Loading...
2019-04_1829 Bluebell Ave_Disposition Packet N O T I C E FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE CITY OF BOULDER BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT AND BUILDING APPEALS DISPOSITION OF ZONING CASE DOCKET NUMBER 2019-04 CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE OF THE SOLAR ACCESS REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 9- 9-17, B.R.C. 1981 AT 1829 BLUEBELL AVENUE OF ARLO AND DANIELLE CORWIN, WHOSE MAILING ADDRESS IS 1829 BLUEBELL AVENUE, BOULDER, COLORADO 80302. On March 14, 2019, the City of Boulder Board of Zoning Adjustment and Building Appeals, a quorum being present, held a public hearing, after giving notice as required by law, on the application of the applicant for the following solar access exception: Based on our field investigation and the relevant testimony, exhibits, and other evidence introduced at the hearing, and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981, we find by a preponderance of the evidence that the criteria for granting a solar exception have been met, and grant the following solar exception as requested: As part of a proposal to add a second story to an existing single-family house, the applicant is requesting a solar access exception to the solar access area 1 regulations. The property to the west (1815 Bluebell) will be the only property affected by this request. Section of the Land Use Code to be modified: Section 9-9-17, BRC 1981. This solar exception is limited to the use and structure for which it was requested, including the location on the lot and maximum height, as shown on the request. This exception was approved by the vote of 4-1 (E. McCready denied). EXECUTED this 14th day of March 2019, effective as of, March 14, 2019. Michael Hirsch, Presiding Officer of the Board at the Meeting By:__________________ _____________________ Robbie Wyler, Secretary to the Board of Zoning Adjustment This decision constitutes a final decision as of the date of the hearing at which it was reached. If a variance was granted, the variance expires within 180 (one hundred eighty) days after the date it was granted if no building permit is issued for such variance within that period. CITY OF BOULDER Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, Colorado 80306-0791 phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-3241 • email plandevelop@ci.boulder.co.us www.ci.boulder.co.us/pwplan/ BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 1 of 46 BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 2 of 46 BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 3 of 46 BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 4 of 46 BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 5 of 46 1 Solar Exception Application Owners / Applicants Arlo and Danielle Corwin 1829 Bluebell Ave. Assessor ID: 0006937 Parcel ID: 157706119003 Legal Description: LOT 10 & W 22 FT LOT 11 BLK 14 FLORAL PARK Affected Lot Owner: Piestun Rafael Address: 1815 Bluebell Ave Assessor ID: 0002306 Parcel ID: 157706209004 Legal Description: LOT 9 & E1/2 LOT 8 BLK 14 FLORAL PARK Solar Exception Written Statement Our family of five at 1829 Bluebell Ave is proposing a second-story addition to our one-story home. The planned impact of our second story addition would affect one neighbor’s lot, at 1815 Bluebell Ave, by a maximum of 3.4% during a portion of the year on a shaded and obstructed 121 sqft area on the northeast side of the lot. We are requesting an Solar Exception for this minimal impact on our neighbor. The addition will be adding necessary bedrooms and bathrooms to accommodate our growing family: twins aged 9, and an older brother, aged 11. In the course of the remodel, we will also be making comprehensive, urgently-needed repairs that are best done as a whole project: replacing a failing roof, and addressing multiple serious indoor air quality issues and health hazards. The design team has worked hard to ensure that the proposed addition will cause the least amount of solar shading while still providing the family some relief. The resulting design is the minimal action required to afford relief in an economically feasible manner. Statement of Need Our family’s need for this addition is urgent, and this is the reason we are requesting a minor exception to the Solar Access Ordinance. We must proceed as expeditiously as possible for the BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 6 of 46 2 health and safety of our family. The house has a quadruple whammy of mold, rot, radon gas, and asbestos, and exacerbated by an unrepairable, failing roof. The indoor pollution has gotten bad enough that it is affecting the health of the family, triggering asthma and respiratory problems, and impacting the ability of the family to heat and cool the house. The family’s allergist, Dr. Karen Andrews (Allergy Department, Boulder Medical Center) believes family members are experiencing significant health issues that are directly related to the prevalence of mold in the home. The mold problem permeated the HVAC system, through the ceiling and entire roof structure. To cope, the family is currently using electric space heaters, unable to turn on the heat because it recirculates the air and makes symptoms worse, and Danielle (wife) stays in the oldest son’s room as this area has a lower mold count than the master bedroom. The family worries about the health impacts this could be having on their children. Exacerbating this problem is the fact that the roof is failing, on the verge of collapsing. We have multiple leaks and severe water damage, which is also disturbing the asbestos. We attempted to moderate the problem by having some leaks fixed, but to our surprise no contractors we met with were willing to accept the liability of attempting the repairs, given the condition of the failing roof. Given the rot present, replacing the roof meant removing the ceiling, which meant exposing the walls, which meant replacing the walls. Given the asbestos in the walls and ceiling, a “roof repair” became so comprehensive and expensive that it would essentially be more economical and efficient as a home remodel. None of these urgent issues are of our making. When we first bought our house in 2015, we bought it with the intention to make it a safe, healthy, habitable space for our family to live in, as well as to make additional space for our family. At the time, the home inspection revealed problems that would need addressing, including existing asbestos in the walls, ceilings, and floors, and a roof that would soon need replacing, but the inspection did not reveal the severity of the roof problem or the growing mold and rot problem in the rear bedroom, which was likely worsened by the 2013 flood. Design Development We value the mid-century architecture of our home and we have been developing a design solution to these problems for several years now. The design has been revised multiple times in consultation with engineers and architects. The result of all the revisions is a significantly reduced layout from what was originally designed to a currently proposed gross floor area of 3,296 square feet with multiple compromises but that is still sufficient to meet the needs of our family, avoid a demolition permit, avoid Landmarks Review, be economical enough to pass appraisal for construction financing, and meet all other required setbacks and other defined criteria in the BRC. Note that the proposed layout reduces the current building coverage by approximately 160 sq feet. BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 7 of 46 3 Design Alternatives Analysis In addition to the Design Alternatives Analysis below, Glenn Frank Engineering, who is assisting with our proposed addition, closely reviewed the Design Alternatives and provided an analysis which is attached to this application. ● Design Alternative Option 1: Shift the entire second floor to the east. Option 1 is not reasonable because it would simply shift the Solar Access shadow to the East Property Line (currently the shadow to the East is contained within the property). Moreover, Option 1 is also uneconomical, as it would impact the existing architecture and structure of the house: the large cantilevered structure would extend past the first floor footprint and require significant steel structures to support the shift as the second floor would extend beyond the footprint of the existing house. Option 1 would also conflict with paragraph (E), as it would materially detract from the character of the structure: the house is horizontally oriented, and this shift would alter the cubist concept of building volumes, and the repetition of the glass curtain walls and mullions. Option 1 would also impact south facing walls, thereby triggering a demolition permit which would not be allowable by the Landmarks Board. ● Design Alternative Option 2: Shrink the addition by moving the west wall inward 7’ 4½” and not shifting the second floor footprint to the east as discussed in Option 1. The second floor footprint would need to be much smaller, removing the master suite from the second floor. Option 2 is not reasonable because reducing the scope of the program so drastically would defeat the purpose of the project. Our program is for a master suite, 2 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, and a laundry room, and Option 2 would render this program moot by eliminating the primary purpose, the master suite. We note that during design, we already voluntarily reduced the program, eliminating an additional bedroom. Option 2 is not economical, because reducing the scope of the project further renders the cost of doing such a small addition prohibitive by square foot and potentially unfinanceable: the cost of remodel would not be supported by a completed construction appraisal. Finally, Option 2 would also materially detract from the character of the house, as it would significantly alter the front elevation and would not fit with the original architectural style of the of the structure. ● Design Alternative Option 3: Shift the addition to the front of the house (south), which would orient the addition closer to the front of the property and more visible from the street. Option 3 is not reasonable because it would significantly change the massing and scale of the house. Option 3 is not economical because it would require significant enhancement to the existing structure to support a second floor, including reinforcing existing brick walls and foundation. Finally, Option 3 would also materially detract from the character of the house and the neighborhood, by giving it a disproportionate presence at street level that would not fit in with the character of the other adjacent properties in the neighborhood. BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 8 of 46 4 Option 3 would also alter the street facing facade, which would trigger a separate level of review by Landmarks Board. ● Conclusion: In addition to cutting down the massing in the front of the property, and locating the addition to the rear of the Property, the current design (north) allows us to seamlessly tie together the mid-century architecture on the first and second floor, while maintaining the horizontal orientation and cubist conception of building volumes. The current design is the result of numerous rounds of revisions and alterations to meet City Code, and is the design preferred by our neighbors. ● All three of the Design Alternatives would be unreasonable, economically infeasible, and a significant detraction from the character of the house and neighborhood. The current design presents the best viable option for architectural integrity, cost-effectiveness, ability to finance, and neighborhood harmony. Solar Access Analysis In the final design process, we ran the Solar Access simulation required by the City of Boulder Solar Access Code, with the Solar Access Area I 12’ solar fence on December 21 between two hours before and two hours after local solar noon. The resulting binary simulation showed an impact of approximately 6’ on approximately 121 sqft of our adjacent neighbor’s property to the West. The Analysis is attached as Drawings A.2.1, A.2.2, and A.2.3. In accordance with the City’s Solar Access Code, we researched and analyzed basic solar access protection requirements and land use regulations, commissioned a solar engineer study and conducted a design alternatives analysis. Our diligence shows that our addition merits a Solar Access Exception: ● The Property is zoned RL-1 and thus falls into Solar Access Area I. BRC 9-9-17 states that Solar Access Area I is “...designed to protect solar access principally for south yards, south walls and rooftops….” The impacted area is a north eastern corner of the Property and there is therefore no impact to south yards, south walls, and/or rooftops. ● The solar shade impacts to our neighbor are insignificant in the interference with solar production on a small (121 sqft) area, shaded by existing trees, a fence, and a shed, with poor solar potential and existing obstructions. Although a solar installer said the potential for solar on the entire lot is poor given existing shade, this area is particularly poor, given that the best areas are generally reserved for the south and rooftop (as described in Solar Access Area I code), neither of which would be impacted by our Exception. ● Solar engineer analysis shows the impact of the planned second-story addition diminishes with the seasons and is at most only present for an hour or less per day around solar November-April. Using a worst-case scenario, the impacts on solar production would be less than 3.4% on just a potion of a theoretical project. This is BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 9 of 46 5 significantly less than the “insubstantial breach” impact of 10% or less for antennae or other narrow, slender objects, as defined in section 9-16-1, BRC 1981. ● The design alternatives have been thoroughly investigated in order to address this issue; however all design alternatives are not feasible and unreasonable because they would prohibit the project as a whole, extraordinarily expensive, would not be in keeping with the character of the house and neighborhood, and involve other additional code variance problems. We discuss each point in further detail in the review criteria below. Review Criteria (6) Review Criteria: In order to grant an exception, the approving authority must find that each of the following requirements has been met: (A) Because of basic solar access protection requirements and the land use regulations: (i) Reasonable use cannot otherwise be made of the lot for which the exception is requested; (ii) The part of the adjoining lot or lots that the proposed structure would shade is inherently unsuitable as a site for a solar energy system; or (iii) Any shading would not significantly reduce the solar potential of the protected lot; and (iv) Such situations have not been created by the applicant; Our application meets these criteria. Illustrations in our packet show the small shadow area is unsuitable for solar production, given existing obstructions, shading, and orientation. The area is unsuitable for solar compared to better areas on the lot such as the south yard and rooftops. Even if circumstances changed, solar analysis shows that impact would be insignificant to solar production, at only a maximum of 3.4%. Furthermore, as illustrated below, the shading and obstructions currently in place have not been created by us. Drawing A.2.2 and the photographs below illustrate that the impact area of the lot is unsuitable and cannot reasonably be used for solar energy production for the following reasons: ● It is the northeast corner of the Property, ● It is within the side yard setback, ● On the north side of an existing shed and adjacent to a 6’ tall fence, ● Under the shade canopy of one large existing tree, and ● On the site of another existing small tree. BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 10 of 46 6 In an effort to further understand the degree of potential impact, we contracted with a solar energy engineer to understand the persistence of the shadow. Solar engineer analysis shows that any shading from our second story would not significantly reduce the solar potential of this area of our neighbor’s lot. The shadow is located on the north east corner of the property. The shadow diminishes over the course of the year from 6’ to no impact. In total, there is zero shadow impact for more than half the year. On the peak shadow day (December 21), the impact is only 1 hour of the code 4-hour period of time. An impact of an hour or less per day for less than 6 months of the year would not significantly reduce the solar potential of the area of the lot. Using a conservative, worst-case scenario of a 1-hour impact between November 15-April 1, or 151 days, the total impact on the area is approximately 3.4% of the daylight hours of the year1. This is far less than the 10% impact allowable by the “insubstantial breaches” of slender, narrow objects like chimneys and antennae as defined in section 9-16-1, BRC 1981. Solar engineer simulations showing diminishing and absent impacts are below. Furthermore, it is unlikely the neighbor would choose to ground-mount solar on this part of their property, the north east corner, being within the side yard setback, situated so close to trees, fences, and a shed, but even if they did, the impacts to a solar installation here would be insignificant enough that it would not be a deterrence. In past conversations with our neighbor he informed us that given other sources of shade on his property, a solar installation company 1 151 days x 1 hr/day, divided by 4,380, which is 8,760 hrs/yr divided by 2 to roughly remove nighttime non-solar- production hours. BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 11 of 46 7 advised that even installing solar energy on the most exposed portion of his property (garage roof) would not be economical given existing sources of shade on his property. (B) Except for actions under paragraphs (D), (E), and (F), the exception would be the minimal action that would afford relief in an economically feasible manner; Our application meets these criteria. The addition has been designed to be the smallest that will afford the relief of additional space for our growing family. There will be no change to Building Coverage, and the Floor Area will fall within the amount allowed. During design development, our design team investigated design alternatives that would alleviate the impact, and the Exception would be the minimal action needed to afford relief in an economically feasible manner. The current design sits on the existing footprint tucked in the back of our yard where it has the least impact to adjacent properties and the neighborhood as a whole. Any of the design alternatives would increase the percentage of walls and roof that would be demolished, requiring a demolition permit and putting the alternatives at odds with the Landmarks Review Board. (C) The exception would cause the least interference possible with basic solar access protection for other lots; Our application meets these criteria. As discussed above in subsection (1), the addition would impact only the West property to an insignificant degree in the north east area of the lot - even less than the acceptable degree of impact from “insubstantial breaches” - and avoids impacts to the properties to the North and East, which would be impacted in the more desirable south and west sides of the properties. (D) If the proposed structure is located in an historic district designated by the city council according to Section 9-11-3, B.R.C. 1981, and if it conformed with the requirements of this chapter, its roof design would be incompatible with the character of the development in the historic district; Not applicable. (E) If part of the proposed roof which is to be reconstructed or added to would be incompatible with the design of the remaining parts of the existing roof so as to detract materially from the character of the structure, provided that the roof otherwise conformed with the requirements of this chapter; Our application meets these criteria, as discussed in the Design Alternatives Analysis. BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 12 of 46 8 (F) If the proposed interference with basic solar access protection would be due to a solar energy system to be installed, such system could not be feasible located elsewhere on the applicant's lot; The proposed change is not due to a proposed solar energy system. Furthermore, the affected neighbor notified us in previous conversations that even a solar system located on the most exposed portion of his property (garage roof) would be uneconomical given existing shade on the Property. (G) If an existing solar system would be shaded as a result of the exception, the beneficiary of that system would nevertheless still be able to make reasonable use of it for its intended purpose; The proposed change will not shade an existing solar energy system. (H) The exception would not cause more than an insubstantial breach of solar access protected by permit as defined in Subsection 9-16-1, B.R.C. 1981; and The proposed addition would not cause more than an insubstantial breach of solar access. As described above, the Exception would cause at its maximum a 3.4% reduction in solar production potential, which is less than the 10% identified in Subsection 9-16-1, B.R.C. 1981. (I) All other requirements for the issuance of an exception have been met. The applicant bears the burden or proof with respect to all issues of fact. The impact of our proposed second story addition would be insignificant to solar production on a small, unsuitable area of one neighbor’s lot, and we are requesting a minor Administrative Solar Exception for this minimal impact on our neighbor. All other Application Requirements have been ```met. BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 13 of 46 BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 14 of 46 1829 Bluebell Avenue | Boulder, CO 80302415.310.9054 | danielle@yamadesignarch.comBOZA Disposition of Approval Page 15 of 46 1829 Bluebell Avenue | Boulder, CO 80302415.310.9054 | danielle@yamadesignarch.comBOZA Disposition of Approval Page 16 of 46 1829 Bluebell Avenue | Boulder, CO 80302415.310.9054 | danielle@yamadesignarch.comBOZA Disposition of Approval Page 17 of 46 1829 Bluebell Avenue | Boulder, CO 80302415.310.9054 | danielle@yamadesignarch.comBOZA Disposition of Approval Page 18 of 46 1829 Bluebell AveSolar Exception ApplicationDepiction without 12’ solar fenceNeighboring PropertyBOZA Disposition of Approval Page 19 of 46 1829 Bluebell AveSolar Exception ApplicationDepiction without 12’ solar fenceNeighboring PropertyBOZA Disposition of Approval Page 20 of 46 1829 Bluebell Avenue | Boulder, CO 80302415.310.9054 | danielle@yamadesignarch.comBOZA Disposition of Approval Page 21 of 46 1829 Bluebell Avenue | Boulder, CO 80302415.310.9054 | danielle@yamadesignarch.comBOZA Disposition of Approval Page 22 of 46 1829 Bluebell Avenue | Boulder, CO 80302415.310.9054 | danielle@yamadesignarch.comBOZA Disposition of Approval Page 23 of 46 1829 Bluebell Avenue | Boulder, CO 80302415.310.9054 | danielle@yamadesignarch.comBOZA Disposition of Approval Page 24 of 46 1829 Bluebell Avenue | Boulder, CO 80302415.310.9054 | danielle@yamadesignarch.comBOZA Disposition of Approval Page 25 of 46 1829 Bluebell Avenue | Boulder, CO 80302415.310.9054 | danielle@yamadesignarch.comBOZA Disposition of Approval Page 26 of 46 February 6, 2019 Danielle and Arlo Corwin 1829 Bluebell Ave, Boulder CO Dear Danielle and Arlo: As you know of course, our firm did the structural engineering for your proposed second story addition. At your request, I have reviewed the structural feasibility of shifting the second story addition to the east or to the south (primarily from a structural perspective). Shifting to the East: 1. In order to avoid conflicting with the existing gable roof of the garage, the northeast bedroom area would need to be further reduced in size. (As I recall, you have already reduced the size of the second story addition at this part of the house.) 2. At the east side of the addition, heavy steel floor beams would be required to support the cantilever structure that would be required for a portion of the addition. This is a portion of the second floor which is already cantilevered, so the extended cantilever length would be too large for conventional framing or lightweight steel beams. The required steel beams, and the resulting steel posts and new footings, would add expense to the structure even though it would be smaller in area. 3. The west edge of the addition would no longer be directly above the west wall of the existing first story. Therefore, new steel beams, steel posts and concrete footings. would need to be added, to support the west side of the addition. This would add considerable cost to the structure. 4. At this same location, the low roof above the first story – west of the addition - would need to be modified or replaced, adding some additional expense. Shifting to the South: 1. It is my understanding that per City of Boulder requirements the roof, exterior walls, windows etc. – at the south 28 feet of the existing first story – cannot be disturbed. Therefore, it would appear to be impossible to comply with that requirement, if the addition was shifted south. 2. At the south side of the addition, heavy steel floor beams would be required to support the cantilever structure that would be required for the addition. A portion of the second floor is already cantilevered, so the extended cantilever length would be too large for conventional framing or lightweight steel beams. The required steel beams, and the resulting steel posts and new footings, would add considerable cost to the structure. 3. At the north side of the addition, the low roof above the first story – north of the addition - would need to be modified or replaced, adding some additional expense. BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 27 of 46 Second Story Addition 1829 Bluebell Avenue, Boulder CO February 6, 2019 Please let me know if you desire further input on this subject. Best regards, Glenn C. Frank, P.E. BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 28 of 46 BOZA #2019-0002 Enclosed Letters Doug Claxton, CEO The Solar Revolution Jerry Long, Owner, J A Long Construction Noel Bennett, Branch Manager, PMG Lending Julia Cantarovici, Realtor, 8Z Realty Karen Andrews, MD, Boulder Medical Center Neighbor Letter, 1901 Bluebell Ave Neighbor Letter, 1845 Bluebell Ave Neighbor Letter, 1830 Mariposa Ave (submitted separately) BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 29 of 46 March 4, 2019 RE: Solar Variance Request – 1829 Bluebell Dear BOZA, My name is Doug Claxton, and I am the owner of the Boulder-based solar installation company, The Solar Revolution. We work extensively in the Boulder community and specialize in solar integrations on new construction projects. The owner at 1829 Bluebell has consulted us on installing a HERS compliant 9kW installation on their proposed remodel. Furthermore, I have reviewed the potential impacts of their proposed home remodel on neighboring properties. The minimal shadow that will be cast by their addition will not negatively impact neighboring solar access now or in the future for any adjacent neighbors. The calculated shadow cast in the adjacent lot to the west encroaches less than 6’ into the side yard setback and into a wooded area. This area is not in any way suitable for solar energy. Allowing the owners to proceed with their remodel will add up to 9kW of solar energy to the local grid and further Boulder's push towards achieving its renewable energy goals. Sincerely, Doug Claxton Founder and CEO BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 30 of 46 BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 31 of 46 Date: 3/7/19 Board of Zoning Adjustments RE: Letter regarding variance request on 1829 Bluebell Ave – BOZA#2019-0004 To BOZA Members; I have worked with Arlo and Danielle on several different mortgage loans since he was first referred to me in the summer of 2015. Most recently I have been assisting Arlo & Danielle in trying to secure construction financing for his property located at 1829 Bluebell Ave in Boulder by putting him in touch with several good construction lenders. One of the key features of construction financing is being able to utilize the ‘future’ value of the as-completed project. In this way an owner can leverage the as-completed value to borrow funds enough to pay for a portion of, or in some cases all of the construction project. This value is typically gained by adding square-footage and/or a second floor to a one-level property. Furthermore, in my experience, an owner adding square footage, nicer finishes, a second floor, or any combination thereof increases the value of other properties in the neighborhood, even adjacent properties. To my knowledge Arlo and Danielle have looked at multiple angles and options to be able to upgrade his current home to a home that will work for their family while also being in harmony with the lower Chautauqua neighborhood. It should be clear that I am only offering my observations of values and construction lending from my years of experience in the residential mortgage world. I am not making any specific claims or recommendations of value, appreciation, or specific improvements for Arlo and Danielle’s project or anyone else’s. Best regards, Noel Bennett Noel Bennett Branch Manager BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 32 of 46 Dear Board of Zoning Adjustment: My name is Julia Cantarovici. I have been a Boulder realtor for over two decades. I assisted Danielle and Arlo with the purchase of their home at 1829 Bluebell in 2015. The original listing is attached to my letter. The house was advertised as a “pop the top” and while a bit smaller than other homes we looked at, had great potential for the applicants to add on so that the home could accommodate all 5 family members. While the existing layout has 3 bedrooms, the layout is “odd” in that two of the bedrooms are larger, and the master is located in a low and dark spot at the back of the structure. The house sorely needs a remodel - it was a college rental for several years before the current owners purchased it. While the inspection did identify asbestos, higher than acceptable radon, and a roof that would soon need replacing, it did not identify the significant mold problem that affects the applicants today. As a realtor I have seen the damage mold can cause to people and homes. I have seen firsthand, people who have had serious respiratory problems as a result of large quantities of mold. I have also seen damage to home furnishings, carpet, cabinets and even serious structural elements. I can assure the Board that the improvements proposed here will only enhance the character of the neighborhood, and also add value to the neighborhood. As a community we should be encouraging responsible improvements such as these that to the extent possible work within current city regulations and work with existing architecture instead of tearing down older, beautiful homes only to construct new houses that are over-sized for the lot, and frankly out-of-character for Boulder's beautiful neighborhoods. BOZA should not allow an extremely minor variance request such as this to force inefficient, unaesthetic, and impractical design choices. I sincerely hope that BOZA approves this minor exception. Sincerely, Julia Cantarovici 8z Real Estate Julia@8z.com 720-203-7789 DocuSign Envelope ID: 17226B7E-EE85-4145-A4D7-3B0C3ABC213B BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 33 of 46 Corwin, Danielle Francesca. 2078942 08/06/1973 02/12/2019 12:19 PM Page: 1/1 > Karen Andrews, MD 2750 Broadway; Boulder, CO 80304; Office: at (303)440-3000 ; Fax: (303)440-3100 02/12/2019 Danielle Corwin 1829 Bluebell Ave Boulder, CO 80302- To Whom it May concern: Danielle has been a patient since 2015. She has a history chronic sinusitis, recurrent episodes of facial swelling complicated by bacterial infections, and asthma. Her have not been well controlled on standard therapies and she has required courses of oral steroids and antibiotics. She has a documented mold allergy and we suspect that the ongoing exposure in her home is a causative factor in her symptoms. It would be recommended that the mold be mitigated from her home as soon as feasible as ongoing exposure poses continued health risks. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Electronically signed by: Karen Andrews MD 02/12/2019 02:44 PM Document generated by: Karen Andrews 02/12/2019 BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 34 of 46 BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 35 of 46 John and Shannon Collier 1845 Bluebell Avenue Boulder, CO 80302 March 7, 2019 Board of Zoning Adjustment Boulder CO To whom it may concern: This letter is to confirm our support for the proposed zoning adjustment to 1829 Bluebell Avenue, permit # BOZA2019-0004. Our neighbors, Arlo and Danielle Corwin, reached out to us to discuss their proposed plans, and walked us through zoning adjustment that would need to be made. We believe their plans represent a very thoughtful addition to their home that will benefit their family as well as the overall neighborhood. We live adjacent to the Corwin’s at 1845 Bluebell Ave. We have lived there five years, and have lived in the neighborhood for 13 years. We’ve been happy to see the careful evolution of the neighborhood and believe that the Corwin‘s are doing that tastefully with this plan. Please reach out with any questions. Sincerely, John and Shannon Collier BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 36 of 46 From:Wyler, Robbie To:BOZA Subject:#BOZ2019-0004 Correspondence Date:Thursday, March 14, 2019 8:21:51 AM BOZA- One more. An email correspondence regarding BOZ2019-04 (1829 Bluebell) just came in. See below. We'll add this to the record. And should anything else come in we'll just bring it tonight given how close we are to the meeting now. See everyone @ 5! -Robbie -----Original Message----- From: john wilhelm <omgrown@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 5:59 PM To: Wyler, Robbie <WylerR@bouldercolorado.gov> Subject: #BOZA2019-0004 To whom it may concern. I am the neighbor to the west of the proposed project. I was shown the design plan for the remodel and have no problems with the proposed remodel. I support them being able to move forward with the construction project. Thanks, John Wilhelm 1830 Mariposa Ave Boulder , Co 707-529-2833 BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 37 of 46 Page 1 of 9 March 8, 2019 Rafael Piestun 1815 Bluebell Ave Boulder, CO 80203 Re: Objection to Solar Exception Application at 1829 Bluebell Ave (BOZ2019-00004) I am the owner of the affected property located at 1815 Bluebell Ave. As I mentioned to the property owners, I oppose the solar exception requested because it will significantly impact solar access to my property. Moreover, the proposers have several alternatives that are in compliance with the current solar access regulations. Note also that the requesters “economical” reasons do not outweigh the loss of solar access to my property. Below you will find my response showing the exception application does not meet the applicable criteria (CRITERIA, CITY CODE EXCERPT OF SECTION 9-9-17(f)(6), B.R.C. 1981). I would like to thank the Boulder Board of Zoning Adjustment for giving me the opportunity to express and justify my opposition to the application in writing. I would have liked to attend your meeting but, unfortunately, I will be in Germany, giving a keynote talk at the conference on Advanced Optical Technologies, as part of my job as a professor at the University of Colorado Boulder. Response to “Design Alternatives Analysis” The requesters propose several alternative plans that would not obstruct solar access to my property. However, their proposal discards them as “uneconomical”. The proposal does not state how much more expensive the alternatives would be. Other alternatives are discarded for being “unpractical”, or for not allowing for an upper level master bedroom. Specifically, the “design alternative option 1” in the proposal, shifting the addition to the east, could be made compatible with the solar access regulations with minor design changes. The engineering contractor states this would “add expense” and “considerable cost” to the structure. Complying with city regulations has a cost, but unfortunately the request does not provide an estimate. My educated guess is that the additional structural cost, while considerable, would be minor with respect to the total cost of the proposed luxurious remodel. Further, this unspecified additional cost does not outweigh the detriment to my property, and therefore could not grant an exception to the solar rule. The detriment to my right to solar access is so significant, that the city of Boulder has voted to protect it by codifying it into law. The request to deviate from this law for unspecified economic reasons is unsubstantiated. The application also discards the first alternative design because it “would materially detract from the character of the structure: the house is horizontally oriented, and this shift would alter the cubist concept”. While it is hard to argue with architectural sensitivity, I am attaching a couple of examples of modern cubist architecture (out of the internet) showing that shifts of structures are common practice. Fig. 1: Examples of modern cubist architecture (single family houses) showing structure shifts are common. Shifts of structures and glass windows / walls are common BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 38 of 46 Page 2 of 9 In other words, the addition could be shifted east with minor change to the overall design as depicted below: Fig. 2: Essentially similar design can be made to avoid infringing solar access ordinance. Design can be adjusted to avoid affecting the neighbor to the East. Another reason the proposers discard the first alternative is that “Option 1 would also impact south facing walls”. This doesn’t transpire from the engineering report and one would assume there is a way around demolishing the south walls, e.g. by transferring the load to the west wall. Actually, the south (west side) wall will have to be modified anyway, because it is made out of single-pane glass. Fig. 3: South window walls will have to be modified anyway. The applicants state further that “The Design Alternatives would be unreasonable, economically infeasible, and a significant detraction from the character of the house and neighborhood”. While it is the petitioners’ prerogative to come up with a proper design that follows existing regulations, it is clear that there are other reasonable solutions that would not affect the character of the house. Hence one concludes that: There are economically feasible solutions that avoid the exception The exception would cause interference with basic solar access protection for the adjacent lot Some statements by the applicants are similarly unsubstantiated. For instance, “The current design is ….the design preferred by our neighbors.” It is not clear to me which neighbors this statement refers to, as I was clear in my communications with Arlo Corwin that I am opposed to any structure that violates the solar access ordinance in relation to my lot. Response to “Statement of Need” The Corwins bought the house in question several years ago and they state that “the home inspection revealed problems that would need addressing, including existing asbestos in the walls, ceilings, and floors, and a roof that would soon need replacing.” Unfortunately, the deterioration of the house over these years, while unfortunate, is unrelated to the solar access issues raised in the petition and should not be used as reason to grant an exception. The solar access rights of our home are an intrinsic part of it. Although I much sympathize with the neighbors’ situation, as I stated to the applicants directly, I believe that their request to give up the solar rights is asking for too much, especially if the whole problem could be avoided altogether. BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 39 of 46 Page 3 of 9 The way I understand the Corwins’ application is as follows: They need to replace the roof, address the mold and rot issues that make their home unsafe or barely habitable, or perhaps uninhabitable, according to their statements, engineering reports, Dr. letters, etc. The applicants do demonstrate that need to make these repairs is urgent. What is not urgent is the need of an addition of a second story to their home. While it is common sense to have both the repair and the addition done at the same time and under the same plan, it should be noted that the combining these needs does not warrant an excuse to be exempt from the existing ordinances. Response to “Solar Access Analysis” The application does not meet the requirements under the Review Criteria to grant an exception from the solar access protection requirements. Specifically: A. Because of the basic solar access protection requirements and the land use regulations: (i). Reasonable use cannot otherwise be made of the lot for which the exception is requested Response: The applicants can make reasonable use of their lot for which the exception is requested, as noted in their several alternatives and other not considered. (ii). The part of the adjoining lot or lots that the proposed structure would shade is inherently unsuitable as a site for a solar energy system. Response: The applicants mischaracterize the “small shadow area” as “unsuitable” for solar production given existing “obstructions, shading, and orientation”. The applicants do not demonstrate that the area is unsuitable. They merely state that it is “unsuitable for solar compared to better areas on the lot”. The fact that the lot has other areas for solar does not render the area “unsuitable”, much less “inherently unsuitable”. The Board should note that the area has direct south sun exposure as shown in the photograph below (Fig. 4): . Fig. 4: The area affected by the proposed construction has direct South sun exposure. Photo shows a view from the area towards the South. BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 40 of 46 Page 4 of 9 Fig. 5: Schematic of location of new construction showing affected area (iii). Any shading would not significantly reduce the solar potential of the protected lot; and The application states that the area affected: “is within the side yard setback” As clearly shown in the solar analysis diagram presented in the application itself (Fig. 6), the affected area extends well beyond the setbacks. Fig. 6: The application shows already significant shading of the adjacent lot – the situation can be much worse as explained below and in Figs. 8-11. Moreover, the city website clearly explains: A solar analysis produced using the city’s Solar Access Guide is an abstraction of the actual location of the shadows of a building. A solar analysis produced using this method is a useful tool for determining when a shadow is compliant with the solar access regulations, but does not show the actual location where a shadow will land on adjacent property. When a solar analysis produced using the Solar Access Guide shows a shadow landing in a side yard setback for the adjacent lot, it is actually shading the lot to a much greater degree. These shadows are a violation of the solar access regulations. https://bouldercolorado.gov/plan-develop/solar-access-guide ! “On the north side of an existing shed and adjacent to a 6’ tall fence” The shed has no real value and is easily removable, while the fence height is insignificant with respect to the height of the addition. BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 41 of 46 Page 5 of 9 ●” Under the shade canopy of one large existing tree,” According to the city of Boulder: The building must comply with the solar access regulations, regardless of whether a site is already shaded by vegetation. When this condition is present, the building design must be revised to comply with the solar access regulations. https://bouldercolorado.gov/plan-develop/solar-access-guide Hence, the city specifically establishes that the existence of trees does not merit an exception to the ordinance. The tree can be trimmed, and even in its current form, there is direct south access to the sun as shown in Fig. 4. ● “On the site of another existing small tree.” Same as above. This tree can be removed if needed. B. Except for actions under paragraphs (D), (E), and (F), the exception would be the minimal action that would afford relief in an economically feasible manner; While the applicants do explain their need for relief, the relief in question is not related to the relief contemplated under this paragraph. Their relief of the mold, roof, and other problems can be solved without the need for a solar exception application. Their relief contemplated by this paragraph relates to the applicant’s desire for a second-story addition to their home. This need can be relieved in several alternative ways, some of them as stated in the application. The exception would not be the minimal action needed to afford relief in an economically feasible manner. Fixing the roof and the other rot and mold related issues would be the minimal action needed to afford relief in an economically feasible manner. The exception is merely one of four alternatives as proposed in the application. While some alternatives are more economically feasible than others, and some are more practical than others, the application does not address the difference in economic values for the Board to be able to assess whether it is the most economically feasible or not. Regardless, this section does not call for the “most economically feasible” alternative, it just provides an exception for when the exception to the solar ordinance is the “only” economically feasible alternative. C. The exception would cause the least interference possible with basic solar access protection for other lots; As explained, the application incorrectly states that the impact is insubstantial. Fig. 7: The proposed structure shade area is suitable for solar energy system and would significantly reduce the solar potential of the lot. Shaded area is the approximate affected area along the seasons. Shed (can be removed for solar installation) Approximate shaded area S BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 42 of 46 Page 6 of 9 D. Not applicable E. If part of the proposed roof which is to be reconstructed or added to would be incompatible with the design of the remaining parts of the existing roof so as to detract materially from the character of the structure, provided that the roof otherwise conformed with the requirements of this chapter. F. If the proposed interference with basic solar access protection would be due to a solar energy system to be installed, such system could not be feasible located elsewhere on the applicant’s lot; This section is irrelevant to the current application. However, the applicants mention a conversation between the affected parties about how it would be uneconomical to install a potential solar system. This conversation is not a “notification”, and it was a simple conversation between neighbors based on a comment one of them heard at the Home Depot, which by the way, only involved consideration of the garage roof and not the potential of the lot as a whole. The exception, if granted, would indeed significantly impact the potential installation of such system in the future. G. Not applicable H. The exception would not cause more than an insubstantial breach of solar access protected by permit as defined in Subsection 9-16-1, B.R.C. 1981, and Response: The city ordinance is very clear on its definition of ‘insubstantial breach’: Insubstantial breach means a shadowing that is caused by narrow slender items that cast narrow slender shadows; and at all protected points and during the protected time and during the time period for which protection has been provided, they together reduce the total amount of solar energy available by ten percent or less . Insubstantial breaches may include, without limitation, those caused by utility poles, chimneys, wires, flagpoles, slender antennas, or tree trunks and branches. Boulder, Colorado - Municipal Code, TITLE 9 - LAND USE CODE , Chapter 16 - Definitions , 9-16-1. - General Definitions. Only elements that are narrow and slender, casting narrow slender shadows may be exempt under this provision. Typical examples include chimneys, evaporative coolers, and satellite dishes. All roof elements must comply. The applicants state that the proposed addition would not cause more than an insubstantial breach of solar access because it would cause a 3.4% reduction in solar production potential. This number differs significantly with my own “sanity check” calculations (See Figs. 8-11). However, even if these numbers are accurate, the impact is not “insubstantial” under city code ordinance. BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 43 of 46 Page 7 of 9 Fig. 8: A significant shadow is projected onto 1815 Bluebell (~20 ft into the property). Calculated for 9AM in the June solstice. Right: Sun path diagram for Boulder indicating the angle of the sun at about 37 degrees. Fig. 9: A significant shadow is projected onto 1815 Bluebell (~10 ft into the property). Diagram calculated for 10AM in the June solstice. Right: Sun path diagram for Boulder indicating the angle of the sun at about 49 degrees (E-W). Fig. 10: The solar simulation provided by the petitioners states there is no shadow over the property line for more than one hour in June in contradiction with our calculations of Fig. 8,9. Second floor distance required to comply with solar access code ~20ft 9 AM June Significant shadow is projected over hours 37o Second floor distance required to comply with solar access code ~10ft 10 AM June ~49 o According to solar simulations provided, the 2- floor structure does not project a shadow beyond the property line for more than an hour! BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 44 of 46 Page 8 of 9 Fig. 11: A significant shadow is projected onto 1815 Bluebell (~18 ft into the property). Diagram calculated for 9AM in the December solstice. The simple calculations of Fig. 8-11 show that the application severely underestimates the solar access impact. I. All other requirements for the issuance of an exception have been met. The applicant bears the burden of proof with respect to all issues of fact. The applicants have not met the requirements for the issuance of an exception, nor have met their burden of proof with respect to issues of fact such as calculations, estimates, and other evidence supporting their positions. Several statements in the application will be further addressed in particular below: “The impacted area is a north eastern corner of the Property and there is therefore no impact to south yards, south walls, and/or rooftops.” Response: The impacted zone is actually East of the property (as shown in Fig. 7) and has direct, unobstructed south sun access (Fig. 4). 1. “The solar shade impacts to our neighbor are insignificant in the interference with solar production on a small (121 sqft) area” Response: It is not clear where this number comes from and it appears to significantly contrast with our own calculations (Figs. 8-11). However, even if these numbers are accurate, the impact does not qualify as ‘insubstantial breach’ per city ordinance. 2. “shaded by existing trees, a fence, and a shed, with poor solar potential and existing obstructions.” Response: The city website specifically establishes that the existence of trees does not merit an exception to the ordinance. The fence height is insignificant with respect to the addition, and the shed is easily removable and is otherwise protected for solar access. The “poor solar potential” is unsubstantiated and inaccurate as the area has unobstructed south access. 3. “Although a solar installer said the potential for solar on the entire lot is poor” Response: This statement is unsubstantiated. I do not have knowledge of such evaluation, and is especially intriguing considering this is a south facing lot. Second floor distance required to comply with solar access code ~18ft 9 AM December 39o BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 45 of 46 Page 9 of 9 4. “Solar engineer analysis shows the impact of the planned second-story addition diminishes with the seasons …. Using a worst-case scenario, the impacts on solar production would be less than 3.4% on just a potion of a theoretical project.” This is another unsubstantiated claim given that there is no independent study producing these numbers. I would be interested in knowing what the assumptions made were and how the engineer arrived at this conclusion. Summary • I, the owner of the affected property, do not approve the exception requested. • The proposed structure shade area is suitable for solar energy system and would significantly reduce the solar potential of the lot. • There are economically feasible solutions that avoid the exception. • The exception would cause interference with basic solar access protection for the adjacent lot. • The exception would cause more than an insubstantial breach of solar access protected by permit as defined in Subsection 9-16-1, B.R.C. 1981 Therefore, the exception application does not meet the applicable criteria (CRITERIA, CITY CODE EXCERPT OF SECTION 9-9-17(f)(6), B.R.C. 1981). For the reasons above, I reiterate my objection to the solar exception application. Thank you again for considering this response. If you have any questions regarding my position, please call me at (303) 588-7783 or email me at rpiestun@yahoo.com Sincerely, Rafael Piestun BOZA Disposition of Approval Page 46 of 46