Loading...
10.11.2018 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.: BOZ2018-21 Address: 755 Lincoln Place Applicants: Tim & Mary Wolf Parking & Setback Variances: As part of a proposal to establish parking on the property as well as partially cover the parking with a carport, the applicants are requesting a variance to the minimum front (east) yard landscape setback requirements as well as the minimum combined side (north) yard setback requirements of the RL-1 zoning district for the recognition of one standard parking space and an attached carport on an existing single-car driveway. The 19-foot deep by 9-foot wide parking space will encroach approximately 6.8 feet into the required 25-foot landscape setback. Additionally, a carport structure is proposed over a portion of the subject parking space. The resulting north yard setback will be approximately 6.5 feet where 9.5 feet is required and 7.5 feet exists today. Sections of the Land Use Code to be modified: Sections 9-7-1 & 9-9-6, BRC 1981. B. Docket No.: BOZ2018-22 Address: 760 Flagstaff Road Applicant: David Lewis Setback Variance: As part of a proposal to convert an existing high-ceiling crawlspace under the home into a master suite and add cantilevered balconies to both this space and off another bedroom, the applicant is requesting a variance to the interior side (south & north) yard setback regulations of the RE zoning district. For the south balcony, the resulting south yard setback will be approximately 11 feet (at closest point) where 20.1 feet is required and 8.4 feet exists today. For the north balcony, the resulting north yard setback will be approximately 10 feet where 16.6 feet is required and 4.9 feet exists today. Section of the Land Use Code to be modified: Section 9-7-1, BRC 1981. ITEM 2B HAS BEEN POSTPONED C. Docket No.: BOZ2018-23 Address: 445 Dewey Avenue Applicants: Leslie & Dan Fineman Setback & Building Separation Variances: As part of a proposal to construct a new single-family house with detached garage on a substandard-sized lot, the applicants are requesting a variance to the minimum side adjacent to street (east) yard setback regulations of the RL-1 zoning district. The subject side yard is adjacent to 5th Street and requires a 25-foot setback because of the adjacency rule which requires a front yard setback when an adjacent property fronts the same street. The resulting side (east) yard setback will be approximately 16.3 feet (from a proposed porch) where 25 feet is required. Additionally, the applicants are requesting a variance to the building separation regulations. The building separation between the proposed house and detached garage will be approximately 3.3 feet where 6 feet is required. Section of the Land Use Code to be modified: Section 9-7-1, BRC 1981. 3. GENERAL DISCUSSION A. Approval of Minutes: The September 13, 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, October 11, 2018 TIME: Meeting to begin at 5 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers, 1777 Broadway, 2nd Floor 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. 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 2 of 75 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 3 of 75 X 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 4 of 75 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 5 of 75 755 Lincoln Place – BOZA Variance Request Statement Request for Variance for Parking Space in Front Yard Setback & Request for Variance for Sideyard Setback The homeowners of 755 Lincoln Place wishes to add a carport to the North side of their existing home. Two conditions have come light that would limit that ability. The location of an addition to the home limits the ability to provide a parking space outside of the required landscape setback for a parking space and the addition built/renovated in 1981 encroaches into the combine sideyard setback. The home owners’ are requesting that a variance be granted to allow one parking space to encroach into the setback required for a parking space as required by Section 9-9-6(D) of the B.R.C. 1981. They are also requesting that a variance be issued to reduce the combined sideyard setback from 15’ to 13’ as required by Section 9-7-1 of the B.R.C. 1981. The homeowner wishes to construct the carport to the existing home as a result of the variances. The variance requests will not affect the essential character of the neighborhood where it is located. It won’t impair the use or enjoyment of any adjacent property. This variance will be least impactful to the neighborhood based upon the planning requirements and will not conflict with the provisions of Section 9-9-17, “Solar Access”. BOZA Variance: Criteria for Variance this request has to meet (as required by (h)1 A through D & (h)5 A through D of the B.R.C. 1981 : Section H 1. Physical Conditions or Disability” a. There are: i. Unusual physical circumstances or conditions, including without limitations, irregularity, narrowness or shallowness of the lot or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the affected property: 1. Due to the size of the lot, the lot has physical circumstances that limit the ability of the homeowner to place the carport in other location. The lot’s width and location of a previous renovation prevents the building or placement of a carport on any other portion of the lot. b. The unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood or zoning district in which the property is located: 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 6 of 75 i. Other houses in the area all have garage’s that are compliant with the current zoning requirements. The size and existing conditions of this lot will not allow for compliance to the side yard requirements. c. Because of such physical circumstances or conditions the property cannot reasonably be developed in conformity with the provisions of this chapter: i. The garage that was converted into living space encroached into the setback when it was constructed by a previous owner. When that work was done, the combined setback of 15’ could not be met with the location of the existing garage. That encroachment was a result of the location of the original garage foundation. This variance is requesting that the existing location of the North wall of the converted living space be used to reestablish the location of the setback. This will allow for a parking space to be provided to meet the minimum 9’ width required by the zoning parking design standards. Any other reduction in width of the structure would render the carport unable to provide the minimum width. d. Any unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant. i. The previous renovation of the garage was done by a previous owner and was not the result of any work done by the current owners. The applicant did not cause the hardship that is a result of this request. 5. Requirements for all variance approvals: a. Would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the lot is located i. The carport is meant to reflect the style and detail that is part of this home’s location. The addition is meant to reflect the character that defines the property. Simple gabled roofs mimic the conditions of the existing home. A moderate sloped asphalt roof is based upon the pitches of the existing roof. Details will be added to the columns to make the carport fit the character of the existing home. b. Would not substantially or permanently impair the reasonable use and enjoyment or development of the adjacent property: i. The only property that is immediately adjacent to the location of the carport is located to the north. The proposed carport’s location will not impact the ability of that property owner to make any changes to their property. The height of the carport’s roof will be limited to be lower than that of the existing house and no portion of the carport will extend past that of the existing north wall. c. Would be the minimum variance that would afford relief and would be the least modification of the applicable provisions of this title: i. The current layout of the carport provides for enough coverage of the minimum 9’ width of a parking space as required by this code. Extending the carport into the required setback allows for the minimum modification or improvement that allows for the construction of the project. 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 7 of 75 d. Would not conflict with the provisions of Section 9-9-17, “Solar Access,” BRC 1981 i. The height of the carport will be lower than the eave of the existing roof. The relative height of the carport’s roof is less than the adjacent roof and will not impact the solar access requirement. The Property meets these requirements: - 1. The property is currently zoned RL-1. - 2. The original residence had a garage that was provided at the rear of the property. It was permitted on 02.09.1931 according to microfiche records provided by the Boulder Planning and Development Services. The application (Permit No.3301) shows the garage located 17 ½’ from the rear property line and 8’ from the Northern property line. - 3. The Garage was converted to living space in November of 1981 (Permit H7946). Construction was completed in April of 1982. - 4. Mary and Tim Wolf did not own the property at that time. The property was owned by a Maja Apelman. - 5. A 9’x19’ complying with Section 9-9-6 of the B.R.C. 1981 is represented on the Site Development Drawing. The location shown for the parking space and the Carport is the most reasonable location for the parking space to be provided. The driveway is existing and the remainder of the lot is covered by the residence which doesn’t allow for other areas to be considered for the required parking space. - 6. Restoring the garage to a parking space would be an economic hardship due to the reduction of the living area on the main level of the residence and the amount of money required to deconstruct the existing living space. It would reduce the current current floor area by +/- 420 SF at the first floor. - 7. The parking space that is being proposed will be 9’x16’ and will be paved. No portion of the parking space will encroach into the public right-of-way or onto the public sidewalk. Sideyard Setback Variance: Request for Variance for Sideyard Setback The homeowners of 755 Lincoln Place are requesting that a variance be granted to allow for the existing residence to reduce the combined sideyard requirement from 15’-0” to 13’-0” as required by Section 9-7-1 of the B.R.C. 1981. The homeowner wishes to add a carport to the existing home that will cover the parking space and in order to do so will need to encroach into the required 15’ setback. The existing structure and an addition were built within the setback prior to the current owner buying the property. The current location of the original home and the addition has a distance of 5’-8 3/8” on the South side and a distance of 7’-5 3/8” on the North side according to the Improvement Location Certificate. This combined distance is 13’2 ¼”. 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 8 of 75 The home owner is requesting that the north side of the existing structure be used in determining the non-confirming setback. A setback of 13’-0” will allow for the carport addition to be built while putting on record the required setback for the property. The existing north wall of the structure was part of a garage originally. It was renovated into living space in 1981 and the garage became part of the residence. The proposed variance will not affect or alter the various character of the neighborhood or impede the enjoyment or development of any adjacent property. Asking for this variance is the least impactful option for the home owners. 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 9 of 75 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 10 of 75 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 11 of 75 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 12 of 75 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 13 of 75 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 14 of 75 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 15 of 75    5(48,5(' ; 3$5.,1*63$&( /$1'6&$3(3$5.,1*6(7%$&.$65(4 '%<%5&$5($2)(1&52$&+0(17287/,1(2)(;,67,1*+286(3523(57</,1((;,67,1*'5,9(:$< 1(:&$5325772%(%8,/70$,1)/225  ( 522)(;,67,1*:$//2)$'',7,21 ( &21&67(36 ( 522)1(:&2/8016720$7&+ ( 6,=($1'75,01(:522)2)352326('&$53257DRAWN BYCHECKED BYVSUXFHVWVWHGORXLVYLOOHFRORUDGRRIZZZNJDUFKFRP©2018 KGA Studio Architects, PCThese plans are copyrighted and are subject to copyright protection as an architectural work, under Section 102 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C., as amended December 1, 2016, and known as Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990. The protection includes, but is not limited to, the overall form, as well as, the arrangement and composition of spaces and elementsof the design. Under such protection, unauthorized use of these plans, work or forms represented, can legally result in the cessation of such construction or building being seized and/or razed.8/22/2018 4:46:24 PMJOB NO. 189.185XGG\&RQVWUXFWLRQ,6.%/DQGVFDSH6HWEDFN$QDO\VLV/LQFROQ3ODFH%RXOGHU&2%2=$9DULDQFH:ROI5HVLGHQFH$GGLWLRQ  6LWH3ODQ6LWH3ODQ6LWH3ODQ6LWH3ODQ  )URQW(OHYDWLRQ)URQW(OHYDWLRQ)URQW(OHYDWLRQ)URQW(OHYDWLRQ([LVWLQJ&RQGLWLRQ3KRWRJUDSK([LVWLQJ&RQGLWLRQ3KRWRJUDSK10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 16 of 75  )5217<$5'6(7%$&.$65(4 '%<%5&7$%/(287/,1(2)(;,67,1*+286(3523(57</,1(2)    $5($2)(;,67,1*6(7%$&. 0,1,0805(48,5('',67$1&(720((7&20%,1('6,'(<$5'6(7%$&.2) $65(4 '%<%5&7$%/((;,67,1*$'',7,217+$7:$6%8,/7,1(1&52$&+(6,1725(48,5('6,'(<$5'6(7%$&.2876,'(('*(2)23(16758&785(%(/2:1(:522)2)&$53257522)29(5+$1*('*(2)6758&785(%(/2:6833257,1*522):,//%(,1/,1(:,7+(;,67,1*%8,/',1*:$//3/$1()5217325&+(1&52$&+0(17$//2:('3(5%5&0$;,080(1&52$&+0(17   (;,67,1*6(7%$&.',67$1&(  5(48,5(' ; 3$5.,1*63$&(0$,1)/225  ( 522)1(:522)1(:;:22'32673$,17720$7&+ ( 75,0 ( &21&67(36;75,0 3$,17720$7&+1(:522)$7(175<0$7&+)$6&,$+(,*+75(029( ( 522)$65(4 '1(:&2/8016720$7&+ ( 6,=($1'75,00$,1)/225 0$,1)/225 1(:522)1(:&2/8016$7&251(562) ( 325&+ ( &21&67(36$1'5$,/,1*1(:;:22'32671(:522)$/,*11(:522)72,17(56(&7 ( 522)$77+,632,1723(16758&785(72)5217$1'6,'(2)+286(DRAWN BYCHECKED BYVSUXFHVWVWHGORXLVYLOOHFRORUDGRRIZZZNJDUFKFRP©2018 KGA Studio Architects, PCThese plans are copyrighted and are subject to copyright protection as an architectural work, under Section 102 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C., as amended December 1, 2016, and known as Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990. The protection includes, but is not limited to, the overall form, as well as, the arrangement and composition of spaces and elementsof the design. Under such protection, unauthorized use of these plans, work or forms represented, can legally result in the cessation of such construction or building being seized and/or razed.8/22/2018 4:44:55 PM$$$$JOB NO. 189.185XGG\&RQVWUXFWLRQ,6.%6LWH'HYHORSPHQW3ODQ/LQFROQ3ODFH%RXOGHU&26LGH\DUG6HWEDFN9DULDQFH:ROI5HVLGHQFH$GGLWLRQ  6LWH3ODQ6LWH3ODQ6LWH3ODQ6LWH3ODQ  )URQW(OHYDWLRQ)URQW(OHYDWLRQ)URQW(OHYDWLRQ)URQW(OHYDWLRQ  5LJKW6LGH(OHYDWLRQ5LJKW6LGH(OHYDWLRQ5LJKW6LGH(OHYDWLRQ5LJKW6LGH(OHYDWLRQ10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 17 of 75 '11(::22'32673$,17720$7&+ ( 75,0$/,*1('*(: ( )1'19(5,)<:522),17(56(&7,21  ( :$// ( :$// ( &21&325&+ ( '5,9(:$<3523(57</,1(1HZ&DU3RUW" ( V758&785(/,1(2)1(:522)$%29(/,1(2) ( 522)$%29(DRAWN BYCHECKED BYVSUXFHVWVWHGORXLVYLOOHFRORUDGRRIZZZNJDUFKFRP©2018 KGA Studio Architects, PCThese plans are copyrighted and are subject to copyright protection as an architectural work, under Section 102 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C., as amended December 1, 2016, and known as Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990. The protection includes, but is not limited to, the overall form, as well as, the arrangement and composition of spaces and elementsof the design. Under such protection, unauthorized use of these plans, work or forms represented, can legally result in the cessation of such construction or building being seized and/or razed.8/22/2018 4:59:57 PM$$$$JOB NO. 189.185XGG\&RQVWUXFWLRQ,6.%)ORRU3ODQ/LQFROQ3ODFH%RXOGHU&26LGH\DUG6HWEDFN9DULDQFH:ROI5HVLGHQFH$GGLWLRQ  0DLQ/HYHO)ORRU3ODQ0DLQ/HYHO)ORRU3ODQ0DLQ/HYHO)ORRU3ODQ0DLQ/HYHO)ORRU3ODQ10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 18 of 75 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 19 of 75 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 20 of 75 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 21 of 75 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 22 of 75 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 23 of 75 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 24 of 75 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 25 of 75 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 26 of 75 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 27 of 75 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 28 of 75 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 29 of 75 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 30 of 75 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 31 of 75 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 32 of 75 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 33 of 75 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 34 of 75 Revised May 2017 400.pdf City of Boulder Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway, third floor • PO Box 791 • Boulder, CO 80306 Phone: 303-441-1880 • Fax: 303-441-3241 • Web: boulderplandevelop.net BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT (BOZA) VARIANCE APPLICATION APPL ICATION 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. i Name of Owner: •Address:Telephone: •City: State: Zip Code: Email: i Name of Contact (if other than owner): •Address:Telephone: •City: State: Zip Code: Email: 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 35 of 75 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 36 of 75 3 CITY OF BOULDER Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway, third floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, Colorado 80306 Phone: 303-441-1880 • Fax: 303-441-3241 E-mail: plandevelop@bouldercolorado.gov • Web: www.boulderplandevelop.net NOTICE TO APPLICANTS Dear Applicant, As you begin to prepare your “Variance Application,” the Board of Zoning Adjustment would like to offer you some information a nd suggestions that we hope you will find helpful. (These comments are directed primarily to those seeking setback adjustments. If you are requesting another type of variance from the board, please contact Planning and Development Services.) The Board of Zoning Adjustment is made up of five members who are appointed to five- year terms by the Boulder City Council. Our purpose is to grant or deny your application for a variance. Our rules and procedures require a positive vote of three members of the board in order for your application to be approved. If one member of the board is absent or removes himself or herself from the hearing, a vote of two in favor and two opposed has the same effect as denial. However, in this case, you are automatically entitled t o present the application again at the next scheduled meeting. Please also note that the board is not a policy-making board such as the City Council or Planning Board. The purpose of the Board of Zoning Adjustment is to implement policy. So, while we understand that there may be social/ economic/ political issues that you believe are relevant to your application, those issues are not part of the criteria by which your application will be judged. Remember that you are asking the board to change the “standard” code requirements for you because of your unique situation. It is important for you to realize that the “burden of proof” lies with you, and that only if you are successful in convincing us that you have met the criteria, will you receive the variance that you are requesting. Please be as complete as you can in furnishing us the necessary information to properly consider your application. Depending on the complexity or scale of the project, you might consider providing information in addition to that required by the “Application Requirements.” This additional information could include renderings (artistic-type drawings that are often in color), models, and written information as to the existing and proposed square footage of the structure. Lastly, the board tries to maintain a relaxed, somewhat informal atmosphere. However, we are a quasi-judicial board, and our decisions are for all intents and purposes final, and the only appeal of our decision is in District Court, provided that appeal is filed within 30 days from the date of our decision. Also, you should keep in mind that if your request is denied because you have, in our opinion, failed to meet one of more of our criteria, you may not resubmit the same request for a variance for one year, unless it c ontains “substantial” revisions. 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 37 of 75 4 While you can be assured that we will give you and any other parties a full hearing, we occasionally must end discussion either when the discussion is not providing any new information or when practical time constraints require us to move on. Planning and Development Services can provide you with additional information and input for the application. We suggest that you schedule a review of your application with the staff and allow yourself enough time to take their comments into account. The staff will let you know their recommendation to the board if you contact them 48 hours prior to the hearing time. Please do not contact board members prior to the meeting to discuss your case. We can only answer the most general procedural questions and are not permitted to discuss the specifics of you case. We hope these comments are helpful in the preparation of your application. Sincerely, Board of Zoning Adjustment Section 9-2-3 (d) B.R.C. (1981) (d) Board of Zoning Adjustment (BOZA): The BOZA may grant variances from the requirements of: (1) Setback and separation requirements listed in section 9 -7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981; (2) The building coverage requirements of chapter 9-10, "Nonconformance Standards," B.R.C. 1981; (3) The spacing requirements for mobile homes of section 9-7-10, "Mobile Home Park Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981; (4) The porch setback and size requirements of section 9 -7-4, "Setback Encroachments for Front Porches," B.R.C. 1981; (5) The size and parking setback requirements for accessory units of subsection 9-6- 3(a), B.R.C. 1981; (6) The total cumulative building coverage requirements for accessory buildings of section 9-7-8, "Accessory Buildings in Residential Zones," B.R.C. 1981; (7) The use of a mobile home for nonresidential purposes subject to the requirements of subsection 10-12-6(b), B.R.C. 1981; (8) The parking requirements of subsection 9-9-6(d), B.R.C. 1981, with regards to parking in landscaped front yard setbacks; (9) Sign code variances and appeals as permitted by subsection 9-9-21(s), B.R.C. 1981; and In granting any variance, the board may attach such reasonable conditions and safeguards as it deems necessary to implement the purposes of this title. 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 38 of 75 5 BOZA VARIANCE CRITERIA (h) CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES The BOZA may grant a variance only if it finds that the application satisfies all of the applicable requirements of paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of this Subsection and the requirements of paragraph (5) of this Subsection. (1) Physical Conditions or Disability (A) There are: (i) Unusual physical circumstances or conditions, including, without limitation, irregularity, narrowness or shallowness of the lot, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the affected property; or (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 (B) The unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood or zoning district in which the property is located; and (C) Because of such physical circumstances or conditions the property cannot reasonably be developed in conformity with the provisions of this chapter; and (D) Any unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant. (2) Energy Conservation (A) The variance will permit construction of an addition to a building that was constructed on or before January 1, 1983; (B) The proposed addition will be an integral part of the structure of the building; (C) The proposed addition will qualify as a "solar energy system" as defined in Section 9-16, "Definitions," B.R.C. 1981, or will enable the owner of the building to reduce the net use of energy for heating or cooling purposes by a minimum of 10% over the course of a year of average weather conditions for the entire building; and (D) The costs of constructing any comparable addition within existing setback lines so as to achieve comparable energy purposes would be substantially greater than the cost of constructing the addition which is proposed for the variance. 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 39 of 75 6 (3) Solar Access (A) The volume of that part of the lot in which buildings may be built consistent with this code has been reduced substantially as a result of the provisions of Section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981; (B) The proposed building or object would not interfere with the basic solar access protection provided in Section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981; and (C) The volume of the proposed building to be built outside of the building setback lines for the lot will not exceed the amount by which the buildable volume has been reduced as a result of the provisions of Section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981. (4) Designated Historic Property The property could be reasonably developed in conformity with the provisions of this chapter, but the building has been designated as an individual landmark or recognized as a contributing building to a designated historic district. As part of the review of an alteration certif icate pursuant to Chapter 9-11, "Historic Preservation," B.R.C. 1981, the approving authority has found that development in conforming locations on the lot or parcel would have an adverse impact upon the historic character of the individual landmark or the contributing building and the historic district, if a historic district is involved. (5) Requirements for All Variance Approvals (A) Would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the lot is located; (B) Would not substantially or permanently impair the reasonable use and enjoyment or development of adjacent property; (C) Would be the minimum variance that would afford relief and would be the least modification of the applicable provisions of this title; and (D) Would not conflict with the provisions of Section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C.1981. (i) FLOOR AREA VARIANCES FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS The BOZA may grant a variance to the maximum floor area allowed for an accessory dwelling unit under Subsection 9-6-3(a) "Accessory Units," B.R.C. 1981, only if it finds that the application satisfies all of the following applicable requirements: (1) That the interior configuration of the house is arranged in such a manner that the space to be used as the accessory dwelling unit cannot feasibly be divided in conformance with the size requirements; (2) That the variance, if granted, meets the essential intent of this title, and would be the minimum variance that would afford relief; and 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 40 of 75 7 (3) That the strict application of the provisions at issue would impose an undue and unnecessary hardship on the individual and that such hardship has not been created by the applicant. (j) VARIANCES FOR PARKING SPACES IN FRONT YARD SETBACKS The BOZA may grant a variance to the requirements of Section 9-9-6, “Parking Standards,” to allow a required parking space to be located within the front yard setback if it finds that the application satisfies all of the following requirements: (1) The dwelling unit was built in a RR-1, RR-2, RE, or RL-1 zoning district. (2) The dwelling unit originally had an attached carport or garage that met the off- street parking requirements at the time of initial development or, at the time of initial construction, an off -street parking space was not required and has not been provided; (3) The garage or carport was converted to living space prior to January 1, 2005; (4) The current property owner was not responsible for the conversion of the parking space to living area and can provide evidence as such; (5) A parking space in compliance with the parking regulations of Section 9-9-6 cannot reasonably be provided anywhere on the site due to the location of existing buildings, lack of alley access, or other unusual physical conditions; (6) Restoring the original garage or carport to a parking space would result in a significant economic hardship when comparing the cost of restoration to the cost of any other proposed improvements on the site; and (7) The proposed parking space to be located within the front yard setback space shall be paved, shall comply with Section 9-9-5, “Site Access Control,” shall not be less than 9 feet in width or more than 16 feet in width, and shall not be less than 19 feet in length. No parking space shall encroach into a public right of way or obstruct a public sidewalk. SIGN CODE VARIANCE CRITERIA (Excerpt from Section 9-9-21(s), B.R.C. 1981) (s) APPEALS AND VARIANCES (1) Any aggrieved person who contests an interpretation of this chapter which causes denial of a permit, or who believes a violation alleged in a notice of violation issued pursuant to paragraph 9-9-21(t)(2) or (3), B.R.C. 1981, to be factually or legally incorrect, may appeal the denial or notice of violation to the BOZA or Board of Building Appeals in a manner provided by either such board under the procedures prescribed by Chapter 1-3, “Quasi-Judicial Hearings,” B.R.C. 1981, or may, in the case of a denial, request that a variance be granted. An appeal from a denial and a request for a variance may be filed in the alternative. 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 41 of 75 8 (A) An appeal from an interpretation which causes denial of a permit or from a notice alleging a violation of Subsections 9-9-21(l), “Structural Design Requirements,” 9-9-21(m), “Construction Standards,” 9-9- 21(n), “Electric Signs,” and 9-9-21(o), "Sign Maintenance,” B.R.C. 1981, shall be filed with the BOZA. (B) An appeal from any other interpretation alleging any other violation of this chapter shall be filed with the BOZA. (C) An appellant shall file the appeal, request for variance, or both in the alternative with the BOZA within fifteen days from the date of notice of the denial or the date of service of the notice of violation. The appellant may request more time to file. If the appellant makes such request before the end of the time period and shows good cause therefore, the City Manager may extend for a reasonable period the time to file with either board. (2) No person may appeal to or request a variance from the BOZA if the person has displayed, constructed, erected, altered, or relocated a sign without a sign permit required by paragraph 9-9-21(b)(2), B.R.C. 1981. The boards have no jurisdiction to hear an appeal nor authority to grant any variance from the permit requirements of this chapter. But the BOZA has jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a notice of violation alleging violation of the permit requirements if the appeal is from the manager’s interpretation that a permit is required, and the appellant’s position is that the device is not a sign or that it is exempt from the permit requirements under Subsection 9-9-21(c), “Signs Exempt from Permits,” B.R.C. 1981. (3) An applicant for an appeal or a variance under this Section shall pay the fee prescribed by Subsection 4-20-47(b), B.R.C. 1981. (4) Setbacks, spacing of freestanding and projecting signs, and sign noise limitations are the only requirements which the BOZA may vary. If an applicant requests that the BOZA grant such a variance, the board shall not grant a variance unless it finds that each of the following conditions exists: (A) There are special physical circumstances or physical conditions, including, without limitation, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures, or other physical features on adjacent properties or within the adjacent public right of way that would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question, and such special circumstances or conditions are peculiar to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises in the area; or (B) For variances from the noise limitations of subparagraph 9-9- 21(b)(3)(L), “Sound,” B.R.C. 1981, the proposed variance is temporary in duration (not to exceed 30 days) and consists of a temporary exhibition of auditory art; and (C) The variance would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter and would not adversely affect the neighborhood in which the business or enterprise or exhibition to which the applicant desires to draw attention is located; and 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 42 of 75 9 (D) The variance is the minimum one necessary to permit the applicant reasonably to draw attention to its business, enterprise, or e xhibition. (5) If an applicant requests that the Board of Building Appeals approve alternate materials or methods of construction or modifications from the requirements of Subsections 9-9-21(l), “Structural Design Requirements,” 9-9-21(m), “Construction Standards,” 9-9-21(n), “Electric Signs,” and 9-9-21(o), “Sign Maintenance,” B.R.C. 1981, the board may approve the same under the standards and procedures provided in the city building code, Chapter 10-5, “Building Code,” B.R.C. 1981. (6) Except as provided in Subsection (8) of this Section, the BOZA has no jurisdiction to hear a request for nor authority to grant a variance that would increase the maximum permitted sign area on a single property or building, or from the prohibitions of paragraph 9-9-21(b)(3), “Specific Signs Prohibited,” B.R.C. 1981. But the BOZA has jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a permit denial or of a notice of violation alleging that a sign would exceed the maximum permitted sign area or is prohibited if the appellant’s position is that the sign does not exceed such area or is not prohibited by such Subsection. (7) The BOZA or Board of Building Appeals may make any variance or alternate material or method approval or modification it grants subject to any reasonable conditions that it deems necessary or desirable to make the device that is permitted by the variance compatible with the purposes of this chapter. (8) The City Manager’s denial or notice of violation becomes a final order of the BOZA or Board of Building Appeals if: (A) The applicant fails to appeal the manager’s denial or order to the board within the prescribed time limit; (B) The applicant fails to appeal the order of the board to a court of competent jurisdiction within the prescribed time limit; or (C) A court of competent jurisdiction enters a final order and judgment upon an appeal filed from a decision of the board under this chapter. Ordinance No. 5377 (1991). 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 43 of 75 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 tKe property 3R,17 3RO3(R7< ADDR(66 OR /O&A7,O1 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 3R,17 1A0( O) O:1(R 6 ,) O7+(R 7+A1 A33/,&A17&O17A&7  , Kave read tKe city s sign posting reTuirements aEove and acNnowledge Cherie Goff Leslie and Dan Fineman 445 Dewey Cherie Goff 9.19.2018 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 44 of 75 445 Dewey Variance Application HMH Architecture + Interiors 1 September 18, 2018 City of Boulder Planning and Development Services Center 1739 Broadway, third floor Boulder, CO 80306 Re: Side Yard Setback and Reduction in Building Separation Variance Request Application for 445 Dewey Ave, Boulder, Colorado New Build of Leslie and Dan Fineman To: Board of Zoning Adjustment, Zoning Administrator - Brian Holmes and Assistant Zoning Administrator - Robbie Wyler Thank you for your consideration of this application. We are requesting two variances so that we may design a more functional and healthy home at 445 Dewey Ave, with appropriate scale, mass and setbacks related to the surrounding neighborhood context. Our variance requests include: 1) A variance under Section 9-7-3, B.R.C. Set Back Encroachments – constructing a covered side porch measuring 201.5 square feet, within the 25’ setback on the east side of the house and 2) A variance under Section 9-7-1, B.R.C. Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards – decreasing the width of the building separation from 6’-0” to 3’-4”. Under Section 9-2-3(d), B.R.C., the Board of Zoning Adjustment (“BOZA”) may grant us our following variance requests if our application satisfies all of the applicable requirements of Paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(5) of this same section, B.R.C. We believe our application will meet all the necessary criteria for BOZA to approve our requested variances. The information that follows, with attached documentation and diagrams, illustrate the existing condition of the Fineman’s lot and the variance requests in the context of our build by design proposal. Being allowed to build the proposed design rather than by right will provide relief for the Fineman family’s health needs, protect an adjacent neighbors’ property rights and conform to the neighborhood character. I. BACKGROUND AND INTENT The Finemans have the desire to relocate to Boulder to support a healthy lifestyle with the intent to age in their new residence. They purchased the property on 445 Dewey Ave with the intent of constructing a new home. Due to Leslie’s severe health issues including toxic mold poisoning, the Finemans need to scrape the existing house and build new construction that is tailored to her health needs. When the Finemans originally went into contract on 445 Dewey, the recorded size of the lot was 6324 square feet. A subsequent survey decreased the actual size to 5904 square feet. As the 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 45 of 75 445 Dewey Variance Application HMH Architecture + Interiors 2 Finemans began to design their new home, they learned about the various zoning requirements that constrain the placement, footprint and height of the home – including a front yard setback on two sides, solar shadow requirements, and bulk plane restrictions. The resulting building envelope is smaller than they had originally expected and desired. The Fineman’s primary requirement is to construct a healthy home that is resistant to mold growth and uses minimal toxic materials. Leslie suffers from a genetic condition that makes it difficult for her body to process and eliminate biotoxins. She has been diagnosed with toxic mold poisoning as well as Lyme disease and other co-infections of Lyme (Babesia, Bartonella and Ehrlichia); Sick Building Syndrome; MCS (Multiple Chemical Sensitivities); and Hashimoto’s disease, an autoimmune condition. She has been under medical treatment for these conditions for the past six years. The Fineman’s environmental health consultant has made several design recommendations which improve the mold resistance of the house, but also significantly reduce the amount of interior living space. When combined with building envelope constraints, the resulting design is significantly smaller than they originally hoped to build, with interior living space of approx. 2140 square feet. This is building close to the maximum extent of the building envelope and does not allow a covered side porch without further reducing the interior square footage of the home or encroaching on the side yard setback. The Finemans love the Newlands neighborhood and the house design that HMH has created for them, and they have decided to move ahead with construction of the house despite these limitations. However, because of Leslie’s health conditions – which require avoidance of most buildings and major dietary restrictions – they are limited to cooking and eating most meals at home. Additionally, Leslie’s doctor has advised that she should get as much fresh air as possible to minimize indoor air pollution. The requested side yard setback variance would allow for a side porch with a moderate amount of covered outdoor eating space to meet the needs of eating outside at their home as often as possible. Additionally, due to the limited building envelope, there is not enough space for an attached garage on the property. To conform to zoning requirements, a minimal 19’-8” wide detached two-car garage, placed on the northern border of the property, would require a 3’ maintenance easement from the neighboring property at 2675 5th St. This easement would create a hardship for the neighboring property owners. The requested Building Separation variance would allow the Finemans to maintain the utility of a two-car garage while eliminating the need for the maintenance easement and related impacts to the neighboring property. In summary, the Finemans are requesting two variances in order to provide relief to these constraints, so they may have sufficient living space and utility in their new home and support Leslie’s health, while minimizing impact on the adjacent property. 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 46 of 75 445 Dewey Variance Application HMH Architecture + Interiors 3 II. PROPERTY INFORMATION Zoning: RL-1 Legal Description: The Easterly 70 feet of lots 2,3 and 4 except the northerly 27.75 feet of lot 2, block 3, mountain heights, located in the northeast quater of section 25, township 1 north, range 71 west of the 6th P.M., city of Boulder, count of Boulder, State of Colorado Lot Area: 5,904 s.f. Total Floor Area: 2,816 s.f. Allowed by Right: 3,280 s.f. 2nd Floor 1,047 s.f. 1st Floor 1,277 s.f. Garage 492 Building Coverage: 2,058 s.f. (with proposed porch) Allowed by Right: 2,230 s.f. III. DESCRIPTION OF SETBACK VARIANCE REQUESTS A. Side Yard Setback Request This variance request pertains to Section 9-7-3, B.R.C. Set Back Encroachments: “No structure or building shall be constructed or maintained in the required setback except for… (d) A maximum of thirty inches of roof overhang We are proposing to construct a covered side porch measuring 201.5 square feet (8’-8” x 23’-3”) within the 25’ setback on the side yard to the east of the house. This would then leave a 16’-4” setback. This is more then the setback provided by the property directly to the north, which has a setback of 15’-8” at 2675 5th street. B. Reduction in Building Separation requirements This variance request pertains to Section 9-7-1 Schedule of Form and Bulk. The table shows a 6’-0” required separation between accessory structures and any other buildings. We are proposing a 3’-4” separation between the garage and any other building. 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 47 of 75 445 Dewey Variance Application HMH Architecture + Interiors 4 In order to meet this 6’-0” separation requirement, the garage is only 19’-8” wide, a narrower than average two car garage, and would need to use the 0’ rear setback line. This requires a 3’-0” maintenance easement on the neighboring property, 2675 5th St. We are proposing to reduce the separation between the house and garage from the required 6’-0” to 3’-4”. By narrowing this distance, we can move the garage to the 3’-0” setback line, eliminating the need for a 3’-0” maintenance on the neighbors property to the north. Lastly, all other improvements described in our proposed new build design will conform to all other setback, height, solar shadow, building coverage, parking and other City of Boulder requirements. We respectively request approval of the following set back variances so that Finemans may build our proposed design. 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 48 of 75 445 Dewey Variance Application HMH Architecture + Interiors 5 IV. CRITERIA FOR SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES AND BUILIDNG SEPARATION REQUIRNMENTS A. Side Yard Setback Variance We think BOZA shall be able to grant this variance request because our application satisfies all of the applicable requirements of Section 9-2-3, B.R.C., Paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(5) as follows: (h)(1) “Physical Conditions . . . (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;” There are several conditions that place constraints on what the Finemans are able to build, where they are able to locate their home and what we are able to design. The whole of these constraints creates a hardship to the Finemans if required to build by right. The following describes the peculiarities related to the Fineman’s affected property and their enjoyment of it: 1. 445 Dewey Ave’s lot is: a) Smaller than previously recorded by the City of Boulder at the time of purchase – recent survey measures the lot at 5904 square feet instead of the recorded 6324 square feet b) Being a corner lot the property has greater setbacks requirements then interior lots. A front setback of 23’-3” (with setback reduction applied), 25’ side street setback, a 5’ side yard setback, and a 25’ back yard setback. These combine to create a building footprint area of approximately 39’-10” x 37’-1 1/2”, which is 1484 s.f., a smaller then typical building footprint in the area. c) Given the small building footprint of the site solar shadow restriction creates a further hardship. These create height restriction that prevent usable rooms along the west side of the house on the second floor. 2. Due to Leslie’s health issues, they have consulted with an environmental health expert to design a mold-resistant home. The resulting design further reduces the amount of interior living space: a) No basement: basements are more susceptible to dampness and mold growth. Additionally, given the history of floods in the Newlands neighborhood, a basement would be more susceptible to future flooding. This reduces the potential interior living space by approx. 1175 square feet. b) Nexcem framing: Nexcem is an ICF (insulated concrete form) wall system that improves vapor permeability and reduces the risk of mold growth. This will create an exterior wall assembly that is 17”, compared to a typical wood framed house that would be around 8”, which further reduces interior living space compared to standard wood framing by approx. 200 s.f. 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 49 of 75 445 Dewey Variance Application HMH Architecture + Interiors 6 3. Further, Leslie’s health issues limit her ability to visit other homes and restaurants, and require that she get as much fresh air as possible: a) Leslie’s treatment protocol requires that she avoid buildings that may have mold growth or toxic materials. This generally means that she can’t visit homes or commercial buildings that are more than 5 years old, or have sustained water damage – as many of the buildings in Boulder did in the 2013 flood. b) As a result, the Finemans eat most of their meals at home and when they socialize, it is safer to entertain guests at their home rather than to visit other homes. c) Leslie’s doctor has advised that she get as much fresh air as possible to minimize the risk of indoor air contamination. In sum, these restrictions increase the amount of time that the Finemans spend at home and they would like to eat outside as much as possible. This increases their need for a functional outdoor eating area that is reasonably protected from sun and rain exposure. “(B) The unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood or zoning district in which the property is located;” Being a corner lot the property has greater setbacks requirements then interior lots. A front setback of 23’-3” (with setback reduction applied), 25’ side street setback, 5’ side yard setback, and a 25’ back yard setback. These combine to create a building footprint area of approximately 39’-10” x 37’-1 1/2”, which is 1484 s.f., a smaller then typical building footprint in the area. While we were permitted to use setback averaging in the front yard, that is not permitted in the side yard, resulting in a larger setback than other properties on 5th St., including the existing house at 445 Dewey St. which is 20.8’ from the property line. Leslie’s health condition imposes additional constraints on the Fineman’s house that do not exist for other neighboring properties and their residents. “(C) Because of such physical circumstances or conditions the property cannot reasonably be developed in conformity with the provisions of this chapter;” In order to conform with Section 9-7-3, B.R.C. Set Back Encroachments, the maximum amount of covered space in the side yard would be limited to approx. 70 square feet. This could be achieved with a roof overhang encroaching 30” into the side yard with a length of 28 feet along the exterior wall. 30” of covered space is insufficient to place a covered outdoor table and chairs, with adequate protection from sun and rain. This would prevent using the covered area as an outdoor dining space. “(D) Any unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant.” Based on careful consideration, we believe no hardship would be created by the proposed variance. 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 50 of 75 445 Dewey Variance Application HMH Architecture + Interiors 7 (h)(5) Requirements for All Variance Approvals: “(A) Would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the lot is located;” Our proposed design will meet this requirement because a number of the houses in the neighborhood have porches visible from the street, and our proposed side yard porch would provide a welcoming area for socializing with guests and neighbors. Additionally, other houses on 5th St. have reduced front yard setbacks, including the existing house structure at 445 Dewey St. Therefore we believe the proposed variance would be consistent with the essential character of the neighborhood. “(B) Would not substantially or permanently impair the reasonable use and enjoyment or development of adjacent property;” We believe there would be no substantial or permanent impairment of the reasonable use and enjoyment or development of the adjacent properties. “(C) “Would be the minimum variance that would afford relief and would be the least modification of the applicable provisions of this title;” The proposed variance would add 8’-8” of depth to a covered side yard porch, beyond the conforming 30” feet permitted by Section 9-7-3, B.R.C. This creates a depth of 9’-6” to the edge of the columns, which we feel is the minimal depth for an 8-seat table and chairs to allow for outdoor eating. This would provide the Finemans with adequate relief for Leslie’s health conditions by enabling them to eat outside as often as possible. Note that the proposed front yard porch on the south side of the house conforms to all zoning requirements. We use setback averaging to create new south setback of 22’-3”. The front porch is in the setback and meets front porch exception. It should be noted that while the front porch provides some covered exterior space, it is not large enough for outdoor dining. “(D) Would not conflict with the provisions of Section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981.” Our proposal will not conflict with the provisions of Section 9-9-17, Solar Access, B.R.C. (See attached solar access diagram.) 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 51 of 75 445 Dewey Variance Application HMH Architecture + Interiors 8 B. Building Separation Variance We think BOZA shall be able to grant this variance request because our application satisfies all of the applicable requirements of Section 9-2-3, B.R.C., Paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(5) as follows: (h)(1) “Physical Conditions . . . (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;” There are several conditions that place constraints on what the Finemans are able to build, where they are able to locate their home and what we are able to design. The whole of these constraints creates a hardship to the Finemans and their neighbor to the north, if required to build by right. The following describes the peculiarities related to Fineman’s affected property: 1. 445 Dewey Ave’s lot is: a) Smaller than previously recorded by the City of Boulder at the time of purchase – recent survey measures the lot at 5904 square feet instead of the recorded 6324 square feet b) Being a corner lot the property has greater setbacks requirements then interior lots. A front setback of 23’-3” (with setback reduction applied), 25’ side street setback, a 5’ side yard setback, and a 25’ back yard setback. These combine to create a building footprint area of approximately 39’-10” x 37’-1 1/2”, which is 1484 s.f., a smaller than typical building footprint in the area. c) Permitted to place a detached garage up to 500 square feet in the adjacency setback on the northern side of the property, subject to a 3’ maintenance easement on the neighboring property 2. To conform with Section 9-7-1 Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards, the placement of the garage on the edge of the northern property line would create a hardship for the neighboring property, 2675 5th St. a) Conforming placement would require a 3’ maintenance easement from the neighboring property at 2675 5th St. b) Based on feedback from the property owners, this would present a hardship for them, as it would be a liability when they eventually sell the property c) Additionally, construction of the garage on the property line would likely destroy two existing trees located on the property of 2675 5th St. 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 52 of 75 445 Dewey Variance Application HMH Architecture + Interiors 9 “(B)The unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood or zoning district in which the property is located;” We have a relatively small at only 5904 s.f.. In addition, being a corner lot imposes unique restrictions, with larger setbacks that limit the size and placement of the garage. Additionally, the placement of two trees adjacent to the northern property line on the neighboring lot presents a unique challenge and hardship for the neighboring property owners if the garage was to be located on the property line. “(C) Because of such physical circumstances or conditions the property cannot reasonably be developed in conformity with the provisions of this chapter;” The property’s physical circumstances and its code restrictions make it difficult for us to design a home in conformity with the applicable provisions, while maintaining the utility and property value of a two-car garage, and avoiding hardship for the neighboring property. If required to build by right, the viable options available to the Finemans would create further hardships: 1. Reduce the width of the garage by 36”. This solution would limit the utility of the garage to only fitting one car. The exterior width of the proposed garage is only 19’-8” (with an interior width of 19’-0). This would present a significant constraint on livability during inclement weather, requiring a second car to be parked in the driveway or on the street. This would also expose the second car to more extreme weather including sun, snow and hail, which would accelerate depreciation of the car’s value. Finally, a one-car garage would significantly reduce property value, given that buyers in this price range typically expect to have a two-car garage. 2. Move the northern wall of the house 36” to the south, and also move the garage 36” to the south. This solution would reduce the living space of the house, which is already constrained by lot size and zoning requirements. This would further impact livability of the house for the Finemans, to the point that it would no longer be a viable home for them. 3. Move both the house and garage 36” to the south towards Dewey St.. This would require a variance to the front yard setback requirements in Section 9-7-2, B.R.C. While this is the simplest and most appealing solution for the Finemans, they recognize that it is unlikely that BOZA would approve this variance as it would not conform with front yard setback rules. “(D) Any unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant.” Based on careful consideration, we believe no hardship would be created by the proposed variance. 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 53 of 75 445 Dewey Variance Application HMH Architecture + Interiors 10 (h)(5) Requirements for All Variance Approvals: “(A) Would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the lot is located;” Our design by build proposal will meet this requirement because: 1. The only visible impact of the variance would be a slightly narrower separation between the house and garage. This is not in violation of the IRC. This could impact the fire resistant construction required per the IRC, Fire-Resistant Construction, R3012.1, however does not per the table and exceptions below, as the walls are located on the same lot line, and projections and openings meet minimum fire separation distance. R302.1 Exterior Walls Construction, projections, openings and penetrations of exterior walls of dwellings and accessory buildings shall comply with Table R302.1(1); or dwellings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section P2904 shall comply with Table R302.1(2). Exceptions: (2) Walls of dwellings and accessory structures located on the same lot. 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 54 of 75 445 Dewey Variance Application HMH Architecture + Interiors 11 2. A two-car garage will enhance the property value of 445 Dewey, which will have a positive impact on property values for the immediate neighborhood. “(B) Would not substantially or permanently impair the reasonable use and enjoyment or development of adjacent property;” We believe there would be no substantial or permanent impairment of the reasonable use and enjoyment or development of the adjacent property. The requested variance would protect the property rights and landscaping of the neighboring lot at 2675 5th St., by avoiding the need for a maintenance easement and avoiding damage to the existing trees on their property. “(C) “Would be the minimum variance that would afford relief and would be the least modification of the applicable provisions of this title;” The proposed variance would narrow the breezeway by 2’-8”. This is the minimum amount required to create a 3’ maintenance corridor on the Fineman’s property. This solution would provide relief to the Finemans by maintaining the utility and value of a two-car garage, while protecting the neighboring lot’s property rights and landscaping improvements. “(D) Would not conflict with the provisions of Section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981.” Our design by build proposal will not conflict with the provisions of Section 9-9-17, Solar Access, B.R.C. (See attached solar access diagram.) 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 55 of 75 445 Dewey Variance Application HMH Architecture + Interiors 12 V. IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT The enclosed improvement survey plat for 445 Dewey Ave, dated March 20, 2018, shows the existing house and legal property boundaries. VI. NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT The Fineman’s adjacent, affected property owners and surrounding neighbors have voiced their enthusiasm and support for our build by design proposal. Additionally they have reviewed drawings of our proposed lot improvements by design in comparison to a build by right, as well as additional neighborhood and design by build details attached with this application. Enclosed please find signed letters and related drawings endorsing their support of our build by design proposal and our requested variances. Adjacent, affected property owners endorsing their support: 503 Dewey Ave – Alan Lewis and Meredith Branscombe Lewis Note: the owners of 2675 5th St. were unavailable at time of submission. The Finemans have received initial feedback from them regarding placement of the garage and the hardships of a maintenance easement, and plan to meet with them again prior to the next BOZA meeting to review the requested variances. Surrounding neighbors endorsing their support: 513 Dewey Ave – Michael and Jessica McCrea In summary, we appreciate your time in reviewing our variance requests. We believe our BOZA application satisfies all the requirements of Paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(5) of Section 9-2-3, B.R.C., and that our build by design is in the Fineman’s, their adjacent property owners’ and neighborhood’s and the City of Boulder’s best interests compared to what we could design by right. We sincerely hope you agree and approve our aforementioned variance requests. Thank you for your consideration. Cherie Goff, Architect HMH ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS 1701 15th Street, Suite B Boulder, CO 80302 Phone: 303.444.8488 Email: cherie@hmhai.com 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 56 of 75 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 57 of 75 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 58 of 75 1131 Paradise Ln. Ashland OR 97520 ● paula@econest.com ● 541.488.9508 September 18, 2018 Paula Baker Laporte 1131 Paradise Ln Ashland OR, 97520 To: City of Boulder Planning and Development Services Center 1739 Broadway, third floor Boulder, CO 80306 Board of Zoning Adjustment, Zoning Administrator - Brian Holmes and Assistant Zoning Administrator - Robbie Wyler Re: Side Yard Setback and Breezeway Connection Variance Request Application for 445 Dewey Ave, Boulder, Colorado New Build of Leslie and Dan Fineman BOZA Members, This letter is to confirm my recommendations to the Finemans for the construction of a healthy home designed to accommodate Leslie Fineman’s medical conditions which include severe mold sensitivity and Multiple Chemical Sensitivities. I have been consulting with the Finemans, their architect and contractor since March and my recommendations have included:  Elimination of a basement.  Use of an insulated masonry block wall system because of its mold resistance and non toxicity.  Separation of Garage and House to avoid car fumes within the house which can be devastating to a person with Leslie’s sensitivies  Outdoor areas that facilitate spending time in fresh air.  The use of non-toxic building materials. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you require clarification on any of these recommendations. Regards, Paula Baker-Laporte FAIA 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 59 of 75 Merredith Branscombe Lewis and Alan Lewis 503 Dewey Avenue Boulder, Colorado 80304 September 18, 2018 Brian Holmes, Board of Zoning Adjustment, Zoning Administrator Robbie Wyler, Assistant Zoning Administrator City of Boulder Planning and Development Services Center 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor Boulder, CO 80306 Re: Letter in support of Variance Request Application for 445 Dewey Ave, Boulder, Colorado/New Build of Leslie and Dan Fineman Dear Mr. Holmes and Mr. Wyler, We are writing to let you know we support the Variance request by Leslie and Dan Fineman for 445 Dewey Avenue, directly across 5th Avenue from our own home. We first met Leslie and Dan last year when they were looking for homes in the neighborhood, and were delighted to discover that they were able to purchase the lot directly across the street from us; to be frank, we were a little worried that it would be developed by a builder who might tear down the amazing cottonwood tree on the land, or erect a mini-mansion that would change the character of the neighborhood -- which is a pretty lovely mix of mostly smaller homes. We are aware of Leslie’s health condition and completely understand why they wanted to build a home that is safe from any of the toxicity issues left over from the 2013 flood. They have shown us their plans, and we were pleased to see that they and their architect had designed a smaller home with a peaked roof (and they’d leave the tree!). We understand that they are requesting a variance in accordance with all the setbacks entailed in a corner lot. We are actually quite thrilled about the prospect of a home with a porch: porches help promote community and neighborliness. We think the design is great, given all the constraints they are working with; and insofar as you take into consideration neighbors’ opinions, we wanted to let you know that we have no problems with their variance and even support it. We are hoping to welcome Leslie and Dan to the neighborhood, and get to know them as they live in a home that helps keep them healthy and productive for years to come. Please feel free to contact either Alan (alewis3001@gmail.com) or me (Merrbrans@gmail.com) if you have any further questions. Many thanks, Merredith Branscombe Lewis 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 60 of 75 Michael McCrea 513 Dewey Ave. Boulder CO 80304 michaelmccrea@gmail.com 720.470.3585 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to you in support of Dan and Leslie Fineman in regard to their effort to seek variances as they build their house at 445 Dewey. I have looked at the plans that include a side porch on the East side of the structure and a narrowing of the breezeway to accommodate moving the garage off of the zero lot line. As their neighbor, these variances seem to me to be very reasonable requests. The side porch would give them functional exterior place that is in alignment with the existing homes on 5th going North. I think those homes already have variances for reduced yards or are grandfathered in. Also given the smallish scale of their new build, the exterior living space created by the porch makes the structure more open and social to the neighborhood. It looks like it makes sense from a design perspective too. We don’t want a “box only” design in our eclectic neighborhood. The reduced breeze way is certainly a reasonable way to get the garage off the zero lot line and make it possible to still build a small home with the basic functionality one would expect from a new build effort. It also reduces the chance of friction with the new build process and adjacent neighbors. As a resident of 16 years, just two houses away, I am thrilled to have Dan and Leslie as a new neighbors. Their new house will be a thoughtful and appropriately scaled structure to our neighborhood. Please give them the variances requested so they can create a modestly sized beautiful home with the basic functionality that us folks on Dewey already enjoy. Thank you for your consideration. Michael McCrea 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 61 of 75                10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 62 of 75 B EXISTING HOUSE TO BE REMOVEDAC                           17 0 1 15TH STREET, STE. BARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS1701 15TH STREET, SUITE BBOULDER, CO 80302303.444.8488445 Dewey Avenue[ site plan ]FRONT PORCH APPEARS TO BE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK26455TH ST. D E 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 63 of 75 [ elevations ]A4465 5TH ST. FRONT PORCH APPEARS TO BE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK B445 DEWEY AVE. EXISTING HOUSE TO BE REMOVEDC2675 FIFTH STREETD2687 FIFTH STREETE2695 FIFTH STREETELEVATION ALONG 5TH STREET10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 64 of 75 G1.1PROJECT #CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:DATE:SITE PLAN#INITIALSCOPYRIGHT 2016,HMH ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORSHARVEY M. HINE, ARCHITECTTHE DRAWINGS CREATED BY THIS OFFICE ARECOPYRIGHTED UNDER THE ARCHITECTURALWORKS COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1991ANY USE OF THESE DRAWINGS, INCLUDINGCOPYING OR MODIFYING THE ORIGINAL DESIGNFOR CONSTRUCTION IS PROHIBITED WITHOUTTHE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THISOFFICE9/18/18445 DEWEYBOULDER, COLORADODEWEYHMH ARCHITECTURE +INTERIORS1701 15TH STREETBOULDER CO 80302303.444.8488303.413.0305HMHAI.COMINITIALS201.5 sq ft132.5 sq ftN69'-10"7'-8"2'-4"23'-3"2'-8"8'-8"2'-6"8'-8" 2'-6"2'-4"9'-0"16'-4"3'-4"3'-1"3'-2 1/4"22'-3"37'-1 1/2"25'-0"5'-0"39'-9 7/8"25'-0"5438LOWEST POINT WITHIN 25'ELEVATION: 5437.2'22'-3" FONT SETBACK W/SETBACK AVERAGING25'-0" SETBACK5'-0" SETBACK25'-0" SETBACKGARAGE SLABAT DOOR5438.5'FIRST FLOOR5439'54385437DEWEY AVENUEFIFTH STREETSANITARY MANHOLESN89.45'38"E 69.83' (C) 70' (TC)S00 00'01" E 84.46' (C)S89.50'11"W 69.83' (C) 70' TCN00.00'00"E 84.37' (C)STSTORM MANHOLEWVWVWVWVWATER METERWMOVERHEAD UTILITY LINESANITARY SEWER LINEWATER LINELOWEST POINT WITHIN 25'ELEVATION: 5437COVEREDBREEZEWAYPROPOSED VARIANCE:3'-4" BUILDING SEPARATION BETWEENGARAGE AND HOUSENEIGHBORSGARAGEFRONT PORCHSETBACKENCROACHEMENT PER 9-7-3435 DEWAY 18.3'SETBACK, AND 431DEWEAY HAS 26.2,THESE AVERAGE 22'-3"O.H.PROPOSEDPORCHOVERHANGPORCHPORCHBUILDINGSEPARATIONPROPOSED VARIANCE:8'-8" X 21'-6" SIDESETBACKENCROACHMENT12O.H.OVERHANGFRONT PORCHPORCHSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1SITE PLAN10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 65 of 75 G1.2PROJECT #CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:DATE:FAR, BuildingCoverage, Bulkplane#INITIALSCOPYRIGHT 2016,HMH ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORSHARVEY M. HINE, ARCHITECTTHE DRAWINGS CREATED BY THIS OFFICE ARECOPYRIGHTED UNDER THE ARCHITECTURALWORKS COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1991ANY USE OF THESE DRAWINGS, INCLUDINGCOPYING OR MODIFYING THE ORIGINAL DESIGNFOR CONSTRUCTION IS PROHIBITED WITHOUTTHE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THISOFFICE9/19/18445 DEWEYBOULDER, COLORADODEWEYHMH ARCHITECTURE +INTERIORS1701 15TH STREETBOULDER CO 80302303.444.8488303.413.0305HMHAI.COMINITIALS1,331 sq ft492 sq ft133 sq ft205 sq ft30 sq ft(5,904 X .2) + 1,050 = 2,229MAX BUILDING COVERAGE = 2,230BUILDING FOOTPRINT = 1,331ACCESSORY FOOTPRINT = 492FRONT PORTCH 133 (NOT INCLUDEDCOVERED BREEZEWAY = 30SIDE PORCH = 205PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE = 2,058BREEZEWAYPROPOSEPORCHFRONTPORCH1,277 sq ft492 sq ft58 sq ftLOT AREA = 5,904 S.F.FLOOR AREA RATIO = .122MAX FLOOR AREA (RL-1) = 3,280(5,904 X 0.2 + 2,100 = 3,280 S.F.)FIRST FLOOR AREA = 1,277BASEMENT =0SECOND FLOOR = 1,047DETACHED GARAGE = 492TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA = 2,816MECHANICALROOM NOTINCLUDED1,047 sq ft105 sq ft59 sq ftATTIC SPACEUNDER 6'-0" HIGHNOT INCLUDEDUPPER PORTIONOF STAIR NOTINCLUDED10:00 AM 2:00 PM 10:00 AM 2:00 PM 10:00 AM 2:00 PMA5,553.9'5,538.0'5,538.0'15.9'15.9'10.3'10.3'B5,553.9'5,538.0'5,538.0'15.9'15.9'10.4'10.4'C5,561.1'5,538.0'5,538.0'23.1'23.1'29.5'29.5'D5,559.2'5,538.0'5,538.0'21.2'21.2'24.4'24.4'E5,561.1'5,538.0'5,538.0'23.1'23.1'29.5'29.5'F5,559.2'5,538.0'5,538.0'21.2'21.2'24.4'24.4'G5,558.8'5,538.0'5,538.0'20.8'20.8'23.2'23.2'H5,559.2'5,538.0'5,538.0'21.2'21.2'24.4'24.4'I5,548.5'5,538.0'5,538.0'10.5'10.5'-4.0'-4.0'J5,548.5'5,538.0'5,538.0'10.5'10.5'-4.0'-4.0'K5,550.2'5,538.0'5,538.0'12.2'12.2'0.5'0.5'L5,550.2'5,538.0'5,538.0'12.2'12.2'0.4'0.4'ELEVATION OF GRADE AT PROPERTY LINERELATIVE HEIGHT OFROOF ELEMENTLENGTH OF SHADOWELEVATION OF ROOF ELEMENTROOF ELEMENT2'-2"5'-0"39'-10"25'-0"14'-9 3/4"14'-9 1/2"20'-1 1/4"10'-1/4"20'-1 1/4"21'-6 3/4"22'-1/4"19'-7 3/4"20'-1 1/4"10'-1/4"13'-10"13'-10"5,538'10'-2 1/2"10'-2 1/2"10'-2 1/2"FIRSTFLOOR5539A =5,553.896C=5,561.125D =5,559.21E =5,561.125F =5,559.21'G =5,558.75H =5,559.21'5438B =5,553.917I =5548.5J =5,548.5K =5,550.16 L =5,550.16GARAGESLAB5538.55438AA5438 GRADE ELEV.12'-0"5'-11"12'-0"SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1BUILDING COVERAGESCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3FAR FIRST FLOORSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2FAR SECOND FLOORSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"4SOLAR SHADOWSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"ABULK PLAN SECTION10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 66 of 75 A2.0PROJECT #CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:DATE:First Floor Plan#INITIALSCOPYRIGHT 2016,HMH ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORSHARVEY M. HINE, ARCHITECTTHE DRAWINGS CREATED BY THIS OFFICE ARECOPYRIGHTED UNDER THE ARCHITECTURALWORKS COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1991ANY USE OF THESE DRAWINGS, INCLUDINGCOPYING OR MODIFYING THE ORIGINAL DESIGNFOR CONSTRUCTION IS PROHIBITED WITHOUTTHE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THISOFFICE9/18/18445 DEWEYBOULDER, COLORADODEWEYHMH ARCHITECTURE +INTERIORS1701 15TH STREETBOULDER CO 80302303.444.8488303.413.0305HMHAI.COMINITIALS1,173 sq ft497 sq ft1,186 sq ft123456789101112 13 14 15 16DOWNUP3-0x8-030905-0 x 8-02-8x8-02-0x8-02-0x8-03-10x9-02-8x8-015-6x9-030463-0x8-02-8 x 9-02-8x8-082208-0x6-103076307630903-0x8-102-8x8-02-8x8-0DWFHWDW19'-7 1/4"25'-0"25'-2 1/2"19'-8 1/4"37'-4"22'-3"1 3/4" 2'-2 3/4"29'-1 1/2"3'-1/2" 5 1/2" 6'-10 1/2"3'-3"21'-6 1/4"3'-6"9'-1 3/4"5 1/2"8'-3"6'-7 1/4"5'-2 1/2"4'-8 1/4"3'-1/2"9'-1"5 1/2"15'-8"8'-10 3/4"8'-8 1/4"5 1/2"37'-4"9 1/2"7'-10 1/2"3'-5"3'-0"6'-7"3'-1/2" 2'-3 1/4"6'-9"3'-1/2" 6 1/2"9'-6 1/4"2'-6"27'-0"10'-4"24'-3 3/4"27'-0"10'-4" 9'-6 1/4"3'-6"3'-1"3'-2 1/4"2'-4 3/4"22'-3"37'-1 1/2"25'-0"1A4.01A4.01A4.12A4.13A4.12A4.02A4.04A4.14A4.11A3.03A3.02A3.14A3.02A3.0GARAGECONCRETEPANTRYENTRYWOODBATHTILEMUDTILEKITCHENTILEDININGWOODLIVINGWOODOFFICEWOODLAUNDRYTILEfireplaceFRONTPORCHCONCRETE5439MECH. /STORAGETILE5439RIDGEC0ATBREEZEWAYCONCRETERECESSEDHOOD951 sq ftDOWNUP2-8x8-02-8x8-0710663-0x8-02-8x8-0304871054 305430465114697210304630393046874856462-6x7-0 30203036 2834 50345036 30362-8x8-02-8x6-5 3/41A4.01A4.12A4.13A4.12A4.02A4.01A3.01A3.13A3.02A3.010'-7"26'-9"34'-2"5 1/2" 3'-1/2"10'-3"3'-1/2" 6"8'-3 1/2"5" 3'-2 1/4" 4'-5 3/4" 6"37'-4"MSTRBEDROOMWOODTV AREAWOODBEDROOMWOODCLOSETWOODMASTERBATHTILEDECKCOMPOSITEDECKINGATTICACCESSWITHPULLDOWNLADDERBATHTILECLOSETWOOD311188318 321862212-8x8-0 2-8x8-0304886295736210362-8x8-0SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1FIRST FLOORSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2SECOND FLOOR10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 67 of 75 A2.1PROJECT #CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:DATE:Roof Plan#INITIALSCOPYRIGHT 2016,HMH ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORSHARVEY M. HINE, ARCHITECTTHE DRAWINGS CREATED BY THIS OFFICE ARECOPYRIGHTED UNDER THE ARCHITECTURALWORKS COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1991ANY USE OF THESE DRAWINGS, INCLUDINGCOPYING OR MODIFYING THE ORIGINAL DESIGNFOR CONSTRUCTION IS PROHIBITED WITHOUTTHE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THISOFFICE9/18/18445 DEWEYBOULDER, COLORADODEWEYHMH ARCHITECTURE +INTERIORS1701 15TH STREETBOULDER CO 80302303.444.8488303.413.0305HMHAI.COMINITIALS1A4.01A4.01A4.11A4.12A4.12A4.13A4.13A4.12A4.02A4.04A4.14A4.11A3.01A3.13A3.02A3.14A3.02A3.02'-3 1/2"2 5/8"1'-4 1/2"RIDGESLOPE 6" PER FOOTSLOPE 3.125" +/- PER FOOTRE: BUIDIING SECTIONSRIDGEDECK BELOWCOMPOSITE WOODDECKING W/SLOPEDUNDERDECKINGTHROUGH WALLSCUPPER WITHOVERFLOWSLOPE 1/4" PERFOOTSLOPE 1/4" PERFOOTTPO ROOFCLASS "A" MIN.BREEZEWAY ROOFTPO ROOFCLASS "A" MIN.PORCH ROOFTPO ROOFCLASS "A" MIN.ROOF OVERHANGTPO ROOFCLASS "A" MIN.STANDING SEAMMETAL ROOFCLASS "A" MIN.STANDING SEAMMETAL ROOFCLASS "A" MIN.STANDING SEAMMETAL ROOFCLASS "A" MIN.STANDING SEAMMETAL ROOFCLASS "A" MIN.SLOPE 6" PER FOOTSLOPE 2" PER FOOTPREFINISHED METALFASCIA STYLE GUTTER W/GUTTER GAURD OR OTHERAPPROVED METHOD TOPREVENT ACCUMULATIONOF LEAVES PER 2012 IWUIC506.4 TYPICALPREFINISHED METALFASCIA STYLE GUTTER W/GUTTER GAURD OR OTHERAPPROVED METHOD TOPREVENT ACCUMULATIONOF LEAVES PER 2012 IWUIC506.4 TYPICALRIDGESLOPE 1" +/- PER FOOTRE: BUILDING SECTIONSSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1ROOF PLAN10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 68 of 75 A3.0PROJECT #CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:DATE:South & EastElevation#INITIALSCOPYRIGHT 2016,HMH ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORSHARVEY M. HINE, ARCHITECTTHE DRAWINGS CREATED BY THIS OFFICE ARECOPYRIGHTED UNDER THE ARCHITECTURALWORKS COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1991ANY USE OF THESE DRAWINGS, INCLUDINGCOPYING OR MODIFYING THE ORIGINAL DESIGNFOR CONSTRUCTION IS PROHIBITED WITHOUTTHE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THISOFFICE9/18/18445 DEWEYBOULDER, COLORADODEWEYHMH ARCHITECTURE +INTERIORS1701 15TH STREETBOULDER CO 80302303.444.8488303.413.0305HMHAI.COMINITIALS348.25 sq ft37.25 sq ft59 sq ft110'-9" T.O. SECOND FLOOR PLYWOOD100'-0" TOP OF SLAB114'-3" TOP OF PLATE119'-7" TOP OF PLATES99'-0" GRADE125'-6" TOP OF UPPER ROOF109'-0" BOTTOM OF ROOF2A4.01A4.0BRICK ON ICF'SMETAL SIDING IN WOODSTUDSMETAL CLAD WOODWINDOWSMETAL FASCIAMETAL CAP126123.125 +/-METAL FASCIAACCESSORY METAL FROMWINDOW MANUFACTURE109'-1 7/8" BOTTOM OF ROOF113'-10" TOP OF GARAGE ROOF100'-0" TOP OF FIRST FLOOR 5439'99'-0" GRADE108'-0" BOTTOM OF ROOF1A4.0THIN BRICK VENEERON WOOD STUDSMETAL ROOFMETAL SIDING IN WOODSTUDSMETAL FASCIAMETAL CAP125'-6" TOP OF UPPER ROOF122'-4" TOP OF LOWER ROOF119'-1 7/8" PLATE HEIGHT108'-2 7/8" GARAGE PLATE HEIGHT113'-10" TOP OF GARAGE ROOF100'-0" TOP OF SLAB 5439'99'-0" GRADE2A4.01A4.0THIN BRICK VENEERON WOOD STUDSMETAL ROOFMETAL SIDING IN WOODSTUDSMETAL FASCIAMETAL CAPACCESSORY METAL FROMWINDOW MANUFACTURE125'-4 3/4" TOP OF ROOF122'-4" TOP OF LOWER ROOF119'-1 1/4" PLATE HEIGHT110'-9" T.O. SECOND FLOOR PLYWOOD109'-3/4" BOTTOM OF BREEZEWAY ROOF 100'-0" TOP OF SLAB 5439' 99'-0" GRADE2A4.01A4.0BRICK ON ICF'SMETAL FASCIAMETAL CAPMETAL FASCIA123.125 +/-126ACCESSORY METAL FROMWINDOW MANUFACTURESCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2GRAGE SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4NORTH GARAGE ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3NORTH ELEVATION10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 69 of 75 A3.1PROJECT #CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:DATE:South & WestElevation#INITIALSCOPYRIGHT 2016,HMH ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORSHARVEY M. HINE, ARCHITECTTHE DRAWINGS CREATED BY THIS OFFICE ARECOPYRIGHTED UNDER THE ARCHITECTURALWORKS COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1991ANY USE OF THESE DRAWINGS, INCLUDINGCOPYING OR MODIFYING THE ORIGINAL DESIGNFOR CONSTRUCTION IS PROHIBITED WITHOUTTHE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THISOFFICE9/18/18445 DEWEYBOULDER, COLORADODEWEYHMH ARCHITECTURE +INTERIORS1701 15TH STREETBOULDER CO 80302303.444.8488303.413.0305HMHAI.COMINITIALS418 sq ft167.25 sq ft99'-6"109'-0" T.O. GARAGE PLATE113'-10" TOP OF GARAGE ROOF99'-6" SLAB AT GARAGE DOOR99'-0" GRADE100'-0" TOP OF SLAB5439'110'-9" T.O. SECOND FLOOR PLYWOOD113'-6" PLATE HEIGHT119'-8 1/2" TOP OF PLATE122'-4" TOP OF LOWER ROOF125'-6" TOP OF LOWER ROOF3A4.12A4.11A4.14A4.1THIN BRICK VENEERON WOOD STUDSPROPERTY LINEMETAL SIDING IN WOODSTUDSMETAL FASCIAMETAL CAP126212BRICK ON ICF'SMETAL SIDING IN WOODSTUDSMETAL ROOFMETAL CAPMETAL FASCIAACCESSORY METAL FROMWINDOW MANUFACTURE125'-6" TOP OF UPPER ROOF122'-4" TOP OF LOWER ROOF119'-8 1/2" TOP OF PLATE110'-9" T.O. SECOND FLOOR PLYWOOD100'-0" TOP OF SLAB 5439'99'-0" GRADE113'-10" TOP OF GARAGE ROOF99'-6" TOP OF GARAGE SLAB109'-0" T.O. GARAGE PLATE3A4.12A4.11A4.14A4.1BRICK ON ICF'SMETAL SIDING IN WOODSTUDSMETAL CLAD WOOD DOORS &WINDOWSMETAL ROOF126212METAL CAPMETAL FASCIAACCESSORY METAL FROMWINDOW MANUFACTUREEGRESSEGRESSTMPTMPTMPTMPTMPTHIN BRICK VENEERON WOOD STUDSMETAL GARAGE DOORPROPERTY LINEBREEZEWAYMETAL SIDING IN WOODSTUDSMETAL FASCIAMETAL FASCIAMETAL CAPACCESSORY METAL FROMWINDOW MANUFACTUREEPDM ROOFSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2WEST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1EAST ELEVATION10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 70 of 75 [ 3D views 1 ]View from 5th Street View from 5th Street View from 5th St. looking toward Dewey Ave. intersectionView from 5th Street 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 71 of 75 [ 3D views 2 ]View from Dewey Ave. View from corner at Dewey Ave. and 5th StreetView from Dewey Ave. looking toward 5th Street View from Dewey Ave. 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 72 of 75 CITY OF BOULDER BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT ACTION MINUTES September 13, 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: Robbie Wyler, Cindy Spence, Will Birchfield 1. CALL TO ORDER: M. Hirsch called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. 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. Staff Presentation: R. Wyler presented the item to the board. Board Questions: R. Wyler answered questions from the board. 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 73 of 75 Applicant’s Presentation: Kyle Callahan, with Kyle Callahan & Associates Architecture, and Steve Gollob, the owner, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Kyle Callahan, representing the applicant, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: No one from the public addressed the board. Board Discussion: • J. Rudd stated that most lots in that neighborhood are under 7000 square feet, therefore that is not an unusual circumstance. Based on that, end-block properties are difficult to work with regarding the orientation of the houses. He said that he has not issue with the proposed setback as it seems in line with the circumstances of the neighborhood. He would be in favor of the proposal. • M. Hirsch and J. Lester agreed. Both would be in favor of the proposal. • E. McCready said she was in support but added that her only hesitation would be regarding necessity of getting any closer than it currently is on south side of the property. However, due to the existing circumstances in the neighborhood, it does not seem abnormal. Motion: On a motion by J. Lester, seconded by D. Schafer, the Board of Zoning Adjustment approved 5-0 the application (Docket BOZ2018-20) as submitted. 3. GENERAL DISCUSSION: A. Approval of Minutes On a motion by M. Hirsh, seconded by J. Lester, the Board of Zoning Adjustments voted 5-0 to approve the July 12, 2018 and August 9, 2018 minutes. B. Matters from the Board • The board inquired with staff regarding a possible retreat in October 2018. R. Wyler informed the board that a retreat may be scheduled after the next BOZA meeting in October, pending the number of incoming applications. C. Matters from the City Attorney There were no matters from the City Attorney. D. Matters from Planning and Development Services • W. Birchfield, the City of Boulder’s Chief Building Official, introduced himself to the board. He informed the board that he would be recommending to City Council to adopt the 2018 Building Codes and would be working with BOZA during that process. 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 74 of 75 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 10.11.2018 BOZA Packet Page 75 of 75