07.12.2018 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.: BOZ2018-15
Address: 4285 Graham Court
Applicant: Keeli Biediger
Parking in Landscape Setback Variance: As part of a proposal to establish parking on the property,
the applicant is requesting a variance to the minimum front (southeast) yard landscape setback for the
recognition of two parking spaces on an existing 18’4” wide driveway/parking area located entirely
within the front yard. The resulting front (southeast) yard setback for both spaces will be 6 feet where
25 feet is required and no conforming parking exists on site today. Sections of the Land Use Code to be
modified: Sections 9-7-1 & 9-9-6, BRC 1981.
B. Docket No.: BOZ2018-16
Address: 5000 Butte Street #183 (located on Vail Circle)
Applicant: Sam Shrestha
Setback Variance: As part of a proposal to place a mobile home on a lot within Vista Village, the
applicant is requesting a variance to the rear (west) setback from the boundary of the mobile home park.
In a mobile home park context, this setback is measured from the development property line to the
mobile home and, in this case, the resulting rear setback will be approximately 10.5 feet where 20 feet is
required and no mobile home exists today on this lot. Section of the Land Use Code to be modified:
Section 9-7-13, BRC 1981.
C. Docket No.: BOZ2018-18
Address: 985 Gilbert Street
Applicants: Lon & Lauren McGowan
Setback Variance: As part of a proposal to place an in-ground swimming pool in the rear (west) yard
of the property, the applicants are requesting a variance to the minimum landscape setback requirements
of the RE zoning district. Because this property fronts onto Gilbert Street to the east and its rear yard
backs onto 5th Street to the west it is considered a “Through Lot” and pursuant to Boulder Revised Code
Section 9-7-2(b)(7), the rear yard shall have a minimum landscaped setback equal to the minimum
front yard landscaped setback from a street for all buildings and uses required for that zone. And
pursuant to Boulder Revised Code Section 9-9-19, swimming pools may not be located in any
required front yard or side yard abutting a street. The resulting west yard setback taken from the
swimming pool will be 2 feet where 25 feet is required and no swimming pool exists today. Section
of the Land Use Code to be modified: Section 9-7-1, BRC 1981.
CITY OF BOULDER
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
MEETING AGENDA
DATE: Thursday, July 12, 2018
TIME: Meeting to begin at 5 p.m.
PLACE: Council Chambers, 1777 Broadway, 2nd Floor
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 1 of 97
D. Docket No.: BOZ2018-19
Address: 5000 Butte Street #64 (located on Berthoud)
Applicant: Sam Shrestha
Setback Variance: As part of a proposal to place a mobile home on a lot within Vista Village, the
applicant is requesting a variance to the side (north) setback between neighboring homes. In a mobile
home park context, the side setbacks (separation) is measured from mobile home to mobile home. In
this case the resulting north side setback will be approximately 13.5 feet where 15 feet is required and
approximately 15 feet exists today from the current home (to be replaced). Section of the Land Use
Code to be modified: Section 9-7-13, BRC 1981.
3. GENERAL DISCUSSION
A. Approval of Minutes: The June 21, 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 * * *
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 2 of 97
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.
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 3 of 97
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:
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 4 of 97
APPLICATION TYPES
Setback, building separation, bulk plane, building coverage, porch setback and
size, and side yard wall articulation
Sign Variance
Mobile Home Spacing Variance
Size and parking setback requirements for accessory units
Use of mobile homes for non-residential purposes
Parking in landscaped front yard setback
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
As a minimum, the following items MUST be attached, collated and hereby made a
part of this application:
• If applicant is other than owner(s), a written consent of the owner(s) of the property
for which the variance is requested;
• A written statement thoroughly describing the variance request and addressing all
pertinent review criteria for approval - see following pages (3 copies);
• A signed and stamped Improvement Location Certificate or Site Improvement
Survey and legal description by a registered surveyor (3 copies);
• A site development plan including setbacks, elevations, interior layout/floor plans
and any other pertinent exhibits (3 copies);
• A demolition plan clearly differentiating between existing/remaining and proposed
portions of the structure(s) (3 copies);
• Any other information pertinent to the variance request (e.g. neighbor letters,
photos, renderings, etc.) (3 copies);
• Sign Posting Acknowledgement Form - see last page.
NOTE: The applicant is responsible for posting the property in compliance with city
requirements. Signs will be provided to the applicant at the time of submission of
the application. The applicant will be responsible for posting the required sign(s)
within 10 days of the hearing date. Failure to post the required sign(s) may result in
the postponement of the hearing date.
• An electronic file(s) of all materials must be submitted on a CD or thumb drive with
your application;
• An application fee (as prescribed in Section 4-20-43, B.R.C. 1981);
NOTE: SEE SECTION 9-2-3(l), B.R.C. 1981 FOR VARIANCE EXPIRATION INFORMATION
Applicant Signature ______________________________________Date__________
Owner (if other than Applicant) Signature _________________________Date__________
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 5 of 97
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
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 6 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 7 of 97
Frascona, Joiner, Goodman and Greenstein, P.C.
Oliver E. Frascona (1947-2014)
Jonathan A. Goodman
Gregg A. Greenstein
Cinthia M. Manzano
Jonathan H. Sargent
Michael A. Smeenk
Jordan C. May
June 5, 2018
Board of Zoning Adjustment
City of Boulder
1739 Broadway, Third Floor
Boulder, CO 80302
Re: Variance to allow two parking spaces in the front yard setback to meet the off-street parking
requirement at 4285 Graham Court, Boulder, CO 80305
Dear Board of Zoning Adjustment:
This law firm represents Keeli Biediger (“Ms. Biediger,” or the “Applicant”), the owner of 4285
Graham Court (the “house,” or the “property”). Ms. Biediger’s house was subject to a garage conversion
which has left the house without off-street parking that meets the requirements of Boulder Revised Code
(“BRC,” or the “Code”). She is therefore requesting a variance to bring the current configuration on the
property into compliance with Code.
I. Background
The Applicant’s parents bought the property in 1970. In 1977, Ms. Biediger’s mother converted
the garage to livable space. Ms. Biediger has lived in the house practically for her whole life and was a
girl when the garage conversion was completed. Notwithstanding that the property in its current
configuration has existed harmoniously in and with the neighborhood for so long that it is now an
essential component of the character of the block, the Applicant desires the requested variance to legalize
that configuration. She is coming forward and making this application voluntarily.
The property lacks Code-compliant off-street parking because the front yard is not deep enough
for a parking space that does not encroach into the 25-foot landscape setback. Such setback is required
under Code § 9-9-6(d)(1)(a). Also, the width of the house relative to the width of the lot makes the
available side yard space (about 7.5 feet on either side of the house) too narrow to provide for a Code-
compliant parking space in either side yard. This variance request is to recognize two parking spaces
that conform to the nine-foot by 19-foot size of a standard Boulder parking stall, which spaces shall
be located in the existing driveway. Since the conversion of the garage 41 years ago, the off-street
Attorneys at Law
A Professional Corporation
4750 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, Colorado 80305-5541
Telephone (303) 494-3000 Facsimile (303) 494-6309
www.frascona.com e-mail: harmon@frascona.com
of Counsel
Gary S. Joiner
Janice H. Louden
G. Roger Bock
Karen J. Radakovich
David A. Farus
Benjamin J. Daniels
T. Damien Zumbrennen
Britney Beall-Eder
Harmon W. Zuckerman
Zachary A. Grey
Paige S. Ormond
C. Andrew Meyer
Brittaney D. McGinnis
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 8 of 97
parking has been provided within the front yard setback, primarily in the driveway and, on occasion, on
the patio in front of the house.
Because of the prevalence of illegal garage conversions in Boulder, there is a Code section which
provides for a specific variance to formalize and legalize such conversions. This section is BRC § 9-2-
3(j), and it includes seven criteria that must be met to allow such a specific variance to be granted. Here,
the application meets each of the first six criteria. It does not meet the letter of the seventh criterion, BRC
§ 9-2-3(j)(7), which provides that the parking space shall not more than 16 feet in width, because the
Applicant desires two parking spaces and a 18’4”-wide driveway. The existing driveway is paved in
concrete and is 18’4” wide and 29’7” deep. Therefore, the Applicant has chosen, after confirming this
direction with staff, to apply for the requested variance under the general variance criteria. It is within the
powers of the Board of Zoning Adjustment to grant the requested variance based on the application’s
compliance with the general criteria, notwithstanding the existence of the Code section that provides for a
specific variance to legalize unpermitted garage conversions.
II. Argument
The following are some common sense, Code-based, and City policy-based reasons which
support the variance request:
• The environmental impact of leaving the driveway in place, unchanged, is de minimis. On the
other hand, removing 9’4” of the driveway’s width in order to leave only the minimum 9’x19”
space to meet the spirit of the Code (“to minimize the visual and environmental impacts of
excessive parking lot paving,” BRC § 9-9-6(a)), would involve saw cutting almost 300 square
feet of concrete, removing and landfilling about five cubic yards of waste concrete and other
material, importing the same volume of material as topsoil, and then planting, watering, weeding,
and maintaining a narrow and isolated strip of landscaping thereafter. There is significant
environmental impact in removing the concrete, and for marginal benefit.
• The Code contains no maximum driveway width, only the maximum width of an individual
parking space. Driveways that are 18 or more feet wide exist in many locations in Boulder.
• The Design and Construction Standards (DCS), which are incorporated by reference into the
Code, delimit curb cut width for Single Family Residential properties to 10’ minimum and 20’
maximum. DCS § 2.04 Site Access and Table 2-2: Access Design Specifications. The Standards
allow curb cuts of 20 feet, which would serve the existing 18’4” driveway width.
• The Code provides that “if all off-street parking requirements … have been met, persons may
park up to two additional vehicles in the driveway leading to the parking area.” BRC § 9-9-
6(d)(1)(A). This Code provision has resulted in an expectation that residents in the RL-1 zoning
district may park multiple cars in their driveways. With a driveway length of less than 30 feet on
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 9 of 97
the property, not more than one car can be parked in the driveway unless side-by-side parking is
allowed.
• The original driveway was only wide enough to serve the garage, but the additional paved area in
front of the side yard was used for parking a camper for most of the years up to Ms. Biediger’s
mother’s death in 2013, so the parking area has appeared to be two spaces wide since at least 40
years ago and thereby has become a component of the character of the block.
• The existing driveway, which was paved to its current width in 2013, is in excellent condition.
III. Variance Criteria
The Board of Zoning Adjustment may grant a variance to the requirements of Section 9-9-6,
“Parking Standards,” to allow the requested two parking spaces within the front yard setback if it finds
that the application satisfies the criteria in BRC § 9-2-3(h)(1) and (5).
The proposal meets the requirements of Paragraph (h)(1), Physical Conditions or Disability,
as follows:
(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[.]
Response: the width of the house relative to the width of the lot makes the available side yard
space (about 7.5 feet on either side of the house) too narrow to provide for a Code-compliant parking
space in either side yard. This vitiates the possibility of parking additional vehicles in the driveway
leading to the parking area as allowed by Code (BRC § 9-9-6(d)(1)(A)) and expected by residents in the
RL-1 zoning district.
(B) The unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood or zoning
district in which the property is located[.]
Response: within the RL-1 zoning district, it is unusual for a house to not have (1) a side yard that
is wide enough to contain a compliant parking stall, (2) a garage or carport available to satisfy the off-
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 10 of 97
street parking requirement, or (3) a driveway deep enough to allow for the parking of additional vehicles
as allowed by Code.
(C) Because of such physical circumstances or conditions the property cannot reasonably be
developed in conformity with the provisions of this chapter[.]
Response: the driveway at the property is so short that no additional vehicles would be parkable
in the driveway unless side-by-side parking is allowed. The Code allows residents of the RL-1 to park up
to two additional vehicles in the driveway leading to the parking area. The intent of this Code provision
is to recognize that the residents of single-family residential houses are often families or groups of
individuals that have multiple cars, and there is a benefit to allowing them to be parked off-street. This
benefit accrues both to residents and entire neighborhoods by increasing the ease of parking on private
property and on the street. Limiting the parking to a single stall would violate the letter of BRC § 9-9-
6(d)(1)(A) and the spirit of BRC § 9-9-6.
(D) Any unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant.
Response: the garage conversion in subject property occurred in 1977, when the applicant was a
small child and not the owner of the house.
All variance approvals must meet the requirements of BRC § 9-2-3(h)(5). The proposal
meets the requirements of Paragraph (h)(5), Requirements for All Variance Approvals, as follows:
(A) Would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the lot is
located[.]
Response: The Martin Acres neighborhood in South Boulder is made up largely of ranch-style
houses such as the subject property. Most blocks are zoned RL-1, a single family, low density residential
zoning district with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet, or about six houses per acre. The
neighborhood contains a mix of homeowner-occupied and rental houses, and most houses are of a
relatively modest size. Many houses in Martin Acres also have attached garages that have been converted
to living space.
The Code does not require driveways to be one parking stall in width, and in fact, the DCS allows
curb cut widths for Single Family Residential properties to be as wide as 20 feet to support two-car
driveways and/or garages. The area under the current 18’4”-wide driveway been used for side by side
parking for the majority of the past 48 years. The driveway has been integrated into the existing front
yard landscaping so that it appears to be a hardscape component of the landscape design. It has become a
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 11 of 97
part of the character of the block and does not in any way stick out as unusual in the neighborhood. It
resembles many other such driveways that have been constructed at the same width in the neighborhood.
(B) Would not substantially or permanently impair the reasonable use and enjoyment or
development of adjacent property[.]
Response: Granting the variance requested would not result in any impairment in the reasonable
use and enjoyment or development of adjacent property. Recognizing the location of two parking spaces
in the front yard setback, where two vehicles have generally been parked since the 1970s, would cause no
such impairment.
(C) Would be the minimum variance that would afford relief and would be the least modification
of the applicable provisions of this title[.]
Response: There is no provision in BRC § 9-9-6 that prohibits, per se, a two-car wide driveway.
In fact, the Code provision which stands for the City’s desire to minimize the visual and environmental
impacts of excessive paving, BRC § 9-9-6(a), is merely a “Rationale” and not a specific standard, and it
refers to parking lot paving, not driveways. To the extent that Code is being interpreted as requiring that
single-family residential driveways be limited to one stall in width, which is an arguable interpretation,
allowing the existing driveway to remain in its current 18’4” width is the least variance that would afford
relief, and it would be the least modification of the Code.
For the component of this request that is proposing parking in the front yard setback, the request
could not be for a lesser variance. This is because, without reconverting the garage from living space to
parking area, and given the 7.5-foot side yard setbacks, the front yard setback is the only area available on
the parcel that can accommodate off-street parking to meet City requirements.
As to the component of this request that is proposing to allow retention of the current 18’4”-wide
driveway, this is also the least variance that would afford relief. The short depth of the driveway makes
tandem (i.e., front-to-back) parking impossible. To allow the parking of additional vehicles in the
driveway as allowed by Code and expected by RL-1 residents, the only option is side-by-side parking.
Any lesser variance would not afford relief.
(D) Would not conflict with the provisions of Section 9-9-17, “Solar Access[.]”
Response: The requested relief would have no impact on solar access.
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 12 of 97
IV. Additional Information Regarding ADU
As you may be aware from living in this community and/or reading some articles in the Daily
Camera last year, the subject property, going back to when the Applicant was a child and her mother was
the owner, has been used as an owner-occupied house with an accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”). Staff
from Code Enforcement and Planning & Development Services, as well as the City Attorney’s Office, are
aware of this use. Ms. Biediger being allowed to continue operating the ADU because of City Council’s
direction to staff regarding enforcement in light of the current ADU Update and the interim enforcement
policy as promulgated by the City Attorney.
The interim ADU enforcement policy is as follows: while the City will still be (1) enforcing the
Code and (2) working to bring illegal ADUs into compliance, it will also be (3) avoiding waste by not
requiring demolition and (4) respecting existing leases, provided that the ADUs are not violative of health
and safety regulations (see Exhibit B, October 23, 2017 e-mail from the City Attorney to City Council).
Ms. Biediger has been subject to enforcement action and has submitted to all required requests and
inspections by the City. The ADU use is not in violation of any health and safety regulations. Her
tenants remain in the ADU under valid existing leases. To require the demolition of a portion of the
driveway would be in direct contravention of the City Attorney’s guidance in #3 above, which is to “do
no harm” by not requiring demolition of accoutrements of existing unpermitted ADUs while the ADU
ordinance is being considered for revision. Adherence to this policy is the best way to avoid a
nonsensical scenario where the Applicant is required to remove a portion of the driveway as a condition
of the requested variance only to be required to replace that same portion if Code requires an additional
off-street parking stall to support the ADU.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, this variance request is to be reviewed separately from the ADU
issue. The ADU issue is a question of use – i.e., to what use may the property be put under Code and
zoning? The setback variance, on the other hand, is a matter related to development standards.
Irrespective of whether the ADU use is eventually permitted, the requested variance is needed to ensure
compliance with development standards and therefore needs to be addressed and resolved.
V. Conclusion
Based on the application’s compliance with the requirements for approval of variances, the Board
of Zoning Adjustment may approve this application. To do so would be to allow a long-term, lifetime
Boulder resident to remedy a non-compliant parking situation that she did not herself create and which
works no known impairment on neighbors or the community.
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 13 of 97
Ms. Biediger is one citizen who is making a voluntary effort to come into Code compliance, and
we hope that the Board of Zoning Adjustment recognizes that. More importantly, we hope and request
that you determine that this application meets the criteria for approval of the requested variance, and that
you will therefore vote your approval.
Sincerely yours,
Frascona, Joiner, Goodman and Greenstein, P.C.
By: Harmon W. Zuckerman, Esq.
harmon@frascona.com
Attachments:
1. Written consent of owner
2. Written statement/narrative
3. Improvement Location Certificate
4. Site development plan – Upper Level
5. Site development plan – Lower Level
6. Affidavit of Carl Paxton
7. Affidavit of Ethel Paxton
8. Affidavit of M’Liss Biediger
9. Petition in support of application
10. Photograph looking east
11. Photograph looking north
12. Photograph looking west
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 14 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 15 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 16 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 17 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 18 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 19 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 20 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 21 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 22 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 23 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 24 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 25 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 26 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 27 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 28 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 29 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 30 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 31 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 32 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 33 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 34 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 35 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 36 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 37 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 38 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 39 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 40 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 41 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 42 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 43 of 97
9-7-13. - Mobile Home Park Form and Bulk Standards.
No person shall establish or maintain a mobile home park or mobile home on a lot within a mobile home
park except in accordance with the following standards:
(a) Mobile Home Park Form and Bulk Summary Table: Development within a mobile home park in the MH
zoning district shall comply with the standards shown in table 7-2 and illustrated in Figure 7-15 of this
section.
TABLE 7-2: MOBILE HOME PARK DESIGN STANDARDS (MH DISTRICT)
Size and Intensity
Minimum mobile home park size -
MH zone
RL-2, RM and RH zones
5 acres
10 acres
Maximum allowable density -
RL-2 zone
MH, RM and RH zones
6 units per acre
10 units per acre
Minimum site area reserved for recreational facilities 8 percent of mobile home
park
Lot Area and Open Space
Minimum lot area if subdivided 3,500 square feet
Minimum average lot area per mobile home 4,350 square feet
Minimum outdoor living and service area (with no dimension less than 15
feet) 300 square feet
Minimum usable open space per mobile home 600 square feet
Parking Requirements
Minimum number of off-street parking spaces per mobile home 1
Setbacks and Separation
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 44 of 97
Minimum front setback -
MH zone
RL-2, RM-1, RM-3, RH-1 and RH-4 zones
20 feet
Minimum front setback -
RM-2 and RH-5 zones 25 feet
Minimum side to side separation 15 feet
Minimum end to end separation 10 feet
Minimum distance from tongue to any adjacent sidewalk 2 feet
Minimum setback from a street (from edge of street pavement) 10 feet
Accessory Buildings (10-12, B.R.C.)
Maximum size of storage buildings 150 square feet
Minimum setback from adjacent mobile homes to all accessory buildings
and structures 10 feet
Minimum separation between mobile home and accessory building (on
the same lot) 6 feet
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 45 of 97
Figure 7-15: Mobile Home Park Setback Standards
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 46 of 97
Minimum setback to the boundary of the mobile home park depends on the zoning district. All other setback
requirements apply in all mobile home parks. The required setback from a street is measured from the edge
of street pavement. The required tongue setback is measured to the edge of the sidewalk.
(b) Area Requirements: In determining the required yard and space areas, the use of double-wide mobile
homes and accessory structures shall be considered. The minimum average lot area per mobile home
does not include additional area required by this chapter for access roads, off-street parking and
storage areas, service buildings, recreation areas and office and similar mobile home needs.
(c) Driveways: Paved driveways with a minimum width of ten feet shall be provided where necessary for
convenient access to each mobile home.
(d) Parking: Mobile homes in all zoning districts other than the MH district shall provide 1.5 off-street
parking spaces per mobile home. Off-street spaces shall be located on or within three hundred feet of
the mobile home space for which the parking is required.
(e) Setbacks From Boundary Lines: All mobile homes in RM-2 and RH-5 zoning districts shall be located
at least twenty five feet from the boundary lines of the mobile home park. All mobile homes located in
RL-2, RM-1, RM -3, MH, RH-1 and RH-4 zoning districts shall be located at least twenty feet from the
boundary of the mobile home park.
(f) Reduction of Setbacks From Boundary Lines: Mobile home setback distances along park boundary
lines adjacent to other lots may be reduced to ten feet as part of a site review or use review approval
if the mobile home park owner demonstrates that there is a need for such reductions and that no
detrimental effect will result to uses on adjoining properties or to residents of the mobile home park.
(g) Obstructions Prohibited: No mobile home or portion thereof shall overhang or obstruct any driveway,
access road or walkway.
(h) Screening: All mobile home parks adjacent to other residential uses, commercial uses or industrial
uses shall be provided with screening, such as opaque fencing or landscaping, along the property
boundary separating the mobile home park from such adjacent land uses.
Ordinance Nos. 7684 (2009); 7699 (2009)
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 47 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 48 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 49 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 50 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 51 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 52 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 53 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 54 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 55 of 97
Tasha J. Power Email: tjp@bhgrlaw.com
June 20, 2018
Via Hand Delivery
City of Boulder Planning and Development Services
1730 Broadway, 3rd Floor
Boulder, CO 80306
Re: Board of Zoning Adjustment (“BOZA”) Variance Application
985 Gilbert Street, Boulder, CO 80302
To Whom It May Concern:
In connection with the BOZA Variance Application for 985 Gilbert Street, Boulder, Colorado
80302, please find enclosed the following:
1.BOZA Variance Application executed by the Applicant Lon McGowan with Exhibit A
(Legal Description);
2.Narrative Addendum regarding variance criteria;
3.Sign Posting Requirements, Applicant’s Acknowledgment Form executed by the
Applicant;
4.Applicant/Owners’ Written Consent executed by the Property Owners;
5.Boulder County Property Search Aerial Blended Map of 985 Gilbert Street;
6.Neighboring Property Owner’s Approval Letter executed by Harry Burnett III;
7.Neighboring Property Owner’s Approval Letter executed by Greg Bechtel;
8.Alternative Options Analysis Prepared by Architect;
9.Photographs of the Applicant’s Property from 5th Street and yard areas;
10.Site Plan; and
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 56 of 97
11. Improvement Location Certificate dated 2/9/2018.
Sincerely,
Tasha J. Power
TJP:jak
Enclosures
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 57 of 97
NARRATIVE ADDENDUM TO BOZA VARIANCE APPLICATION
985 GILBERT STREET, BOULDER, CO 80302
June 20, 2018
PROPOSAL: Lon and Lauren McGowan (“Applicants”), the owners of 985 Gilbert Street,
Boulder, CO 80302 (the “Property”) seek a variance to allow for the installation of an in-
ground pool and patio (the “Project”) in what is effectively the rear yard of the Property. The
Property is unusual in that it is a “through” lot that fronts to Gilbert Street and backs to 5th Street,
such that there are streets adjacent to both the front and rear yard areas. Because it backs to a
street, the City treats the rear yard adjacent to 5th Street as a front yard, which results in the
Property being deemed to have two front yards. Pursuant to Section 9-9-19, B.R.C. (1981), a
pool “may not be located in any front yard or side yard abutting a street.” In this instance, 5th
Street, which is adjacent to the back of the Property, functions more akin to an alleyway in that it
is narrow, without designated pedestrian paths, gutters, curbs, or painted centerline. The area
between the Property and 5th Street contains substantial landscape vegetation, such that the
Property is already screened from view along 5th Street. Also, 5th Street dead ends to the north of
the Property, and there is no access to the Property from 5th St. The only access to the Property is
from Gilbert Street. Applicants have attached photos of 5th Street adjacent to the Property to their
application for a visual reference.
Applicants accordingly request a variance to permit the installation of an in-ground pool in what
is effectively the rear yard of the Property adjacent to 5th Street, and in what would otherwise be
a code-compliant location but for the Property being deemed to contain two front yards given
that it is a “through” lot.
As set forth in greater detail below, the Applicants’ variance request meets the applicable criteria
for a variance as set forth in Section 9-2-3(h), B.R.C. (1981).
CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES
(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 (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3)
or (h)(4) of this section and the requirements of paragraph (h)(5) of this section.
(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
APPLICANT RESPONSE: The Property is unusual in that it is a
“through” lot that fronts to Gilbert Street and backs to 5th Street, such that
there are streets adjacent to both the front and rear yard areas. Because it
backs to a street, the City treats the rear yard adjacent to 5th Street as a
front yard, which results in the Property being deemed to have two front
yards. Pursuant to Section 9-9-19, B.R.C. (1981), a pool “may not be
located in any front yard or side yard abutting a street.” In this instance,
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 58 of 97
however, 5th Street functions more akin to an alleyway in that it is
narrow, without designated pedestrian paths, gutters, curbs, or painted
centerline. The area between the Property and 5th Street contains
substantial landscape vegetation, such that the Property is already
screened from view along 5th Street. Also, 5th Street dead ends to the
north of the Property, and there is no access to the Property from 5th St.
The only access to the Property is from Gilbert Street. Furthermore, the
side yards of the Property are not suitable for development of a pool.
They are steep and rocky, with large mature shade trees.
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
APPLICANT RESPONSE: N/A
(B) The unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the
neighborhood or zoning district in which the property is located; and
APPLICANT RESPONSE: It is the Applicant’s understanding, based on
conversations with the City staff and a visual survey of the surrounding area, that
“through” lots are uncommon in the City and the RE zone district in which the
Property is located.
(C) Because of such physical circumstances or conditions the property cannot
reasonably be developed in conformity with the provisions of this chapter;
and
APPLICANT RESPONSE: The Applicants cannot reasonably develop the
Property to include an in-ground pool due to the unique location of the Property
between two designated streets. To the extent the Property is thereby deemed to
have two front yards, the code would not permit the installation of a pool in the
area backing to 5th Street, which is effectively the rear yard of the Property. In
particular, section 9-9-19, B.R.C. (1981) prohibits the installation of a pool in the
front or side yard abutting a street. Furthermore, the side yards of the Property
are not suited for pool installation given the steep and rocky terrain, along with
large shade trees. The Applicants have submitted an alternative options analysis
prepared by their landscape architect with this application, which confirms that
the side yards are not suited to the installation of a pool.
(D) Any unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: The Applicants purchased the Property in or about
March 2018. The fact that the Property exists between two streets is unusual, and
was not a condition that the Applicants created.
(2) Energy Conservation: N/A – This criteria is not applicable to the current variance
request as the proposal does not involve a building addition.
(3) Solar Access: N/A – This criteria is not applicable to the current variance request as the
proposal is for an in-ground pool that does not involve building up off of the ground.
(4) Designated Historic Property: N/A – This criteria is not applicable to the current
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 59 of 97
variance request as the Property is not located within a designated historic district.
(5) Requirements for All Variance Approvals:
(A) Would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in
which the lot is located;
APPLICANT RESPONSE: The essential character of the neighborhood and
district where the Property is located would not be changed by the installation of
a pool in the yard area of the Property that backs to 5th St. The pool would be
used for normal residential uses. It would be located to the rear of the house in
what is for all practical purposes the rear yard of the Property. Also, the view of
the Property from 5th Street is completely screened by existing vegetation and
landscaping, which continues for a substantial stretch of 5th Street. Thus, the
pool would be shaded from view along 5th Street. Finally, 5th Street is more akin
to an alleyway in that it is a narrow path that dead ends north of the Property and
is not a busy thoroughfare.
(B) Would not substantially or permanently impair the reasonable use and
enjoyment or development of adjacent property;
APPLICANT RESPONSE: The adjacent neighbors to the north and south have
approved of this proposal. Letters of approval from the neighboring owners are
included with this application. The pool would be located in what is effectively
the back yard of the Property, and thus it would not affect the neighboring owners
as it would be a normal backyard use of the Property. Furthermore, the rear yard
of the Property adjacent to 5th Street is essentially completely screened from view
by existing landscaping and vegetation.
(C) Would be the minimum variance that would afford relief and would be the
least modification of the applicable provisions of this title; and
APPLICANT RESPONSE: The Applicants would like to have the pool for
recreational family use. Given the steep and rocky terrain of the side yards,
which would not allow for a pool, a variance to allow the pool in the “rear yard”
area that backs to 5th Street is the minimum variance that would afford relief in
this case.
(D) Would not conflict with the provisions of Section 9-9-17, "Solar Access,"
B.R.C. 1981.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: This criteria is inapplicable as the proposal is for an
in-ground pool that will not implicate solar access issues.
The Applicants do not hereby waive any rights, arguments or remedies that they may have.
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 60 of 97
6/20/2018 Property Search
http://maps.boco.solutions/propertysearch/1/1
Report an issue (mailto:dmcdermott@bouldercounty.org;bcholvin@bouldercounty.org;mmullane@bouldercounty.org?
subject=Reporting an issue -- Property Search)
Property Search
Return
+
−
0 100 200ft
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 61 of 97
Barry Burnett
973 Gilbert St.
Boulder, CO 80302
To whom this may concern,
We are writing this letter on behalf of the McGowan family at 985 Gilbert Street. We support
their plans for installing a pool in their backyard adjacent to 5th Street. We believe that their
variance should be approved.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
DocuSign Envelope ID: A9ABC867-EEC8-4E01-B090-347BE781986C
6/18/2018
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 62 of 97
Greg Bechtel
1005 Gilbert St.
Boulder, CO 80302
To whom this may concern,
We are writing this letter on behalf of the McGowan family at 985 Gilbert Street. We support
their plans for installing a pool in their backyard adjacent to 5th Street. We believe that their
variance should be approved.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
DocuSign Envelope ID: F213855C-E598-4C30-BBCA-4B62854ED4F6
6/20/2018
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 63 of 97
It is not feasible to install the pool within the side yards at 985 Gilbert due to the following
conditions:
1. Large maturing shade trees.
Each side yard contains multiple large maturing shade trees which would need to be
removed in order to make space for a pool. These trees provide valuable shade to the site,
and if removed would expose the site to unwanted heat and sun.
2. Steep slope condition.
Each side yard has an extremely steep change in grade that is retained with hundreds
of tons of very large landscape boulders. It is not feasible to build a pool within these steep
conditions without compromising the structural integrity of the side yards, which may lead to
an unstable slope condition.
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 64 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 65 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 66 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 67 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 68 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 69 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 70 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 71 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 72 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 73 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 74 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 75 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 76 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 77 of 97
July 5 2017 33611 Halyard Drive
Dana Point CA 92629
RE: Docket No. BOZ2018-18
As the owners of 1045 Gilbert Street we are concerned that the owner of 985 Gilbert Street would
consider building a swimming pool within 2 feet of the west property lone when the paved part of the
5th street roadway at this location is presently only a few feet from the asphalt pavement and there is
such a sharp drop off to the 985 Gilbert Street property from 5th Street..
We therefore recommend that the Board of Zoning reject this application to construct this swimming
pool.
Yours truly
George and Sherry Hartmann
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 78 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 79 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 80 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 81 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 82 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 83 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 84 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 85 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 86 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 87 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 88 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 89 of 97
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 90 of 97
9-7-13. - Mobile Home Park Form and Bulk Standards.
No person shall establish or maintain a mobile home park or mobile home on a lot within a mobile home
park except in accordance with the following standards:
(a) Mobile Home Park Form and Bulk Summary Table: Development within a mobile home park in the MH
zoning district shall comply with the standards shown in table 7-2 and illustrated in Figure 7-15 of this
section.
TABLE 7-2: MOBILE HOME PARK DESIGN STANDARDS (MH DISTRICT)
Size and Intensity
Minimum mobile home park size -
MH zone
RL-2, RM and RH zones
5 acres
10 acres
Maximum allowable density -
RL-2 zone
MH, RM and RH zones
6 units per acre
10 units per acre
Minimum site area reserved for recreational facilities 8 percent of mobile home
park
Lot Area and Open Space
Minimum lot area if subdivided 3,500 square feet
Minimum average lot area per mobile home 4,350 square feet
Minimum outdoor living and service area (with no dimension less than 15
feet) 300 square feet
Minimum usable open space per mobile home 600 square feet
Parking Requirements
Minimum number of off-street parking spaces per mobile home 1
Setbacks and Separation
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 91 of 97
Minimum front setback -
MH zone
RL-2, RM-1, RM-3, RH-1 and RH-4 zones
20 feet
Minimum front setback -
RM-2 and RH-5 zones 25 feet
Minimum side to side separation 15 feet
Minimum end to end separation 10 feet
Minimum distance from tongue to any adjacent sidewalk 2 feet
Minimum setback from a street (from edge of street pavement) 10 feet
Accessory Buildings (10-12, B.R.C.)
Maximum size of storage buildings 150 square feet
Minimum setback from adjacent mobile homes to all accessory buildings
and structures 10 feet
Minimum separation between mobile home and accessory building (on
the same lot) 6 feet
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 92 of 97
Figure 7-15: Mobile Home Park Setback Standards
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 93 of 97
Minimum setback to the boundary of the mobile home park depends on the zoning district. All other setback
requirements apply in all mobile home parks. The required setback from a street is measured from the edge
of street pavement. The required tongue setback is measured to the edge of the sidewalk.
(b) Area Requirements: In determining the required yard and space areas, the use of double-wide mobile
homes and accessory structures shall be considered. The minimum average lot area per mobile home
does not include additional area required by this chapter for access roads, off-street parking and
storage areas, service buildings, recreation areas and office and similar mobile home needs.
(c) Driveways: Paved driveways with a minimum width of ten feet shall be provided where necessary for
convenient access to each mobile home.
(d) Parking: Mobile homes in all zoning districts other than the MH district shall provide 1.5 off-street
parking spaces per mobile home. Off-street spaces shall be located on or within three hundred feet of
the mobile home space for which the parking is required.
(e) Setbacks From Boundary Lines: All mobile homes in RM-2 and RH-5 zoning districts shall be located
at least twenty five feet from the boundary lines of the mobile home park. All mobile homes located in
RL-2, RM-1, RM -3, MH, RH-1 and RH-4 zoning districts shall be located at least twenty feet from the
boundary of the mobile home park.
(f) Reduction of Setbacks From Boundary Lines: Mobile home setback distances along park boundary
lines adjacent to other lots may be reduced to ten feet as part of a site review or use review approval
if the mobile home park owner demonstrates that there is a need for such reductions and that no
detrimental effect will result to uses on adjoining properties or to residents of the mobile home park.
(g) Obstructions Prohibited: No mobile home or portion thereof shall overhang or obstruct any driveway,
access road or walkway.
(h) Screening: All mobile home parks adjacent to other residential uses, commercial uses or industrial
uses shall be provided with screening, such as opaque fencing or landscaping, along the property
boundary separating the mobile home park from such adjacent land uses.
Ordinance Nos. 7684 (2009); 7699 (2009)
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 94 of 97
CITY OF BOULDER
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
ACTION MINUTES
June 21, 2018, 5 p.m.
1777 Broadway, Council Chambers
Board Members Present: Michael Hirsch (Chair), Jill Lester, David Schafer,
Ellen McCready,
Board Members Absent: Jack Rudd
City Attorney Representing Board: Sandra Llanes
Staff Members Present: Robbie Wyler, Cindy Spence, Alysha Geiger
1. CALL TO ORDER:
M. Hirsch 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 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.
Staff Presentation:
R. Wyler presented the item to the board.
Board Questions:
R. Wyler answered questions from the board.
Applicant’s Presentation:
Jose Jimenez Palacios, the applicant, presented the item to the board.
Board Questions:
Jose Jimenez Palacios, the applicant, and Don Ash, a civil engineer with Scott, Cox &
Associates, answered questions from the board.
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 95 of 97
Public Hearing:
1) Sina Sinatob, a neighbor, spoke in support of the current location of the shed.
2) Elizabeth Hondorf spoke in support of the project.
3) Lynn Segal spoke in support of the project.
Board Discussion:
• D. Schafer stated there are many unusual circumstances and issues driving this case. He
said the transient issue could be defined as an unusual circumstance and a valid concern
meeting Criteria 1. It appears the applicant did due diligence in permitting the structure
and it was built in good faith. To take it down and move it would create hardship. In
fitting with Criteria 5, the structure does not alter the characteristics of the neighborhood
and there is no impairment to the neighbors. No solar codes have been affected. The
minimum variance is really the question. The other options are not ideal. He would be in
favor of the proposal.
• M. Hirsch said he does not see the hardship. The applicants have used the site well. The
site offers opportunity for building without going into the setback. He does not agree that
a transient issue constitutes a hardship. The shed could be relocated. It is not appropriate
for sheds to be located in a front yard and it would set precedent.
• E. McCready agreed with D. Schafer. The hardship is clear. The current location of the
shed is a safer spot because it would not be in the buffer zone and bulk of flood zones are
much more intense in the back of the property. While there is the potential to add on to
the front of the house as an alternative, the existing shed is a minimal and reasonable
request as described by the applicant.
• J. Lester mentioned that the studio on site in the back is a commercial use of a residential
property and access should not be provided off the back. If the shed were attached to the
home, it would be legal. She said the existing shed appears to be an honest mistake by the
applicant. She could agree with D. Schafer and E. McCready provided that any future
development of this site that the existing shed must be removed at that time.
• E. McCready added, regarding the precedent issue, that this case is unique due to the
details. This is a modest request. With this case, the members have the benefit of seeing
the results, impact on neighbors and it feels appropriate.
• M. Hirsch said that sheds are inappropriate in front yards. While there does not seem to
be any malice on the applicant’s part, there is no clear reason why the shed would be
needed and in its current location.
• D. Schafer reviewed the criteria with the members. The members agreed there are
unusual physical circumstances on this site. They agreed these circumstances affect many
propertied in the area. However this lot is very narrow and affects this lot in further
degree.
• J. Lester, after an explanation from the applicant’s civil engineer Don Ash, agreed that
there was a hardship on the applicants.
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 96 of 97
Motion:
On a motion by E. McCready, seconded by J. Lester, the Board of Zoning Adjustment
approved 3-1 (M. Hirsch opposed, J. Rudd absent) the application (Docket BOZ2017-21)
with the following conditions:
1) The subject shed shall be removed if there is any future development on the property.
2) That a 1-foot 8-inch maintenance easement onto 1655 9th Street be signed and recorded with
the Boulder County Clerk & Recorder Office within 90 days of today, June 21, 2018. Should
a maintenance easement – deemed acceptable by the City of Boulder Planning Department –
not be recorded within this time, approval of BOZ2017-00021 will be null & voided and the
application denied.
3. GENERAL DISCUSSION:
A. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by J. Lester, seconded by E. McCready, the Board of Zoning Adjustments
voted 3-0 (J. Rudd, D Schafer absent) to approve the May 10, 2018 minutes.
B. Matters from the Board
There were no matters from the board.
C. Matters from the City Attorney
There were no matters from the City Attorney.
D. Matters from Planning and Development Services
R. Wyler informed the board that staff would like to hold a BOZA Retreat on the day of
the regularly scheduled August 9, 2018 BOZA meeting or the September 13, 2018
meeting. He asked the members to confirm with him the best date.
4. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the board at this time, BY MOTION
REGULARLY ADOPTED, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 6:07 P.M
APPROVED BY
_________________________________
Board Chair
_________________________________
DATE
07.12.2018 BOZA Packet Page 97 of 97