08.12.21 BOZA Packet
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE GIVEN BY THE CITY OF BOULDER, BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT, AT THE TIME AND PLACE SPECIFIED ABOVE. ALL PERSONS,
IN FAVOR OF OR OPPOSED TO OR IN ANY MANNER INTERESTED IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS, TITLE 9, BOULDER REVISED CODE 1981; MAY
ATTEND SUCH HEARING AND BE HEARD IF THEY SO DESIRE. (APPLICANT OR REPRESENTATIVE MUST APPEAR AT THE MEETING.)
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. BOARD HEARINGS
A. Docket No.: BOZ2021-00013
Address: 1722 Pine Street
Applicant: Drew Barry Eisenberg & Amy Baldor Eisenberg
Setback Variance: As part of a proposal to construct a rear 2-story addition onto the single-family
home, the applicants are requesting a variance to both the east and west side yard setbacks for a
principal structure in the RMX-1 zoning district in order to meet the combined side yard setback
requirements for each side. The resulting east setback will be approximately 5.4 feet (taken from the
addition) where 11.1 feet is required and 5.4 feet exists today. The resulting west setback will be
approximately 7.6 feet (taken from the new addition) where 9.6 feet is required and 3.9 feet exists
today. Section of the Land Use Code to be modified: Section 9-7-1, BRC 1981.
3. GENERAL DISCUSSION
A. Approval of Minutes: The July 8, 2021 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 Robbie Wyler (wylerr@bouldercolorado.gov), Brian Holmes (holmesb@bouldercolorado.gov) or Cindy Spence at 303-441-1880.
Board packets are available after 4 p.m. Friday prior to the meeting, online at www.bouldercolorado.gov.
* * * SEE REVERSED SIDE FOR MEETING GUIDELINES * * *
CITY OF BOULDER
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
MEETING AGENDA
DATE: Thursday, August 12, 2021
TIME: Meeting to begin at 5 p.m.
PLACE: Virtual Meeting
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 1 of 43
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.
VIRTUAL MEETINGS
For Virtual Meeting Guidelines, refer to https://bouldercolorado.gov/government/board-commission/board-zoning-
adjustment page for the approved Board of Zoning Adjustment Rules for Virtual Meetings.
*The Chairperson, subject to the board approval, may place a reasonable time limitation on presentations.
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 2 of 43
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 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 and materials 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 gross floor area existing:*Total gross floor area proposed:
*Total gross 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:
1722 Pine St, Boulder, CO 80302
E 3/4 Lot 4 125 Boulder Old Town
5267 Sqft
Single family residential
We are requesting a combined side yard setback variance. The proposed combined side yard setback
of the addition with the existing 1900's home is 9.3', where 9.3' exists today, and 15' is required.
2059 sqft
1167 sqft
30.3'
Drew Barry Eisenberg and Amy Baldor Eisenberg
1722 Pine St 201-575-6472
Boulder CO 80302 dbeisenberg@gmail.com
32.0' **
**Building high point is not changing, but low point 25' from addition is lower
4227 sqft
2069 sqft
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 3 of 43
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
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 4 of 43
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 5 of 43
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 6 of 43
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 7 of 43
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 8 of 43
5/21/2021
The Historic Preservation program has reviewed and approved the following scope of demolition:
[Approved] Full demolition of an accessory building constructed c. 1930. Building not
potentially eligible for designation as an individual landmark. Approval expires 5-21-2022
(COVID-19 extension applied).
Historic Preservation Demolition Approval 1722 PINE ST (HIS2021-00118)
Please note that this is only one of the approvals required before the demolition is authorized. To complete
the process, submit the following in-person through a Project Specialist, located in the Planning & Development
Services Center, 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor:
l Full Demolition: submit all required signatures with a completed Demolition Permit Application .
l Partial Demolition: submit all required signatures with a completed Residential Building Permit Application .
o Visit https://bouldercolorado.gov/plan-develop/applications for other application types.
The historic preservation signature is valid for 180 days and cannot be extended. If the application isn’t
finalized within this period, a new historic preservation demolition review application is required.
Please contact your case manager, Marcy Gerwing at gerwingm@bouldercolorado.gov with any questions you
may have.
Issuance of this document does not exempt the applicant from complying with all City codes, including
land use and building codes.
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 9 of 43
Dear BOZA Board:
We have recently purchased 1722 Pine St which is a three quarters width lot (37.5’) and are proposing an
addition to the existing house to make 1722 Pine our forever home for our growing family. We are
requesting a combined side yard setback variance since the existing house has small setbacks on a narrow
lot and BRC 9-7-2 states that an addition needs a 15’ combined side yard setback with the existing house.
Figure 1 has a pictorial example of what we are proposing.
Figure 1: Pictorial example of variance request. (Adapted from BRC 9-7-2, Figure 7-2)
My wife, Amy, and I have one son named Felix, and we are planning to have 3 children in total. Additionally,
we would like some partially separate space for Amy’s mother, Margaret, to live in. Amy works from home
full-time and I work 3 days a week from home; so, we also need 2 dedicated working spaces. To
accommodate a family of five plus a grandparent, we would like to build an addition that adds to the
current small brick house built in ~1900 (photo below). This addition will allow us to add a modern kitchen
and living area on the main floor, a master bedroom suite upstairs, and a basement with a guest suite and
rec room. It will also give us the 5 bedrooms and 2 work-from-home spaces we plan to need. We have
considered if a by-right solution could meet our needs, but a by-right addition would be impractical. Our
proposed addition is better for the neighborhood, for energy conservation, and for livability.
We have spoken to the owner of the property adjacent to the west at 1714 Pine and he supports our plans
and variance request. We have also spoken to 3 neighbors along the alley of our block and they all support
our plans and variance request. You can find a scan of their signatures in support attached below.
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 10 of 43
Photos of existing house: Front facing Pine St on left, backyard on right
Current Situation & Proposed Addition
We are proposing to build an addition on the back (south side) of our existing brick house. Due to the
placement of the existing house on the lot, any addition of a reasonable width will need a combined side
yard setback variance. The existing house is 3.9’ from the west property line and 5.4’ from the east
property line and so has an existing combined side yard setback of 9.3’ where 15’ is required (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Existing house with existing setbacks (north to the right)
Our proposed addition retains the existing 5.4’ east setback and increases the west setback to 9.6’ (Figure
3). When considering only the proposed principal structure of the addition, the new structure will have a
combined side yard setback of 15’, which meets the requirements for RMX-1 zoning. However, when
combined with the existing house, our proposal has a side yard setback of 9.3’, where 9.3’ exists today.
Figure 4 contains a 3D rendering of our proposal for our home. Note that due to our property’s narrowness
and location next to a duplex on the west and a 4-plex on the east, there is an exception for side yard bulk
plane and side yard wall articulation requirements.
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 11 of 43
Figure 3: Proposed addition with setbacks
Figure 4: Proposed addition 3D Rendering Looking Northeast
Non-Standard Lot
Our lot is a three quarters (3/4) Boulder Old Town lot which makes it only 37.5’ feet wide by 140’ long (a
standard lot is 50’x140’). This makes our lot 25% narrower than a standard lot. The total square foot area
of the lot is 5,267sqft (see attached lot area declaration form signed by our surveyor). This makes our lot
smaller than the minimum lot area for RMX-1 zoning of 6,000sqft as shown in BRC 9-8-1. Both the
narrowness and lot area are non-standard and do not exist throughout the neighborhood.
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 12 of 43
By-Right Design
Our proposed 2-story structure is 22.5’ wide (lot width of 37.5’ minus by-right combined side yard setback
of 15’). If we were to build a by-right addition, the maximum width of the by-right addition would be only
16.8’ wide due to the width and side yard setbacks of the existing house. A 16.8’ wide building is not
practical; it would be long, narrow, and provide little usable living space for our family. A 16.8’ wide
building would only allow for at most a hallway with small rooms off of the hallway. Including a stairwell
would be very difficult. The by-right design footprint is drawn in Figure 5 with setbacks.
Figure 5: By-right design footprint
I have included 3D drawings of what a by-right addition would look like. Please see 3D renderings of our
proposal vs the by-right design in Figures 6 and 7. The by-right design is not aesthetically pleasing due to
its long and narrow nature and would not fit well into the neighborhood. Additionally, due to the low
width, it has 20% more surface area for the same square foot area. This means that it is significantly less
energy efficient than the proposed addition.
Figure 6: Proposal on Left Compared to By-Right Design on Right (Looking North from Sky)
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 13 of 43
Figure 7: Proposal on Top vs By-Right on Bottom (looking east)
Rear Porch
The porch on the south side of the addition extends west of the principal structure by 2’. The porch deck
will only be ~42” above the natural grade, but will create a combined side yard setback of 13’ feet where
9.3’ exists today and 15’ is required. The porch would be allowed in the setback if the deck were less than
30” above grade with the columns removed. This small widening of the porch makes the space more
usable and allows for a table and chairs to be on this deck to be closer physically and visually to our
children playing in the yard. Additionally, by widening the porch 2’ it creates a more aesthetically
attractive porch covering that mimics the roof lines and would create additional energy saving shade for
the living room by protecting it from southwest sun exposure. Lastly, by having the porch deck 42” above
grade rather than 30” above grade, it allows significantly more light into the basement space since this is
the southwest corner of the home and will get the most sunlight.
If this small extension of the porch into the combined side yard setback presents an issue with the BOZA
Board, we can add a foot of soil to reduce the deck height to 30” and remove the columns or limit the
porch to the principal structure wall. See Figure 8 for a comparison of our proposal with and without the
2’ porch extension. This is a minor request but we feel that it adds character and functionality to our home.
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 14 of 43
Figure 8: Proposed design on left vs narrowed deck on right
We believe that intention of the combined side yard setback rule is to prevent having too much building
width facing the street. When looking at our proposed home from Pine Street, it will be difficult for a
passerby to see that there is an addition behind the original brick house since our proposed addition has
greater or the same setbacks as the existing home. We feel that we are following the intention of the rule
with this proposed addition.
Demolition Plan
We are removing the large shed in the south west corner of the lot. We have received a historic
preservation demolition approval for the removal of the shed/accessory building (approval attached
below). As part of the renovation and addition of the existing house, we are planning to demolish the
enclosed back porch that we believe was added in ~1930. We do not need a historic preservation
demolition approval for the enclosed porch since it is less than 50% of the roof or 50% of the walls of the
current main house. See Figure 9 for the portions of the existing structures we are removing.
Figure 9: Areas shaded in red are planned to be demolished
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 15 of 43
Variance Criteria
Below I show how we meet all of the criteria for a variance given the house’s physical conditions:
(1) Physical Conditions or Disability:
A. 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
• The lot is 25% narrower than a standard lot for the neighborhood (1722 Pine is 37.5’ wide
vs. standard width of 50’). The lot is also 13% smaller than the minimum lot area for RMX-
1 zoning (1722 Pine is 5,267sqft while minimum is 6,000sqft).
• Existing combined side yard setback is 9.3’, which is below the required 15’ for RMX-1
zoning.
B. The unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood or zoning
district in which the property is located
• There are very few three-fourth width or narrower lots in the Whittier neighborhood (less
than 10?). The vast majority of lots are full width of 50’.
C. Because of such physical circumstances or conditions the property cannot reasonably be
developed in conformity with the provisions of this chapter
• Due to the narrowness of the lot and the width of the existing house, a by-right addition
could be at most 16.8’ wide. This is not wide enough to make a practical or energy efficient
structure that meets our family’s needs.
D. Any unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant.
• We have just purchased the property with the current area and width. We believe this lot
has been of this shape since the original house construction in ~1900.
(5) Physical Conditions or Disability:
A. Would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the lot is located
• The addition will be only partly visible from the street due to having the same or greater
setback from the property lines as the existing street facing house. Additionally, the
neighboring property to the east is a 35’ tall modern 4-plex that does not fit the character
of the neighborhood. Our construction will add to the character of the neighborhood by
restoring the existing street-facing brick home and our addition will follow architectural
styling from the existing home.
B. Would not substantially or permanently impair the reasonable use and enjoyment or
development of adjacent property
• The only people that might be negatively affected by our proposed addition would be the
owners of the 4-plex to the east since their view of the mountains from the lower floors
will be reduced. However, our proposed addition would affect the 4-plex less than the by-
right solution. See Figure 7 for a 3D rendering. The by-right solution would be substantially
longer, and thus would impact our eastern neighbors’ mountain views to a greater extent.
We believe that the non-ground level floors will still have good views of the mountains
with either solution. The proposal also has a setback on the 4-plex side equal to the
existing setback, which is greater than the minimum of 5’ for a side yard setback.
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 16 of 43
C. Would be the minimum variance that would afford relief and would be the least modifi cation of
the applicable provisions of this title
• We have proposed an addition that meets all by-right rules when considering the addition
by itself since the principal structure’s combined side yard setbacks add to 15’. The only
variance needed is a combined side yard setback when including the location of the
existing house. We are requesting 9.3’ where 9.3’ exists today. Any reduction in the width
of the proposed addition would create a less practical design, a less energy efficient
design, and impact the neighbors more by extending further into their view.
D. Would not conflict with the provisions of Section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C.1981.
• Our proposal does not conflict with any provision of section 9-9-17 “Solar Access”. In
RMX-1 zoning, the solar fence is 25’ in height. Our addition is 2 stories tall with a proposed
height above the ground of at most 22’ near the property line. This clearly would not
create a shadow above the solar fence. Due to our low roof pitch, the highest point of the
roof will also not create any shadow over the solar fence. See Figure 10 below.
Figure 10: Blue is the 25’ solar fence in RMX-1 zoning on our property line. Our proposed home will not
create a shadow above the solar fence since the tallest point is below the plane in brown. The brown
plane represents the maximum height allowed 2 hours after solar noon on the Winter Solstice. The
closest point to the brown plane is more than 5’ lower than required by solar shadow rules.
Since our proposed addition is closer to the east property line, our building height will be well within the
height limit required by solar shadow rules 2 hours before solar noon (will be more than 5’ below).
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 17 of 43
Interior Layout/Floor Plans
Below are our current concepts on floor plans for our proposed home:
Main floor:
Second Floor:
Basement:
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 18 of 43
Building Elevations
North elevation:
South elevation:
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 19 of 43
East elevation:
West elevation:
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 20 of 43
Building Coverage Calculation
Since the proposal is near the limits on FAR and building coverage, I thought including the calculation
used would be helpful for reference.
Building coverage:
Room (right to left) Dimensions (feet) Area (square feet)
Existing house 27.1x26.1 707.3
Bay window 6.6x2.1 13.9
Principal structure of addition 34x22.5 765
Garage + Mudroom + Some Porch 34.5x13 448.5
Rear Porch 11.66x11.5 134.1
Total 2068.8
Building coverage limit is 2103 square feet. Proposal is 2068.8 square feet.
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 21 of 43
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Calculation
FAR calculation included for reference.
Main floor:
Room (right to left) Dimensions (feet) Area (square feet)
Existing house 27.1x26.1 707.3
Bay window 6.6x2.1 13.9
Principal structure of addition 34x22.5 765
Mudroom 8x8 64
Garage 26.5x13 344.5
Main Floor Total 1894.7
Second floor:
Room (right to left) Dimensions (feet) Area (square feet)
Existing house 27.1x26.1 707.3
Principal structure of addition 34x22.5 765
Exempt stairway opening 13x3 -39
Main Floor Total 1433.3
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 22 of 43
Basement:
Room (right to left) Dimensions (feet) Area (square feet)
Principal structure of addition 34x22.5 765
Under rear porch 11.66x11.5 134.1
Basement Floor Total 899.1
Perimeter calculation:
Clockwise from top right Perimeter (feet)
North Wall 22.5
East exterior wall 34
South short wall 8
East interior wall 11.66
South exterior wall 16.5
Rear porch west wall 11.66
Rear porch north side 2
West exterior wall 34
Basement perimeter 140.3
Percent of basement floor area that counts towards FAR is percent of perimeter that is exposed by more
than 36”. There is at most 6.66 feet that is exposed by more than 36”. This is a conservatively large
estimate since in reality it will be slightly less since currently we are counting all steps and some steps
will be less than 36” from basement ceiling. Only 6.66 divided by 140.3 is counted towards FAR. So
4.75% of the basement floor area is counted towards FAR. 4.75% of 899.1 is 42.7 square feet.
The sum of main floor, second floor, and basemen t square footage for FAR is 3370.7 square feet
where 3373 square feet is allowed.
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 23 of 43
From:Wyler, Robbie
To:Wyler, Robbie
Subject:BOZ2021-00013 Meeting Presentation and 5(C) Details
Date:Friday, August 6, 2021 9:35:23 AM
From: Drew Eisenberg <dbeisenberg@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, August 6, 2021 7:06 AM
To: Wyler, Robbie <WylerR@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Re: BOZ2021-00013 Meeting Presentation and 5(C) Details
Hi Robbie,
Thanks for the quick reply. If it's not too much trouble, we would appreciate you adding the below
additional explanation of how we meet criteria 5(C). Thanks,
Drew
5(C). Would be the minimum variance that would afford relief and would be the least
modification of the applicable provisions of this title
We believe that any addition that is less than 22.5’ wide would not meet our needs as
it would not be practical, not be energy efficient, and would not be good for the
neighborhood. A 22.5’ wide addition is a narrow addition, but we feel that this would
provide enough relief. Additionally, we believe our requested square footage for the
second floor is the minimum for our family.
Width:
·
A 22.5’ wide exterior is only a 21.5’ wide interior. This allows for a stairwell with
an interior wall of 4.5’ wide, a walking area of 4’ wide connecting the old house
with the addition, and a kitchen 13’ wide. A 13’ wide kitchen is already a narrow
kitchen for a family of 5 plus a grandparent.
Upstairs has similarly narrow rooms due to the staircase and a hallway with
interior walls. Rooms off of the upstairs hallway can only be 12-13’ wide. This is
wide enough, but any less makes the rooms impractical.
The stairwell does not fit east/west on the short dimension without a turn and
then stacking the stairwell to the basement becomes difficult. (The existing
stairwell is narrow and only has a 5’ clearance so we are replacing it.)
Floor Area:
·
The need for our floor area of the requested 2-story addition is driven by the
second floor. For a family with 3 children and with adults working at home, we
need to have 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, and a laundry room on the same floor
and space for 2 offices in our house. Our second floor’s total square foot area
is 1433. We have designed it with modest sized rooms (10’x12’ kid’s rooms,
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 24 of 43
12’x15’ master bedroom, 3 small to medium sized bathrooms, a small office,
and a laundry). Our architect struggled to meet our needs in the small area of
the second floor which indicates this is close to the minimum space needed.
A narrower addition can have the same square footage, but it will need to
include more hallways and framing making the space less efficient and
therefore will not have enough functional space that meets our needs.
Attached garage:
·
Without a variance, we could not have an attached garage. An attached garage
is clearly safer for a family by avoiding walking outside in bad or cold weather
between our home and our garage. Without an attached garage, we would
have outdoor stairs due to the 5’ height difference between the garage and
main floor which adds to safety concerns.
We are requesting to build a one car garage, which will minimally provide the
ease of access and safety for our primary vehicle for our family.
If the garage was detached, it would have a pitched roof and have a 3’ setback
to the neighboring property. This would impact our eastern neighbors more
than our proposed flat roof design and 5.4’ setback.
Energy efficiency:
·
Any reduction in width of the addition will lead to a higher surface area addition
that is longer. This will reduce energy efficiency. For reference, the by-right
addition has 20% more surface area and would probably require ~10-20%
more energy to heat and cool.
Additionally, we believe that a shorter and wider addition is better for the
neighborhood:
A shorter and wider addition looks better when viewed from the alley as it is more
architecturally pleasing and fits into the character of the neighborhood. It is similar in
style and size to other homes on our block and neighborhood.
A shorter and wider addition provides better views for our eastern neighbors.
Finally, we feel that a 22.5' wide addition is following the intention of the rules:
We are only modifying the combined side yard setback provision. The addition meets
all by-right rules when considering the addition by itself since the principal structure’s
combined side yard setbacks add to 15’ (except rear porch where we could add soil
and remove columns to meet rules). The variance is needed only when including the
width of the existing house which we consider a hardship.
·
As noted elsewhere, our proposed design complies with all other Boulder
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 25 of 43
building rules and regulations.
We believe that the intention of the combined side yard setback rule is to prevent
having too much building width facing the street. When looking at our proposed home
from Pine Street, it will be difficult for a passerby to see that there is an addition
behind the original brick house since our proposed addition has greater or the same
setbacks as the existing home.
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 26 of 43
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 27 of 43
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 28 of 43
From:Sean McCabe
To:Wyler, Robbie
Subject:Docket No.: BOZ2021-00013
Date:Sunday, August 1, 2021 9:06:15 AM
External Sender
Dear Board of Zoning Adjustments (BOZA),
I am the resident/owner of 1714 Pine Street in Boulder, immediately adjacent to 1722 Pine St
to the west. As such, I am writing to express my full support for Amy and Drew Eienberg's
application for a setback variance to be considered by BOZA on August 12th.
My property's narrow lot size is similar to the Eisenberg's, so I understand the practical need
for this setback variance to proceed with their planned renovation project. Drew has shared
their property improvement plan as well and I am enthusiastic about seeing it proceed. I have
expended a lot of time and effort to improve my home - I hope, for the benefit of the
neighborhood too - and I appreciate Drew and Amy's willingness to do the same with theirs.
I encourage the BOZA to approve the Eisenberg's variance application as submitted.
Best Regards,
Sean
----------------------------
Sean McCabe
1714 Pine Street
Boulder, CO 80302
802-345-7282
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 29 of 43
August 8, 2021
Dear Members of BOZA,
We (Donna Giardina and Cara Luneau) live in a townhome at 1726 Pine Street. 1722
Pine Street is directly to the west of us. We purchased our townhome in 1990 and have
lived here ever since that time – 31 years.
Drew and Amy Eisenberg recently purchased the home at 1722 and are applying for the
variance put before you for the August 12 review. They are asking to reduce the
required setbacks in their proposed addition. The required setback from our shared
property line is 11.1’. The Eisenbergs would like to reduce that setback to 5.4’ – a
reduction of almost 6’.
We are objecting to this greatly reduced setback and feel strongly the proposal does
not meet an important criterium for the granting of this variance. We also wish to point
out the deceptive drawings in the Eisenberg’s proposal packet. (shown below)
Variance Criteria 9-2-3 # (5) B states that a variance can be granted if the
proposed structure:
Would not substantially or permanently impair the reasonable use and
enjoyment or development of adjacent property
if their request is granted they will:
• put us in a solar shadow during winter months, making our house
dark and cold
• increase our heating and electrical use and costs due to the solar
shadow
• block a substantial amount of our natural light from the south and
west (they would be building 2 stories, just 5.4’ from our property
line. The new 2-story structure will extend 34’ further south than the
original home.)
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 30 of 43
• completely block our western views of the Flatirons and of Bear Peak
These changes would unquestionably "substantially and permanently
impair the reasonable use and enjoyment" of our home.
When addressing the variance requirements in the proposal, the Eisenbergs refer to our
home as part of a “35’ high modern 4-plex”. In fact, each unit in this 4-plex is
individually owned and of varying design. Our unit is the original one-story small brick
bungalow built in 1889. Certainly not modern. We have worked hard to preserve its
original character. We have no upper floors with views as the Eisenbergs suggest, and,
as noted above, we will completely lose the views that we’ve enjoyed for 31 years.
We met with the Eisenbergs to discuss their plans. One suggestion we made was that
they flip the footprint of their proposed design, placing the addition closer to the west
property line, providing a larger setback on the east. They responded by expressing
concern about their views and natural light and were not interested in any kind of
compromise.
It seems noteworthy that the neighbors who have signed in support of the Eisenberg’s
proposal are not affected by it. They all live to the west of 1722 or on Spruce Street. No
one directly to the east has supported it.
The by-right addition to their home would give them a 16.8-foot-wide addition. They
state in their proposal that a 22.5-foot-wide addition is the minimum that could meet
the requirements of their family. We find this difficult to understand as 16.8’ should be
sufficient for a hallway and some reasonably sized bedrooms or offices.
The Eisenbergs suggest that the by-right design will impact us less than their proposed
design. The opposite is true - making the addition 6’ closer to our property line will
block a significantly larger amount of our natural light from the south and west and will
block more visually.
Our neighborhood has a by-right 25’ solar fence. However, given the unique position
and small size of our home at the north end of our lot, if allowed to build so close to our
property line they will put us in a solar shadow during winter months (see diagram
below). This will make our home dark, cave-like, and unpleasant, and will require us to
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 31 of 43
use more gas and electricity to heat and light our home. It will significantly increase our
energy costs.
Finally, the Eisenbergs suggest that an attached garage is necessary for their safety.
Many, if not most, homes do not have attached garages and are considered safe.
The solar fence view from the alley with our home toward the back on the right. Our
home is shown deceptively taller in this diagram than it actually is. The height is also
exaggerated in all drawings provided in the proposal. (see the photo below)
The top of our roof is approximately aligned with the second floor ceiling of the green
unit behind us. In the various diagrams of the proposal it is depicted as extending into
the 3rd floor, making our home appear taller than it is.
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 32 of 43
Another example of our house shown deceptively taller than its actual height
This is the view we enjoy from our west porch presently. We have measured and the 34’
proposed addition 5.4’ from our fence will block all of it.
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 33 of 43
This is from Pine Street with our brick house on the left and 1722 to the right
This picture shows the bay window on the east side of 1722 Pine. The bay window at its
outer surface is 5.4 feet from our fence – the same distance as the setback they are
proposing. It is very close.
Thank you for your consideration.
Donna Giardina and Cara Luneau
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 34 of 43
As Shown in Application Revised 3D Model
•Tried to match view angle used in application
•Architect updated model to better capture shape of properties to the east:
•Added estimated topography of eastern property showing ground floor closer to ground
•Improved accuracy of geometry of 1726 Pine st
•Corrected height of other properties to the east (application had them as too short)
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 35 of 43
As Shown in Application Revised 3D Model
•Tried to match view angle used in application
•Architect updated model to better capture shape of properties to the east:
•Added estimated topography of eastern property showing ground floor closer to ground
•Improved accuracy of geometry of 1726 Pine st
•Corrected height of other properties to the east (application had them as too short)
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 36 of 43
From:Crystal Gray
To:BOZA
Cc:David Ensign; Michael Hirsch
Subject:1722 Pine Street - Side yard set back variances
Date:Wednesday, August 11, 2021 10:13:07 PM
External Sender
Dear BOZA Board,
Since I signed Drew Eisenberg’s neighborhood support letter for 1722 Pine Street Side yard variance I have changed my view and have
the following recommendations to you.
My revised recommendation:
I actually walked around the site and paid much more attention to the off site impacts - especially to the East. Initially, I really just paid
attention to the building facades.
Below are my recommendations:
1) If this side yard variance is granted the property to the east could loose their solar access. BOZA should require a ‘solar analysis’,
stamped by an engineer or architect, before a variance is even applied for. Causing a loss of solar access is especially important in an era
of dramatic effects of warming and individuals wanting to install renewal energy on their property.
2) A setback variance would cause the roof top garage deck to have users at eye level with the second floor windows of the housing to the
east. Please visit the site and see how intrusive this variance would be to units to the east. The garage can fit on other locations on the site
and doesn’t need to be in a set back.
3) A set back variance, on the east, attached to the existing house to the south would cut off light to the housing to the east.
The architect for this project is creative and can come up solutions for this project. The drawings show a house that has nice street and
rear elevations so I know a thoughtful proposal can be developed.
Please deny this request, or continue the case, so a solution to the setback issues can be addressed.
Respectfully,
Crystal Gray
1709 Spruce Street 303-906-5509
Sent from my iPad
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 37 of 43
From:Wyler, Robbie
To:Spence, Cindy
Subject:FW: BOZ2021-00013: Add"l comment
Date:Thursday, August 12, 2021 3:08:44 PM
Just received this email from a neighbor. Note it was not sent to BOZA.
-Robbie
From: Sean McCabe <seanmcc1111@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 2:46 PM
To: Wyler, Robbie <WylerR@bouldercolorado.gov>
Cc: David Ensign <dwensign@gmail.com>
Subject: BOZ2021-00013: Add'l comment
External Sender
Dear Board of Zoning Adjustments (BOZA)-
As the resident-owner of 1714 Pine Street, I had previously signed an endorsement and submitted a
letter of support of Eisenberg's setback variance at 1722 Pine Street. Since then, I have reviewed the
packet of information in this docket, particularly the letters submitted by Donna Giardina and Cara
Luneau of 1726 Pine St and Crystal Gray of 1709 Spruce St. In doing so, I realize now that I
overlooked the valid concerns of the abutting homeowners to the east who will be most impacted
by this project in terms of their viewshed and solar exposure.
While my property will not be impacted by approval of this variance and I remain supportive of the
Eisenberg's efforts to improve their home, I wish to withdraw my support of their application until
such time as a fair and equitable solution has been reached to the satisfaction of all of
my affected neighbors.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Sean
----------------------------
Sean McCabe
1714 Pine Street
Boulder, CO 80302
802-345-7282
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 38 of 43
CITY OF BOULDER
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
ACTION MINUTES
July 8, 2021, 5 p.m.
Virtual Meeting
Board Members Present: Jill Lester (Chair), Jack Rudd, Michael Hirsch,
Nikki McCord, Marine Siohan
Board Members Absent: None
City Attorney Representing Board: Erin Poe
Staff Members Present: Robbie Wyler, Cindy Spence
1. CALL TO ORDER:
J. Lester called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m.
2. BOARD HEARINGS:
A. Docket No.: BOZ2021-00009
Address: 429 Concord Avenue
Applicant: Kassia Binkowski & Adam Knoff
Setback Variance: As part of a proposal to construct a rear 2-story addition and
cantilevered deck onto the single-family home, the applicants are requesting a variance to
both the east and west side yard setbacks for a principal structure in the RL-1 zoning
district in order to meet the combined side yard setback requirements for each side. The
resulting east setback will be approximately 5 feet (taken from the new exterior stairs)
where 6.8 feet is required and 1.9 feet exists today. The resulting west setback will be
approximately 8.2 feet (taken from the new addition) where 13.1 feet is required and 8.2
feet exists today. Section of the Land Use Code to be modified: Section 9-7-1, BRC
1981.
Staff Presentation:
R. Wyler presented the item to the board.
Board Questions:
R. Wyler answered questions from the board.
Applicant’s Presentation:
Nick Fiore, the architect with Flower Architecture, and Adam and Kassia Binkowski, the
owners, presented the item to the board.
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 39 of 43
Board Questions:
Nick Fiore, representing the applicant, answered questions from the board.
Public Hearing:
No one from the public addressed the board.
Board Discussion:
• M. Hirsch said he understood why the addition had been moved back and he approved of
it because the more historic structure remains unencumbered with the addition at the rear.
He said the lot in question is a substandard lot with topographical issues and the request
is modest request. He would be in support of the request.
Motion:
On a motion by N. McCord, seconded by J. Rudd, the Board of Zoning Adjustment
approved 5-0 the application (Docket BOZ2021-09) as submitted.
B. Docket No.: BOZ2021-00011
Address: 4295 Broadway
Applicant: Rebecca DiDomenico
Setback Variance: As part of a proposal to construct a new 64 square foot accessory
storage building, the applicant is requesting a variance to the front (north) yard setback
for accessory structures in the RL-1 zoning district. The resulting north setback will be
approximately 25 feet where 55 feet is required and no accessory structure exists today.
Section of the Land Use Code to be modified: Section 9-7-1, BRC 1981.
• N. McCord disclosed that she knows the attorney representing the applicant, Ed Byrne.
They had sat on a board together and know each other professionally. She stated that
there is no financial relationship between them, therefore there would be no conflict of
interest.
• M. Hirsch disclosed that his significant other owns a home on 13th Street between
Upland and Violet and received a public notice regarding this project. The home is a
currently a rental and have not occupied it in over a decade. He said they have no
knowledge of the proposed project. He said that he could be fair and impartial on the
matter.
Staff Presentation:
R. Wyler presented the item to the board.
Board Questions:
R. Wyler answered questions from the board.
Applicant’s Presentation:
Ed Byrne, attorney for the applicant, and Stephen Perry, a resident of the address, presented
the item to the board.
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 40 of 43
Board Questions:
Ed Byrne and Stephen Perry, representing the applicant, answered questions from the
board.
Public Hearing:
Gregg Thornton spoke in opposition to the project.
Board Discussion:
• M. Hirsch said he understood the change required by CDOT and the city to regarding
curb cuts along Broadway. He agreed that the front yard is along Union, which would be
in agreement with staff. None of his opinion has to do with how the neighbors would be
getting along or not getting along. He has a strong opposition to sheds in front yard
setbacks and has voted against them. Sheds in a visual front yard are crowding. He would
be in opposition to this proposal and would want to see the shed be in a used by-right
location.
• N. McCord thanked the public member for speaking. She referenced criteria H(1)(a)(2).
While she understands the antiesthetic of having a shed in the front yard, what she is
considering is that Boulder is aging and she would like to provide accommodations for
the aging population. She would like to see the shed in a by-right location too, but she has
been swayed by the argument of an aging person moving equipment.
• J. Rudd said he counted the number of sheds in front yards in the area. He found only
one next to the member of the public who spoke. There were three other visible sheds
located on Upland between 6th Street and Broadway. These sheds, however, were not
located in front yards. He agreed that this proposal could be done use by-right and would
be an appropriate solution.
• M. Siohan said the applicant did not mention their physical disabilities in their letter,
therefore she questioned if the board could consider them. She wished there could be a
solution without a variance and felt that would be the right way to go. The city attorney,
E. Poe, explained that verbal testimony could be weighed as much as written statements.
• J. Lester reminded the board that they had previously reviewed a project on Arapahoe
Avenue requesting a small shed in the front yard however, that lot was negatively
impacted by the floodplain and there was nowhere else to place the shed. Ultimately the
variance was approved but not unanimously. She said she could see many other solutions
to the inconvenience presented by the applicant here to this proposal. She would like to
give someone the minimum variance required. She would not be in support of this
variance as submitted. She would still be in favor of looking at solutions that are not by-
right, however the proposal submitted is not the minimum needed for this variance. She
would not be in support.
• M. Hirsh said the request is in advance of a potential disability and not a current
disability. Therefore, that would not be fair to the situation. Owners come and go but
variances are forever.
• E. Poe explained the process to the applicant if the application were to be denied and the
option to continue.
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 41 of 43
Motion:
On a motion by J. Rudd, seconded by M. Siohan, the Board of Zoning Adjustment voted 5-
0 to continue the application (Docket BOZ2021-11) to within ninety (90) days.
C. Docket No.: BOZ2021-00012
Address: 2805 Colby Drive
Applicant: Dale Dandurand
Setback Variance: As part of a proposal to reconstruct and enlarge a front elevated deck
and stairs providing access to the home’s front door, the applicant is requesting a
variance to the front (west) yard setback for principal structures in the RL-1 zoning
district. The resulting west setback from the new deck/stairs will be approximately 14.5
feet where 25 feet is required and 20.5 feet exists today (from the current deck/stairs).
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:
Dale Dandurand, the applicant, presented the item to the board.
Board Questions:
Dale Dandurand, the applicant, answered questions from the board.
Public Hearing:
No one from the public addressed the board.
Board Discussion:
• M. Hirsch said that in the care for elderly people, there can be a transition period. He
understands the need for a walker and that it can be an assistant for walking. He did not
see the that as a deciding factor.
• J. Rudd said that having the extra space will make a huge difference for anyone with
mobility issues. He would be in support
• M. Siohan would be in support.
• J. Lester agreed.
Motion:
On a motion by M. Hirsch, seconded by J. Lester, the Board of Zoning Adjustment
approved 5-0 the application (Docket BOZ2021-12) as submitted.
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 42 of 43
3. GENERAL DISCUSSION:
A. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by N. McCord, seconded by J. Rudd, the Board of Zoning Adjustments
voted 5-0 to approve the May 13, 2021 BOZA minutes.
B. Matters from the Board
J. Lester and N. McCord may be absent from the August 12, 2021 Board of Zoning
Adjustment meeting.
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 7:10 P.M
APPROVED BY
_________________________________
Board Chair
_________________________________
DATE
08.12.2021 BOZA Packet Page 43 of 43