Loading...
05.10.2018 BOZA Summary Minutes_signed 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 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. 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 anyroved 2-2 J. Rudd. M. Hirsch opposed: D. Schafer recused the a1212lication Docket 2017-21 as submitted. The Board of Zoning Adjustment ganted a continuance of the agplication Docket 2017-21 to the next Board of Zoning Adjustment scheduled meeting for June 14, 2018. D. Schafer rejoined the meeting. 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 I,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) thea lication Docket 2018-05 as 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 oreviously unl2ermitted. that a rental license be ac uired before it is rented out and that the variance request shall not exceed 160 sq. ft. C. Docket No.: BOZ2018-10 Address: 1019 10' 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 I-story addition of 1019 14th St to the north wall of newly built 1005 14th St is 5.9' (or 5-10 1116"). 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 Zonine Adjustment aggroved 5-0 the application Docket 2018-10 as submitted. D. Docket No.: BOZ2018-11 Address: 3166 8`h 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 fagade'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 S. • 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 Adiustment approved 5-0 the application (Docket 2018-11) as submitted. 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 20'h Street Applicants: Amy Nack & Justin Ebert Setback Variance: (Scope of Work Has Beer 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. 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 avl2roved 5-0 the al2plication Docket 2018-13 as submitted. G. Docket No.: BOZ2018-14 Address: 3325 Folsom Street Applicant: Chad Smith Setback Variance: (Scope of Work Has Been Ret,ised 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 apmoved 5-0 the al2Dlication Docket 2018-14 as submitted. 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. McCreadv and J. Rudd abstained to a rove the February 8 2018 minutes. B. Matters from the Board • On a motion by E. McCready, seconded by D. Schafer, the Board of Zonin Adiustments 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 21" 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 cq- ��� Board Chair ++ DATE