09.09.21 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.: BOZ2021-00016
Address: 516 Maxwell Avenue
Applicant: Brandie Emerick
Setback Variance: As part of a proposal to construct a rear 2-story addition onto the single-family
home, the applicant is requesting a variance to the east side yard setback for a principal structure in the
RL-1 zoning district in order to meet the minimum combined side yard setback requirement. The
resulting east setback will be approximately 7.5 feet (taken from the addition) where 13.1 feet is
required and 10.7 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 August 12, 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, September 9, 2021
TIME: Meeting to begin at 5 p.m.
PLACE: Virtual Meeting
09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 1 of 31
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.
09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 2 of 31
09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 3 of 31
09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 4 of 31
09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 5 of 31
09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 6 of 31
Page 1 of 3
August 10, 2021
Board of Zoning Adjustments-
RE: Side Yard Setback Variance for 516 Maxwell
Due to the unusual historic house placement (1.9’ to West property line) the allowable setbacks would only leave 17’
wide area of buildable area, in an area which is not realistic in design due to solar shadow restrictions.
We are requesting a Variance for the East Side Yard Setback for an addition in the rear of the existing home located at
516 Maxwell. We are requesting a 7’-6” East Side Yard Setback, where 13.1’ is required and 10.7’ is existing.
The family would like to propose an addition that will allow for the family of 4 to live at the house. Currently the house
only has one bedroom upstairs and the proposed addition is comprised of adding 2 new bedrooms upstairs which would
allow this working Boulder family to have the family bedrooms together on the same floor. All design studies that would
be in compliance with the existing prescribed setbacks have proved to be unobtainable and unrealistic (prescribed
setbacks only leave a 17’ wide space, the location of which would prohibit a 2 story addition due to Solar). Below we
have detailed how the proposed addition would be to the satisfaction of all requirements outlined in paragraph (1) and
paragraph (5) of the Subsection.
09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 7 of 31
Page 2 of 3
(1) Physical Conditions or Disability
(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;
From the attached survey, the total lot area is 6,355sf and the lot dimensions are approximately 181'-0" deep by 35'-0"
wide. The prescribed setbacks (13.1’ allowed East side yard setback, where 10.7’ is existing and 7.5’ is proposed and 5’
allowed West yard setback, where 1.9’ is existing and 5’ is proposed) for this lot would only allow for a 17’ wide strip of
buildable land, the location of which would not allow for a 2 story structure due to solar restrictions so an addition in
this by-right area is ruled out as a viable option. This unusually small existing West yard setback combined with the
narrowness of the lot is uncharacteristic of the neighborhood and any addition of this prescribed size would be
impossible to meet the needs of the family. We are asking for a 7’-6” East side setback, which is a common setback for
houses in the RL zoning district.
(PLEASE SEE A1.01 FOR THE SETBACKS- EXISTING AND ALLOWED ARE DETAILED ON THE EXISTING SITE PLAN AND THE
PROPOSED SETBACKS ARE DETAILED ON THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN)
(B) The unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood or zoning district in which the
property is located;
516 Maxwell is an unusually small lot with a square footage of only 6,355 sf and dimensions of approximately 181'-0" x
35'-0". The historic house (built in 1911) was placed unusually close to the West lot line (1.9’) which was allowed at the
time of building. This size of lot is unusually small for the neighborhood and the RL-1 zoning district where a 7,000 sf lot
size is the code minimum. The existing house is 1,579sf and the proposed addition will increase the FAR size to a very
modest size of 2,578 sf which is still below the 3,376 sf allowed FAR for the lot.
(C) Because of such physical circumstances or conditions the property cannot reasonably be developed in conformity
with the provisions of this chapter;
We believe that the 13.1’ setback allowed in conformity with the existing prescribed setbacks would not allow for a
reasonable development for a new home or a reasonable addition to the existing home, especially considering the by
right area on the lot is located in a place where solar shadow would prohibit a 2 story addition. The proposed setbacks
are 5’ on the West and 7.5’ on the East allowing the design to be more centered in the lot, creating a solar shadow
compliant design and a more balanced property.
(D) Any unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant.
The historic house placement, and the unusually narrowness of the lot has not been created by the applicant. The
applicant would like to propose a modest addition which will allow for 3 bedrooms upstairs. The house was built in 1911,
and at the time they did not subscribe to the modern setback and zoning restrictions.
(PLEASE SEE A2.02 TO SEE ALL THREE BEDROOMS ON THE SAME LEVEL)
09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 8 of 31
Page 3 of 3
(5) Requirements for All Variance Approvals
(A) Would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the lot is located;
This proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and has been designed in accordance
to the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines. The proposed changes to the house will restore several historic
features that have been lost including an arched covered porch on the second floor, front porch details and restoring
historic window patterns. Landmarks Design Review Committee has reviewed the design proposal, is in support of the
addition and has issued a Landmark Alteration Certificate.
(B) Would not substantially or permanently impair the reasonable use and enjoyment or development of adjacent
property;
We believe that the proposed addition will not impair the reasonable use, enjoyment or development of any adjacent
properties because the addition will be on the back of the house, there will be no change to the building height and the
size and design of the proposed addition is appropriate with the neighborhood and the surrounding houses. The
addition roof ridge will be lower than the existing roof to reduce the bulk and visibility. The surrounding house existing
setbacks are approximately 3.7’ (510 Maxwell to the property line) and 4.8’ (520 Maxwell to the property) as seen on
the Survey or Site Plan.
(C) Would be the minimum variance that would afford relief and would be the least modification of the applicable
provisions of this title; and
This proposal is modest in size and bulk, asking only for a design which allows for the family’s bedrooms to be together
on the same floor. The addition has been designed to step inward from the existing house to create a stair separation
element and the proposed new ridge is carefully designed to be below that of the existing ridge. The addition has been
designed to be the smallest of that which will afford the relief of a 3 bedrooms together on the same floor. We studied
proposals which would farther reduce the size of the proposed addition, but after studies this design is the minimum
square footage and bulk that is appropriate.
(D) Would not conflict with the provisions of Section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C.1981.
The proposed design will not conflict with the provisions of Section 9-9-17.
(PLEASE SEE A1.01 PROPOSED SITE PLAN TO SEE THE VISUAL REPRESENTAION OF SOLAR COMPLAINCE)
09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 9 of 31
09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 10 of 31
5 4 7 0 5 4 7 054695468546754665465546468546954715471547254665467547040"2b11"8"6"stump10"12"10"11"28"12"15"16"12"leyN 89°55'18" E (m)lot 10 - not includedLCMaxwell AvenueL1L3L4L2lot 12lot 11lot 10lot 9ewalkte curbrn 3561764ls4bp1p10.8' eave30'on pinund 1"broken conc. walllsls4+p1bfplanterconcreteeogeogrrtiesfsquit claim deedrn 3167372warranty deedadjoining parcelsssswwolwmgmg2 inch gas pipelineirirubeoeoeocndtsupuolwol o l ssgws ss
5 4 7 0
5 4 7 0
5 469
5 46 8
54675466546554646854 6 9
5 4 7 1 547154725466546 7
5 47 0
40"2b11"8"6"stump10"12"10"11"28"12"15"16"12"alleyN 89°55'18" E (m)lot 10 - not includedLCMaxwell AvenueL1L3L4L2lot 12lot 11lot 10lot 9sidewalkcrete curbrn 3561764ls4bp1p10.8' eave30'iron pinfound 1"broken conc. walllsls4+p1bfconcreteeogeogrrtiesfsquit claim deedrn 3167372warranty deedadjoining parcelsssswwolwmgmg2 inch gas pipelineirirubeoeoeocndtsupuolwol
o l ssgw ss
DNEXISTING WEST SIDE YARD SETACK 1.9'EXISTING EAST SIDE YARD SETACK 10.7'ALLOWED EAST SIDE YARD SETACK 13.1'13' - 1 51/256"ALLOWED WEST SIDE YARD SETACK 5'5' - 0"BASEMENT WELL510 MAXWELL520 MAXWELL1' - 11"5' - 0"7' - 6"5486.05484.65490.24" / 12"4" / 12"5484.65482.05468.85468.05468.75466.65466.75483.25467.75467.25467.95483.25484.65469.22.5' +/-5.5' +/-7.5' PROPOSED EAST SIDE YARD SETBACK5' PROPOSED WEST SIDE YARD SETBACKPROPOSED EDGE OF HOUSEPORCH510 MAXWELL 2.5' +/-BEYOND PROPOSED HOUSE EDGE520 MAXWELL 5.5' +/-BEYOND PROPOSED HOUSE EDGE510 MAXWELL IS 2.5' +/- BEYOND PROPOSED 516 MAXWELL HOUSE EDGE510 MAXWELL WAS APPROVED IN 2005 FOR AN ADDITION THAT ALSO REQURIED A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR TOTAL SIDEYARD. ADR2005-00136Type:Administrative Setback VarianceDescription: Adm. Setback variance for total sideyard.PMT2005-03876Type:Addition to a Single Family Detached DwellingDescription:Two story addition to single family residence with finished basement. Addition to total 1,787 s.f. containing new master bedroom, 2 full baths, replacement kitchen, family room, basement rec. room. See ADR2005-00136520 MAXWELL IS 5.5' +/- BEYOND PROPOSED 516 MAXWELL HOUSE EDGE520 MAXWELL WAS APPROVED IN 2017 FOR AN ADDITION. Permit PMT2017-02001Main level addition (382 s.f.) and remodel (247 s.f.) / Upper level addition (428 s.f.) and remodel (336 s.f.) / Conversion of existing crawl space to basement under existing house and new basement walkout addition (1,427 s.f.) / New covered/sunken patio. Scope includes associated mechanical, electrical, and plumbing. Reference HIS2016-00384.BASEMENT WELL520 MAXWELL EXPANDED BASEMENT510 MAXWELL520 MAXWELLDATE:SCALE:0"1"A1.01SITE PLAN09/01/2021516 MAXWELLAVENUE516 MAXWELLBOULDER, CO 803043/32" = 1'-0"1SITE PLAN - EXISTING3/32" = 1'-0"2SITE PLAN - PROPOSED520 MAXWELL FROM 516 PROPOSED HOUSE EDGE510 MAXWELL FROM 516 PROPOSED HOUSE EDGE09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 11 of 31
676767
! (
% % %
,$5$5,$$$$,5$5$$,$$$,5$ % % %''''
!
''''
)
! "
#$% % &' ' !)' % &' ' !)'
09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 12 of 31
*4
67674 674
*
+,-.
! (
!&$'
( % %
( %
"
,$$$$5$5$5$$,$$$,5$ % % %''''$ $,$$ $$
' /$' ''''
! "
#$% % &' ' ! )' % &' ' ! )'
09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 13 of 31
4
!
!* ('
!
% %
% ! ,$$$$,$$5$$$,$
"
"
(
((%'$ ( (
((0' (
!
"
$$,5,$$ % % %$5$$$%/%(
''''$5 ( ( ( ( $$,5''''
! "
#$% % &' ' "
)' % &' ' "
)'
09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 14 of 31
4 5555555 % %55555 % 5
% % %,$$$$55$$,$$''''8 #9 #:55555''''55
"
! "
#$% % &' '
*' % &' '
*'
09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 15 of 31
'"*
' $
*
' $ '12 '
* ' % ' '$ ' ' % ' ' $ '"*
' $
*
' $ '12 '
* ' % ' '$ ' ' % ' ' $
!
(
!
"
! "
#$% % &' "() ' % &' "() '
% &'
() ' % &' %
() '
09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 16 of 31
'"*
' $
*
' $ '12 '
* ' % '"*
' $
*
' $
* ' % '12 '' $ ' '$ ' ' % ' ' $ (
!
*
(
!)
"("*"
1 2!
% "
"
! "
#$% % &' ) ' % &' ) '
09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 17 of 31
'"*
' $
*
' $ '12 '
* ' % '12 '' $ ' '$ ' ' % ' ' $
!
(
*
(
(
! ((
( "*
! '"*
' $
*
' $ '12 '
* ' %
""
! "
#$% % &' % ) '
% &' ) ' 09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 18 of 31
#
! "
#$%
( '
( '
( ' %
( '
09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 19 of 31
#
! "
#$%"( ' "( '
"( ' %"( '
09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 20 of 31
From:Wyler, Robbie
To:Wyler, Robbie
Subject:FW: 516 Maxwell
Date:Wednesday, August 18, 2021 8:56:50 AM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Tania Schoennagel <taniaschoe@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 9:06 AM
Subject: 516 Maxwell
To: <schaeffer.lr@gmail.com>
Ms Schaeffer,
We are writing in support of the proposed 516 Maxwell renovation. We live across the street at 515
Maxwell, and have seen the plans in detail. Joel Smiley has done excellent high-quality historical
renovations in the neighborhood, and we have confidence that the setback variance this unique
project seeks will be modest, appealing and appropriate, adding to the character of this historic
street and neighborhood.
Thank you,
Tania Schoennagel & Steve Leovy
--
Laura Schaeffer
Architect, LEED AP
720.243.6599 (cell)
09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 21 of 31
From:Michael Wrighton
To:BOZA; Wyler, Robbie; Holmes, Brian
Subject:BOZ2021-00016 / setback variance application comment
Date:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 12:56:03 PM
External Sender
To whom it may concern,
I write regarding the application of 516 Maxwell for a setback zoning variance. I own and
reside next door to the property at 520 Maxwell.
516 is a small and charming home -- I believe it has remained that way over the years because
the lot is quite narrow and the neighborhood is historically protected. It has transitioned
between single or couple owners over the years that have typically not had children living in
the home with them.
For more than a decade, I have lived, and invested, without any variances, in my own
property on the assumption that the city would only permit building on adjoining land which
obeys the relevant setback, solar shadow, and other land use restrictions. While these rules
certainly create challenges to development, they serve to preserve the less-dense and historic
character of my neighborhood.
The proposed variance to the building code is not at all slight. The western setback is strongly
established along the entire depth of the existing house (about 25') -- not just by bay window
or anything of the sort. At the tallest point of the proposed variance (the east-side dormer), the
variance is roughly six feet into the allowed setback, 20 feet wide, and goes 25 feet up. The
applicant states that this is necessary in order to place three bedrooms on the second story.
That is likely true, however there is no code requirement or other bona-fide necessity that
makes this the only 'reasonable' development of this property. It is only a slight hardship for a
home to be limited to two second-story bedrooms (in fact it is quite a common condition in
Mapleton's single family homes on relatively narrow lots). Many homes (including my own)
have their secondary bedrooms, often occupied by children, in the basement or on the ground
floor, and are comfortably livable.
The new owner is a well-funded and highly capable property developer, I have total
confidence any work would be done to a high standard. However, in contrast to the applicant's
statement that the enjoyment of the neighboring property is unimpaired, I believe that, as
proposed, the variance would permanently impair my own property. In particular, the massing
(especially the height and low slope of the roof in the extension) would eliminate the views of
the foothills I enjoy from the western side of my home. While certainly some obstruction
would still occur in a 'by-right' project (which I have always expected would one day happen),
I believe it would be far less obtrusive.
A very similar issue was presented to the board at the August 12, 2021 BOZA meeting where
the applicant proposed to build a tall structure that would obstruct the view (at 1722 Pine St.)
over the objection of the neighboring property owners. In that case, the board rightly
encouraged the applicant to accommodate their neighbor's legitimate concerns (presumably
via a design update) over the loss of foothills view, and granted a continuance for them to do
so.
I therefore urge the board to offer a continuance to encourage the applicant to propose
09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 22 of 31
building that would only intrude into the allowed setback only below 12' of elevation. I could
enthusiastically support such a project.
Respectfully,
Michael Wrighton
09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 23 of 31
RE: Side Yard Setback Variance for 516 Maxwell
Dear Board of Zoning Adjustments
We are the owners and residents of 510 Maxwell Ave (one house west of 516 Maxwell Ave). We have lived
here for 29 years. Our house was built in 1894 and 516 Maxwell was built around 1898 (from the Carnegie
Library records). We agree with the applicants that this is a challenging situation. However we would like to
make some comments on their application.
1) The application says "We believe that the proposed addition will not impair the reasonable use,
enjoyment or development of any adjacent properties". We respectfully disagree: The addition would
materially reduce our views of greenery and sky. There are also considerations of privacy which the
applicants have not addressed. The impact would of course be even greater to 520 Maxwell, on the East
side of the proposed development.
2) We did an addition on our house about 15 years ago, and we were required to make the addition lower
than the original house and pulled in at both sides. The same is true for several other houses on the block
(see photos below). The applicants say "This proposal is modest in size and bulk" but we cannot agree: It is
actually larger than the original house. They also say that the roofline is lower than the original, but you
would need truly incredible eyesight to see that! We believe that if the applicants followed the same
guidelines as everyone else, a zoning variance would not be required.
09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 24 of 31
3) 510 has been a small house on a narrow lot for a very long time. It was probably a 1 story building
originally, with the attic later opened up. We don't feel that the applicants have demonstrated why it needs
to be enlarged so dramatically, with an effectively 2-story addition.
[photo from ~1900]
4) Finally, we agree that the hardship of the narrow lot has not been created by the applicant, but they
were certainly aware of it when they bought this property.
In summary we do not feel that the applicants have demonstrated a true need for this variance. We would
suggest that a smaller (perhaps one-story) addition would be much more suitable for this property. We ask
the Board not to approve the current application.
Yours Sincerely
Guy and Alison Vigers
510 Maxwell Ave
09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 25 of 31
From: Julie Husband
Date: Tuesday, September 7, 2021
Subject: 516 Maxwell
To: : WylerR@bouldercolorado.gov
(Updated after reviewing historic image of the building)
Dear Mr. Wyler,
I live on 5th Street around the corner from the proposed addition. I have been involved in
Historic Preservation and zoning code for 30 years. I do not support the plans for 516 Maxwell
(Historic Building). I somewhat support the footprint of the addition since it has minimized the
impact on rear yard open space, as well as efforts to “reconstruct” the front of the building to
some degree. However, it does not appear to comply entirely with the Mapleton Hill Historic
District Design Guidelines. The proposed addition does not appear to be compatible with the
historic building in the following ways:
• Two-story addition to a one-story historic building. The original building is a one-story
building with a generous opening to the attic (see historic image below).
• The 22’ side walls on the proposed building are too high (later alterations from the 50s
should not be the guiding factor.) Therefore, sideyards should not be allowed to be
reduced with this scenario.
Mitigation:
• Step down height
• Maintain regulated side yard setbacks to mitigate environmental impacts (addition,
light, air, fire and water.)
Sincerely,
Julie Husband
2530 5th St Boulder
09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 26 of 31
09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 27 of 31
CITY OF BOULDER
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
ACTION MINUTES
August 12, 2021, 5 p.m.
Virtual Meeting
Board Members Present: Jack Rudd (Acting Chair), Michael Hirsch,
Marine Siohan
Board Members Absent: Jill Lester, Nikki McCord
City Attorney Representing Board: Erin Poe
Staff Members Present: Robbie Wyler, Cindy Spence
1. CALL TO ORDER:
J. Rudd called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m.
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.
Motion:
On a motion by M. Hirsch, seconded by M. Siohan, the Board of Zoning Adjustment
approved 3-0 (J. Lester, N. McCord absent) to suspend the 48-hour rule and allow the
letters submitted by Crystal Grey and Sean McCabe on August 11, 2021, to be considered by
the board.
• M. Hirsch said that he had worked professionally with the architect for this project
previously and had known him for years. He stated that he could review this project
without bias.
• M. Siohan said she personally knew the applicants. The applicants had worked with her
husband many years ago, she had not seen the applicants in year and could review this
project without bias.
09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 28 of 31
Staff Presentation:
R. Wyler presented the item to the board.
Board Questions:
R. Wyler answered questions from the board.
Applicant’s Presentation:
Drew and Amy Eisenberg, the applicants, and David Biek, the architect, presented the item
to the board.
Board Questions:
The board did not have any questions for the applicant.
Public Hearing:
Cara Luneau spoke in opposition of the project.
Patty Malesh spoke in opposition of the project.
Donna Giardina spoke in opposition of the project.
Applicant Rebuttal:
David Biek, the architect, addressed some of the questions and concerns brought up during
public comments.
Board Discussion:
• M. Hirsch said he was not opposed to a variance. He said he thought the proposal might
be asking for too much square footage for the existing lot and it would be a substantial
increase. The existing bay window, while a small feature, was establishing the setback
and he thought the actual setback should be the house itself. He approved of seeing
modern additions to historic homes as long as they would be tucked in the back. He did
not see demolition of the existing house as an option. He would like the problems to be
worked out with the neighbors. He would suggest granting an extension for the applicants
to reevaluate.
• M. Siohan said she was empathetic to the applicants and with the neighbors who were in
opposition. She shared M. Hirsch’s argument regarding the square footage. She said the
fact that seemed to be bothering the neighbors was the proposed height and not
necessarily the setback variance. She suggested a solution of expanding to the south
without creating height. She would like for the applicant and neighbors to find an
agreement to work together.
• J. Rudd said the house to the west would face the same issue as the applicants due to
zoning issues of the past and present clashing. He agreed with the comments regarding
square footage and that it appeared generous. He said the staff explanation was spot on in
terms of the regulations and setbacks. He suggested a continuation until the applicants
and neighbors make some progress.
• M. Hirsch agreed that an extension or continuation would be the best option.
• R. Wyler and E. Poe explained the continuation process for the applicants.
09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 29 of 31
• The applicants said they would want to have a proposal that would work for the neighbors
and possibly move the bay window to be in line with the house. Therefore, they were in
agreement with a continuation. They asked for suggestions from the board for items to
review on their proposal. Or could the board provide some clarification or direction to assist
the applicant when making your decision easier should this come back to the board.
• J. Rudd mentioned that BOZA was not a design board and cannot give design suggestions.
If they were to give any, they would be stepping out of bounds.
• M. Siohan said the solution would be can the applicant expand yet be considerate of the
neighbors to the east.
• J. Rudd agreed. He added ways to expand and more use by-right by working with the
neighbors.
• M. Hirsch said there appeared to be too much mass, have the primary residence stick out
farther than the addition since it is subject to landmarks approval, and the perceived and
actual setbacks should be considered. He added some communication with the neighbors or
concession with the neighbors might aid in the enjoyment of the property.
• J. Rudd said the design of the project does work with the eclectic nature of the other
buildings surrounding it. He said it was a good project, yet there are some aspects that need
to be adjusted.
• R. Wyler said, if this item were to be continued, it may be possible to place this application
on the agenda for September. It would be a tight turn around in order to meet the public
notification deadlines, but he would follow up with the applicant with a detailed email with
dates and information.
Motion:
On a motion by M. Hirsch, seconded by M. Siohan, the Board of Zoning Adjustment voted
3-0 (J. Lester, N. McCord absent) to continue docket no. BOZ2021-00013 for ninety (90)
days.
3. GENERAL DISCUSSION:
A. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by M. Hirsch, seconded by M. Siohan, the Board of Zoning Adjustments
voted 3-0 (J. Lester, N. McCord absent) to approve the July 8, 2021 BOZA 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
There were no matters from the Planning and Development Services.
09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 30 of 31
4. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the board at this time, BY MOTION
REGULARLY ADOPTED, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 6:34 P.M
APPROVED BY
_________________________________
Board Chair
_________________________________
DATE
09.09.2021 BOZA Packet Page 31 of 31