2018-20_788 Grant Pl_Disposition Packet
N O T I C E
FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE CITY OF BOULDER BOARD OF ZONING
ADJUSTMENT DISPOSITION OF ZONING CASE
DOCKET NUMBER 2018-20
CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE OF THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 9-
7-1, B.R.C. 1981 AT 788 GRANT PLACE OF STVE GOLLOB, WHOSE MAILING ADDRESS IS 788 GRANT
PLACE, BOULDER, COLORADO 80301.
On September 13, 2018, the City of Boulder Board of Zoning Adjustment, a quorum being present, held a
public hearing, after giving notice as required by law, on the application for the following variance:
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.
Based on our field investigation and the relevant testimony, exhibits, and other evidence introduced at the
hearing, and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981, we find by a
preponderance of the evidence that the criteria for granting a variance have been met, and grant the variance as
requested:
This variance is limited to the use and structure for which it was requested, including the location on the lot and
maximum height, as approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustment.
This variance was approved by the vote of 5-0.
EXECUTED this 13th day of September 2018, effective as of, September 13, 2018.
Michael Hirsch, Presiding Officer of the Board at the Meeting
By: ____________ ____________________________
Robbie Wyler, Secretary to the Board of Zoning Adjustment
This decision constitutes a final decision as of the date of the hearing at which it was reached. If a variance was
granted, the variance expires within 180 (one hundred eighty) days from the date on which it were granted unless a
building permit for such variance is applied for within such period.
CITY OF BOULDER
Planning and Development Services
1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, Colorado 80306-0791
phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-3241 • email plandevelop@bouldercolorado.gov
www.boulderplandevelop.net
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 1 of 22
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 2 of 22
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 3 of 22
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 4 of 22
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.
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 5 of 22
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.
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 6 of 22
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
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 7 of 22
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.
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 8 of 22
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.
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 9 of 22
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
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 10 of 22
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
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 11 of 22
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.
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 12 of 22
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
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 13 of 22
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.
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 14 of 22
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:
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 15 of 22
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.
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 16 of 22
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 17 of 22
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 18 of 22
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 19 of 22
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 20 of 22
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 21 of 22
BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 22 of 22