicant, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: No one from the public addressed the board. Board Discussion: • M. Hirsch said that this application is a small adjustment of the previous submittal. Motion: On a motion by E. McCready, seconded by J. Lester, the Board of Zoning Adjustment approved 5-0 the application (Docket 2018-14) as submitted. 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 36 of 37 3. GENERAL DISCUSSION: A. Approval of Minutes On a motion by D. Schafer, seconded by M. Hirsch, the Board of Zoning Adjustments voted 3-0 (E. McCready and J. Rudd abstained) to approve the February 8, 2018 minutes. B. Matters from the Board • On a motion by E. McCready, seconded by D. Schafer, the Board of Zoning Adjustments voted 5-0 for M. Hirsch to be the new Chair. • On a motion by D. Schafer, seconded by E. McCready, the Board of Zoning Adjustments voted 5-0 for J. Lester to be the new Vice Chair. • The board discussed a possible date change of the June meeting from June 14th to the 21st due to the absence of J. Lester and D. Schafer on June 14, 2018. J. Rudd will be out of town until June 24, 2018. Staff will follow up with the board. 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 8:53 P.M APPROVED BY _________________________________ Board Chair _________________________________ DATE 06.21.2018 BOZA Packet Page 37 of 37