Loading...
09.12.2019 BOZA Pacekt (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.) UPDATED 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. BOARD HEARINGS A. Docket No.: BOZ2019-15 Address: 830 Grant Place Applicant: Bret & Michiko Aker Setback Variance & Building Separation Variance: As part of a proposal to replace an existing deck at the rear of the house with a new deck to the side of the house, the applicants are requesting a variance to the interior side (south) & rear (east) yard setbacks in order to meet the minimum combined side & rear yard setback requirements for principal structures in the RL-1 zoning district. The resulting side setback will be approximately 7.3 feet (from the new deck) where 15 feet is required and approximately 16.8 feet exists today (from the existing deck). The resulting rear setback will be approximately 14.9 feet (from the new deck) where 25 feet is required and approximately 11.6 feet exists today (from the existing deck). Additionally, the applicants are requesting a variance to the minimum building separation requirement. The resulting building separation between the new deck and existing detached garage will approximately 3.3 feet where 6 feet is required and no separation exists today (from the existing deck to the existing detached garage). Section of the Land Use Code to be modified: Section 9- 7-1, BRC 1981. B. Docket No.: BOZ2019-16 Address: 2229 Mariposa Avenue Applicant: Katrina Mitchell Setback Variance: As part of a proposal to modify an existing non-standard accessory building with the intent of converting it into a 1.5-story accessory dwelling unit (ADU), the applicant is requesting a variance to the side (east) yard setback in order to meet the minimum interior side setback requirement for accessory structures in the RL-1 zoning district. The resulting side setback will be approximately 1.2 feet (at the closest point) where 3 feet is required and approximately 1.2 feet exists today. No expansion of the existing footprint to the building is proposed as a part of the conversion to an ADU. Section of the Land Use Code to be modified: Section 9-7-1, BRC 1981. C. Docket No.: BOZ2019-18 Address: 1064 Gapter Road Applicant: Ray & Eithne David Setback Variance: As part of a proposal to construct a new 2-car detached garage, the applicants are requesting a variance to the side (south) yard setback in order to meet the minimum interior side setback requirements for accessory structures in the RR-2 zoning district. The resulting side setback will be approximately 3 feet where 10 feet is required and no garage exists today. Section of the Land Use Code to be modified: Section 9-7-1, BRC 1981. CITY OF BOULDER BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING AGENDA DATE: Thursday, September 12, 2019 TIME: Meeting to begin at 5 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers, 1777 Broadway, 2nd Floor D. Docket No.: BOZ2019-19 Address: 734 Maxwell Avenue Applicant: Mathew Johnke Setback Variance: As part of a proposal to modify an existing non-standard accessory building with the intent of converting it into a single-story accessory dwelling unit (ADU), the applicant is requesting a variance to the side (east) yard setback and rear (south) yard setback in order to meet the minimum interior side and rear yard setback requirements for accessory structures in the RL-1 zoning district. The resulting side setback will be approximately 1.9 feet where 3 feet is required and approximately 2 feet exists today. The resulting rear setback will be approximately 1.17 feet where 3 feet is required and approximately 1.21 feet exists today. No expansion of the existing floor area to the building is proposed as a part of the conversion to an ADU. Section of the Land Use Code to be modified: Section 9-7-1, BRC 1981. E. Docket No.: BOZ2019-17 Address: 245 Brook Place Applicant: Drew Robertson & The Bold Six Development LLC Setback Variance: As part of a proposal to renovate and modify an existing non-standard house - including raising the roof along a portion of the rear face and constructing a new front porch – the applicant is requesting a variance to both the rear (west) yard setback as well as the front (east) porch encroachment allowance for non-standard single-family houses in the RL-1 zoning district. The resulting rear setback will be approximately 23.6 feet where 25 feet is required and approximately 23.6 feet exists today. The resulting front porch encroachment/projection will be approximately 7.5 feet (taken from the face of the house) where 6 feet is the maximum allowed projection and only a covered landing exists today. Sections of the Land Use Code to be modified: Sections 9-7-1 & 9-7-4, BRC 1981. 3. GENERAL DISCUSSION A. Approval of Minutes: The July 11, 2019 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 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. 1 August 6, 2019 Board of Zoning Adjustment City of Boulder, Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 Re: 830 Grant Place, Boulder, CO Deck Ht., Separation Variance Request Owners: Bret & Michiko Aker V A R I A N C E R E Q U E S T REQUEST: That the Board grant a variance to allow construction of a new open Deck within the side and rear yard setbacks, and that the Board allow a separation from the existing Garage of 3'-4". LOCATION Deck Height Per Section 9-7-3 No structure or building shall be constructed or maintained in the required setback except for: (a) A balcony, patio or deck less than thirty inches in height. The Proposed Deck Height is less than 30"above the new grade below the footprint of the Deck. The Deck is 1'-8" and 2'-4" above the grade below. This suggests it may be permitted per Section 9-7-3. However, the Deck Height is approximately 3'-7” to 3'-11" above the adjacent grade beyond the east end of the Deck. The Applicant can find no clarification if the 30" height specified in 9-7-3 refers to the deck height relative to the grade immediately below the deck or to its height above an adjacent elevation beyond the deck. 2 We request the approval of the proposed Deck height at 6 1/2" below the 1st Floor and 3'-7" to 3'-11" above the adjacent grade on the following basis: A.) The Deck is one step (6 1/2") down from the 1st Floor. The proposed Deck elevation provides an Accessible passage from the 1st Floor of the Residence to an outdoor activity area. If the Deck were any lower, requiring more than one step, an exterior landing and stairs down to the Deck would be required. The landing and stairs would make the Residence/Deck passage less Accessible, complicate the approach to the door, discourage outdoor use, and would take up precious outdoor space. B.) Mechanically, the proposed elevation makes it possible to create a clean lateral, flashed connection where the Deck meets the Residence wall along a continuous concrete lintel that runs horizontally across the coarse stone veneer at the 1st Floor line of the Residence. If the Deck were any lower it would have to join the uneven surface of the stone veneer requiring heroic efforts to install flashing cut into the stone. C.) The majority (66%) of the open Deck perimeter is 1'-10" above the adjacent grade of the Terrace. The Deck is 3'- 7" to 3'-11" above the adjacent grade along only 33% of its perimeter on the east. The Deck height would be minimally out of compliance (1'-1" to 1'-6" higher than the 30" max.) along only this east perimeter. Separation The Proposed Deck would be separated from the existing Garage by 3'-4". Per Section 9-16-1 Definitions , "Building" includes "any structure built for the support of persons". Thus the Deck can be interpreted to be a "building". Per TABLE 7-1: FORM AND BULK STANDARDS requires a "Minimum separation between accessory buildings and any other building" of 6'. We request the approval of the 3'-4" separation on the following basis: A.) The Deck is a unique "Building" It has no enclosing walls or canopy, and its not meant for the storage of materials or a use that would pose a hazard to adjacent buildings. The Proposed Deck would pose no greater hazard than an outdoor Terrace at ground level with 0' separation from the Garage. B.) Structurally, to avoid the excavation for multiple footings in soil with large buried boulders, and to avoid bearing on the existing wall of the Residence, the Proposed Deck is framed with steel beams supported by only three stone piers at corners and on a fourth bearing point on a new foundation wall below the existing Bay. The proposed design avoids placing the new Deck loads on the existing stone foundation wall. The northeast pier is critical. It has been located approximately 3'-4" away from the existing Basement walls to avoid affecting the existing foundation wall. Consequently it is separated 3'-4" from the Garage. C.) The existing deck to be demolished is attached to the Residence and Garage. The Proposed Deck is more compliant because it is detached from the Garage. 3 SCOPE OF WORK In the south side yard: Remove existing Basement well, stair, & door. Remove existing 91 s.f. rear deck (elev.104'-5"). Raise the grade in the south side yard with new retaining walls to enhance drainage (elev. 102'-3"). Construct new 145 s.f. Deck in the south side yard, located to allow passage around the Garage (elev. 104'-1"). Other: New door from the Kitchen to the new Deck. New window and skylight in the Kitchen. Kitchen remodel. ZONING, FORM & BULK Zoning: RL-1 Lot Area: 6,065 s.f. Built: 1926 + additions Re Setbacks: The Residence had a complying Side setback of 15'-2" in 2006. However, in 2007 a portion of the southwest corner of the lot was deeded to the adjacent southern property, 820 Grant Place, reducing the lot width along the front property line by 2'-7" and creating a non- standard 12'-7" Side setback. See Exhibits Pages 7 & 8 for the 2006 LSP and the revised 2007 LP. Exist. Residence Setbacks: This building has a non-standard Side and Rear setback. Exist. Side: 0' & 12'-7" (where 15' total req'd) Rear: 12'-6" (where 25' req'd). Front: 45'-0" (where 25' req'd) Proposed Residence Setbacks: As above. Existing Bldg. Cover. w/in Rear setback: Res. 317 sf + Gar. 208 sf + Exist Deck (@4'6" abv. grade) 94 sf = 619 sf Proposed Bldg. Coverage w/in Rear setback: Res. 317 sf + Gar. 208 sf = 525 sf 1 Existing Floor Area: 3,296 s.f. Proposed Floor Area: 3,194 s.f. Allowed: 3,319 s.f. Existing Bldg. Coverage: 2,010 s.f. Proposed Bldg.Coverage: 1,898 1 Allowed: 2,297 s.f. 1 If the Board determines that the proposed Deck is a structure greater than 30" height then, in the calculations above, 91 s.f. must be added to the Proposed Building Coverage within the rear setback, and 145 s.f. must be added to the overall Proposed Building Coverage. NEED Because there is no rear yard, the Owners are landscaping the side yard to create a more attractive and usable outdoor space and to resolve two existing site problems: Drainage and Circulation. An important part of this landscape work is the construction of the Proposed Deck which is Accessible from the Residence's 1st Floor with a minimum change in elevation. The new Deck is 4 less than 30" above the new grade being created below it. The Deck is necessary to cover a graveled drainage area. Drainage There is an existing site drainage problem where runoff from the site and from the adjacent uphill lot collects and ponds along the low elevation of the south wall of the Residence. To resolve this problem a Basement door well and stairs in this area are being removed and the grade elevation along this section of wall is being raised approximately 1'-10" to create a raised Terrace, contained by retaining walls, and sloping away from the house. The elevation of the Terrace is approximately the existing grade elevation along the south property line. The raised Terrace will improve positive drainage to the east and west of the Residence. See Exhibits Page #6 for a Contour Plan of the area. The Proposed Deck is 1'-10" above this Terrace. The area below the Deck cannot be raised with compacted backfill and paved because it adjoins and would bear against the existing stone foundation walls. Instead it is backfilled with gravel contained by retaining walls, collecting water in piping at a high elevation along the existing stone Basement wall and channeling it eastward to discharge at grade. The gravel drainage bed must be covered by a deck to create usable outdoor space, as we are proposing. The Proposed Deck is 2'-4" above the top of the gravel bed. Circulation The existing Deck is located and connects between the Residence and the upper Garage wall. The Existing Deck is 4'-5" above grade. Its design complicates circulation from the side yard to the rear parking area, requiring that persons climb stairs up to the deck and then descend stairs down to the driveway. The existing Deck and stairs down to the driveway also block and complicate the maintenance of a drainage channel from the south yard toward the Alley. This existing Deck would be removed and replaced with the Proposed Deck. The Proposed Deck is detached from the Garage and separated from it by 3'-4". This allows circulation from the side yard to the rear parking area on the Alley, and providing a 3'-4" clear pathway for site drainage. QUALIFYING CRITERION This request for a variance satisfies the qualifying criteria for variance consideration of BRC Section 9-2-3 (h) 1 and (h) 5. Sections (h)2 - (h)4 are not applicable. BRC Section 9-2-3 (h) 1. Physical Conditions or Disability (A) (i) There are 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 unusual topographical circumstances on this property. 5 The existing Residence was constructed on the rear of the lot. The home's location is directly in the path of drainage from the uphill lot to the south. There is minimal positive drainage along the south side of the residence which must conduct the neighbor's drainage as well as the local runoff. The area of the existing Basement stairwell is subject to water ponding. The Basement stairwell wall is setback of 13'-10". The Owner's will remove the Basement stairwell and in its place install a new full-height Basement foundation wall below the existing Bay window setback 15'-3" from the south property line . (A)(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 The Owners, Bret & Michiko Aker, do not have a permanent physical disability. However, Bret Aker will soon be undergoing a series of surgeries to correct a congenital bone defect in both legs which will require an extended period of rehabilitation. (B) The unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood or zoning district in which the property is located. This Residence is unique because of it's drainage problems and it's location in the rear of the lot. There is no rear yard. Typically other homes in the neighborhood are located closer to the street with larger rear yard areas where drainage from adjacent uphill lots can be conducted. This is not possible on the subject property, instead water must be conducted around the Residence. The Residence sits at a lower elevation than the adjacent property to the south and is directly in the path of runoff from that property. The long south wall of the Residence presently has a minimal slope which discourages conveyance around the Residence. (C) Because of such physical circumstances or conditions the property cannot be reasonably developed in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. The Proposed Deck is the most reasonable solution for the unique circumstances on this lot. The Deck is necessary to cover a gravel drainage bed. It's proposed position optimizes accessibility, structural integrity, flashing connections, and efficient use of outdoor space. (D) Such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant. These challenging drainage conditions and the Rear and Side setback encroachments were created by the previous owners and inherited by the present Owners when they purchased the property in 2018. (h) 2. Energy Conservation Not Applicable (h) 3. Solar Access Not Applicable (h) 4. Designated Historic Property Not Applicable 6 (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; The Proposed Deck will not alter the neighborhood character. It is a low profile element in the rear of the lot that will not visibly affect the character of the neighborhood. (B) Would not substantially or permanently impair the reasonable use and enjoyment or development of adjacent property; The Proposed Deck will not impact the use or development potential of the neighboring property to the south. The use along the north property line of southern neighbor is a Garage and driveway that have been built recently. The Owners of the adjacent southern property, from which the Deck will be visible, have reviewed and approve of the proposed Deck. (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 Deck height is 1'-10" to 2'-4" above the grade immediately below it's footprint and 3'-7" to 3'11" higher than the adjacent grade. It is compliant relative to the grade below it. The Deck may require a variance due to the adjacent grade, allowing a 1'-1" - 1'-5" variance in the Deck 30" height for a deck within a setback. The northeast deck pier is located 3'-4" from the existing Basement stone wall which is the minimum to avoid affecting the existing wall's structural integrity. (D) Would not conflict with the provisions of section 9-9-7, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981. The proposed Deck will have no impact on the Solar Access of neighboring properties. Please refer to the attached Exhibits for illustrations of the Proposed Deck. Thank you for your consideration of our proposal. We hope you will view it favorably. Please contact me for questions. Yours Truly, Steve Montgomery Architect 303-443-4414 7 EXHIBITS: Page 1 SITE PLAN Page 2 EXISTING 1st FLOOR & DEMOLITION Page 3 NEW 1st FLOOR Page 4 SOUTH ELEVATION Page 5 DECK SECTIONS Page 6 PHOTOS CONTOUR PLAN Page 7 2007 LSP after portion of lot dedication to 820 Grant Place. Page 8 2006 LSP prior to portion of lot dedication to 820 Grant Place. 8 3 0 G R A N T P L A C E D E C K V A R I A N C E R E Q U E S T S I T E P L A N - E X I S T. From LSP, 1"=10' CHAUTAUQUA HEIGHTS ADDITION LEE STAEDEL SURVEYOR, 8/29/07 1 1 N1 AERIAL VIEW PROPOSED DECK AREA OF NEW DECK SHOWN ON PAGE 2 & 3 PLANS 2.58' 8 3 0 G R A N T P L A C E D E C K V A R I A N C E R E Q U E S T P L A N - E X I S T. 1st F L O O R 1/4" 1 2 N2 104'-1/2" 104'-5" 104'-7" 100'-0" DATUM T.O. E XIST. CONC. DRIVEWAY REMOVE EXIST. ROOF, WALL, FOUNDATION, & STAIRS PROPOSED DECK REMOVE EXIST. DECK 8 3 0 G R A N T P L A C E D E C K V A R I A N C E R E Q U E S T 100'-0" DATUM T.O. E XIST. CONC. DRIVEWAY 102'-0"102'-1" 102'-3" 102'-1" 104'-7" 102'-0" 104'-1"A 5 B 5 100'-6" 100'-2" P L A N - P R O P O S E D 1 st F L O O R 1/4" 1 3 3 102'-7" 102'-2" 100'-0" PROPOSED DECK N 8 3 0 G R A N T P L A C E D E C K V A R I A N C E R E Q U E S T S O U T H E L E V A T I O N 1/4" 1 4 B 5 4 B 5 PROPOSED DECK NEW FOUNDATION WALL BELOW EXISTING BAY NEW GRADE ELEVATION NEW DOOR GRADE BEYOND GAR 1 ST BSMT EXIST BAY ZINC TILED MAST FOR PLANT BASKETS ON STONE PIER @ (3) LOCAT. 8 3 0 G R A N T P L A C E D E C K V A R I A N C E R E Q U E S T S E C T I O N D E C K @ E X I S T. W A L L 1/4" B 5 D E T A I L D E C K F R A M I N G, 3/4" G U A R D R A I L A 5 A 5 5 B 5 ADJACENT GRADE @ WALK BEYOND PROPOSED DECK STONE PIER CONTINUOUS CONC. LINTEL GRAVEL BACKFILL 8 3 0 G R A N T P L A C E D E C K V A R I A N C E R E Q U E S T C O N T O U R P L A N EXISTING VIEW AREA OF PROPOSED DECK AREA EXISTING VIEW OF SOUTH YARD LOOKING EAST N EXIST. & ENHANCED DRAINAGE PATTERN AROUND HOUSE 6 8 3 0 G R A N T P L A C E D E C K V A R I A N C E R E Q U E S T L S P 2 0 0 7 7 8 3 0 G R A N T P L A C E D E C K V A R I A N C E R E Q U E S T L S P 2 0 0 6 8 From:Steve To:Spence, Cindy Subject:830 Grant Place Variance Request BOZ2019-00015 Date:Tuesday, September 3, 2019 4:40:43 PM Attachments:Duffield letter to BOZA.pdf Cindy,This is a letter of support from the neighbor to the south of the subject property. Robbie'semail from last week said I should send this to you. Please attach this to our application materials. Thanks a Lot,Steve MontgomeryArchitect/Applicant303-443-4414 September 2,2019 Dear BOZA, ln reference to BOZ 2019-00015, the variance request for Bret & Michiko Aker's deck, we would like to state that we have no objections. lndeed, we hope you'll approve their requeist because the deck and the landscaping they are planning will be an improvement to their home and to our neighborhood. Thanks, errD./^ Erik & Kelly Duffield 820 Grant Place Boulder, CO 80302 2 APPLICATION TYPES (Check All That Apply For This Application)  Setback (BRC 9-7-1)  Porch Setback & Size (BRC 9-7-4)  Building Separation (BRC 9-7-1)  Bulk Plane (BRC 9-7-9)  Side Yard Wall Articulation (BRC 9-7-10)  Building Coverage (BRC 9-7-11 or BRC 9-10)  Floor Area Ratio (BRC 9-8-2)  Parking in Front Yard Landscape Setback (BRC 9-7-1 & 9-9-6)  Size and Parking Setback Requirements for Accessory Units (BRC 9-6-3)  Cumulative Accessory Building Coverage (BRC 9-7-8)  Mobile Home Spacing Variance (BRC 9-7-13)  Use of Mobile Homes for Non-Residential Purposes (BRC 10-12-6)  Solar Exception (BRC 9-9-17)  Sign Variance (BRC 9-9-21) SAWHORSE-6 designs 303.579.1667 BOZA Setback Variance Statement ADU 2019-00070, 2229 Mariposa Ave. 8.12.19 Background Katrina Mitchell has owned and lived at 2229 Mariposa Ave since 2005. She would like to convert her existing single story brick garage into an ADU with a storage loft. The existing 3- bedroom primary house would then be rented at fair market value while she resides in the ADU during retirement. Criteria for Variance The garage was built along with the house in 1951. Having a footprint of 444 SF, the garage measures 1.2’ from the east property line, meeting neither the 0’ or 3+’ setback currently required for accessory buildings in the RL-1 zoning district. Our intent with the conversion was to maintain the nonstandard setback as allowed per B.R.C. 9-10-3(2). Specifically, the structural brick walls and associated foundation will remain intact throughout the conversion. The brick is in good condition and is the most durable cladding for the location and will require the least amount of maintenance over time. Given the tight alignment with the property line Katrina has also entered into an agreement with her neighbor to the east, at 2233 Mariposa, allowing for a maintenance easement. During the Administrative Review the Planning & Development department asked for a BOZA disposition regarding the non-standard setback because the function of the building was changing from an Accessory to an ADU. During the review we easily met all other building department and zoning concerns. Character of the Neighborhood The neighborhood (including the immediate neighboring lots) has many accessory structures that are in the 0’-3’ setback. Leaving the building intact with the original materials that the primary house is built with will preserve the character of the neighborhood. Thank you for your review of this issue. Owner, Katrina Mitchell Best, JD Signom, AIA SAWHORSE-6 a r c h i t e c t u r e + p l a n n i n g jd@sawhorse6.com 303.579.1667 BUILDING COVERAGE: FLOOR AREA TOTAL: 1820 SF MAX FAR ALLOWED: 3456 SF PRIMARY RESIDENCE (SINGLE STORY):1271 SF ADU MAIN FLOOR AREA: 411 SF ADU FLOOR AREA IN LOFT: 101 SF ADU STAIR AREA: 37 SF COMBINED HIGH VOL. SPACE: 0 SF FLOOR AREA : SQUARE FOOTAGE SUMMARIES EXISTING COVERAGE: 1756 SF MAX COVERAGE ALLOWED:2406 SF Primary Structure:1271 SF Accessory Existing: 444 SF New ADU porch roof: 41 SF SITE AREA: 6,782 SF = .155 ACRE (NON-STANDARD LOT SIZE) ZONING: RL-1 MAX ACCESSORY HEIGHT: 20' Scale Designed by Date 2126 Columbine Avenue Boulder, CO 80302 303.579.1667 1/4" = 1'-0"0-0-CVR- Gen. Notes + Project Info 2229 Mariposa Ave.8.12.19 JD PROJECT TEAM CONTACT INFO OWNERS: KATRINA MITCHELL 2229 MARIPOSA AVE, BOULDER, CO 80302 P: 303-669-9905 KATRINALMITCHELL@GMAIL.COM ARCHITECT: SAWHORSE-6 ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING JD SIGNOM, AIA 2126 COLUMBINE AVE BOULDER, CO 80302 P: 303-579-1667 JD@SAWHORSE6.COM SURVEYOR: SCOTT, COX & ASSOCIATES JOHN BURI 1530 55TH ST. BOULDER, CO 80303 P: 303-444-3051 BURI@SCOTTCOX.COM PROPERTY INFORMATION 2229 MARIPOSA AVE BOULDER, CO 80302 STR: T1SR70W SEC 06 SUBDIVISION: INTERURBAN PARK - BO LEGAL DESC: LOT 15 BLK 6 INTERURBAN PARK PROJECT DESCRIPTION CONVERT EXISTING SINGLE STORY GARAGE TO ADU WITH LOFT. VICINITY MAP: NTS Sheet List Sheet Number Sheet Name V100 Survey A100 Architectural Site Plan A103 Primary Residence - Plan A104 Accessory - Existing Plan A104.5 ADU - 1st Floor Plan - Proposed A105 ADU - Loft Plan - Proposed A106 Proposed New ADU Roof Plan A200 Elevations A201 Elevations A300 Building Sections MARIPOSA AVENUE 25' LOWEST POINT IN 25' ELEV.=5403.6' N89°46'05"E 50.21'(M)N0°04'01"W 135.05'(M)S0°03'31"E 135.05'(M)PP OHE4 B 5429.48 590 24" TREE CURBWALK 16" TREE 26" TREE 18" TREE MARIPOSA AVENUE 25' LOWEST POINT IN 25' ELEV.=5403.6' 24" TREE 16" TREE 26" TREE 18" TREE 5406 54055407540554065 4 06 5 4 0 45405540554065 4 0 5 CURBWALK N OFF STREET PARKING. PARALLEL PARKING APPROACH (0° PARKING ANGLE). NEW GRAVEL PAD TO BE INSTALLED MINIMUM OF 23'x9' PER BRC 9-9-6 TABLE 9-6. NEW PRIVACY FENCE TO DEFINE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 265 SF OF PRIVATE OPEN SPACE NEW PRIVATE ENTRY TO BE ESTABLISHED PROPERTY LINES EXISTING GARAGE MADE OF BUFF COLORED BRICK TO BE CONVERTED INTO ADU. GARAGE APPEARS TO BE BUILT AT THE SAME TIME AND WITH THE SAME MATERIAL AS THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. 444 SF OF BUILDING COVERAGE. CURRENTLY USED FOR STORAGE. EXISTING ONE STORY BUFF COLORED BRICK BUNGALOW 1271 SF OF BLDG COVERAGE. BUILT IN 1951. (NO CHANGES PROPOSED AT THIS TIME)PLANTEROVERHEAD POWER, PHONE & CABLE MINISPLIT HEAT PUMP EDGE OF NEW ROOF ABOVE 9' x 23' PARKING 9' x 23' PARKING 10.9'5'28.0'42.9'64.2'23.8'89.1'APPROXIMATE DRIP LINE OF EXISTING TREES EXISTING PAVERS TO REMAIN GATE REPLANT AREA WITH PERENNIALS AND NON-TURF GROUNDCOVER TO MEET BRC 9-9-12. 25' REAR YARD SETBACK 23 SF EXISTING ADU IN REAR YARD SETBACK LANDSCAPE NOTE: EXISTING LANDSCAPE TO REMAIN LARGELY INTACT. 28.9' 1.2' PROPERTY LINES EXISTING SINGLE STORY GARAGE 444 SF EXISTING ONE STORY BUFF COLORED BRICK BUNGALOW 1271 SF OF BLDG COVERAGE. BUILT IN 1951. (NO CHANGES PROPOSED AT THIS TIME)PLANTEROVERHEAD POWER, PHONE & CABLE FENCE GATE GATE D R I V E W A Y (PERMEABLE)Scale Designed by Date 2126 Columbine Avenue Boulder, CO 80302 303.579.1667 1" = 20'-0"0-0A100 Architectural Site Plan 2229 Mariposa Ave.8.12.19 JD 1" = 20'-0"1 Site Plan - Proposed 1" = 20'-0"2 Site Plan - Existing ?W/D8' - 6"12' - 9 1/2"12' - 3 1/2"10' - 10"11' - 4 1/2"6' - 7"11' - 4"6' - 5 1/2"9' - 6"5' - 5" 15' - 11" 5407' - 2 1/2" 102' - 1 1/4" KITCHEN LIVING ROOM DINING BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 ***EXISTING PRIMARY STRUCTURE -- TO REMAIN UNCHANGED N ROOF OVERHANG Scale Designed by Date 2126 Columbine Avenue Boulder, CO 80302 303.579.1667 1/8" = 1'-0"0-0A103 Primary Residence - Plan 2229 Mariposa Ave.8.12.19 JD 1/8" = 1'-0"1 1st Floor NOTES: -USGS SURVEY: 5405' 1-1/4" = 100' -LOW POINT WITHIN 25' = 5403.6' -ADU DWELLING TO HAVE 13D FIRE SUPRESSION SYSTEM -ADU WILL MEET 2017 COBECC N EXISTING OVERHEAD DOOR TO BE REMOVEDEXISTING DOOR TO BE REMOVED EXISTING WINDOW TO BE CONVERTED TO MAIN ENTRY 100' - 0" EXISTING ROOF OVERHANG. ENTIRE ROOF TO BE REMOVED. 1 2 A B C 11' - 11"10' - 1"22' - 0"20' - 2" 5405' - 1 1/4" EXISTING STRUCUTRAL BRICK & BLOCK WALL TO REMAIN. Scale Designed by Date 2126 Columbine Avenue Boulder, CO 80302 303.579.1667 1/4" = 1'-0"0-0A104 Accessory - Existing Plan 2229 Mariposa Ave.8.12.19 JD 1/4" = 1'-0"1 Accessory - Existing Plan NOTES: -USGS SURVEY: 5405' 1-1/4" = 100' -LOW POINT WITHIN 25' = 5403.6' -ADU DWELLING TO HAVE 13D FIRE SUPRESSION SYSTEM -ADU WILL MEET 2017 COBECC UP ?W 25'22.1'SCP SCA NAIL 24" TREE5405 A201 A201 A2002 A200 2 1 1 N 5405' - 1 1/4" 100' - 0" MAIN FLOOR 411 SF BATH 44 SF SLEEPING AREA 80 SF LIVING ROOM 113 SF KITCHEN 85 SF EDGE OF LOFT ABOVE 3' - 0"11' - 7"18' - 6" 5' - 0"9' - 0"1' - 8"1' - 8"INDUCTION COOKTOP 1 A300 REF.7' CELING HEIGHT BELOW LOFT MINI-SPLIT HEAT PUMP ROOF OVERHANG ABOVE 258 SF OF PATIO SPACE 7' - 4"5' - 7" 1 2 A B C 20' - 2"11' - 11"10' - 1"22' - 0"3' MINIMUM SETBACK FOR PENETRATIONS PER IRC 2012 TABLE R302.1(2) -NO ROOF OVERHANGS OR PENETRATIONS WITHIN SETBACK INSULATEED FURRING WALLS ADDED TO INTERIOR OF STRUCTURE. HATCHED AREA (33 SF) UNINHABITABLE UNDER STAIR AREA DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO FLOOR AREA SEE 1/A300 FOR SECTION LEAVE BRICK WALL AND FOUNDATION FULLY INTACT PER BRC 9-10-3.(a)(2)(A) 1' - 8" Scale Designed by Date 2126 Columbine Avenue Boulder, CO 80302 303.579.1667 1/4" = 1'-0"0-0A104.5 ADU - 1st Floor Plan - Proposed2229 Mariposa Ave.8.12.19 JD 1/4" = 1'-0"1 ADU Floor Plan - Proposed NOTES: -USGS SURVEY: 5405' 1-1/4" = 100' -LOW POINT WITHIN 25' = 5403.6' -ADU DWELLING TO HAVE 13D FIRE SUPRESSION SYSTEM -ADU WILL MEET 2017 COBECC PRIVACY FENCE DN ?W A201 A201 A2002 A200 2 1 1 STORAGE LOFT 101 SF OF CONTRIBUTING FLOOR AREA. SEE SECTION A1/300 OPEN TO BELOW MAX. CLG HEIGHT 15.2'3' - 5"1' - 5"8' - 2"RAILING 1 A300 107' - 11" N 1 2 A B C 10' - 4" HATCHED AREA IS 15 SF OF UNINHABITABLE SPACE HAVING A CEILING HEIGHT OF LESS THAN 6' AND DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO FLOOR AREA. EDGE OF ROOF BELOW OPEN TO BELOWPORCH ROOF 41 SF BELOW. STAIR AREA 34SF Scale Designed by Date 2126 Columbine Avenue Boulder, CO 80302 303.579.1667 1/4" = 1'-0"0-0A105 ADU - Loft Plan - Proposed 2229 Mariposa Ave.8.12.19 JD 1/4" = 1'-0"1 ADU - Loft Plan - Proposed NOTES: -USGS SURVEY: 5405' 1-1/4" = 100' -LOW POINT WITHIN 25' = 5403.6' -ADU DWELLING TO HAVE 13D FIRE SUPRESSION SYSTEM -ADU WILL MEET 2017 COBECC 25' LOWEST POINT IN 25' ELEV.=5403.6' GS 5403.58 608 24" TREE 54075405WOOD FENCE23.8'23.9'1.2' 1.5' A201 A201 A2002 A200 2 1 1 N 5421' - 11 1/2"9.3'16.4'6' - 6" 2" / 12" 1 2 A B C ALL ROOF SLOPES TO PROP LINE ROOF NOTE: ALL ROOF ASSEMBLIES TO BE UNVENTED CLASS A. AS DESIGNED, WITH A 2/12 PITCH THE ROOFING MATERIAL WILL NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE GROUND IN ANY DIRECTION. HIGH POINT Scale Designed by Date 2126 Columbine Avenue Boulder, CO 80302 303.579.1667 1/8" = 1'-0"0-0A106 Proposed New ADU Roof Plan2229 Mariposa Ave.8.12.19 JD 1/8" = 1'-0"1 Roof Plan NOTES: -USGS SURVEY: 5405' 1-1/4" = 100' -LOW POINT WITHIN 25' = 5403.6' -ADU DWELLING TO HAVE 13D FIRE SUPRESSION SYSTEM -ADU WILL MEET 2017 COBECC ADU 100' - 0" T.O. Roof 116' - 10 3/16" ADU T.O.W. 107' - 0" ADU - Loft Plan - Proposed 107' - 11" NEW SECOND STORY WITH SHIP LAP SIDING EXISTING BUFF COLORED BRICK NEW WINDOWS AND DOORS ALL AROUND A B C (E) PORCH ROOF ADU 100' - 0" T.O. Roof 116' - 10 3/16" ADU T.O.W. 107' - 0" ADU - Loft Plan - Proposed 107' - 11" NEW CLASS A ROOFS EXISTING BRICK TO REMAIN NEW SIDING ABC FENCE BEYOND NO OVERHANGS ON LOWER ROOF Scale Designed by Date 2126 Columbine Avenue Boulder, CO 80302 303.579.1667 1/8" = 1'-0"0-0A200 Elevations 2229 Mariposa Ave.8.12.19 JD 1/8" = 1'-0"1 West Elevation 1/8" = 1'-0"2 East Elevation NOTES: -USGS SURVEY: 5405' 1-1/4" = 100' -LOW POINT WITHIN 25' = 5403.6' -ADU DWELLING TO HAVE 13D FIRE SUPRESSION SYSTEM -ADU WILL MEET 2017 COBECC ADU 100' - 0" T.O. Roof 116' - 10 3/16" ADU T.O.W. 107' - 0" ADU - Loft Plan - Proposed 107' - 11" LOW POINT WITHIN 25' 5403' - 7" 6' PRIVACY FENCE FROM PRIMARY RESIDENCE 2" 12" 2" / 12" 5418' - 11 1/4"5421' - 0 1/4" 5420' - 6 1/4" PROPERTY LINE (NEAREST POINT TO STRUCTURE) 6' - 4" 14" HEIGHT FROM LOW POINT 5421' - 11 3/8"1' - 7 3/4"18' - 4 3/8"4 5 °12'BULK PLANE 1 2 ACCESSORY HEIGHT MAX. 20' PER BRC 9-7-1. ADU 100' - 0" T.O. Roof 116' - 10 3/16" ADU T.O.W. 107' - 0" ADU - Loft Plan - Proposed 107' - 11" 2" 12" 2 " / 1 2 " MINI-SPLIT HEAT PUMP 12 NO OVERHANGS ON LOWER ROOF Scale Designed by Date 2126 Columbine Avenue Boulder, CO 80302 303.579.1667 1/8" = 1'-0"0-0A201 Elevations 2229 Mariposa Ave.8.12.19 JD 1/8" = 1'-0"2 South Elevation 1/8" = 1'-0"1 North Elevation NOTES: -USGS SURVEY: 5405' 1-1/4" = 100' -LOW POINT WITHIN 25' = 5403.6' -ADU DWELLING TO HAVE 13D FIRE SUPRESSION SYSTEM -ADU WILL MEET 2017 COBECC ADU 100' - 0" T.O. Roof 116' - 10 3/16" ADU T.O.W. 107' - 0" ADU - Loft Plan - Proposed 107' - 11"5' - 8"6' - 8" MIN.BATH KITCHEN BEYOND SLEEPING AREA STORAGE LOFT 2" 12" 115' - 4"6'UNINHABITABLE SPACE 30"7'6'22" Scale Designed by Date 2126 Columbine Avenue Boulder, CO 80302 303.579.1667 1/4" = 1'-0"0-0A300 Building Sections2229 Mariposa Ave.8.12.19 JD 1/4" = 1'-0"1 Section at Stair Revised January 2019 City of Boulder Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway, third floor • PO Box 791 • Boulder, CO 80306 K jV Phone: 303-441-1880 • Fax: 303-441-4241 • Web: boulderplandevelop.net 400.pdf BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT (BOZA) VARIANCE APPLICATION APPLICATION DEADLINE IS 4:00 P.M. ON THE SECOND 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 may result in rejection of the application. GENERAL DATA (To be completed in full by the applicant., Street Address or General Location of Property:, loH Grafter Rnod, Soolcler Co 83j3 Legal Description: Lot ^ Block_____Subdivision ©o\i __(Or attach description.) Lot Size: Existing Use of Property: 5Tii/We -fwultj r€%\ci-enx-e. saltspecific Variance[s] Requested IDetailed Description of Proposal (Specific Variance[s] Requested Including All Pertinent Numerical Values (e.g.: Existing, Required and Proposed Setbacks for the Subject Setback Variance):S;nl.eqard 8eVba,ck vaprut ce -(hr a. de\tuhed 2. cartainle M aTQ SeVDaxIC variflJlC)i rve.iLi cfron.} *Total floor area of existing building: / 3^ 5f *Total gross floor area proposed: 0 ^ *Total building coverage existing: 'Z.*Total gross building coverage proposed: 2-/®Hsflirwv•* - /{/I •ji *Building height existing: ’•*Buildinq height proposed: ci&ajt^ *See definitions in Section 9-16-1, B.R.C. 1981. Name of Owner: £ au 4 £\tirvne)au. 3 c^r4e pttxj - cIa-vlS Q oorruxist* nef r~ Ref Telephone: 720- ~j7g-£>lQ0Address: / .61 City: Ir^uld-er State: CO Zip Code: Email: Name of Contact (if other than owner): Am Cy\£(J/dJr Address:. **>0 S- . _______________________Telephone: 363- g»l3 City: pryolrlcr' State: CO Zip Code: Emai|: joxxjr^l 2QCQ& ^mpLit • ccvn Doc. No. Application received by: Date Filed STAFF USE ONLY Zone Date Fee Paid Hearing Date___ Sign(s) Provided APPLICATION TYPES (Check All That Apply For This Application) ^Setback (BRC 9-7-1) □ Porch Setback & Size (BRC 9-7-4) □ Building Separation (BRC 9-7-1) □ Bulk Plane (BRC 9-7-9) □ Side Yard Wall Articulation (BRC 9-7-10) □ Building Coverage (BRC 9-7-11 or BRC 9-10) □ Floor Area Ratio (BRC 9-8-2) □ Parking in Front Yard Landscape Setback (BRC 9-7-1 & 9-9-6) □ Size and Parking Setback Requirements for Accessory Units (BRC 9-6-3) □ Cumulative Accessory Building Coverage (BRC 9-7-8) □ Mobile Home Spacing Variance (BRC 9-7-13) □ Use of Mobile Homes for Non-Residential Purposes (BRC 10-12-6) □ Solar Exception (BRC 9-9-17) □ Sign Variance (BRC 9-9-21) 2 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS As a minimum, the following items MUST be attached, collated and hereby made a part of this application: v/ • If applicant is other than owner(s), a written consent of the owner(s) of the property for which the variance is requested; A written statement thoroughly describing the variance request(s) and addressing all pertinent review criteria for approval - see following pages (3 copies); y. A signed and stamped Improvement Location Certificate or Site Improvement Survey and legal description by a registered surveyor (3 copies);y. A site development plan including setbacks, elevations, interior layout/floor plans and any other pertinent exhibits (3 copies);sr/iv A demolition plan clearly differentiating between existing/remaining and proposed portions of the structure(s) (3 copies); y . Any other information pertinent to the variance request (e.g. neighbor letters, photos, renderings, etc.) (3 copies); y. Sign Posting Acknowledgement Form - see following page. NOTE: The applicant is responsible for posting the property in compliance with city requirements. Signs will be provided to the applicant at the time of submission of the application. The applicant will be responsible for posting the required sign(s) within 10 days of the hearing date. Failure to post the required sign(s) may result in the postponement of the hearing date. J . An electronic copy of all materials (including a completed & signed application form) must be submitted on a thumb/USB drive with your application. *CDs will not be accepted; y« A Board of Zoning Adjustment application fee (as prescribed in the current ‘Schedule of Fees’ which can be found at bouldercolorado.gov/plan-develop); IRATION4NFORMATIONNOTE: SEE SECTION 9-2-3(l), BJfceTl981 FOR VARIA! Applicant Signatun _____ Date S-7-(^ Owner (if other than Applicant) Signature /ffi/t I( fN^________Date%~ H' !°[ 3 SIGN POSTING REQUIREMENTS APPLICANT’S ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM Required for Certain Land Use Review, Administrative Review, Technical Document Review, and Board of Zoning Adjustment Applications 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 les.s 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 thissection. i Atviber SW.vja.rT (PRINT NAME OF APPLICANT OR CONTACT PERSON) Document Review, or BOZA application [on behalf of] _ ______, am filing a Land Use Review, Administrative Review, Technical for the property (PRINT NAME OF OWNER(S) IF OTHER THAN APPLICANT/CONTACT) located at !C)(oH G\cLp)ec &j, tx)Ufcle/(P I have read the city's sign posting requirements above and acknowledge (PRINT PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION) 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 injfcie-eity’s issuing a^te^ision or a legal challenge of any issued decision. APP ONTACTPERSON 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. Eithne and Ray Davis as the owners of 1064 Gapter Road consent to allow Amber Stewart to be our representative as the applicant for the setback variance BOZA application. mi TYiVi'S *•-11- n in a i lie * J)Av'/5 Signature Date (1 Name li~Ahjc(S j)Ms . Signature Date Davis Garage Page 1 of 2 August 13th, 2019 Project: Davis Detached Garage Addition Address: 1064 Gapter Road, Boulder CO 80303 BOZA Side Yard Setback Variance - Narrative Project Description: The Davis’s would like to build a small single story 2 car detached garage on their property. The zoning for the property is RR-2 which requires a 10’ side yard setback for accessory structures. We are requesting a variance to allow for a 3’ setback from the south property line. Criteria for Variance: (h) – (1) Physical Conditions or Disability (A)(i) – Although the overall lot size is not unusually small for the neighborhood, it has a significant number of topographical features that severely limit where a garage could be located and is narrower than neighboring lots. Please reference page A5 for a diagram showing the area of the lot that in theory could have a garage located on it. The size of this area is 9,713 sf, which is relatively small compared to the overall lot size of 39,030 sf. There is a pond with a large old growth forest covering the east half of the lot that is not buildable and restricts access. There are large trees and bushes that don’t allow access from the north side of the lot. The only place where a garage could be accessed is on the south side of the lot where there is already an existing gravel drive. The lot is also narrow when compared to the other lots on Gapter Road in the RR-2 zoning district. Please refer to the attached ‘neighboring lots diagram’ which shows the neighboring homes on Gapter Road. The majority of these homes are significantly wider than the subject property. Also peculiar to this property is a raised septic berm that slopes up dramatically to the east of the dashed line shown on sheet A-5. This can also be seen in the attached photographs of the site. This further restricts where a garage could be located. (B) – The pond & raised septic berming are not typical site conditions of neighboring properties. Most of the lots are flat farmland. The unusual narrowness of the site does not occur along Gapter Road as shown in the attached ‘neighboring lots diagram’. (C) – We have reviewed all other options for relocation of the garage in order to conform with the setback requirements for this lot. The only available option would be to move the garage further north, however doing so would require that the 2 primary shad trees to the south of the home be cut down. These are large 30 year + old trees and provide important shade for the home. The home does not have air conditioning and relies on natural ventilation and shade to keep cool in the summer months. You can see from sheet A5 that the kitchen and living room are located on the south side of the home and losing these 2 shade trees would have a significantly negative impact on the Davis’s quality of life. It should also be noted that moving the garage further north would not get it out of the high hazard flood plain. Due to the other site restrictions including staying 6’ away from the primary structure and not encroaching on the septic berm there is no way to move the garage out of the high hazard flood plain. (D) – The shade trees to the south were planted approximately 30 years ago by the applicant. However this was long before the property was annexed into City and at the time a garage could have been built in the location proposed. This lot would not have been subject to the setback requirements at the time of the tree planting. Davis Garage Page 2 of 2 (h) – (5) Requirements for All Variance Approvals (A) - It is important to the Davis’s that the rural character of the neighborhood be preserved. We feel that locating a small detached garage 3’ from the property line does not have a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood and is the only location that makes logical sense. Being able to bring a tractor or small vehicle into the back portion of the lot is an important part of owning a rural lot and the location as we have shown it is the only way that is possible. It is within the Davis’s right to build a 9,758 sf home. They instead intend to maintain their modest home keeping in character with the rural neighborhood. We are only asking for a 672 sf detached garage to allow for them to not have to worry about scraping ice and snow off their windshield as they continue to age. (B) - The only neighbor who would be potentially impacted by this development is the neighbor to the south and they are in support of this proposal. Their home is a significant distance away from the proposed garage and it has minimal to zero impact on them. (C) – Our proposal is for the furthest away from the property line that we can locate the garage and still maintain vehicle access to the back yard. (D) – The proposed garage is on the south side of the property and would therefore not block the solar access of any neighbor. Site History: The Davis’s moved into this home in 1990. This area was annexed into the City in 2011, it was previously under Boulder County jurisdiction. Several homes in this area had built garages close to the property line before the annexation took place. High Hazard Flood Plain: The proposed garage is located within the high hazard flood plain. We have been in close communication with the flood plain engineers at the City and do not anticipate any issues with this development in the high hazard zone. We will be installing flood vents for mitigation. In reality the garage in this location will provide protection for the primary residence from floodwaters because it will help to direct flood waters into the ditch along the south side of the property and out to the road. Site Visit: We would like to invite the Board to visit the site Tuesday, September 10th before the September 12th Board meeting. It is much easier to understand the site constraints when you can see it in person. Sincerely, Amber Stewart, RA, LEED AP BD+C, NCARB Principal Architect – 79 Design, LLC 303-513-4737 Amberlaurel2000@gmail.com SEPTICBERMEXISTING GRAVELDRIVESHADE TREES FORSOUTH SIDE OF HOMEPRIMARY ENTRY FORHOME INTOKITCHEN/LIVING AREA SEPTIC BERM SHADE TREE FOR SOUTH SIDE OF HOME EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVE BASELINE ROAD/DIMMIT DRIVE DIAGRAM SHOWING NEIGHBORING HOMES ON GAPTER ROADGAPTER ROADPROJECT LOCATION: 1064 GAPTER ROAD SCOPE OF WORK A NEW DETACHED GARAGE PROJECT INFORMATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION BUILDING TYPE LOT 7, GAPTER SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADO DETACHED GARAGE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ZONING RR-2 LOT SIZE 39,030 SF = 0.9 ACRES SETBACK MINIMUMS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FRONT: 55'; SIDE: 10'; REAR: 0' OR 3' MAX. ALLOWABLE HEIGHT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 20' ACTUAL HEIGHT REFER TO ELEVATIONS GARAGE FINISH FLOOR ELEV.5261.5' USGS NUMBER OF STORIES 1 APPLICABLE CODES 2015 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE 2015 INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE 2015 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE 2015 INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING CODE 2015 INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE 2015 INTERNATIONAL GREEN CONSTRUCTION CODE 2014 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE SPRINKLERED NO MINIMUM SEPARATION BETWEEN ACCESSORY BUILDING AND ANY OTHER BUILDING 6' PROPOSED NEW FLOOR AREA:0 SF (GARAGES ARE EXCLUDED FROM COUNTING TOWARDS FLOOR AREA) MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USE ->22,500 SF 0.25:1 = 39,030X.25 = 9,758 SF MAXIMUM ACCESSORY BUILDING COVERAGE WITHIN PRINCIPAL BUILIDNG REAR YARD SETBACK 500 SF MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BUILDING COVERAGE FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USE ->22,500 SF LOT SIZE x 0.2 = 39,030 SF x 0.2 = 7,806 SF EXISTING FLOOR AREA:RESIDENCE LEVEL 1 = 2,139 sf EXISTING BUILDING COVERAGE:RESIDENCE = 2,139 sf (OPEN SHED IS LESS THAN 80 SF AND DOES NOT COUNT TOWARDS BUILDING COVERAGE) PROPOSED NEW BUILDING COVERAGE:DETACHED GARAGE = 672 SF DAVIS REMODEL & GARAGE ADDITION 1064 GAPTER ROAD BOULDER, CO 80303 08.13.2019 BOZA SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST PROJECT INFORMATION A0 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIWM C x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx GAPTER ROAD(60' R.O.W.)EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVE CITY HIGH HAZARD FLOOD ZONE EXISTING FLAGSTONE WALK & PATIO LOT 7 EXISTING OPEN SHED FLOOD ZONE AE POND EXISTING GAS METER EXISTING ELECTRIC METER LOT 5 LOT 6REGULATORY FLOODWAY ZONE AETRACT 638-B TRACT 638-AREC. NO. 1057474N 00° 00' 00" E (125')N 90° 00' 00" E (320.03')N 00° 01' 00" W (125')N 90° 00' 00" E (320.07') WATER METER CONCRETE TANK / VAULT 20' - 0" 20' UTILITY EASEMENT 25' - 0" 25' FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR PRIMARY STRUCTURE NEW FLAGSTONE PATH SHOWN IN RED MAINTAIN EXISTING DITCH TO ROAD FOR DRAINAGE 85' - 4 1/2" - TO ROOF 86' - 4 1/2" - TO WALL 55' - 0" 55' FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE NEW DETACHED GARAGE 10' - 0"10' SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE10' - 0"MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM AN INTERIOR LOT LINE FOR PRIMARY STRUCTURE 25' - 0" 25' REAR YARD SETBACK FOR PRIMARY STRUCTURE EXPANDED GRAVEL DRIVE SHOWN IN RED EXISTING SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE DASHED LINE INDICATES BEGINNING OF SEPTIC BERM SLOPE SEPTIC BERM DAVIS REMODEL & GARAGE ADDITION 1064 GAPTER ROAD BOULDER, CO 80303 08.13.2019 BOZA SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST OVERALL SITE PLAN A1 1" = 30'-0"1 OVERALL SITE PLAN N IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIWM C x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx THERE IS NO AVAILABLE VEHICLE ACCESS FOR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOME DUE TO LARGE TREES AND BUSHES THERE IS A POND AND OLD GROWTH FOREST ON THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE SITE WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT ON THIS PART OF THE LOT. PROPOSED DESIGN ALLOWS FOR 12' BETWEEN EXISTING TREE TRUNK AND GARAGE TO ALLOW FOR A VEHICLE TO PASS FOR BACK YARD MAINTENANCE BEGINNING OF SLOPE OF SEPTIC BERM, GARAGE CAN NOT BE MOVED FURTHER EAST ON THE SITE WITHOUT ENCROACHING ON THE SEPTIC BERM RELOCATION OF THE GARAGE FURTHER TO THE NORTH WOULD REQUIRE CUTTING DOWN THE PRIMARY SHADE TREES FOR THE HOMES KITCHEN AND LIVING ROOM AREA. GARAGE CAN NOT BE RELOCATED FAR ENOUGH NORTH TO BE OUT OF THE HIGH HAZARD FLOOD PLAIN. YELLOW AREA (9,713 SF) INDICATES PORTION OF LOT THAT COULD HAVE A GARAGE LOCATED ON IT CONSIDERING SETBACKS, SEPTIC BERM, POND AND AVAILABLE ACCESS KITCHEN LIVING 20' - 0" 20' UTILITY EASEMENT 25' - 0" 25' FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR PRIMARY STRUCTURE 10' - 0"10' SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE10' - 0"MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM AN INTERIOR LOT LINE FOR PRIMARY STRUCTURE 25' - 0" 25' REAR YARD SETBACK FOR PRIMARY STRUCTURE DAVIS REMODEL & GARAGE ADDITION 1064 GAPTER ROAD BOULDER, CO 80303 08.13.2019 BOZA SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST SITE CONSTRAINTS DIAGRAM A2 1" = 30'-0"1 SITE CONSTRAINTS DIAGRAM N x x x3' - 0"DISTANCE TO PROPERTY LINE TO WALL HIGH HAZARD FLOOD LINE 8' x 18' GARAGE DOOR, CENTERED NEW FLAGSTONE WALKWAY NEW WINDOW NEW 3' x 6'-8" MAN DOOR LINE OF EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVE LINE OF EXPANDED GRAVEL DRIVE MAINTAIN 12' CLEAR FROM EXISTING TREE TRUNK FOR OWNER ACCESS TO BACK YARD EXISTING BLUE SPRUCE TREE TO REMAIN A5 2 A4 2 A4 1 A5 1 24' - 0" - TO F.O. STUDS28' - 0" - TO F.O. STUDS RELOCATED EDGE OF GRAVEL DRIVE T.O. CONC 5261.5' GRADE 5261.5' GARAGE FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION = 5264.12'9' - 0" - CLEAR FOR CAR19' - 0" - CLEAR FOR CAR 9' - 0" - CLEAR FOR CARGRADE (HI POINT) 5261.7' GRADE 5261.5' GRADE 5260.7' GRADE @ DITCH 5260.8' GRADE @ DITCH 5261.3' 2 4 ' - 0 " C L E A R B A C K U P S P A C E 9' - 0"ROOF OVERHANG ALLOWED TO ENCROACH ON SETBACK 1' - 0"1 HOUR RATED WALL AT SOUTH GRADE 5261.5' FLOOD VENT FIRE RATED FLOOD VENT FLOOD VENT FLOOD VENT DAVIS REMODEL & GARAGE ADDITION 1064 GAPTER ROAD BOULDER, CO 80303 08.13.2019 BOZA SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST GARAGE PLAN A3 1/4" = 1'-0"1 LEVEL 1 - GARAGE PLAN N GARAGE LEVEL 98' -0" SOUTH PROPERTY LINE 4' - 6"3' - 6"8' - 0"2' - 0"4' - 0"2' - 0" HORIZONTAL CEMENT BOARD LAP SIDING, 8" EXPOSURE. PAINT TO MATCH HOUSE COLOR EXPOSED CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALL NEW VINYL WINDOWS EXISTING WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN 3' - 0" 2' - 2" 5261.5' ROOF OVERHANG ALLOWED TO BE WITHIN SETBACK PER 9-7-3 (d) PROPOSED 3' SIDE YARD SETBACK FLOOD VENT GARAGE LEVEL 98' -0" NEW DOOR ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING 5261.5' FLOOD VENT 14' - 10"DAVIS REMODEL & GARAGE ADDITION 1064 GAPTER ROAD BOULDER, CO 80303 08.13.2019 BOZA SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST GARAGE ELEVATIONS A4 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"2 NORTH ELEVATION GARAGE LEVEL 98' -0" HORIZONTAL CEMENT BOARD LAP SIDING, 8" EXPOSURE. PAINT TO MATCH HOUSE COLOR EXPOSED CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALLEXISTING WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING 5261.5' FLOOD PROTECTION ELEV 5264.12' NEW EXTERIOR DARK SKY SCONCE FIRE RATED FLOOD VENT 14' - 10"GARAGE LEVEL 98' -0" HORIZONTAL CEMENT BOARD LAP SIDING, 8" EXPOSURE. PAINT TO MATCH HOUSE COLOR NEW EXTERIOR DARK SKY SCONCE, CENTER IN WALL EXPOSED CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALL EXISTING WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN SOUTH PROPERTY LINE NEW GARAGE DOOR NEW GUTTER 3' - 0" 2' - 2" 5261.5' 6 12 6 12 FLOOD VENT, CENTER IN WALL PROPOSED 3' SIDE YARD SETBACK DAVIS REMODEL & GARAGE ADDITION 1064 GAPTER ROAD BOULDER, CO 80303 08.13.2019 BOZA SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST GARAGE ELEVATIONS A5 1/4" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION DAVIS REMODEL & GARAGE ADDITION 1064 GAPTER ROAD BOULDER, CO 80303 08.13.2019 BOZA SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST RENDERING OF GARAGE A6 Written Narrative BOZA Variance Application For: An existing detached studio located in the southeast corner of 734 Maxwell Ave Boulder, CO. September 11, 2019 Dear Board of Zoning Adjustment, We are submitting this application for a setback variance because the existing building in the Mapleton Hill Historic District (a detached one story framed structure in the southeast corner of the property, currently used as a studio) does not meet established and recognized setback requirements. The existing studio building does not meet the 3'-0" setbacks at the East and South property lines. A setback variance is requested to allow the detached studio to be an accessory structure. We would prefer not to have to move the building 1'-10" to the North and 1.0 ft. to the West. It is understood that being granted the variance also means removing the existing shower, as Zoning allows no greater than a ½ bathroom per accessory structure allowances.  The space would pretty much remain the studio use that it is today. We are also aware that a maintenance easement agreement with the adjacent neighbors will be required. Here is the criteria for the variance: CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE •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. Moving the structure would cause financial hardship and undue disturbance to neighbors as well as disturbance to the mature landscaping and existing hardscape. The lot is non-standard in size making it a narrow and small lot which, if the structure had to be moved, would encroach into the open space in rear and side yards.
 (B)  The unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood or zoning district in which the property is located. The physical properties of this lot are unique.
 (C)  Because of the existing setback conditions the detached studio are not in conformity with the provisions of this chapter for an accessory structure that allows no greater than a 1/2 bath, a setback variance is being requested. In addition, getting the variance would allow the owner to renovate, install insulation, update siding and make the bathroom modifications, etc. (D)  Any unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant. The applicant is not responsible for, nor has caused anything that would be considered an unnecessary hardship. •Requirements for All Variance Approvals (A)  This setback variance request would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the lot is located. 
 (B)  This setback variance request would not substantially or permanently impair the reasonable use and enjoyment or development of adjacent property. 
 (C)  This setback variance request would be the minimum variance that would afford relief and would be the least modification of the applicable provisions of this title. 
 (D)  This setback variance does not conflict with the provisions of Section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981. There is no building height or footprint change. Respectfully submitted, Jeff Abrams (representative) for Matt Johnke (Owner) 
 
 North west corner of Studio (close up) West wall and west roof of Studio from south west courtyard North west corner Studio (from West property line) View of Studio (north wall) from the northerly end of East side yard View of Studio (north wall) from the middle of the East side yard Another view of Studio's north west corner East Wall Studio (looking South)East Wall Studio and solid fence East Wall Studio and solid fence (looking North) NorthSouth) South Wall Studio South Wall Studio (looking towards East) Revised January 2019 400.pdf City of Boulder Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway, third floor • PO Box 791 • Boulder, CO 80306 Phone: 303-441-1880 • Fax: 303-441-4241 • Web: boulderplandevelop.net BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT (BOZA) VARIANCE APPLICATION APPLICATION DEADLINE IS 4:00 P.M. ON THE SECOND 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 may 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 in full by the applicant.) •Street Address or General Location of Property: •Legal Description: Lot Block Subdivision (Or attach description.) •Lot Size: •Existing Use of Property: •Detailed Description of Proposal (Specific Variance[s] Requested Including All Pertinent Numerical Values (e.g.: Existing, Required and Proposed Setbacks for the Subject Setback Variance): *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. ♦Name of Owner: •Address:Telephone: •City: State: Zip Code: Email: ♦Name of Contact (if other than owner): •Address:Telephone: •City: State: Zip Code: Email: 245 BROOK PL, BOULDER, CO 80302 5 5 GREENBRIAR 0.21 ACRES RESIDENTIAL This application is being made to request variances for a Front Porch Setback and a Rear Setback located 245 Brook Place in Boulder.We are requesting a variance to allow a 7’-5” wide front porch where only a 6’ wide porch is allowed due to Front Porch encroachment. In addition, we are requesting a variance to allow a rear setback of 23’-7 ½” where the required setback is 25’ for RL-1 zoning. Within this setback (East), the proposed design calls for increasing wall height. 2585 SQFT 2885 SQFT 14'-6"14'-6" NOT ADDING SQ FOOTAGE DREW ROBERTSON/ The Bold Six Development LLC CO 80304 2 APPLICATION TYPES (Check All That Apply For This Application) Setback (BRC 9-7-1) Porch Setback & Size (BRC 9-7-4) Building Separation (BRC 9-7-1) Bulk Plane (BRC 9-7-9) Side Yard Wall Articulation (BRC 9-7-10) Building Coverage (BRC 9-7-11 or BRC 9-10) Floor Area Ratio (BRC 9-8-2) Parking in Front Yard Landscape Setback (BRC 9-7-1 & 9-9-6) Size and Parking Setback Requirements for Accessory Units (BRC 9-6-3) Cumulative Accessory Building Coverage (BRC 9-7-8) Mobile Home Spacing Variance (BRC 9-7-13) Use of Mobile Homes for Non-Residential Purposes (BRC 10-12-6) Solar Exception (BRC 9-9-17) Sign Variance (BRC 9-9-21) X X APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS As a minimum, the following items MUST be attached, collated and hereby made a part of this application: •If applicant is other than owner(s), a written consent of the owner(s) of the property for which the variance is requested; •A written statement thoroughly describing the variance request(s) and addressing all pertinent review criteria for approval -see following pages (3 copies); •A signed and stamped Improvement Location Certificate or Site Improvement Survey and legal description by a registered surveyor (3 copies); •A site development plan including setbacks, elevations, interior layout/floor plans and any other pertinent exhibits (3 copies); •A demolition plan clearly differentiating between existing/remaining and proposed portions of the structure(s) (3 copies); •Any other information pertinent to the variance request (e.g. neighbor letters, photos, renderings, etc.) (3 copies); •Sign Posting Acknowledgement Form -see following page. NOTE: The applicant is responsible for posting the property in compliance with city requirements. Signs will be provided to the applicant at the time of submission of the application. The applicant will be responsible for posting the required sign(s) within 10 days of the hearing date. Failure to post the required sign(s) may result in the postponement of the hearing date. •An electronic copy of all materials (including a completed & signed application form) must be submitted on a thumb/USB drive with your application. *CDs will not be accepted; •A Board of Zoning Adjustment application fee (as prescribed in the current 'Schedule of Fees' which can be found at bouldercolorado.gov/plan-develop); NOTE: SEE SECTION 9-2-3(1), B.R.C. 1981 FOR VARIANCE EXPIRATION INFORMATION Applicant Signature _M_I_K_E_P_IC_H_E _____________ Date 811312019 Owner (if other than Applicant) Signature,,""� === Date 8113J2019 3 SIGN POSTING REQUIREMENTS APPLICANT’S ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM Required for Certain Land Use Review, Administrative Review, Technical Document Review, and Board of Zoning Adjustment Applications 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. I, , am filing a Land Use Review, Administrative Review, Technical (PRINT NAME OF APPLICANT OR CONTACT PERSON) Document Review, or BOZA application [on behalf of] (PRINT NAME OF OWNER(S) IF OTHER THAN APPLICANT/CONTACT) for the property located at (PRINT PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION) . I have read the city's sign posting requirements above and acknowledge 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. MIKE PICHE 8/13/2019    STUDIO B ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS  501 RIO GRANDE PLACE, SUITE 104 ASPEN, CO 81611 / 3550 FRONTIER AVE, SUITE 2‐A, BOULDER, CO 80304  ASPEN 970.920.9428  BOULDER 720.230.7292    WWW.STUDIOBARCHITECTS.NET    BOZA NARRATIVE 8.14.19 Project: 245 BROOK PLACE Contractor Contact: MIKE KELLOGG, MK CONSTRUCTION | 303-803-8225 | MIKE@MKCONSTRUCTION.PRO Architect Contact: MIKE PICHE, STUDIO B ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS | 720.230.7292 MIKE.PICHE@STUDIOBARCHITECTS.COM Planning and Development Services City of Boulder P.O Box 791 Boulder, CO 89396 RE: BOZA Variance application 245 Brook Place, Boulder, CO 80302 Drew Robertson, Owner To whom it may concern, This application is being made to request variances for a Front Porch Setback and a Rear Setback located at 245 Brook Place in Boulder. 1. Front Porch Setback: We are requesting a variance to allow a 7’ -5” wide front porch where only a 6’ wide porch is allowed due to Front Porch encroachment. 2. Rear Setback: We are requesting a variance to allow a rear setback of 23’-7 ½” where the required setback is 25’ for RL-1 zoning. Within this setback (West), the proposed design calls for increasing wall height. The house was constructed in 1950 and it has not been modified since its original construction. Zoning has changed since it was built making the current house non-confirming with current setbacks standards. The owner of the property purchased it with the existing nonconformities already in place and was not responsible for the non- conformity. The overall height of the structure will not increase, and it will remain a single-story residence. No additional square footage is being proposed. Moreover, the design is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and will not have any negative effects on the neighbors or impede solar access. Our request for a variance is based-on criteria paragraphs (1)(D) and (5)(A, B, C & D): CRITERIA RESPONSE (1) Physical Conditions Current owner purchased house in 2019 and has not created any of the existing non-conformities. (D) Any unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant. (5) Requirement for all Variance Approvals. The modifications would not increase the height of the existing structure or change the original character of the building. The existing brick will remain along with all the primary roof lines. No additional square footage is being added. The improved front porch will add more character to (A)Would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the lot is located;    STUDIO B ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS  501 RIO GRANDE PLACE, SUITE 104 ASPEN, CO 81611 / 3550 FRONTIER AVE, SUITE 2‐A, BOULDER, CO 80304  ASPEN 970.920.9428  BOULDER 720.230.7292    WWW.STUDIOBARCHITECTS.NET    the existing neighborhood. The house will remain a single- story residence. (B) Would not substantially or permanently impair the reasonable use and enjoyment or development of adjacent property; The modifications would not increase the height of the existing structure, impact views or impair solar access. (C)Would be the minimum variance that afford relief and would be the least modification of the applicable provisions of this tittle. The proposed roof is a minimal solution offering increased daylight to the owner for interior spaces. The modifications would not increase the height of the existing structure, impact views or impair solar access. No additional square footage is being added. Rear Yard Setback: The rear yard setback variance is requested for a new roof over the living room and kitchen on the existing structure as the structure being modified does not meet the required setbacks for RL-1 zoning district. The proposed design calls for an increase in height of the West wall in the Living Room in order to open the space towards the back yard and views of the Flatirons. Popping up the roof on the West side will also allow for integration of new clerestory/ windows. Therefore, more natural light will come into the space, transforming the current dark living room into a bright and vibrant gathering area. The new wall height will continue into the Master Bedroom to allow for a new window system to be installed so the master bedroom also receives more natural light. Porch Setback (Front): The new design proposes a 7’-5” wide Entry porch which would offer enough square footage to create comfortable circulation, occupiable space as well as a reasonably sized point of arrival. A bigger porch in this house will encourage social interaction and preserve the ambiance of the neighborhood by reclaiming the front porch – an important design feature of midcentury residential architecture. A portion of this width (7’-5”) is being taken by a couple steps up towards the Entry door. Less than 7’- 5” of width for this front porch will not be reasonable for the new owner. In addition, variance in porch standards is being asked because of an existing wall encroaching 14 inches into the required 25’ front setback. (D) Would not conflict with the provisions of Section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C.1981. The modifications would not increase the height of the existing structure, impact views or impair solar access. We really appreciate your understanding and taking the time to consider our variance request. Sincerely, Mike Piche CITY OF BOULDER BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT ACTION MINUTES July 11, 2019, 5 p.m. 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers Board Members Present: Michael Hirsch (Chair), Jill Lester, Jack Rudd, Cherie Goff Board Members Absent: David Schafer City Attorney Representing Board: Erin Poe Staff Members Present: Robbie Wyler, Cindy Spence 1. CALL TO ORDER: M. Hirsch called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. 2. BOARD HEARINGS: A. Docket No.: BOZ2019-10 Address: 845 Pine Street Applicant: Hae Hyong Park Setback Variance: As part of a proposal to construct a new single-family house and to permit a portion of the new house at the previous home’s east, side yard setback, the applicant is requesting a variance to the side (east) yard setback along 9th Street in order to meet the minimum side adjacent to street setback requirements for principal structures in the RL-1 zoning district. The resulting east setback will be approximately 7.17 feet where 12.5 feet is required and no structure exists today (previous home has been demolished). 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: Jae Park, representing the applicant, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Jae Park, representing the applicant, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: David Biek, with Arcadia Architecture the current architect for the project, spoke in support of the project. Board Discussion: • M. Hirsch disclosed he had officed with the new architect in the past, but that would not inhibit his ability to remain impartial. • J. Lester said that the fact the original foundation remains is key and the owner desired to retain that portion of the house which fell. The contractor should have understood the importance of retaining that portion of the house and used supports. The complaining neighbors have large lots and may not understand building on a narrow site and they are not proximate to this site. The contractor did not understand the scope of the work and there was a communication error. She said since the original foundation remains, then there would be enough of an historic element therefore she would be in support. • C. Goff said this is a large site and there will be a lot of the original foundation left. She said it appears the applicant is attempting to preserve some of the character by keeping the foundation. She said there does seem to be a hardship on the amount of investment and time. • J. Rudd said the intent was to maintain the historic wall and part of the existing structure. Unfortunately, a series of events that were unexpected occurred. He agreed to support the variance because there was no ill intent and it was only due to unfortunate events. • M. Hirsch stated that there had been and application submitted to Landmarks, a decision was made, and this board should respect it. BOZA is not an enforcement board, therefore BOZA should review this as if nothing prior had occurred and the applicant was applying for a variance. The board should review this request based on if this variance be allowed by right. He said that it is difficult to understand how this structure could not have been preserved. • E. Poe, with the City Attorney’s Office, clarified that any decision by BOZA would not vary any decision by the Landmarks Board. BOZA would simply be granting a variance. • J. Rudd agreed if this variance were presented as a new project, then it would have been a yes or no decision. However, this situation has more involved. • J. Lester agreed with J. Rudd. She stated that this could not be reviewed as a new build because it is not a use by right. The location of the home would be impacted by a historic review. • E. Poe • J. Rudd said that the tearing down of that wall, which was a mistake, changed this project. • M. Hirsh added that he believed the applicant’s comments and that there was no malice. Motion: On a motion by J. Rudd, seconded by J. Lester, the Board of Zoning Adjustment approved 3-1 (M. Hirsch opposed; D. Schafer absent) the application (Docket BOZ2019-10) as submitted. B. Docket No.: BOZ2019-11 Address: 1884 Folsom Street Applicant: Valero Diamond Metro Inc. Sign Setback Variance: As part of a proposal to reface an existing freestanding monument sign, the applicant is requesting a variance to both the front (north) yard setback facing Walnut Street and the side (west) setback facing Folsom Street in order to meet the minimum setback requirements for such signs in the BR-1 zoning district. The resulting north setback will be approximately 19.08 feet where 25 feet is required and 19.08 feet exists today. The resulting west setback will be approximately 10.08 feet where 25 feet is required and 10.08 feet exists today. Section of the Land Use Code to be modified: Section 9-9-21, BRC 1981. Staff Presentation: R. Wyler presented the item to the board. Board Questions: R. Wyler answered questions from the board. Applicant’s Presentation: Lisa Croston, the applicant, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Lista Croston, the applicant, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: No one from the public addressed the board. Board Discussion: • The board did not have any discussion. Motion: On a motion by J. Lester, seconded by J. Rudd, the Board of Zoning Adjustment approved 4-0 (D. Schafer absent) the application (Docket BOZ2019-11) as submitted. C. Docket No.: BOZ2019-12 Address: 946 Gilbert Street Applicant: Mary Jane Reilly Setback Variance: As part of a proposal to modify an existing accessory building with the intent of converting a portion of it into an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), the applicant is requesting a variance to the side (south) yard setback in order to meet the minimum interior side setback requirements for accessory structures in the RE zoning district. The resulting south setback will be approximately 6.5 feet where 10 feet is required and 6.5 feet exists today. No expansion of the structure’s footprint or overall bulk is proposed as a part of this request. Section of the Land Use Code to be modified: Sections 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: Mary Jane Reilly, the applicant, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Mary Jane Reilly, the applicant, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: No one from the public addressed the board. Board Discussion: • M. Hirsch stated that this had been an historical structure built before the existing zoning laws. • J. Rudd said the request would not alter the characteristic of the neighborhood or impair reasonable enjoyment. The variance would give minimal relief therefore it will meet all the criteria. Motion: On a motion by J. Rudd, seconded by C. Goff, the Board of Zoning Adjustment approved 4- 0 (D. Schafer absent) the application (Docket BOZ2019-12) as submitted. 3. GENERAL DISCUSSION: A. Approval of Minutes On a motion by J. Lester, seconded by J. Rudd, the Board of Zoning Adjustments voted 4-0 (D. Schafer absent) to approve the June 13, 2019 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 i. Discussion of August 2019 Retreat Topics • R. Wyler asked board members to send him tentative dates they would be available. • The board members were asked to submit topic ideas for discussion. ii. Appointments of Chair and Vice Chair for Upcoming Year • J. Rudd was nominated by C. Goff, seconded by J. Lester, as Chair. Voted 4-0 (D. Schafer absent) • C. Goff was nominated by J. Lester, seconded by J. Rudd as Vice Chair. Voted 4-0 (D. Schafer absent) 4. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the board at this time, BY MOTION REGULARLY ADOPTED, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 6:42 P.M APPROVED BY _________________________________ Board Chair _________________________________ DATE