August 8, 2023 — Board of Zoning Adjustment Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:02] Okay. Alright. So this is my first run as chair. But so this is a meeting of the Board of Zoning adjustment. And the secretary. I guess, Amanda, that you will now review the city of Boulder rules and decorum for the meeting. Yeah, okay, let me just share my screen here and pull it up. Sorry I had it. And then I have a lot of windows oops. And then. okay, are you all seeing this. Yup. Okay. Sorry about that. Here we go. Oh, okay. alright. So. Thanks for joining us this evening. This or this afternoon. The city has engaged with a community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board and commission members, as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political

[1:21] perspectives. For more information about this vision and the community engagement processes. You can visit our website lifted, listed there. Excuse me. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder revised code and other guidelines that support this vision, and these will be held upheld. During this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person, obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited.

[2:03] Participants are required to identify themselves, using the name they are commonly known by, and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted online. So if you would like, we're in the Zoom Webinar format. So when it's time for a public participation. And you'd if you would like to speak on the matter that we're speaking about tonight. You may raise, use the raise hand function when it's your turn. I will adjust the settings so that you can unmute yourself and speak there's a couple of options here below. You can use this little raise hand button in in the toolbar in zoom. and then you can also hover over the reactions, too, and and find it there. If you're on the phone with us, I don't. Don't think I saw anybody on the phone. But you can dial star 9 if you would like to participate.

[3:08] And and that's that's oops. Sorry I will turn it back over to you. Okay, so tonight, we just have one item, and for for that item, staff, Robbie is gonna present first, and then the applicant will present second, and then, if there is anybody from the public that wants to comment, that'll happen then, and then the board will discuss it and just to review the voting rules, since there's only 3 of us, I guess all 3 of us have to approve the application. And so. Because a an affirmative vote of 3 or more board members is necessary for passage of the motion. If it's 2 to one that will be considered to be a tie and it will be allowed for re hearing and a tie vote on any subscript motion.

[4:09] would resolve and defeat of the motion. So with that I guess. Robbie, you can start if this is boz, 2, 0 2, 3, referencing 3,600 katopp away for a setback variance. and I don't know, Rami, it's now is a good time for me to say something. Just wanted to say that. I live in a notification area. But I have never met the applicants, and never discussed the issue with them, and any change would not impact me. So I don't think there is a

[5:06] conflict. Okay, I'm gonna share my screen. Now. Okay, again, this is docket number Boz 20230000009. The address is 3,600 kotalpa way. This is a setback variance as part of a proposal to add on to the existing split level and nonconforming house. The applicants are requesting a variance to the minimum site adjacent to Street, South setback standards for a principal structure in the RL. One zoning district. and because the adjacent property to the East, 1875, Cal. Mia. Fronts onto Kalmia Avenue. This property is required to treat the South Yard as a second front yard or a side equals front yard.

[6:02] The resulting side South setback will be approximately 12.2 feet. Taken from the upper story addition, where 25 feet is required. And we're approximately 12.2 feet exists today taken from the existing south face of the house section of the land use code to be modified. Section 9, 7, one. Boulder revised Code 1981. And up here on the screen you see the location of the property. It is a corner lot with Catalpa way being to the west or left, and Kalmia Avenue being to the south and the property to the east, which is the 1875. Cal. Mia is what's triggering the side equals front. So the properties. On Rl. One has a west or left setback of 25 feet. That's its front yard, A, an east or right setback of 25 feet. That's the rear yard and a south setback of 25 feet, which is the site equals front, and then the north or up

[7:04] on the screen setback is an interior side yard or 5 foot setback requirement. And this just shows you some existing site conditions. On the left you see the aerial view of the property, and to the right you have the existing split level house located partially within the 12 or the 25 south yard, and I highlighted in blue, just to show the approximate location compared to the overall size and layout of the site. and the applicant kindly provided the existing footprint of the house, and then also the buy right or required setbacks, and then also the existing portion of the house that is considered nonconforming, due to setback meaning. It is located within that South 25 setback, and the portion of the house located within that setback is highlighted and gray on the image you see up on the screen.

[8:08] and then we have the proposal. So tonight the board is considering a setback variance for the new addition to the house, and it is a site adjacent to street or south setback variants, and it's for approximately 12.2 feet from the addition, where 25 feet is required and approximately 12.2 feet from the existing house exists today. I added a few lines to the to the exhibit. The blue line you see, at the bottom of the site is the proposed, and that's that 12.2 foot location that marker and then the buy right or required minimum setbacks. I have highlighted in the red dashes up on the screen. So you see the 3, 25 foot setbacks. and then you see the interior side on the upper side of the image.

[9:02] and then the applicant provided some architectural elevation, showing the split level house including the addition. And this image is going to come in handy, because one of the criterion that the applicant has responded to is criterion. H. 3, which is something that the board is not used to seeing, but it is something that is offered, and that the applicant can respond to. and I'll let the applicant speak more in terms of the design, and why it is what it is. But this image shows the both the bulk setback and the solar access restrictions on the site. The image on the upper right is the proposed image in front of you tonight, and you can see the existing house does encroach into that gray area or the solar access area, meaning a part of these house that would cast a shadow beyond a hypothetical 12 foot fence.

[10:06] And then you see the addition, the subject edition tonight to the right of that. And then the lower image shows what a buy right or a design that is meeting both solar access and all the setbacks. and you can see how it creates somewhat of a different design. So again, I'll let the applicant speak more to the specific designs and what was looked at. When it's their time to speak. But this image might come up, and I thought it was pertinent to showing it within the presentation. And then we have some proposed floor areas of both the lower level, which is the left and the upper levels. Again. It's a split level house. So the upper levels are to the right and the image. and then the applicant kindly provided some street views of multiple locations of the house. And then I have the little legend of the corresponding numbers there on the lower right, and these are just some more images of the existing conditions of the site.

[11:11] and then we have some proposed renderings renderings of both the West and the South of the property, including the proposed addition to the house. so a little bit in the way of some zoning information, it is zoned. Ro. One. The lot is roughly 7,000 square feet. I believe it's exactly 6,999 and the minimum for Ro, one is 7,000 square foot. So it is a minimum sized ro, one single family lot. And the existing and proposed building coverage is existing a little over a thousand square feet, and the proposed is a little over 1,700 square feet. The maximum coverage for the lot is 2450, so proposed building coverage is below the maximum allowed for the site and existing and proposed floor area, including the addition.

[12:06] The proposed is at about 2,759, where 3,500 is the maximum allowed for this site and solar access area one. It is a 12 foot solar fence, and it is not impacted, due to the design in the scope of work. And again, the proposed design tonight is in regard to complying with solar access regulations and not creating any sort of a solar access violation or a need for a solar access variance. and then side yard, wall articulation and side yard, bulk, plane are not impacted due to the design and scope of the work. All of this would be there, or will be verified at time of building permit. And that said, there actually is an active building. Permit in the hopper right now. It has gone through one round of review, which I believe, is where this issue was presented and the home was built circa 1963.

[13:07] So I kinda updated the typical review criteria list. The applicant did provide a response to and but they did make a special point to provide some good detail and exhibits for criterion. So Staff is when we were determining making our determination of whether or not we could support it. We did utilize Criterion h. 3, and rather than which is typical for the board. So with that staff to look into, and I'll go ahead and read through the 3 A, B and C. Since this is new for the board. 3, a. States the volume of that part of the lot in which the buildings may be built consistent with this code has been reduced substantially as a result of the provisions of solar access 9, 17 3 B is the proposed building or object would not interfere with the basic

[14:09] solar access protection provided, and section 9, 9, 17 solar access. And then we have 3 C, which is the volume of the proposed building to be built outside of the building. Setback lines for the lot will not exceed the amount by which the buildable volume has been reduced. As a result of the provisions of 9, 9, 17, with 3 A, B and C. The applicant did provide a pretty detailed response to all 3, and staff agrees that this is meeting all 3, 3, A, 3 B and 3 C, and in addition we have 5 a through d. given the design, the layout of the lot, and we did not hear from any neighbors, for or against staff supports 3 or 5 a. Which is the would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. and then we also have 5 B would not substantially or permanently impair reasonable use and enjoyment of adjacent properties.

[15:09] 5 c is would be the minimum variance to afford a relief, and it would be the least modification of the provisions of this title with that the specific design in front of you tonight was designed to meet the solar access regulations and respect the properties to the north and the East. and then we have 5 d. Would not conflict with the provisions of section 9, 9, 17, solar access. and with 3 and 5. Staff, feels that all 7 of these criteria are being met. and are in support of the application as it has been presented. so I will leave it at that. I can go over any other things in terms of which criteria the Board is considering, or any of the details within the application if needed, and I believe we also have representatives of the application here as well, so I will leave it at that and hand it back over to you, madam Chair.

[16:04] Does anybody have any questions for Robbie? Okay, so go ahead. So how under understanding this, Robby, is that they, they're applying under the section 3 or section one, or it's up to us to decide which section we want to apply which criteria they need to meet. And, Erin, you might be able to help me out on this one. I believe you can pick either one or 3, and then also have to include 5. So that is ultimately up to the board. Staff did also feel that one was being met. But we utilized 3 and 5 when making our determination. So I believe the Board gets to decide if it's one or 3. I agree you could. You could look at both, or you could find, you know, as soon as you find that 3 or 5

[17:01] is Matt. Then you can move to 5 so they don't have to meet one and 3 and 5, one or 3 and 5. Okay? Understood. If there's if there are any other questions. We could move to the applicant presentation. I am gonna make you all a co-host, so that you could, if you need to share your screen for at all. Then you can do that. Can you hear us? Hello! Yes. my name is Martin Ochoa. I'm sitting here on behalf of Brian design, and I'm also here with the owners, Bobby and Annette Stuckey

[18:01] And without further ado I will go ahead and share my screen. So thank you for taking the time to listen to our zoom variance proposal. So we prepared. Here is just a quick little presentation. So you've already seen this diagram here. But this is just showing the existing conditions of the lot. So you'll see the existing building footprint here in dashed lines. And what we've done is basically highlight the areas that are nonconforming part of the existing building. So that's the 20 12.2 feet foot setbacks that exist right now. Where the 25 at this red dash line right here is what is required. Now. so on the front we have a 25 foot front setback, as Robbie was explaining, and then on the rear. We also have that 25 foot rear setback. We have a

[19:05] you guy wire easements towards the rear of the property. and then to the east is where our neighbor, 1875, tell me, they open up to towards Colmia, forcing us to obey that front or side equals front setback. moving on to this next slide. You can see here that as we were working on this design and looking at the upper levels and the upper mass of this building, we were really limited because of the solar access restrictions on the north side of the property. We did go through a design exercise where the bulk of the design was towards the rear of the property. And we quickly found that we were actually in violation of the solar access restriction. And this forced us to really kind of reconsider and reshuffle the design and look at an alternate reconfigur configuration. And so really, what we're we're Robbie has mentioned. We are in process of

[20:11] a permit application. We we actually just received comments for a second round. And it was in the second round where we found out that we were in violation of the setback. But what we are looking for is really just to get this variant, so that this upper portion of the second story, which is directly above the first level. can be in compliance. The rest of the design has been very diligently designed to meet all other provisions of the zoning code. And so here. here you can see really what our restrictions are in section west to east. Yes, so this is looking west to east. This first section is actually going through the addition, going directly over the existing

[21:07] the existing residents in this lower section is actually the addition towards the rear of the property. And so you can see how you know, although we really wanted to match the roof line of the existing property because of the sun access restriction. We really were limited into the square footage that we were allowed on the Second Level. And on this upper section you can see the small little wedge that we're really allowed to build over the existing residents. So this area right over here is the restriction due to the sun access restriction. And this is the restriction because of that 25 foot setback. So these are both sections. One is just in front of the other right, both looking from west to east. Yep, and you can see those section cuts right here. So

[22:03] that first section was cutting through the existing residents, and then the second one was cutting through the addition towards the back and as part of our design. We really try to be very conscientious and conscientious and sympathetic to the neighborhood. And so we really wanted to preserve the traditional cable form roof line and and really just keep this a very historically reference reference project. Yes. the scale and the mass, and in all regards Even the split, level nature of the project we really embraced and felt like was appropriate to keep a lot of the forms and the massing and the scale for the neighborhood.

[23:00] So as you earlier in the presentation, we're well well under what we could build in terms of maximum square footage. So was our approach. And this is just the vicinity map showing approximate set back lines. And I'm showing that property Kalmia right here, 1875, Kalmia, and how it opens up to come in. and because of that we are forced to comply with that 25 foot setback throughout the neighborhood. There's not. There aren't a lot of cases where you have that property adjacent to your lot that opens to your side street. There are a few properties up here on Cloverleaf drive that do open up to Cloverly. So this middle lot right here, however, these 2 lots are substantially greater in size to our lots.

[24:02] I believe they're approximately twice as much square footage for those lots. Same thing here, we can just get a Google Googlers view of the neighborhood and see. this is really a kind of an anomaly. There's you know, just another home squeezed in there. For the original but and then these images just show the existing residence. So this first image is the front elevation. On Kate, away. The second image shows the side view along Kelmeau. This would be the corner view, the corner where we are posing, the addition to be on top of the main level. and this view corresponds with a rendering view that we will show here. So it's approximately at the same, approximately at the same

[25:09] point of view, so that you can get get a sense of how this project will look like and one thing about the design also is that we have kept the exist, or the required 25 foot setback for the addition. And so it does provide a little bit of a relief as you get to that neighbor at 1875, Kelmia. And although we didn't provide these letters in our initial application, we did receive letters from 1875, Kelmie, as well as 36, 20 kotelpa way, and both are supportive of our of our design tents. and I believe the the neighbor at 36, 20. Kalpa has mailed the letter in. I'm not sure if you were able to receive that. we also have a a copy of

[26:10] if that's something that we can show here. but that is that concludes our presentation. We're open to any questions that you might have, and and thank you again for listening to our proposal. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? Well, I didn't have a question on neighbors support, but I think you answered. You just answered that Robby did. Do you have those letters? They are in the application. My apologies. I did not include them into my presentation. But

[27:01] okay, so there was one question, the other question I have. It's probably off topic, but just out of curiosity. Do you have to take any of the big mature trees out to do this addition? Actually, no, the the design that we've we've really tried to keep all those mature trees. And so actually, we've jogged that back addition in order to avoid any kind of damage to the mature trees in the backyard and that's also a re. We we've also designed the the 30 inch deck towards the rear to also not affect that other mature tree that's closer towards Kalmia. The trees are important to the clients. Yeah. I would say they. Important to the neighborhood in general. Right? I mean.

[28:01] Hmm. Are there any other questions. Drew. Did you have any questions? No, no questions very clear. If there are no further questions. We can. See if anyone from the community. Is there? No, Amanda, can you? Is there still no one from yeah. We have a couple of attendees. So if you'd like to speak during this time. Please. Raise your hand. And it looks like we have one hand raised so far, so I would kind of promote you, Lynn. I'll promote Lynn to speak. Okay, re clarify the the rules. Each each member of the public can speak for 3 min.

[29:03] when they're addressing the board. So go ahead. Lynn. Great, thank you. Yeah. Lynn Siegel. This house so reminds me of the house my family bought in 1958 on Harrison Court in Mart Naker. So I'm very glad that it's not getting eliminated. II was in kindergarten, and I'm 70 now, so I'm thankful for that. I also appreciate the fact that essentially the solar shadow is being violated within the house itself. So there's still the solar access that it needs But if they want a shadow on themselves, I say, go for it, that's good. The. I don't think that it's really

[30:01] it. It's a bit viewable, you know a as as bulky on the Ca, I think it's the Ketela side. But you know where that the the extension goes out from 12 to 25 feet. And I just feel like it's really fair. considering the house isn't being demoed. that they should be able to get some space without having to really dig. It's a little bit east, not in central Boulder. so it's not going to be up, you know. Where I'd say more. You should dig to preserve the views, Cape. depending upon the individual lot. and but I think that it's reasonable that they extend through that 12 foot

[31:00] extra 12 feet that they need, because it's fair to have a house that's 2,600 square feet. I mean, back in the day. You know, I had the house that was 1,000, or whatever. It is originally, also with 2 kids. but these days, to be fair and comparable to the rest of what society is building these days. And also I really support a larger house rather than people having a lot of individual houses. Right now in boulder there are 300 square foot efficiencies that are being approved. A and given parking restriction, lifting, parking, restrictions, giving building height. These are subsidies, I don't think should be done because people are still moving around and people, especially when they have that smaller place. When you have a bigger place, you can potentially have more communal household, more people using less, you know, faucets and infrastructure. Drywall. All of that

[32:11] is shared between more people. So those are the reasons that I support this project, the solar access and the the extension of 12 feet. Thanks a lot. Great thanks, Lynn. If there's anyone else that would like to speak. please raise your hand, but I don't see any other hands raised at this time. Okay. if there's no no other public comments. Then we can open up the matter to the board. so Marie, do you have any further questions or comments about the application.

[33:03] We've seen. I think we've seen examples of the of the of side and I sides set backs side to front set backs before, and it's a tricky situation. because they have 25 feet on both sides, which is uncommon. And II do think. is create complications. So I would I I'm I would be in support. Of the variance. Okay? True. Oh, first off. Thanks a lot, Lynn, for providing comment. I always appreciate the the public speaking. yeah, when I go through the criteria both in section one and section 3, I actually feel that it meets all the different criteria that needs to meet.

[34:03] I could go through line by line, but II think that this is valid application, and should be granted the variance and just just to add on to that part of my reasoning is that other houses also have the same situation where they originally were built with the 12 foot setback where and then the amount of setback was changed in the lifetime of the house. And that, you know, this application is just going vertically upon that additionally, there is a landscaping set back from the property line to the street. Which kind of adds to the spacing between the street and the the building mass. so there's kind of extra extra reasons, but

[35:01] looks like you're getting frozen a little bit sometimes, drew Nope. Well, hopefully my voice came through. But long story short is II feel that it meets the criteria, both section one and section 3 and all of 5. Okay, thank you. yeah, just. II tend to agree that it seems as as the criteria that Robbie laid out this project seems to meet those criteria, and, like Drew mentioned, I appreciated Lynne's comments, because it is always nice to hear from from neighbors and members of the public. So I, too, would be. I tend to be in favor of this application. so with that discussion, do I have a motion for for either approving or disapproving this application.

[36:03] Katie? Could I make a suggestion before the motions made, if the motion could reference, either 3 or 5 or both, just so that our motion documents. which part of the criteria you find being met so such as I move to approve those, the number based on criteria 3 and 5 or one and 5, 1, 3 and 5 but if you could cite that, whoever makes the motion that would be helpful for the record. Thank you. Okay. Marina drew I think they equally meet both criteria both sections. I don't know. Marine. Do you have a preference? I think we can save them all right.

[37:06] I'm trying to find the number. Okay? So I move to approve the application both 2023,009 as we think it fulfills the criteria. 1, 2, 3 and 5. Does that work? Sounds pretty good. is there a second? II second and II in favor of approval to so that sounds like it's all 3 of us

[38:01] which we have to vote, I think. Still, okay, that. Okay. So, Amanda, is that roll call or yeah, you you all we can do a roll call, and you can say and and vote Okay, Maureen. So your vote yes. alright drew aye. and and I for me aye. so looks like the eyes have it 3 to 3 to 0. so I guess. since we've done that That means that the that the project that the application is approved. So

[39:00] Boza 2,023, dash 0 9 is approved. I guess that's it other than matters before the board which is basically just approval of the minutes from last meeting? Correct? Yes. Okay. And do I, are there any comments about the minutes. Did anybody have any corrections? And if not, is there a motion to approve the minutes? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes a second. Okay, Then the minutes are approved. Could could you do a vote? Drew? Aye. Marie, Hi

[40:01] and I as well for me. So the minutes are approved. with that. Are there any other staff? Issues, Robbie, do you have any other issues that you wanted to bring up no, the application deadline for the September twelfth meeting isn't until next week. This is one of those cases where the meeting comes before the next deadline. So next week I will provide an update. As to that September twelfth meeting, and I do know we are anticipating at least one the item that was postponed. That is expected to go in September. So we should have at least one item. It's likely we're gonna have more than one item. So stay tuned for an email on me that'll probably come mid next week. and that's it from Steph. Okay, well, if there are no further items. Then we can adjourn the meeting.

[41:01] Alright. Great good luck with your project. Thank you. Thank you. Aye. thank you. Everyone.