03.11.21 BOZA MinutesCITY OF BOULDER
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
ACTION MINUTES
March 11, 2021, 5 p.m.
Virtual Meeting
Board Members Present: Jill Lester (Chair), Cherie Goff, Jack Rudd,
Michael Hirsch
Board Members Absent: Elizabeth Prentiss
City Attorney Representing Board: Erin Poe
Staff Members Present: Robbie Wyler, Cindy Spence, James Hewat
1. CALL TO ORDER:
J. Lester called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m.
2. BOARD HEARINGS:
A. Docket No.: BOZ2020-18
Address: 776 14th Street
Applicant: Paul Summerside
Setback, Bulk Plane & Solar Exception Variances: As part of a proposal to renovate
and construct a rear addition to the existing historic and nonconforming single-family
house, the applicant is requesting a variance to the setback, bulk plane and solar access
requirements for a principal structure in the RL-1 zoning district. The resulting north
interior side yard setback will be approximately 4.5 feet (taken from the upper story
addition) where 5 feet is required and approximately 4.7 feet exists today (taken from the
existing lower story). The resulting south interior side yard setback will be
approximately 8.3 feet (taken from the replaced lower-level south wall) where 10.5 feet is
required in order to meet the combined side yard setback and approximately 8.3 feet
exists today from that location; the current southern setback for the entire house is
approximately 7.6 feet. Next, the resulting bulk plane encroachment at the north side of
the addition will project beyond the plane by approximately 12 feet where an
approximate 12-foot projection exists with the home’s current roofline. And lastly, the
applicant is requesting a solar access exception to the solar access Area 1 regulations due
to the addition. The property to the north (792 14th Street) will be the only property
affected by this request. Sections of the Land Use Code to be modified: Sections 9-7-1,
9-7-9 & 9-9-17, BRC 1981.
Staff Presentation:
R. Wyler presented the item to the board.
Board Questions:
R. Wyler answered questions from the board.
Applicant’s Presentation:
Ely Merheb, with Verso, LLC, presented the item to the board.
Board Questions:
Ely Merhab, representing the applicant, answered questions from the board.
Public Hearing:
No one from the public addressed the board.
Board Discussion:
Key Issue #1: Solar Access Exception Variance
• C. Goff recused herself after realizing she had a relationship with the general
contractor for the project.
• J. Rudd said he would support the project and agreed with what had been discussed.
While there may be other architectural solutions, the proposal would work well. It
would be a good solar solution.
• M. Hirsch said he would be in support of this solar variance and the right thing is
being proposed.
• J. Lester said that while there might be other solutions, this might be the best. She
would support it.
On a motion by J. Rudd, seconded by M. Hirsh, the Board of Zoning Adjustment approved
3-0 (C. Goff recused, E. Prentiss absent) the solar access exception variance (Docket
BOZ2020-18) as submitted.
Key Issue #2 & #3: Setback Variance & Bulk Plane Variance for Rear Addition
• M. Hirsch said that there is an existing encroachment and a desire to expand. The
applicant’s approach was acceptable. He stated that there was no issue from the
Landmarks Board’s standpoint. He would be in favor of approval.
• J. Rudd was in favor of approving. He remarked that the neighborhood had existing
inconsistencies. Each decision by the applicant’s proposal was well thought-out.
• J. Lester said the weighing in of the Landmarks Board was a significant factor and their
support was important. She would be in favor.
Motion:
On a motion by J. Rudd, seconded by M. Hirsh, the Board of Zoning Adjustment approved
3-0 (C. Goff recused, E. Prentiss absent) the application Docket BOZ2020-18) as
submitted.
B. Docket No.: BOZ2021-07
Address: 3325 Folsom
Applicant: Dante & Ashley Ortiz and the Clarke Family Living Trust
Setback Variance: As part of a proposal to construct a rear single-story addition onto the
single-family home, the applicants are requesting a variance to the side (north) yard
setback requirement for a principal structure in the RE zoning district. The resulting
north setback will be approximately 10 feet where 15.8 feet is required and
approximately 8.4 feet exists today. Section of the Land Use Code to be
modified: Section 9-7-1, BRC 1981.
Staff Presentation:
R. Wyler presented the item to the board.
Board Questions:
R. Wyler answered questions from the board.
Applicant’s Presentation:
Dante and Ashley Ortiz, the applicants, presented the item to the board.
Board Questions:
Dante and Ashley Ortiz, the applicants, answered questions from the board.
Public Hearing:
David Neiger spoke and was generally in support of the project. He had concerns regarding
the sloping of the roof on the proposed addition possibly blocking their views to the south
and southwest. He would prefer the roof to slope the opposite direction and could be less
impactful.
Board Discussion:
• C. Goff said she was struggling with if the request was minimal because a large portion
of it would be extending over the property line. While the lot is narrow, she said she was
struggling to find the balance comparing it with other lots in the neighborhood. The
variance appeared to be large.
• J. Rudd said that one often depends on setbacks being uniform. He would be hesitant to
support this request. He said he felt there may be an architectural solution that may not
involve having that wing of the house as proposed.
• M. Hirsch echoed J. Rudd. He said we should look at use by-right alternatives. The lot
has much open space accessible and other alternatives available that would not interfere
with the neighbors which would still achieve the applicant’s goals.
• J. Rudd added that there is a perception of value in maintaining the existing setbacks.
• J. Lester said she would be uncomfortable approving this proposal given the large lot
situation. She understood the applicant’s single-story preference and the aging in place.
However, there could be other solutions that would still accomplish those goals with a
minimal ask. She could not support the proposal as presented and there are other
solutions that would have less impact.
• Staff reiterated why they would be in support of an approval for the project to the board.
• C. Goff questioned that since the modification is modest on one side, then perhaps it
would be meeting the minimal setback. She said that would be the only way in which it
would be meeting the term “modest”. The project would still not be modest in terms of
length and width. She stated that she was still struggling with approval.
• J. Rudd said he was looking at the relationship of spaces and the relationship to the
neighbors’ houses.
• M. Hirsch after staff’s explanation, he did not see it as a spacing issue between the
houses, although we do like to see them be acceptable and livable. Zoning rules have
changed over the years and there are by-right alternatives available. The applicant’s lot
has ample existing space.
• J. Lester informed the applicants that the board is struggling, they are not a design board,
and may not approve. She explained the rights of the applicant to continue their
application rather than have a denial of the project.
Motion:
On a motion by M. Hirsch, seconded by J. Rudd, the Board of Zoning Adjustment voted 4-
0 (E. Prentiss absent) to continue the application (Docket BOZ2021-07) to within ninety
(90) days.
3. GENERAL DISCUSSION:
A. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by J. Lester, seconded by M. Hirsch, the Board of Zoning Adjustments
voted 4-0 (E. Prentiss absent) to approve the February 11, 2021 BOZA minutes.
B. Matters from the Board
o J. Lester addressed creating an ADU subcommittee and begin the work that had
been discussed in the BOZA’s 2021 Letter to Council. The board agreed to wait
until next month to set up the subcommittee after the new board appointments
were made.
C. Matters from the City Attorney
There were no matters from the City Attorney.
D. Matters from Planning and Development Services
There were no matters from the Planning and Development Services.
4. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the board at this time, BY MOTION
REGULARLY ADOPTED, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 7:16 P.M
APPROVED BY
___________________
Board Chair
______05/13/2021__________________
DATE