Loading...
09.13.2018 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.: BOZ2018-20 Address: 788 Grant Place Applicant: Steve Gollob Setback Variance: As part of a proposal to remove a portion of an existing upper level roof and walls within the front (west) yard setback – to be replaced with a rooftop deck and railings constructed in the same location - as well as add a two-story addition onto a portion of the interior side (south) and rear (east) sides of the existing nonstandard house, the applicant is requesting a variance to the minimum front yard and combined side yard setback requirements of the RL-1 zoning district. Only the first story (lower level) of the rear addition will encroach into the required side yard setback with the second story (upper level) stepped back and to the north, meeting setback requirements. For the existing upper story modification and addition of a rooftop deck with railings, the resulting west yard setback will be approximately 18.5 feet where 25 feet is required and approximately 18.5 feet exits today. For the new rear addition, the resulting south yard setback will be approximately 7 feet where 13.8 feet is required and approximately 10.3 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 July 12, 2018 and August 9, 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, September 13, 2018 TIME: Meeting to begin at 5 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers, 1777 Broadway, 2nd Floor 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 1 of 31 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. 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 2 of 31 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 3 of 31 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 4 of 31 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 5 of 31 Page 1 Architecture Planning Interiors Environmental Design K y l e C a l l a h a n & A s s o c i a t e s , A r c h i t e c t u r e 2 9 7 5 V a l m o n t R o a d , S u i t e 1 0 0 B o u l d e r C o l o r a d o 8 0 3 0 1 3 0 3 . 5 4 5 . 2 0 0 7 A r c h i t e c t u r e K y l e C a l l a h a n A s s o c i a t e s &&&& August 06, 2018 Board of Zoning Adjustment (BOZA) Variance Application Setback variance – Interior lot line variance 788 Grant Place, Boulder Homeowner’s statement Thank you for considering our request for variance regarding our home in Boulder. We are hopeful that we will be able to at last make the changes we need that will allow our home to realize a level of functionality and quality that we have dreamt about since we purchased this formerly abused property with odd dimensions, poorly laid-out spaces and inefficient circulation patterns. Since childhood, I have appreciated everything that Boulder offers and stands-for. The work, savings, and logistics Pam and I faced to find our home required extraordinary alignment of many things and a little luck. This adds to our deep appreciation of our home and community. We do not take anything lightly when it comes to this long- awaited project and seek your help. We enjoy cooking and entertaining family and friends. However, with the poorly located small kitchen and odd relationship to adjacent space, there is no good internal circulation path making this core of our home crowded and hot for more than two or three people. 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 6 of 31 Page 2 A r c h i t e c t u r e K y l e C a l l a h a n A s s o c i a t e s & We want to create a more usable kitchen by relocating to another room where we need a small amount of expansion for this to work best. Our daily routine in the current bedroom and bathroom requires that we squeeze past one another to use the bathroom and wait to take turns due to the odd layout and space. My office is in the home and currently serves as both office and closet space. Pam’s “closet” space is in the hallway outside of the small “master” bathroom. We extensively use the deck space at the rear of the home. Sacrificing any of that space would not only have negative implications on our lifestyle and practical purposes, but would increase the visual bulk/mass. The limited square footage we are seeking to add in the rear/side is critical to the larger project’s key functional underpinnings and would be unnoticeable to passersby. The current home’s configuration presents many challenges on every level caused by the odd floorplan and poor use of space. The exterior also needs a new approach and updating to reflect the quality of what we seek to accomplish and contribute to the quality of our special neighborhood. Warmly, Steven Gollob and Pam Mares 788 Grant Place The history of the residence The home at 788 Grant Place was originally constructed at the turn of the last century – roughly 1930 – replacing a home that had been constructed in 1914. The small home was constructed of stone masonry exterior walls with a wood framed roof and exposed rafters. Initially, the northwest corner of the home was anchored with a covered porch and likely an open railing. The porch has since been enclosed with a low stone wall, concrete sills and windows. As originally constructed, the home contained approximately 1,500 SF of living space set atop a crawl space. A detached garage was constructed east of the home adjacent to the alley with similar design characteristics of stone, low pitched frame roof clad with shingles. 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 7 of 31 Page 3 A r c h i t e c t u r e K y l e C a l l a h a n A s s o c i a t e s & In the late 1980’s, a partial first floor and second story and loft addition was placed atop the existing home. The first floor addition extended the footprint of the home approximately 12’ to the east, and was raised above grade on pier foundations. The second story covered a fair bit of the original home and the first floor addition. A partial third story “loft” rises above a portion of the original structure. The exterior was finished of vertical tongue in groove wood and painted. In creating this addition, a significant amount of volume was added to the existing home, yet the interior spaces remained somewhat small and dysfunctional. For example, the kitchen, located 3 steps above the dining room, is centered in the house, forming a barrier between the interior living spaces, and further. The second floor addition included a master bedroom that is quite isolated, quite dark, and poorly proportioned, with inadequate bathroom and closet space. A second living room space is also located on the second floor, serving little purpose. The loft space – open to the second living room, is difficult to access and for the homeowner is not a practical use of space. Further, in creating this addition, structural loads were placed upon the existing structure that have caused it to begin to fail – as identified by the out-of-level floors and significant cracks developing in the exterior stonework. The current homeowners wish to correct these deficiencies and repair the structure to prevent additional structural deterioration. To do so, we have developed a plan to 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 8 of 31 Page 4 A r c h i t e c t u r e K y l e C a l l a h a n A s s o c i a t e s & create a small addition to the east of the existing residence that would contain the family and entertaining spaces of kitchen, dining, and great room. This proposed first floor addition will include structural elements integrated to alleviate the loads which seem to be causing the failure of the original masonry bearing walls. Atop this first floor addition, revised interior circulation and a small addition will mitigate the issue of lack of adequate space in the master bedroom and provide suitable closet and bathroom facilities. Finally, much of the loft space will be rebuilt as an open roof deck, thus reducing some of the visual mass of the building and providing private outdoor space with stunning flatirons views. The need for a variance The lot at 788 Grant Place is narrow, sloping down from Southwest towards the northeast. Owing to the corner location, the setbacks are substantial and limiting, and the footprint of the original 1930’s home is significantly out of compliance with current zoning regulations. The following is a table showing the required setbacks as defined by current RL1 zoning, and the existing setbacks of the current home onsite, followed by a graphic representation of them: Setbacks Required Existing West (front) 25’ 14.2’ North (side, corner) 12.5’ 1.2’ East (back) 25’ 64.8’ South (side, interior) 13.8’ * 10.3’ * Normally 5’, except for Boulder’s required combined 15’ side setback, and the existing 1.2’ north side setback One can see from the chart above that the home encroaches into all required setbacks except the rear setback towards the east. The graphic illustration below shows the existing first floor plan of the home outlined in red, the detached garage located towards the alley on the east side of the lot, with the gray shaded box defining the area of the site that can be developed by right given the existing building configuration and the required setbacks. 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 9 of 31 Page 5 A r c h i t e c t u r e K y l e C a l l a h a n A s s o c i a t e s & The homeowner’s needs for space In addition to the structural damage caused by the addition in 1988, several functional and size limitations have been identified in the design process which the resulting proposal intends to correct: 1. The home contains only three bedrooms – one on the main floor and two on the upper floor – where the homeowner requires four to meet their needs. 2. The enclosed front porch does not provide useful space and would be opened and restored to original by removal of the glass and stone infill, to once again become an open porch. 3. The kitchen, dining, and entertaining spaces are poorly sized and configured as well as partly located on different floor levels. 4. The existing loft space is only rarely used. 5. The master suite is too small for the owner’s needs, and closet space is severely limited. 6. The master bath is poorly sized and does not contain the owner’s preferred allocation of fixtures. 7. The opportunity to add a rooftop deck that can access the splendid foothills view is available, which would simultaneously reduce some of the building’s mass. 8. The image and proportions of the 1988 addition are not scaled well nor are they overly attractive. 9. Parking in the neighborhood is problematic with the soaring popularity of Chautauqua; the garage itself is too small for the owner’s vehicles, bikes and other stored items, and thus the parking issues in this neighborhood on occasion make it difficult for the homeowners to park near their home. The lot size for this property is 6,249 SF, which is somewhat smaller than normal for the RL1 zone district (7,000 SF minimum). The resulting development constraints due to lot size are 3,330 SF of floor area and 2,280 SF of coverage. The current home and accessory structure contain 2,987 SF of floor area and 1,874 SF of coverage. Further, removal of some existing floor area and coverage is possible by un-enclosing the front porch (137 SF) and removing a portion of the third floor loft space (90 SF). A combination of these strategies provide a suitable amount of space to accomplish the owner’s program within the RL1 zoning regulations constraints. 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 10 of 31 Page 6 A r c h i t e c t u r e K y l e C a l l a h a n A s s o c i a t e s & Scope of Work Our initial goals in this addition project were to keep within the development limits imposed by the setbacks. The space we were considering is shown in red on the plan below. However, all layouts that we tried to integrate were unsuccessful at meeting the owner’s requirements: 1. One of the overbearing issues with the existing floor plan arrangement is that one needs to walk through certain rooms to access the others – i.e. the need to walk through the kitchen to gain access to the dining room and the family room on the east side of the home. Extending the existing footprint further towards the east within the area defined by the setbacks managed to preserve this deficiency. 2. Creating an addition east of the home constrained by the setbacks and providing the appropriate floor area resulted in an extension of the footprint 11’ to the east. This extended addition resulted in loss of a significant portion of the owner’s existing deck, encroached upon the existing sunken garden and hot tub space, and contributed significantly more to the mass of the building. 3. One further important consideration is the structural damage occurring to the outside of the home (blue arrow above). We recognized early on that we are going to need to do a fair bit of foundation work in order to correct and mitigate the future occurrence of this damaged area. As such, it had been in our original intention to construct a portion of the new construction in this area, and thus use the new construction to reinforce the original structure and prevent additional foundation deformation. This damage is occurring on a portion of the building that is positioned within the 13.8’ setback (driven by 1.2’ setback on the north), and thus it would not be possible to use new 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 11 of 31 Page 7 A r c h i t e c t u r e K y l e C a l l a h a n A s s o c i a t e s & construction to bolster the existing in a by-right construction project without first receiving a variance to build within the setback. Moving on from the by-right project, we considered an addition that was justified closer to the existing home and positioned more towards the north and Cascade Ave. This addition would have extended through the regulatory 12.5’ north side property line adjacent to a street setback. Consultation with planning suggested that the 12.5’ setback was more relevant in terms of varying the requirements in that it is considered by all new construction and renovations on corner lots. However, perhaps it would be a useful consideration to encroach into the 13.8’ setback on the south side, which is not regular, but derived by considering the 15’ combined side yard setback. The resulting proposal is shown below: This proposal requires a variance for extending into the 13.8’ side yard setback that is derived from the requirement for a 15’ combined side yard setback. At its nearest position, the addition indicated above is positioned 7’ from the south side interior property line. Although 13.8’ is required due to the face of the north wall being only 1.2’ from the property line, were that not true, the regulatory setback distance would typically have been 5’ from this property line (green dashed line above), and thus this proposed addition is not conformance with code requirements due to the pre-existing north wall construction and the proximity to the north property line. It is also important to recognize that, although this is a two story home, the encroachment into the side yard setback will be confined to the first floor. The second floor would maintain the line of the existing second floor south wall, which 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 12 of 31 Page 8 A r c h i t e c t u r e K y l e C a l l a h a n A s s o c i a t e s & is roughly 15’-4” from the south property line at its nearest position, and thus in compliance with setback regulations. A substantial improvement of this proposed design over the by-right design is the less than 4’ extension into the existing back yard – thus reducing the amount of the owner’s deck that the addition will consume and reducing the proposed expansion into the back yard from 11’ to 4’, significantly reducing the mass of the proposed building. Proportionally, this addition works much better to manage the arrangement of the owner’s space plan and eliminates the interior circulation difficulties that were integral to the by right design. The placement of this addition is directly alongside the portion of the existing residence that is experiencing structural failure due to the improperly designed loading of the 1988 addition. With that in mind, we will be able to utilize the addition to stabilize the original home and extend remedial structural elements from the addition into the existing portion of the home to correct the structural deficiencies and gain control over the deterioration. An observation derived from reviewing the site and survey is the extraordinarily wide tree lawn that is situated north of this home. The distance from the home to the north property line may well be only 1.2’, but the distance from the home to the north sidewalk is 5.4’. Further, owing to the very wide tree lawn along the south side of Cascade, directly north of this home, the distance from the home to the curb on the south of cascade is 24’. We recognize that this is not relevant information for by-right development considerations, but in this variance process, we think that the requirement for wider side yard setbacks facing a street is in place to prevent massing buildings onto corners and may be valuable where the tree lawns are a more typical 5’ – 6’ dimension. The tree lawn north of this site is nearly 15’ wide from the sidewalk to curb. That is an unusual, unique aspect to this lot, and will preserve the openness of the corner very well. In a sense, the large dimension allows the 12.5’ side yard facing a street setback to be realized, even if not from the property line. Articulation of the variance We wish to be granted a variance from the combined side yard setback requirements of the BRC and be allowed to develop a single story addition that extends to approximately 7’-0” from an interior lot line, where 13.8’ is required due to combined side yard setback requirements. 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 13 of 31 Page 9 A r c h i t e c t u r e K y l e C a l l a h a n A s s o c i a t e s & Board of Zoning Adjustments Variance Criteria (1) Physical Conditions or Disability (A) (i) Unusual Physical Conditions There are several unusual physical circumstances associated with this lot: a. The lot is smaller than standard lots in the RL-1 zone district. Minimum size for lots in this zone district is 7,000 SF, whereas this lot is 6,249 SF. This is partly manifested in the more significant constraints imposed upon development on this lot by required building setbacks than may otherwise be experienced by standard sized lots. b. This lot is situated on a corner, which invokes the requirement for a 12.5’ side yard setback from a street. c. An existing home is present and being preserved in this project. The existing home, built well before zoning rules were in effect in Boulder, is positioned 1.2’ from the north side yard property line, creating a distinct difficulty with the addition on the south side of the home, by virtue of the combined side yard setback requiring 15’, and thus 13.8’ is required on the south side. A normal side yard setback requires combined 15’ combined side yard setbacks, but with a minimum of 5’ and not 13.8’ d. The north side of the home is positioned approximately 25’ from the flow line of the curb on Cascade, which creates an extensive tree lawn and eases the concern for building massing near the northwest corner. e. The existing building has received a pop-top in the late 1980’s which appears to be causing structural damage to the existing building through either excessive loads being placed on a foundation not designed as such, or also due to lot drainage issues resulting in differential settlement. The portion of the building that is deforming due to these circumstances is within the south side yard setback. An opportunity to stabilize the structure can be realized by erecting new construction alongside the existing failing construction. f. East of the existing residence is a fairly extensive existing low level deck and excavated lower courtyard containing a hot tub. (B) These conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood The conditions described above are perhaps not unique but are certainly unusual in the neighborhood and throughout the City as a whole in the RL-1 zone district. (C) Because of such circumstances the property cannot reasonably be developed Although it would be possible to develop the property, such development would require removal of existing improvements that would not be easily or efficiently replaced. Further, the opportunity to utilize the redevelopment to stabilize the 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 14 of 31 Page 10 A r c h i t e c t u r e K y l e C a l l a h a n A s s o c i a t e s & damaged portion of the building would not be possible as the damaged portion of the home is within roughly 4’ within the required side yard setback of 13.8’ (D) Any unnecessary hardship was not created by the applicant This hardship is due to circumstances outside of the control of the existing owner, that being the existing home being constructed within 1.2’ of the north property line. That portion of the building provides the only interior access to the basement storage area, and mechanical equipment and cannot be easily revised. Were that small addition not in place, the remainder of the home, exclusive of the covered front porch, would be situated at approximately 5.3’ from the north property line. The homeowner did not construct the original home as it was built circa 1930. Zoning regulations adopted since that time have brought about the non- conformity. (2) Energy Conservation (A) The variance will permit construction of an addition to a building constructed on or before January 1, 1983 N/A (B) Proposed addition is an integral part of the building N/A (C) The proposed addition will qualify as a “solar energy system” N/A (D) The cost to construct per regulations would be substantially greater than the cost of construction without this variance approval N/A (3) Solar Access (A) The volume of the part of the lot in which buildings may be built per code has been reduced substantially by the provisions of the BRC Section 9-9-17 N/A (B) The proposed building or object will not interfere with the basic solar access protection provided by BRC Section 9-9-17 The small proposed addition will be positioned to the east and south of the main mass of the home and will be significantly lower than the existing home. The lot is situated on a corner with the neighboring residence being nearly 100’ away to the north. There will be no encroachment of solar protections for existing homes by this small proposed addition. 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 15 of 31 Page 11 A r c h i t e c t u r e K y l e C a l l a h a n A s s o c i a t e s & (C) The volume of the proposed building outside of the setback will not exceed the volume that the building has been reduced as a result of provisions of BRC Section 9-9-17 N/A (4) Designated Historic Property The property could be reasonably developed in conformity with provisions of the BRC, but the building has been designated as an individual landmark or recognized as contributing to a designated historic district. Review of an alteration certificate pursuant to Chapter 9-11, “Historic Preservation” of the BRC, the approving authority has found that development in conforming locations on the lot would have an adverse impact upon the historic character of the individual landmark or the contributing building and the historic district (if a district is involved). N/A – the home apparently lacks any contributing aspects as determined by the most recent City of Boulder property landmark survey (5) Requirements for all variances (A) The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the lot is located The small proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district. With the change of siding and proportions – especially reducing the mass of the Southwest corner of the building by carving away some roof and installing instead a guardrail - it may actually become more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. (B) The variance would not substantially or permanently impair the reasonable use and enjoyment or development of the adjacent property The position for the proposed development occurs towards the east and south. Admittedly, it is moving the mass of the home slightly closer to the home on the south side, but only on the first floor – the second floor remains in the same plane as the existing second floor. This mass is set downhill from the residence located to the south by several feet in elevation, and further is already visually screened for the most part by a tall privacy fence. Additionally, extending towards the east, much of the neighboring residence is garage. This all being considered, there would be no obvious reason why a single story addition would impair the reasonable use and enjoyment of this southern residence. No other homes in the neighborhood would experience any effect from this proposed addition. Images of the aerial view of the site and of the space between this home and the neighboring home to the south follow: 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 16 of 31 Page 12 A r c h i t e c t u r e K y l e C a l l a h a n A s s o c i a t e s & (C) The variance would be the minimum variance that would afford relief and would be the least modification of the applicable provisions of this title This is the least variance that is acceptable to afford relief. It does provide for the improvements to the home that the owners feel necessary to alleviate current issues with the space. (D) The variance would not conflict with the provisions of Section 9-9-17 of the BRC - “Solar Access” There is no conflict with the solar access regulations in the BRC. 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 17 of 31 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 18 of 31 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 19 of 31 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 20 of 31 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 21 of 31 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 22 of 31 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 23 of 31 CITY OF BOULDER BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT ACTION MINUTES July 12, 2018, 5 p.m. 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers Board Members Present: Michael Hirsch (Chair), Jill Lester, David Schafer, Ellen McCready, Jack Rudd Board Members Absent: None City Attorney Representing Board: Erin Poe Staff Members Present: Brian Holmes, Robbie Wyler, Cindy Spence 1. CALL TO ORDER: M. Hirsch called the meeting to order at 5:07 p.m. 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. Staff Presentation: R. Wyler presented the item to the board. Board Questions: R. Wyler and B. Holmes answered questions from the board. Applicant’s Presentation: Harmon Zuckerman, with Frascona Joiner Goodman and Greenstein, PC, and Keeli Biediger, the applicant, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Harmon Zuckerman, representing the applicant, answered questions from the board. 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 24 of 31 Public Hearing: No one from the public addressed the board. Board Discussion: • J. Lester said, regarding the issue of minimum hardship, the applicant has created this hardship. The existing condition did not exist prior to 2013. • M. Hirsch stated that this is not an environmental issue, but more of a visual item. He added that the criteria is set and has been used for long time. He reminded the board that BOZA has set precedent on ADU requests in the neighborhood before specifically for parking in the front setback, some of which have been denied. Currently, nearly every house has doubled parking in that neighborhood which is not enforced neighborhood- wide. • J. Rudd agreed that a majority of the houses have two parking pads. Historically, the discussed area has been used for parking, therefore it seems to be an easy leap to place concrete there. However by introducing ADUs into this request, it makes it more complex. • J. Lester stated that she is opposed to the application as submitted. She would approve of a single 9’19” parking space and if City Council would approve of the ADU code double- wide driveways, but it is not for BOZA to do at this time. The City Council is responsible for this confusion in the law and this does not qualify as a hardship at this time. • M. Hirsch reminded the board, after a visit to the site and the neighborhood, that they can continue this item until City Council makes decision regarding ADUs and parking. • D. Schafer agreed that currently there are a lot of existing double car pads in the neighborhood. He suggested an approval as built but only grant a single car to park. • E. McCready advised that they may be setting precedent. In this neighborhood, the double parking pads are everywhere. • J. Lester said she would support waiting on City Council’s decision. There is the concern of permeability of the ground as it is paved over which is an environmental issue. Her second concern was landscape appeal and not wanting the neighborhood to look like a parking lot. She suggested a continuance of 90 days to let City Council discuss the issue with allowing a parking space for ADUs. • D. Schafer said that by not coming to decision and giving the applicant closure, we would be causing more hardship. He recommended a minimum variance which would be two feet of concrete but to not allow two cars to park there. That would be putting the applicant in the same position as the neighbors and give consistency. It would also put them on the same level of possible enforcement. But it would also give the applicant a foothold if City Council declares additional parking is necessary for ADUs. In addition, he stated that this proposal should be consistent with past decisions. • M. Hirsch agreed that the issues should not be convoluted based on what may or may not occur with City Council. • J. Rudd reminded the board that the applicant is not asking for an ADU, but a parking setback. • All board members were opposed to approving the application as submitted. They discussed possible conditions with an approval. 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 25 of 31 • D. Schafer said the item is compliant with Criteria 5 in that it does not alter the character of the neighborhood nor does it affect the enjoyment of the adjacent neighbors as they are in support. • E. McCready said it also meets Criteria 1 because the usual physical circumstance is the location of the house on the lot does not allow the creation of a parking space to the side or access to the side of the home. That circumstance was not created by the applicant. Motion: On a motion by E. McCready, seconded by D. Schafer, the Board of Zoning Adjustment approved 5-0 the application (Docket BOZ2018-15) with the condition of maintaining the exiting 18’4” wide parking area located entirely in the front yard setback but serving only one parking space meeting Criteria 1 and 5. The board discussed Item 2C next. 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. Staff Presentation: R. Wyler presented the item to the board. Board Questions: R. Wyler and B. Holmes answered questions from the board. Applicant’s Presentation: Sam Shrestha, the applicant, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Sam Shrestha, the applicant, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: No one from the public addressed the board. Board Discussion: • M. Hirsch said this new home would be in keeping with existing homes in the area. There has been an upgrading with modular homes and they are now larger. • J. Rudd as the older homes are replaced with these newer homes, they are usually wider. 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 26 of 31 Motion: On a motion by J. Lester, seconded by D. Schafer, the Board of Zoning Adjustment approved 5-0 the application (Docket BOZ2018-16) as submitted. 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. Staff Presentation: R. Wyler presented the item to the board. Board Questions: R. Wyler and B. Holmes answered questions from the board. Applicant’s Presentation: Tasha Power, with Berg Hill Greenleaf Ruscitti, LLP, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Tasha Power, representing the applicant, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: John Smart spoke in opposition to the project. He would like to have the existing foliage maintained, the existing one-lane road could potentially be dangerous, and suggested the proposed pool could be pushed closer to the home. Board Discussion: • M. Hirsch stated the vegetation appears to be in the Right of Way, therefore, it should stay in place. He said that area is steep and due to this typography, the proposed pool may be difficult to see from the road. • D. Schafer said there would not be much impact on 5th street. 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 27 of 31 Motion: On a motion by D. Schafer, seconded by J. Lester, the Board of Zoning Adjustment approved 5-0 the application (Docket BOZ2018-18) as submitted. 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. Staff Presentation: R. Wyler presented the item to the board. Board Questions: R. Wyler and B. Holmes answered questions from the board. Applicant’s Presentation: Sam Shrestha, the applicant, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Sam Shrestha, the applicant, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: No one from the public addressed the board. Board Discussion: • The board agreed that more of these applications may be coming to BOZA and these modular homes are excellent affordable housing alternatives. Motion: On a motion by J. Lester, seconded by J. Rudd, the Board of Zoning Adjustment approved 5-0 the application (Docket BOZ2018-19) as submitted. 3. GENERAL DISCUSSION: A. Approval of Minutes On a motion by D. Schafer, seconded by J. Rudd, the Board of Zoning Adjustments voted 5-0 to approve the June 21, 2018 minutes. 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 28 of 31 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 • B. Holmes informed the board that the Chief Building Official positon with the City of Boulder has been filled. • B. Holmes proposed possible retreat dates and informed the board staff would follow up with an email. The board discussed possible topics for the retreat. 4. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the board at this time, BY MOTION REGULARLY ADOPTED, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 7:53 P.M APPROVED BY _________________________________ Board Chair _________________________________ DATE 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 29 of 31 CITY OF BOULDER BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT ACTION MINUTES August 9, 2018, 5 p.m. 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers Board Members Present: Michael Hirsch (Chair), Jill Lester, David Schafer, Ellen McCready, Jack Rudd Board Members Absent: N/A City Attorney Representing Board: Erin Poe Staff Members Present: Brian Holmes, Cindy Spence 1. CALL TO ORDER: M. Hirsch called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m. 2. BOARD HEARINGS: A. Docket No.: BOZ2018-12 Address: 945 University Avenue Applicant: Buddy Kring Building Coverage and Floor Area 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 736 square feet of building coverage and 506 square feet of floor area, the applicants are requesting an OAU building coverage and floor area variance in the RMX-1 zoning district. The proposed building coverage variance would allow for the existing accessory structure of approximately 736 square foot of building coverage where 500 square feet would be the maximum allowed per the OAU size limitations. Similarly, the proposed floor area variance would allow the existing, approximately 549 square feet of floor area within the proposed unit, where 450 square feet would be the maximum allowed per the OAU size limitations. Section of the Land Use Code to be modified: Section 9-6-3, BRC 1981. Staff Presentation: B. Holmes presented the item to the board. • M. Hirsch disclosed that Kyle Callahan has been a commercial tenant of his, but that he can remain impartial. Board Questions: B. Holmes answered questions from the board. Applicant’s Presentation: Kyle Callahan, with Kyle Callahan & Associates Architecture, presented the item to the board. 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 30 of 31 Board Questions: Kyle Callahan, 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 item is a repurposing of use. The applicants’ needs have changed. He stated he would support this project. • J. Lester and D. Schafer agreed and would support. • J. Rudd agreed and stated that there are no obvious conflicts with the neighborhood and this appears to be more of an issue of changing the use. Motion: On a motion by D. Schafer, seconded by J. Lester, the Board of Zoning Adjustment approved 5-0 the application (Docket BOZ2018-12) as submitted. 3. GENERAL DISCUSSION: A. Approval of Minutes None to Approve. B. Matters from the Board • The board discussed a possible retreat date. They proposed October 11, 2018, for two hours following the scheduled meeting based on the number of items on the agenda. • M. Hirsch debriefed, with the board, his interpretations of their role of interpreting the code which was brought up at the July meeting. The board agreed they handled the item appropriately. 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 5:49 P.M APPROVED BY _________________________________ Board Chair _________________________________ DATE 09.13.2018 BOZA Packet Page 31 of 31