The URL can be used to link to this page

10.14.21 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: This is a returning continuance item from the August 12 BOZA meeting. 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 7 feet (taken from the addition) where 11.1 feet is required and 5.4 feet exists today. The resulting west setback will be approximately 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. B. Docket No.: BOZ2021-00014 Address: 406 Pearl Street Applicant: Diana and Andrew Fordyce Setback Variance: As part of a proposal to move an historic barn structure entirely onto the property and out of the City right-of-way, the applicants are requesting a variance to the west side-adjacent-to- street yard setback (along 4th Street) in order to meet the minimum setback requirements for an accessory structure in the RMX-1 zoning district. The resulting west setback will be approximately .1 feet where 12.5 feet is required and 0 feet exists today considering the structure is currently located off the property by about 2 feet. Section of the Land Use Code to be modified: Section 9-7-1, BRC 1981. 3. GENERAL DISCUSSION A. Approval of Minutes: The September 9, 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, 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 AGENDA DATE: Thursday, October 14, 2021 TIME: Meeting to begin at 5 p.m. PLACE: Virtual Meeting 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 1 of 81 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/boards-commissions/board-of-zoning-adjustments- boza-agenda 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. 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 2 of 81 Revised March 2020 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 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 10.9', 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 3241 sqft 1857 sqft 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 3 of 81 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 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 4 of 81 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 5 of 81 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 6 of 81 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 7 of 81 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 8 of 81 Dear BOZA Board: We have recently purchased 1722 Pine St which is a three quarters width lot (37.6’) 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. 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. Figure 1: Photos of existing house: Front facing Pine St on left, backyard on right Updates since August 12 Hearing Thank you for your time and feedback at the August 12 hearing. During the meeting we heard 4 key feedback items: perceived vs actual setbacks, mass of our building, floor area of our home, and neighbor’s concerns. We have made changes to the addition that attempt to address all of these concerns: Perceived Setback: The proposed addition now lines up with the east brick wall of the original brick house. We have shifted the design 2’ to the west to line it up with the brick wall. This makes the addition entirely behind the original brick house. See Figure 4. Mass of our Building: We have made changes to the design to reduce the proposed increase in floor area by 10%. The property currently has 2059 sqft of floor area above grade. Our new proposal adds 1183 sqft of floor area above 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 9 of 81 grade for a total of 3242 sqft above grade. The August 12 hearing’s design added 1307 sqft which is over 10% more than we are currently proposing to add. We have reduced the mass of the building by shortening the length of the 2-story addition, shortening the length of the garage and reducing the garage height, and narrowing part of the 2-story addition. We are well within the by-right limits on building coverage and floor area. The zoning of our property a 1722 Pine Street is RMX-1. The zoning district’s purpose is “Mixed density residential areas with a variety of single-family, detached, duplexes, and multi-family units that will be maintained; and where existing structures may be renovated or rehabilitated ” (BRC 9-5-2(c)). RMX-1 zoning surrounds downtown and is a step down in density from the high-density commercial area and acts a bridge to lower density residential areas further from downtown. Our proposed size of home is in- line with our block and intended zoning of our land. All lots on our block with a larger parcel area than 1722 Pine have more above grade floor area than we are proposing (once 1709 Spruce’s expansion is complete). Additionally, all smaller lots have less above grade floor area. We will be the median size home above grade for our block. Floor Area of our Home: The above grade floor area of 3242sqft includes 338sqft from the attached 1-car garage. This means that our proposed design has 2904 sqft of finished floor area above grade. The 4000+ sqft number mentioned in the August 12 meeting includes the basement’s below grade floor area (according to city staff, we put the wrong number on the original application). The basement that was proposed was entirely by-right. We are not even sure if we will be able to finish the basement due to measurements of a 6.5’ deep water table. Below grade square footage is not counted towards setbacks, floor area ratio, or building coverage rules. We do not feel that this area should penalize our variance application. In our opinion, our finished above grade floor area of 2904 sqft is a reasonably sized home for a family of 5 that also needs 2 dedicated office spaces. Neighbor’s Concerns: We met with all of our neighbors individually (6 different meetings) and also as a group of our direct east- west neighbors to gather feedback, answer questions, and share key changes to our proposed design since the August 12 hearing. During these discussions, we addressed several misconceptions about what we are proposing. For example, there was the misconception that we were at the limit of solar access when in fact we are now greater than 6’ below the limit in height for solar access. There was also the misconception that our garage deck would be eye-level with the eastern neighbors’ second floor when in fact the deck lies in between their first and second floors. We have added more detail of the eastern property in the 3D model to help visualize how our home lies in relation to the eastern properties. For the group meeting I installed a vertical 2x4 to show the extent of the proposed 2-story addition and height of the garage. This was appreciated by the eastern neighbors as it showed that our updated design should keep 1726 Pine’s view of Bear Peak from their deck and wouldn’t significantly impact the other three townhomes’ views. 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 10 of 81 The additional distance from the eastern property line is appreciated by our eastern neighbors. Our updated design is also further from the eastern fence than our neighbors realized since their fence is not on the property line (as seen in the survey and the setbacks are to the property line). The new design has the addition essentially centered on our property with similar E/W setbacks and will be 20.5’ from 1726 Pine and 17’ from 1714 Pine structures. By reducing the height of the garage, we alleviated some concerns about privacy between outdoor spaces. We also proposed planting trees to help with privacy and create a more natural view. Some owners liked this idea while others didn’t so that is TBD. We also emphasized that we will be considerate during construction. We understand how disruptive it might be and will try to minimize its impact by being considerate of time of construction, parking of workers, port-o-potty placement, etc. We understand that no one wants a new building next to their home that will partially block some views and sunlight. We believe that we have alleviated many of our neighbors’ concerns. Our understanding is that our neighbors will not oppose our variance request, but it is perfectly in their right to do so. We have made changes to our design to reduce impact and believe we can have a good relationship with our neighbors going forward. Current Situation and Demolition Plan 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 wi ll 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) We are removing the garage/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 3 for the portions of the existing structures we are removing. 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 11 of 81 Figure 3: Areas shaded in red are planned to be demolished Updated Proposed Addition Our proposed addition will be in line with the eastern brick wall (Figure 4). When considering only the proposed 2-story 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 minimum combined side yard setback of 10.9’, where 9.3’ exists today. Please note that our current brick house is not orthogonal to the property lines. Due to this, the setback amount varies across the length of the house as shown in Figure 4. For example, the SE corner of the existing brick house is 7.3’ from the property line but the SE corner of the proposed garage is 7.0’ from the property line. The addition has been designed to be inline with the existing brick house. From a perceived setback perspective, this looks appropriate since the fence along 1726 Pine is not along the property line, but rather, is parallel to our brick house. From the street, the addition will appear tucked behind the existing brick house. Figure 4: Proposed addition with setbacks Although the addition seems like a significant increase in building, a large portion of the building coverage and floor area currently exists on our property. The first 10’ of the 2-story addition is where the existing enclosed rear porch exists today (see Figure 3). The addition is extending an additional 22’ from where the current house ends. Additionally, we are removing the existing 13.2’ tall garage/shed and building an attached 9’ tall garage which has less mass. 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 12 of 81 Figure 5 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. Figure 5: Proposed addition 3D Rendering Looking North-Northeast Non-Standard Lot Our lot is a three-quarters (3/4) Boulder Old Town lot which makes it only 37.6’ 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. By-Right Design Our proposed 2-story structure is 22.6’ wide (lot width of 37.6’ 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 16.9’ wide due to the width and side yard setbacks of the existing house. A 16.9’ wide building is not practical; it would be long, narrow, and provide little usable living space for our family. A 16.9’ wide 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 13 of 81 building would only allow for at most a hallway with small rooms off of the hallway. Including a stairwell would be difficult. The by-right design footprint is drawn in Figure 6 with setbacks showing the crisscross setbacks adding to 15’. Figure 6: 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 7 and 8. The by-right design’s east and west walls that face the neighbors are 9.5’ taller than what we are proposing. Due to a 25’ tall solar fence and no bulk plane rules on our lot, the by-right design is significantly taller with a roof top deck and has more mass than the proposed design. We have chosen a proposed design that is significantly more respectful of our neighbor’s access to light compared to a by-right design. The by-right design is not aesthetically pleasing due to its long, narrow, tall, and boxy nature and would not fit well into the neighborhood. It would also cast significantly more shadows on neighboring properties that what we have proposed. Additionally, due to the narrow 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 7: Proposal on Left Compared to By-Right Design on Right (Looking North from Sky) 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 14 of 81 Figure 8: Proposal on Top vs By-Right on Bottom (looking Northeast) 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 15 of 81 New Design vs August 12 Hearing Design As noted above, we have made the following changes to the design: • Shifted the addition west by 2’ to be inline with the existing brick house. • Shortened the added length of the 2-story addition by 2’. Now 22’ vs 24’ added from current enclosed porch. • Reduced the width of half of the 2-story addition by 1’. By 1714 Pine’s rear structure, our building is 21.6’ wide. • Shortened the height of the garage by 1’. Went from 10’ tall to 9’ tall. • Shortened the length of the garage by 6”. Went from 26.5’ long garage to 26’. As described above, these changes reduce our proposed increase in above grade square footage by 10%. In Figure 9, I show a side-by-side of the August 12 proposal vs new proposal. Our revised design gives more space between us and our eastern neighbors and also gives them more natural light and views. The shortened garage and greater setbacks improve privacy concerns. Figure 9: August 12 design on left vs revised design on right Rear Porch The porch on the south side of the addition extends west of the principal structure by 2’ (see Figure 10). 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 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 16 of 81 porch to the principal structure wall. This is a minor request, but we feel that it adds character and functionality to our home. Figure 10: 2’ foot extension of rear porch extending west of 2-story addition highlighted 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. Variance Criteria Below I show how we meet all of the criteria for a variance given the property and existing 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 37.6’ 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). • Our 120+ year old house has low existing setbacks. Existing combined side yard setback is 9.3’, which is significantly 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 few three-fourth width or narrower lots in the Whittier neighborhood. The vast majority of lots are full width of 50’. The narrowness of the lot creates the low existing setbacks. 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 17 of 81 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 16.9’ 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) Requirements for All Variance Approvals: A. Would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the lot is located • The addition is aligned with the eastern brick wall of the existing house and is therefore entirely behind the existing structure. The addition will be barely visible from the street due to having the same or greater setback from the property lines as the existing street facing brick house and the existing low separation between houses on adjacent lots. • Our renovated home 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 house. Our design is similar in style and size to other homes on our block and neighborhood. B. Would not substantially or permanently impair the reasonable use and enjoyment or development of adjacent property • The only properties that are negatively affected by our proposed addition would be the owners of the 4-unit townhouse complex on the lot to our east. There are 4 different properties that will be affected differently (1726, 1728, 1730 and 1732 Pine). • The most northern property, 1726 Pine St, is the original 1-story brick bungalow on the neighboring lot. Due to the location and style of 1726 Pine, it is the most impacted of the 4 townhouses as described below: i. The western deck currently has Flatiron views, which will be obstructed by any addition we would build (our proposed design or by-right). However, we believe our neighbors at 1726 Pine will retain their view of Bear Peak from their western deck due to the changes we’ve made in our proposed design. ii. Additionally, 1726 Pine will lose some direct sunlight on their home from October to March in the afternoons. But as shown in Figure 11, the proposed design is greater than 6’ below the by-right height limit set for solar access in RMX-1. Our eastern wall will be, and currently is, 20.5’ from their structure’s western wall. • The other 3 units (1728 Pine, 1730 Pine, and 1732 Pine) are all 30-35’ tall townhomes and will maintain their views on their second and third floors. Their partial view of the Flatirons from the bottom floor will be reduced slightly from our addition, but less so than our August 12th proposal due to design changes to the height and length of our addition. We believe that our proposed addition would affect these unit’s views less than the by- right solution. See Figure 8 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 an eastern setback of 7.0’ which is greater than the minimum of 5’ for a side yard setback. 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 18 of 81 • Lastly there were concerns about privacy with our garage deck. Since the roof of the garage is located between the eastern units’ first and second floors, we will never be eye level with neighbors when on the deck. The larger eastern setback in our revised design creates more separation between our buildings. We also offered to plant trees or have greenery to create more separation and privacy. • We understand that our addition is not desired by our neighbors, but we do not feel that we are impairing the reasonable use and enjoyment of their properties. C. Would be the minimum variance that would afford relief and would be the least modification 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 10.9’ when adding the addition’s setbacks with the existing house’s setbacks where 9.3’ exists today on the original house. • We believe that any addition that is less than 22.6’ 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 22.6’ 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. • Floor Area: i. The total finished square footage above grade is 2904 sqft. In our opinion, our finished floor area above grade of 2904 sqft is a reasonably sized home for a family of 5 that also needs 2 dedicated office spaces. Additionally, our home needs to accommodate Amy’s mother. ii. 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 on the same floor and space for 2 offices in our house. We have designed it with modest sized rooms. 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. iii. A narrower addition can have more square footage by-right than what we are proposing, 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: i. 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. ii. 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. • Energy efficiency: i. 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. 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 19 of 81 • “least modification of the applicable provisions of this title”: o 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. o As noted elsewhere, our proposed design complies with all other Boulder building rules and regulations. 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 11 below. Figure 11: Blue is the 25’ solar fence in RMX-1 zoning on our property line. The brown plane represents the maximum height allowed 2 hours after solar noon on the Winter Solstice. Our proposed home will not create a shadow above the solar fence since the tallest point is greater than 6’ below the plane in brown. The closest point to the brown plane is more than 6’ lower than required by solar shadow rules. Since our proposed addition is centered on our property, our building height will be well within the height limit required by solar shadow rules 2 hours before solar noon (will be more than 6’ below). This is due to the fact that the property is 15 degrees off from true north/south. 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 20 of 81 Interior Layout/Floor Plans Below are our current concepts on floor plans for our proposed home: Main floor: Second Floor: Basement: 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 21 of 81 Building Elevations North elevation: South elevation: 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 22 of 81 East elevation: West elevation: 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 23 of 81 Building Coverage Calculation See calculations below for building coverage and FAR of our proposed design. 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 2-story portion of addition 16.875x22.6 + 15.125x21.6 708.1 Mudroom 8x8 64 Garage 26x13 338 Rear porch 11.66x11.6 + 5x8 175.3 Exempt rear porch area N/A -150 Total 1856.6 Building coverage limit is 2103 square feet. Proposal is 1856.6 square feet. 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 24 of 81 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Calculation 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 2-story portion of addition 16.875x22.6 + 15.125x21.6 708.1 Mudroom 8x8 64 Garage 26x13 338 Main Floor Total 1832.2 Second floor: Room (right to left) Dimensions (feet) Area (square feet) Existing house 27.1x26.1 707.3 2-story portion of addition 16.875x22.6 + 15.125x21.6 708.1 Exempt stairway opening 13x3.5 -45.5 Second Floor Total 1369.9 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 25 of 81 Basement: Room (right to left) Dimensions (feet) Area (square feet) 2-story portion of addition 16.875x22.6 + 15.125x21.6 708.1 Under rear porch 11.66x11.6 + 5x8 175.3 Basement Floor Total 883.4 Basement perimeter calculation: Clockwise from top right Perimeter (feet) North wall 22.6 East exterior wall 32 South short wall 8 East interior wall 11.66 South exterior wall 16.6 Rear porch west wall 11.66 Rear porch north side 2 West exterior wall 32 One foot jog in west wall 1 Basement perimeter 137.5 Percent of basement floor area that counts towards FAR is percent of perimeter that is exposed by more than 36”. There is ~6’ that is exposed by more than 36”. Only 6 divided by 137.5 is counted towards FAR. So 4.36% of the basement floor area is counted towards FAR. 4.36% of 883.4 is 38.5 square feet. The sum of main floor, second floor, and basement square footage for FAR is 3240.6 square feet where 3373 square feet is allowed. 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 26 of 81 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. 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 27 of 81 October 9, 2021 Dear Members of BOZA, We are writing as an update to the letter we submitted for the August, 2021 BOZA meeting. The Eisenbergs’ proposal was considered at that meeting and we both spoke at the online meeting in opposition to their variance request. We live at 1726 Pine Street, directly east of 1722 Pine and have lived here for 31 years. While we feel there was some good intention behind the changes that are now being proposed by the Eisenbergs, we were disappointed to discover that these changes do not offer a substantive difference regarding our concerns. We continue to feel a deep sense of loss about what will occur if this variance is granted. We will lose so much of what we enjoy about our home – our sense of place near Boulder’s mountains and much of our afternoon light. The Eisenbergs told us we will lose direct sunlight after 1:00PM on the darkest and coldest days of the year. We will also lose our western views and pay more in energy costs. We realize these are difficult decisions. The Eisenbergs certainly have rights granted to them by the zoning ordinances. It’s up to this board to determine what is fair and reasonable given the variance criteria. We do believe, as before, that the “reasonable use and enjoyment” of our home will be greatly diminished by their proposed plans and therefore, oppose this variance request. We feel it is in violation of the criteria. Thank you again for your consideration, Donna Giardina and Cara Luneau 1726 Pine Street Boulder, CO 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 28 of 81 The Following Pages are for Reference Only and are the Application Materials Presented at the August 12, 2021 Public Hearing for BOZ2021-00013 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 29 of 81 Revised March 2020 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 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 REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 30 of 81 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 REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 31 of 81 REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 32 of 81 REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 33 of 81 REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 34 of 81 REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 35 of 81 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. REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 36 of 81 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. REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 37 of 81 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. REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 38 of 81 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. REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 39 of 81 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) REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 40 of 81 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. REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 41 of 81 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 REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 42 of 81 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. REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 43 of 81 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). REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 44 of 81 Interior Layout/Floor Plans Below are our current concepts on floor plans for our proposed home: Main floor: Second Floor: Basement: REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 45 of 81 Building Elevations North elevation: South elevation: REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 46 of 81 East elevation: West elevation: REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 47 of 81 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. REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 48 of 81 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 REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 49 of 81 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. REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 50 of 81 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, REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 51 of 81 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 REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 52 of 81 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. REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 53 of 81 REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 54 of 81 REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 55 of 81 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 REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 56 of 81 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.) REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 57 of 81 • 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 REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 58 of 81 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. REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 59 of 81 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. REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 60 of 81 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 REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 61 of 81 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) REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 62 of 81 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) REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 63 of 81 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 REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 64 of 81 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 REFERENCE EXHIBIT: AUGUST 2021 APPLICATION MATERIALS 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 65 of 81 Revised March 2020 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 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: 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 66 of 81 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) 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 67 of 81 3 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, building 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 application 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(l), B.R.C. 1981 FOR VARIANCE EXPIRATION INFORMATION Applicant Signature ______________________________________Date__________ Owner (if other than Applicant) Signature _________________________Date__________ 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 68 of 81 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. 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 69 of 81 BOZA Written Statement for 406 Pearl Street Boulder, CO 80302 October 01, 2021 To: Board of Zoning Adjustment Re: Written Statement Job Site Address: 406 Pearl Street Boulder, CO 80304 Narrative: We have been working with James and the LDRC to preserve this barn. It is a contributing structure in this historic district. The barn needs a great deal of work and must be moved on to the owner’s property for that to occur. In addition, the owner would like to convert the barn into an ADU. This requires raising the barn 3’-0” so that the floor elevation meets FEMA requirements. We have surveyed the low point at 5389.6’ and surveyed the ridge at 5406.4’ and with the 3’-0 increase it puts the barn at 5409.4’. That makes the barn height at 19.8’. So there is no issue with the peak height. Our request is for a setback variance allowing a zero setback off of the west property line and a 12’-0” setback off of the south property line. We have discussed this at length with James Hewatt and feel this strikes a balance between all parties involved. 1. Item 4: Satisfied by letter from James Hewitt. 2. Item 5 : (A) This request does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The LDRC has reviewed this revised location - zero setback off of the west property line and believes this is the optimal location for the barn. (B) This move does not impair the use, enjoyment, or development of adjacent property. (C) This is the minimum variance that affords relief, and is the least modification of the applicable provisions of this title. (D) This variance would not cause any Solar Access Conflicts. 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 70 of 81 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Zoning Adjustment Brian Holmes, Zoning Administrator Robbie Wyler, Asst. Zoning Administrator FROM: James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner DATE: August 9th, 2021 RE: Support for requested setback variance at 406 Pearl Street in the West Pearl Historic District. Background Archival research indicates the one and one half-story vernacular house at 406 Pearl Street located in the West Pearl Historic District, to have been constructed prior to 1893 and by 1900 the property was occupied by George L., his wife Alice (nee Stansbury) Harding, and their daughters Eva and Mildred. The 1988 Historic Building Inventory form for the property identifies the house as being “masonry vernacular” and by that time it had “been remodeled beyond its historic integrity”. Located at the rear of the property, the barn appears to have also been constructed in the late-nineteenth century, while the small cottage between the main house and barn was constructed in 1952. Because of significant changes to the main house in the 1970s and because the cottage was constructed in 1952 (and outside the identified 1874-1906 period-of-significance for the West Pearl Historic District), these buildings are not historically contributing. However, the barn is well-preserved to the pre-1906 period, and historically contributing as identified in the 1994 West Pearl Historic Design Guidelines. 406 Pearl Street c.1898 (Carnegie Library for Local Hist.) 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 71 of 81 406 Pearl Street, 2019 On August 12th, 2020, the Landmarks Board approved a landmark alteration certificate (lac) for the removal of the existing house, construction of 3,295 sq. ft. one and one-half story house the demolition of a non-historic 263 sq. ft. cottage, the demolition of small shed and construction of 400 sq. ft., two-car garage at southeast corner of property and preservation of the historic barn. Approved Proposal for construction of house and garage at 406 Pearl Street (HIS2020-00163) (re-location of barn was not part of this review) Because the historic barn is currently located in the 100-year flood zone and encroaching over the west property line into the city’s right-of-way, on June 2nd, 2021 the Landmarks Board approved the relocation and raising of that building finding that these steps were necessary to preserve the building and that they meet the standards for issuance of an lac (Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981) and consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the West Pearl Historic District Design Guidelines. 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 72 of 81 Approved Site Plan for Relocation and New Construction at 406 Pearl Street (HIS2021-00117) In its motion to approve the proposal, the Landmarks Board included support for a variance under 9-2-3(h)(4) Designated Historic Property of the Boulder Revised Code, finding that in that relocating the barn in a “by-right” location would have an adverse effect on the historic character of the barn and West Pearl Historic District. The Landmarks Design Review Committee’s Support The Landmarks Board supports the requested variances to the rear (south) setback along the alley and side (west) setback facing 4th Street under 9.2.3(h)(4) Designated Historic Property, of the Boulder Revised Code, finding that relocating the garage to a by-right location would likely have an adverse effect on the historic character of the contributing barn and property in the West Pearl Historic District. Please feel free to contact me at 303.441.3209 if you have questions or need more information. 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 73 of 81 JOB# 2011406 Pearl StreetCADDesigns 3/10/2021 BARN COVER SHEET issued: drawn by: revised: B-1 sheet 406 Pearl StreetBoulder, CO 803021701 15th Street, Unit ABoulder, CO 80302(303) 304-0868Samuel Austin & CompanyArchitects, Inc. NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION Release of these plans contemplates further cooperation among the owner, his contractor, and the architect. Design and construction are complex. Although the architect and his consultants have performed their services with due care and diligence, they cannot guarantee perfection. Communication is imperfect, and every contingency cannot be anticipated. Any ambiguity or discrepancy discovered by the use of these plans shall be reported immediately to the architect. Failure to notify the architect compounds misunderstanding and increases construction costs. A failure to cooperate by a simple notice to the architect shall relieve the architect from responsibility for all consequences. Changes made from the plans without the consent of the architect are unauthorized, and shall relieve the architect of responsibility for all consequences arising out of such changes. 8/23/20211 2018 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE (IRC) BOULDER REVISED CODE, 1981 (B.R.C.) - TITLE 10 STRUCTURES BOULDER REVISED CODE, 1981 - TITLE 9 LAND USE CODE 2018 INTERNATIONAL WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE CODE (IWUIC) 2020 CITY OF BOULDER ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE (COBECC) 2020 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE (as of August 1, 2020) CITY OF BOULDER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS SHEET INDEX 1 1 GENERAL NOTES 1 ALL CONSTRUCTION TO BE COMPLETED PER GOVERNING CODES. 2 ALL EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE 2X6 CONSTRUCTION AND INTERIOR WALLS TO BE 2X4 CONSTRUCTION EXCEPT AS NOTED ON THESE AND STRUCTURAL PLANS. 3 ALL GLASS 18" A.F.F. OR LESS AND IN OTHER HAZARDOUS LOCATIONS IS TO BE TEMPERED. 4 PROVIDE BLOCKING AT ALL CABINETRY, CLOSET RODS AND SHELF & BRACKET LOCATIONS, HANDRAILS, SHOWER ENCLOSURES, DOORS & TUB ENCLOSURES. 5 SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS FOR ALL STRUCTURAL NOTES, SIZES, AND DETAILS. 6 PROVIDE 26 GAUGE FLASHING BETWEEN EXTERIOR CONCRETE SLABS AND WOOD FRAMING. 7 GROUND FAULT INTERRUPTER (GFI) PROTECTION IS TO BE PROVIDED TO ALL BATH, KITCHEN, GARAGE, AND EXTERIOR OUTLETS. 8 ALL EXTERIOR OUTLETS TO BE WEATHER PROOF. 9 PROVIDE SWITCHED LIGHT IN ATTIC AT ATTIC ACCESS, AND IN CRAWL SPACE AT CRAWL SPACE ACCESS. 10 PROVIDE ROOF VENTS AND SOFFITS TO PROVIDE 1:300 OF ATTIC AREA AS VENTS. 11 GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS SHOWN: INSTALL GUTTERS ON ALL HORIZONTAL FASCIAS PER CODE. 12 ALL WINDOW SIZES, ROUGH OPENINGS, OPERATION, MANUFACTURER, AND SPECIFICATIONS BY SIGNATURE WINDOWS TO BE VERIFIED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. SEE DETAILS FOR ROUGH OPENINGS. 13 ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO ROUGH FRAMING U.O.N. 14 ROOF SURFACE TO BE COVERED WITH ICE AND WATER SHIELD PER CODE. 15 ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTS ARE DOWN LIGHTS AND COMPLY WITH "DARK SKY SPECIFICATIONS". 16 WINDOWS TO HAVE MINIMUM U-VALUE OF .30. 17 ALL SPRAY FOAM INSULATION OPEN OR CLOSED MUST BE PROTECTED BY 1/2" GYP WALL BOARD OR EQUAL MATERIAL MEETING FIRE TEST NFPA 275. 18 SPRINKLER SYSTEM AND PLAN TO BE PROVIDED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND APPROVED BY THE OWNER AND ARCHITECT 19 CONTINUOUS AIR BARRIER REQUIRED WHEREVER EXTERIOR BECOMES EXPOSED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 20 ATTIC INSULATION TO BE MINIMUM R-49. 21 THE SITE PLAN IS ALWAYS BASED ON A SURVEY. 22 CONCRETE ENCASED ELECTRODES ARE REQUIRED. ELECTRICIAN TO SUGGEST LOCATION. 23 FIRE SUPRESSION REQUIRED FOR BUILDING. CONSULTANT INFORMATION ARCHITECT: SAMUEL AUSTIN & COMPANY ARCHITECTS, INC. 1701 15 ST., UNIT A BOULDER, CO 80302 303-304-0868 GENERAL CONTRACTOR: ONE CALL CONSTRUCTION 303-819-0971 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: ASCENT GROUP STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 6707 WINCHESTER CIRCLE, SUITE 100 BOULDER, CO 80301 303-499-3022 SURVEYOR: FLATIRONS, INC. 3825 IRIS AVENUE, SUITE 395 BOULDER, CO 80301 303-443-7001 SOILS ENGINEER: CUSHMAN GEOSCIENCE P.O. BOX 300626 DENVER, CO 80203 303-475-7993 ENERGY CONSULTANT: ENERGY LOGIC 303-885-6066 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: STONELEAF DESIGN, L.L.C. 1701 SHORT PLACE LONGMONT, CO 80501 732-597-3384 MMC G-1 MANDATORY MEASURES CHECKLISTS COVER SHEET 1 1 1 1 1 125.0' SETBACK 54.6' 29.6'4.0'6.8'±WALL TO WALL1.0'0.1'6.5'±FASCIA TO FASCIA5391.36T.O. S L A B 100'-0 " = 5391. 7 4 T.O. WALL5393.55393.05394.0 5393.5 5394. 0 5392.5T.O. F O U N D A TI O N 103'-6 " 5395. 2 4 5391. 5 6 B.O. WALL5392.0SP-4 5390 5391 5391 5392 N15°36'54"W 139.51' (C) NEW BARN LOCATION LOT 7 & LOT 8 BLK 59 20' ALLEY 140'(P) OVERHEAD UTILITIES OVERHEAD UTILITIES PATIO MAIN FLOOR 100'-0" = 5395.0 U.S.G.S. EXISTING CURB CUTS TO BE REMOVED AND CLOSED PER CITY STANDARDS 5391. 2 4 5394. 5 6 NEW 5'-0" TALL FENCE EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED NEW CONCRETE DRIVEWAY NEW BURIED ELECTRIC LINE EXISTING UTILITY POLE ROOF ABOVE EXISTING BARN LOCATION EXISTING TOP OF FLOOR = 5391.5± NEW RETAINING WALL WALL - SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN S74°51'00"W 50.30' (C)50'(P)5391.3 LOW POINT 25' FROM HOUSE STEPS FIREPIT CLEANOUTS GARAGE UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT SCHEDULE 40 PVC 5389.6 LOW POINT 25' FROM PROPOSED BARN LOCATION STEPS SP-3 SITE DEMOLITION PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN 1 2 G-2 2 G-2 10 B-2 6 G-2 4 G-2 5 G-2 3 G-2 2 B-2 4 B-2 1 B-2 6"6" 6"6"6'-5 3/4"±FASCIA TO FASCIA6'-7 1/4"±FASCIA TO FASCIA6'-10 1/4"±WALL TO WALLBARN SLOPE TO MATCHEXISTING BARNROOF - FILED VERIFYSLOPE TO MATCHEXISTING BARNROOF - FILED VERIFYNSCALE: 1" = 10'1 Site Plan 0 5'10'20'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 Roof Plan 0 2'4'8' 406 Pearl Street Barn 406 Pearl Street, Boulder, CO 80302 ZONING RMX-1 CONSTRUCTION TYPE V OCCUPANCY R-3 STORIES 1 MAX. EXISTING HT 34.39' from low point LOT AREA 7,017 SF LEVEL OF ALTERATION/ SCOPE OF WORK New Construction of Single Family Residence with Detached Garage LOT 6 BLK 59 BOULDER WEST County of Boulder, State of Colorado CODE REVIEW LEGAL DESCRIPTION APPLICABLE CODES 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 74 of 81 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 75 of 81 JOB# 2011406 Pearl StreetCADDesigns 3/10/2021 SITE DEMOLITION PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN issued: drawn by: revised: SP-3 sheet 406 Pearl StreetBoulder, CO 803021701 15th Street, Unit ABoulder, CO 80302(303) 304-0868Samuel Austin & CompanyArchitects, Inc. NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION Release of these plans contemplates further cooperation among the owner, his contractor, and the architect. Design and construction are complex. Although the architect and his consultants have performed their services with due care and diligence, they cannot guarantee perfection. Communication is imperfect, and every contingency cannot be anticipated. Any ambiguity or discrepancy discovered by the use of these plans shall be reported immediately to the architect. Failure to notify the architect compounds misunderstanding and increases construction costs. A failure to cooperate by a simple notice to the architect shall relieve the architect from responsibility for all consequences. Changes made from the plans without the consent of the architect are unauthorized, and shall relieve the architect of responsibility for all consequences arising out of such changes. 8/23/20211 EXISTING METERS GAS METER WATER METER N15°36'54"W 139.51' (C) S15°36'54"E 139.51' (C)N74°51'00"E 50.30' (C)EXISTING COTTAGE TO BE DEMOLISHED GAS METER EXISTING HOUSE TO BE REMOVED SEE LANDSCAPING DESIGNER PLANS FOR FINAL HARDSCAPING, RETAINING WALLS, BOULDERS, FENCES, GRADE ELEVATIONS, STEPS, ETC. AND THEIR COVERAGES SEE DEMOLITION PLAN FOR STRUCTURES AND LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS TO BE REMOVED EXISTING FENCE TO BE REPLACED EXISTING FENCE TO BE REPLACED EXISTING SIDEWALKS TO REMAIN EXISTING BARN TO BE RELOCATED TO THIS LOCATION EXISTING SHED TO BE DEMOLISHED EXISTING FENCE TO BE REPLACED EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO BE REMOVED VERIFY EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS UPGRADE EXISTING WATER METER TO 1" WATER METER EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVEDWALKS TO BE REMOVED WALKS TO BE REMOVED EXISTING OVERHEAD LINES TO BE BURIEDS74°51'00"W 50.30' (C)5393.485394.585391.365390. 7 6 5391.745392.325394.05393.95 5393.36 5391.86 5393.545396.895396.895396.89 5393.00 5391.305391.91 5392.72' T.O. S L A B 100'-0 " = 5391. 7 4 T.O. WALL5393.55393.05394.0 5393.5 5394. 0 5392.5T.O. F O U N D A TI O N 103'-6 " 5395. 2 4 5391. 5 6 B.O. WALL5392.0WATER METER 5390 5391 5391 5392 5392 5393 53935394 N15°36'54"W 139.51' (C) S15°36'54"E 139.51' (C)N74°51'00"E 50.30' (C)SEE LANDSCAPING DESIGNER PLANS FOR FINAL HARDSCAPING, RETAINING WALLS, BOULDERS, FENCES, GRADE ELEVATIONS, STEPS, ETC. AND THEIR COVERAGES 18" 18" 18" 18" 24" 24" 30" 30" 30" 30" 30" 36" 42" SEE DEMOLITION PLAN FOR STRUCTURES AND LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS TO BE REMOVED NEW FENCE - 1" GAPSNEW FENCE - 1" GAPS NEW FENCE - 0" GAPS MAIN FLOOR 100'-0" = 5397.2 5394 NEW 3'-0" WIDE X 4'-6" TALL GATE - 0" GAPS NEW 5' TALL FENCE AND GATE RAISED GARDEN BED NEW IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE SITE AREA = 7,017.44 S.F. HOUSE, STEPS AND PATIOS = 2,994 S.F. GARAGE, DRIVEWAY = 412 S.F. BARN = 402 S.F. TOTAL = 3,808 S.F. - 54.2% EXISTING IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE SITE AREA = 7,017.44 S.F. BUILDINGS, SHEDS ONLY = 1,858 S.F. - 26.4% VERIFY EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS NEW 3'-0" WIDE X 3'-6" TALL GATE - 2" GAPS NEW 3'-0" WIDE X 3'-6" TALL GATE - 2" GAPS NEW WROUGHT IRON FENCE NEW VINE STRUCTURE UPGRADE EXISTING WATER METER TO 1" WATER METER 5391. 2 4 5394. 5 6 S74°51'00"W 50.30' (C)NEW FENCE - 1" GAPSSEE LANDSCAPING PLANS5" WIDE WOOD PLANKS 4"X4" METAL POSTS AT 6'-0" MAXIMUM 1" GAP BETWEEN PLANKS1X2 METAL CROSS BARS CONCRETE FOOTING 3'-0"6'-0"2X4 CONCRETE FOOTING CEDAR PLANKS 4X4 POST 2X4 EXISTING GRADE SCALE: 1" = 10'1 Site Plan - Demolition SCALE: 1" = 10'2 Landscape Plan SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"3 Fence SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"4 Fence 6'-0" 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 76 of 81 JOB# 2011406 Pearl StreetCADDesigns 3/10/2021 BARN FLOOR PLAN AND ELEVATIONS issued: drawn by: revised: B-2 sheet 406 Pearl StreetBoulder, CO 803021701 15th Street, Unit ABoulder, CO 80302(303) 304-0868Samuel Austin & CompanyArchitects, Inc. NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION Release of these plans contemplates further cooperation among the owner, his contractor, and the architect. Design and construction are complex. Although the architect and his consultants have performed their services with due care and diligence, they cannot guarantee perfection. Communication is imperfect, and every contingency cannot be anticipated. Any ambiguity or discrepancy discovered by the use of these plans shall be reported immediately to the architect. Failure to notify the architect compounds misunderstanding and increases construction costs. A failure to cooperate by a simple notice to the architect shall relieve the architect from responsibility for all consequences. Changes made from the plans without the consent of the architect are unauthorized, and shall relieve the architect of responsibility for all consequences arising out of such changes. 8/23/20211 DB01 24" WIDE WALL HUNG SINK BEAM ABOVE SLIDING BARN DOOR DB02 CONCRETE LANDING WINDOWS TIGHT TO COLUMN 18" UC.REF.30" COOKTOP WITHEXHAUST HOODREMOVE AND REPLACEEXISTING WINDOW -MATCH SIZE - VERIFY SIZESAUNA NEW WINDOW 4'-0"X6'-8" NEW WINDOWS 23'-1 1/4"EXISTING - VERIFY20'-6" EXISTING - VERIFY 3 1/2"3'-0"6'-9"5 1/2"9'-1 1/2"±3 1/2"3 1/2"3 1/2"3'-3"3 1/2"2'-7"±3'-10"EQUALEQUALEQUALEQUAL10 B-2 10 B-2 2 B-2 6 B-2 4 B-2 1 B-2 DB03 WB01 WB02 WB03 NEW 2X4 WALLS WITH INSULATION AT INSIDE OF EXISTING WALLS TANKLESS WATER HEATER ABOVE TOILET BUILT INS NEW STEPS - 7 1/2" MAXIMIM RISE 10" TREADS HANDRAIL AND GUARD RAIL PER CODE NEW 4X10 BEAMS ABOVE REMOVE THIS EXISTING WALL AND DOOR NEW RETAINING WALL REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING WINDOWS - MATCH SIZES - VERIFY SIZES NEW 4" CONCRETE SLAB THROUGHOUT ON BLUE BOARD INSULATION EXERCISE ROOM NEW ENTRY DOOR EXISTING 6" VERTICAL SIDING EXISTING DOOR EXISTING 6" CORNER TRIM EXISTING PAINTING EXISTING WINDOWS AND TRIM EXISTING CORBELS EXSITING ROOFING EXISTING TURNED COLUMN EXISTING 6" VERTICAL SIDING EXISTING 10" HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING ROOFING EXISTING ROOFING EXISTING 4X4 COLUMNS EXISTING 6" VERTICAL SIDING EXISTING CORRUGATED METAL VERTICAL SIDING EXISTING 10" HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING CORBELS EXISTING 6" FRIEZE TRIM EXISTING ROOFING T.O. EXISTING FLOOR 5391.5± U.S.G.S. EXISTING 6" HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING CORBELS EXISTING 6" VERTICAL SIDING EXISTING LOFT DOOR EXISTING 6" CORNER TRIM EXISTING 6" CORNER TRIM EXISTING DOOR EXISTING 6" TRIM EXISTING 6" FRIEZE TRIM J 220 3 G D SC 4 TV DUPLEX RECEPTACLE OUTLET FLOOR MOUNTED WP RECESSED CAN FIXTURE SURFACE MOUNTED OR HANGING FIXTURE ELECTRICAL SYMBOLS KEY FLUORESCENT SURFACE MOUNTED FIXTURE TRACK LIGHT DUPLEX RECEPTACLE OUTLET / UNDER COUNTER OUTLET WATERPROOF DUPLEX RECEPTACLE OUTLET DUPLEX RECEPTACLE OUTLET SPLIT WIRED DIMMER SWITCH QUADRUPLEX RECEPTACLE OUTLET 220 VOLT OUTLET CABLE TELEVISION OUTLET TELEPHONE OUTLET SINGLE SWITCH GARAGE DOOR OPENER CEILING EXHAUST FAN THREE-WAY SWITCH LANDSCAPE LIGHT WALL MOUNTED FIXTURE / WALL SCONCE RECESSED CAN FIXTURE (WALL WASH) CEILING FAN W/ LIGHTS NOTE:ALL FIXTURE AND OUTLET LOCATIONS SUBJECT TO CODE COMPLIANCE AND STRUCTURAL FRAMING MEMBER LOCATIONS JUNCTION BOX 4 SMOKE AND CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR LED STRIP FIXTURE FOUR-WAY SWITCH DB01 DB02 DB03 2'-6" 4'-0" 3'-0" 6'-8" 8'-0" 6'-8" WB01 WB02 WB03 1'-6" 1'-6" 5'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" Casement Casement Casement WINDOW SCHEDULE No.Width Height Type Note/Remarks DOOR SCHEDULE No.Width Height Notes/Remarks 7'-6"3"NEW 2X4 WALLS WITH INSULATION AT INSIDE OF EXISTING WALLS NEW 4" CONCRETE SLAB THROUGHOUT ON BLUE BOARD INSULATION NEW FOUNDATION WALLS NEW 4X10 BEAMS RAISE WINDOW TO 3" ABOVE BEAMS EXISTING 6" VERTICAL SIDING EXISTING 10" HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING ROOFING EXISTING ROOFING WB01WB02WB03 MAIN LEVEL T.O. SUBFLOOR 5395.0 5389.6 LOW POINT 25' FROM NEW BARN THREAD IN EXISTING AND RECLAIMED BARNWOOD - PAINT TO MATCH PROPOSED GRADE NEW STONE VENEER AND CAP TO MATCH HOUSE EXISTING 4X4 COLUMNSLIGHT WEIGHT PANEL LIGHT WEIGHT CONCRETE PANEL REGLET JOINT 3'-0"±19.8' N.T.S.MAIN LEVEL T.O. SUBFLOOR 5395.0 REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING WINDOWS - MATCH SIZES - VERIFY SIZES 5389.6 LOW POINT 25' FROM NEW BARN 5409.4' BASED ON SURVEYED RIDGE ELEVATION THREAD IN EXISTING AND RECLAIMED BARNWOOD - PAINT TO MATCH NEW STONE VENEER AND CAP TO MATCH HOUSE RETAINING WALL WITH STONE VENEER AND STONE CAP EXISTING 6" HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING CORBELS EXISTING 6" VERTICAL SIDING EXISTING LOFT DOOR EXISTING 6" CORNER TRIM NEW 6" CORNER TRIM EXISTING 6" CORNER TRIM NEW 6" CORNER TRIM EXISTING DOOR EXISTING 6" TRIM EXISTING 6" FRIEZE TRIM EXISTING 6" VERTICAL SIDING 3'-0"REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING WINDOWS - MATCH SIZE - VERIFY SIZE MAIN LEVEL T.O. SUBFLOOR 5395.0 5389.6 LOW POINT 25' FROM NEW BARN THREAD IN EXISTING AND RECLAIMED BARNWOOD - PAINT TO MATCH RETAINING WALL WITH STONE VENEER AND STONE CAP EXISTING DOOR EXISTING 6" CORNER TRIM NEW 6" CORNER TRIM EXISTING PAINTING EXISTING WINDOWS AND TRIM EXISTING CORBELS EXSITING ROOFING EXISTING TURNED COLUMN 53 9 3 . 0 + EXISTING 6" VERTICAL SIDING NEW STEPS - 7 1/2" MAXIMIM RISE 11" TREADS HANDRAIL AND GUARD RAIL PER CODE MAIN LEVEL T.O. SUBFLOOR 5395.0 REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING WINDOWS - MATCH SIZES - VERIFY SIZES 5389.6 LOW POINT 25' FROM NEW BARN THREAD IN EXISTING AND RECLAIMED BARNWOOD - PAINT TO MATCH STONE VENEER AND STONE CAP EXISTING CORRUGATED METAL VERTICAL SIDING EXISTING 10" HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING CORBELS NEW CORRUGATED METAL VERTICAL SIDING EXISTING 6" FRIEZE TRIM EXISTING ROOFING NSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"11 Barn Main Level Floor Plan 0 2'4'8' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"7 Barn Existing West Elevation 0 2'4'8' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 Barn Existing East Elevation 0 2'4'8' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"5 Barn Existing North Elevation 0 2'4'8' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 Barn Existing South Elevation 0 2'4'8' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"9 Barn Main Level Electrical Plan SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"10 Barn Section SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 Barn New East Elevation 0 2'4'8' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"8 Barn New South Elevation 0 2'4'8' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"6 Barn New West Elevation 0 2'4'8' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4 Barn New North Elevation 0 2'4'8' 10.14.2021 BOZA Packet Page 77 of 81 CITY OF BOULDER BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT ACTION MINUTES September 9, 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 5:04 p.m. 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. Staff Presentation: R. Wyler presented the item to the board. Board Questions: R. Wyler answered questions from the board. Applicant’s Presentation: Joel Smiley, the applicant’s spouse, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Laura Schaeffer, architect for the project, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: 1) Michael Wrighton spoke in opposition of the project. 2) Alison Vigers spoke in opposition of the project. Board Discussion: • J. Rudd said this project appeared similar to the project that came in front of BOZA in August. He said it was representative of a collision course of the modern zoning criteria versus historic. However, this would be part of the process in which neighborhoods transform. These collisions come at a cost and can fray the fabric of neighborhoods and people stop talking to one another due to additions. Around the issues of physical conditions and disabilities, it is not unusual to find funky lots in this area and exists throughout this neighborhood. From the street side, the visual bulk of the project would not an issue. From the side, he said some work could be done. It appeared the architect worked well with the masses and to try to break them down as much as possible. He said that the Landmarks Board’s review would hold weight. • M. Hirsch said he would expect more applications like this to be coming in front of BOZA in the future because housing needs have evolved over the years. He said that an argument could be made that this project was in breach of item 5(a)(b) and (c), that it would be changing the character of the neighborhood. The properties flanking the project are enjoying the benefit. He said that the board should look at an application on merits of the project. It should not matter who owns the property or why it is being developed. He did not approve of the proposed dogleg in the plans and that the entire addition would shifts and not be parallel due to the setback pursuant to the crisscross. He added that the Landmarks Board may have looked at the original home and had less consideration of the alteration in the rear as their task would be to preserve. He would not place as much weight on the historical review as J. Rudd. • J. Lester reminded that board that she and N. McCord were not present at the August BOZA meeting and that other board members are referencing a meeting that others may not be familiar with. Since the item from that meeting had been continued, she questioned if that information or meeting could even be relevant to this discussion because no decision was made. She said the board cannot rely on that previous meeting as no precedent and two of the five members would be unfamiliar with it. She would prefer that the August BOZA meeting not be a part of this discussion. In addition, variances have always been presented to BOZA that have homes in neighborhoods with nonconforming lots. Therefore, to say that BOZA would be seeing more of them in the future would not be relevant to tonight’s discussion. Tonight’s discussion should be considered on its merits. • The board was in support of J. Lester’s request. • M. Siohan observed that the proposed footprint of the proposed plan would be very similar to that of the homes on either side of the project (the adjacent neighbors). She said the neighboring homes also had additions approved and then built to their properties. She wondered if there would be a way for a compromise between the neighbors with an approved addition for the applicant. She understood that a by-right solution may be impossible due to the challenges the lot presents. She thought there might be a middle ground. • N. McCord said she understood the need to satisfy the criteria. She said she was not in favor of project because she felt criteria 5(a)(b)(c) and (d) were not satisfied. She believed that mathematically the addition would fit, however, it does not meet those criteria requirements listed, and she cannot support it. • J. Lester said, in response to N. McCord’s comments, said the project met the Landmarks Board’s review and that is a factor. The adjacent properties would be a factor. The adjacent properties are currently enjoying the benefit of a small house on this lot. In addition, she reminded the board that no property has a right to a mountain view unless that is purchased. Those objections made by the adjacent properties would not be valid. Also, the ridge line, as depicted, would not be changing from the proposed plans as verified by staff. She said that it is not a great argument when a person expands their own home, but then says that their neighbor cannot. Therefore, the neighbors’ arguments do not hold weight. She said the proposal would not be altering the character of the neighborhood because the two adjacent properties have had similar sized additions. The question of would this proposal be the minimum variance for relief could be subjective. A small number of people are looking for a single-bedroom home. Most people have a family or roommate and are going to want more than one bedroom. While BOZA is not a design board, the board is seeking more information regarding the dogleg, the advantages, and disadvantages. She asked the applicant to give an explanation and justification as to why the dogleg in the plan was presented as the best solution so the board could come to a conclusion. o Joel Smiley and Laura Schaeffer, the applicant and architect, addressed the questions regarding the dogleg, placement of the addition, and minimum relief. • J. Lester said the applicant and architect had answered her questions. She said that she found the addition reasonable in size and would not need to see this come back to the board. She wanted to hear from each board member their thoughts. • M. Hirsch said the request appeared modest in volume. The lot appeared to be unusual. While he would like to retain the historic Boulder with smaller homes, however he said he was aware that was not his decision. He was aware that it has become a challenge with the crisscross setbacks. He said he was leaning towards an approval. • J. Rudd said the central character of the neighborhood would not be compromised. He could support this project knowing that in one sense, while it may not be the minimal, the project was reasonably thought-out and another project could be more of an impairment for the adjacent neighbors. Therefore, based on the layout of the property and the setbacks, he would be supporting the project. There will be minimum visual impact from the street. • N. McCord questioned whether or not a building could exist on this site by-right but not have all the things that the applicant would like it to have. The current way the building has been configured is not by-right, however she wanted to know if this project could be built by-right, in looking at criteria 5(c). While she was not against the addition, she was trying to understand if the addition could be built longer on the lot without a variance, rather than doglegging it. She was still not in favor of the project because of those questions. She questioned if some of those same things could be accomplished without a variance. • J. Lester said that she was confident that if the structure were made longer, it would create an odd configuration and would impact the depth of the structure into the rear yard. The board cannot question the design. The board must look at what would be the minimum variance the applicant is requesting. • M. Siohan said it appeared the applicant was proposing a big space. She added that different perspectives exist regarding families and what would be ideal space. She said that while BOZA is not a design board, she questioned whether there would be a solution that would be more reasonable in terms of setbacks. • J. Lester said that she was using an average of three bedrooms all on the same level that could be found in family-style homes and this request has been brought to the board by a family. She did not mean to not encompass everyone and all types of families. • J. Rudd mentioned the cover letter for the request for the variance was very specific that it would be for a family house and that a family of four would live in the house. o Joel Smiley and Laura Schaeffer, the applicant and architect, addressed the questions regarding a by-right solution and making the addition longer. • N. McCord stated that if the proposed structure was longer and built by-right, the board would not be reviewing this, even though the neighbors might object to it. • M. Hirsch said the addition appeared modest. The proposed head height has been reduced to meet the solar access. If it were built use by-right, it would be a very long house that would compromise the usability of the rear yard, therefore the proposed would be more modest than the use by-right. Motion: On a motion by M. Hirsh, seconded by J. Rudd, the Board of Zoning Adjustment approved 4-1 (N. McCord opposed) the application (Docket BOZ2021-00016) as submitted. 3. GENERAL DISCUSSION: A. Approval of Minutes On a motion by J. Rudd, seconded by M. Siohan, the Board of Zoning Adjustments voted 3-0 (N. McCord, J. Lester absent) to approve the August 12, 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. 4. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the board at this time, BY MOTION REGULARLY ADOPTED, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 6:58 P.M APPROVED BY _________________________________ Board Chair _________________________________ DATE