Loading...
11.08.2018 BOZA Summary Minutes_signed CITY OF BOULDER BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT ACTION MINUTES November 8, 2018, 5 p.m. 1777 Broadway, 1777 West Conference Room Board Members Present: Michael Hirsch (Chair),Jill Lester, Ellen McCready, Jack Rudd Board Members Absent: David Schafer City Attorney Representing Board: Janet Michels Staff Members Present: Robbie Wyler, Cindy Spence, Marcy Cameron 1. CALL TO ORDER: J. Lester called the meeting to order at 5:06 p.m. 2. BOARD HEARINGS: A. Docket No.: BOZ2018-22 Address: 760 FIagstaff 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 both interior side (south& north) yard setbacks in order to meet the combined side yard setback regulations of the RE zoning district. For the south balcony, the resulting south yard setback will be approximately 11.5 feet (at the closest point) where 23 feet is required and 6.3 feet exists today. For the north balcony, the resulting north yard setback will be approximately 10 feet(at the closest point) where 18.7 feet is required and 2 feet exists today. Section of the Land Use Code to be modified: Section 9-7-1, BRC 1981. Staff Presentation: R. Wyler presented the item to the board. M. Cameron,with Historic Preservation, summarized Landmarks Design Review Committee's findings. Board Questions: R. Wyler answered questions from the board. Applicant's Presentation: James Trewitt, with Arch I1, Inc., and David Lewis, the owner, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: James Trewitt representing the applicant, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: 1) Cheri Bells, representing Historic Boulder, said that while a majority of the board supported the project, it was not unanimous.The board agreed with Landmarks decision that the structure is a part of Boulder's iconic history, the changes are minimal, would be minimally visible from the street, and the changes appear to be reversible. However, some felt that the proposed changes would disrupt the architectural purity of the form. They questioned the issue of hardship.They felt the windows could still be added without disrupting the architectural form. 2) John Haertling, President of the Haertling Foundation, said he would like to see his father's homes preserved. While he appreciates the applicant's desire, the structure has a character regarding the outside surfaces which makes it unique. He would not like to see the house change. Board Discussion: • J. Rudd said that the existing setbacks are a problem, but they were allowed at the time the building was constructed. However, this proposal does not appear to be altering the setbacks. To apply current standard with regards to the setbacks would be a moot point. • E. McCready said that in looking at the site, the proposed east balcony feels obtrusive to the structure. She would be less in favor of the northern balcony with the stairs. She questioned why stairs and a balcony were proposed vs. windows to give minimal relief. • M.Hirsch stated that BOZA is not a design board. He said the proposed lower northern balcony, while stark and breathtaking,could be reversable, as stated by Landmarks' staff. • J. Lester said that this is documented as a"Building of Merit. The board will review this application from a variance standpoint. • J. Rudd said that a hardship resulting from this building was not created by the applicant. The proposal would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and the proposal is small in scope. It would not impair the enjoyment of the neighbors. The side yard is not punitive. This application is dealing with several unusual circumstances such as an old setback allowance, a steep slope, and uninhabitable space under the garage. • M.Hirsh stated that things were done differently when this structure was built. The slope and setbacks were allowed. • J. Lester mentioned that she trusts the input received by Landmarks regarding this building. She said that non-glare glass needs to be required. • E.McCready said the comments from Landmarks Design Review Committee were non- binding.While it is helpful to have the support and feedback, it was not a full review. • J. Lester said she will support the proposal. • J.Rudd said the proposed north elevation seems out of harmony but a condition does not need to be added. • M. Hirsh said that a condition would not need to be added retarding the glass. • J. Rudd said he would be in support based on the criteria_ Motion: On a motion by M. Hirsch seconded by I Rudd the Board of Zoning Adjustment approved 3-1 McCready opposed, D. Schafer absent) the anolication (Docket BOZ2,018.22) as submitted. B. Docket No.: BOZ2018-24 Address: 3023 7`h Street Applicant: Ashley Wick&Oliver Guinness Setback Variance: As part of a proposal to construct a second story atop a portion of an existing single-story house (with basement) as well as renovate the interior of the home, the applicants are requesting a variance to the south interior side yard setback in order to meet the combined side yard setback regulations of the RL-1 zoning district. The portions of the proposed addition and renovation located within the required south setback include; 1) an enclosed twelve square foot space where an open niche on the south side of the house is currently located and 2) a new 88 square foot deck with railings above this space where the wall and gable roof to the home currently exist. All other portions of the addition and renovation meet required setbacks. The resulting south setback will be approximately 5.2 feet(taken from both the enclosed niche as well as the deck and railings) where 10.3 feet is required and 5.2 feet exists today. Section of the Land Use Code to be modified: Section 9-7-1, BRC 1981. Staff Presentation: R. Wyler presented the item to the board. Board Questions: R. Wyler answered questions from the board. Applicant's Presentation: Guy Stevenson, with Stevenson Designs, LLC, and Oliver Guinness, the owner,presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Guy Stevenson and Oliver Guinness, representing the applicant, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: No one from the public addressed the board. Board Discussion: • M. Hirsh stated that he visited the site. He said he had no issue with removing the existing niche and the addition of an upper deck would be a modest request. • All board members agreed. Motion: On a motion by E. McCready, seconded by M. Hirsch the Board of Zoning Adjustment approved 4-0 (D. Schafer absent) the aonlication (Docket BOZ2018-24) as submitted. 3. GENERAL DISCUSSION: A. Approval of Minutes On a motion by M. Hirsch, seconded by J. Rudd, the Board of Zoning Adjustments voted 4-0 (D. Schafer absent) to approve the October 11, 2018 minutes. B. Matters from the Board There were no matters from the board. C. Matters from the City Attorney There were no matters from the City Attorney. D. Matters from Planning and Development Services 1) Review Boards &Commissions BOZA 2019 Application • The board discussed possible edits to the application. • C. Spence will make the edits and submit to the City Managers Office by November 15, 2018. 2) Review 2019 Letter to Council • M. Hirsch would like to address giving staff more authority to approve very simple requests and save the applicant the BOZA process in the letter. E. McCready suggested being narrow in that request, perhaps focusing on "non-standard building elements". J. Lester recommended asking for permission to address the City Attorney's Office, have them review a proposed change to the Code, and then bring it back to City Council. • J. Lester will address ADUs/OAUs for the letter. • E. McCready will address the issue surrounding large houses on large lots in relation to changes to the Code which could have a downstream effect, possible subdivisions, ADUS and will it be a variance or zoning process in the letter. J. Lester said she would like the notice issue of moratorium which could have unintended consequences to be addressed within that paragraph. • J. Rudd will be the editor of the final version of the letter. 4. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the board at this time, BY MOTION REGULARLY ADOPTED,THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 6:58 P.M APPROVED BY ar air DATE