April 9, 2024 — Board of Zoning Adjustment Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] Founded. Amanda. Okay, great. Thank you. Good evening. This is a meeting of the Board of Zoning adjustments. Tonight we have 2 items. The order of the items will be as follows, we'll do 6, 24, Maxwell Avenue, first Docket number BOZ. 2024, 0 0 0 2, followed by 900 Pearl Street suite 200 VOZ. 2024, 0 0 0 0 4. Think I got those zeros right on each item. Staff will present first and the applicant second. Next, the public will be invited to comment. If there's anybody here. and then the Board will discuss I usually talk about voting rules after we go over the rules of decorum. Amanda. Are we doing that still? Yes, we should still do that, and I'm happy to read those and share my screen.

[1:05] Oops lost my mouse. Alright! Thank you, everybody for joining us this afternoon. The city has engaged with 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 perspectives for more information about this vision and the community engagement processes, you can visit our website. The following are examples of roles of decorum found in the boulder, revised Code, and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be 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.

[2:09] and participants are required to identify themselves, using the name they're commonly known by, and individuals must display their whole name. Before being allowed to speak online. We are currently virtual. So this is so, only audio testimony is permitted online. we're in the Zoom Webinar format. So when it is time to participate, if anybody from the public wishes to, you can use the raise hand function which can be found at the bottom of your screen. I don't think we have anyone on the phone. You can also locate this under the reactions button as well, and click on that. Raise hand feature, and we will see you, and we'll call upon everybody in order of their hands raised. and that is it from me.

[3:01] I'll take. Pass it back to you, Joe. Thank you. Amanda. Hmm. The screen share dropped and we'll continue, yeah. okay. So I usually go over the voting rules and we typically go over them again before we vote, but An affirmative vote of 3 or more board members shall result in passage of the motion. An applicant cannot be approved with less than 3 affirmative votes. If the first vote taken on a motion to approve or deny an application results in a tie, 2 to 2, the applicant shall be 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. A vote of 2 to one or one to 2 on a motion, shall in all respects be considered a tie. and I'm gonna add that we often take a straw poll before we vote, so that applicants have an opportunity to discuss what they want to do. So without further ado, Robbie, I'm gonna call upon you for

[4:03] poz 2024, 0, 0, 0 2, 6, 24. Maxwell. We have one item swearing in of our new member. I believe. The A. I missed that. That's right. Thank you. I'm so sorry. Then But I write. So we do. We want to do an introduction first, or do you wanna swear I'm in first. Ben. I can, I can. I can read the oath. I have the oath here to read to Ben and his way of introduction. I have worked with Ben in his legal capacity as an attorney for the Boulder housing authority. So thank you, Ben, for your continued work with the community and the Technical Review group and welcome to Boza. So I'll I'll read you the oath. And please affirm when I'm done, and then maybe you can go ahead and say some words of introduction. Sound. Okay. Sounds, great. Okay, so do you, Ben Doyle solemnly swear or affirm that you will support the Constitution of the United States of America and of the State of Colorado, and the charter and ordinances of the City of Boulder, and faithfully perform the duties of the office of a member of the Board of Zoning adjustment.

[5:19] I do? Thank you. Thank you. Well, Ben, it's nice to meet you. I'm yeah. Sue. Sure also have a law degree in the background. But I don't practice law and you know, I think it's great to have you join us? Thank you. Anybody else want to say anything, or shall we move on? Okay? Oh. Welcome! Thank you. But thanks good to be here. Oh, I'm gonna mute myself and hand it over to Robbie. Okay.

[6:00] Okay. The first item is docket number Boz 20, I'm sorry I'm not sharing. And there we go. Okay. The first item is docket number Boz, 2, 0, 2, 4, dash 0 0 0 2. The address is 6, 24, Maxwell Avenue. This is a setback and building separation variance as part of a proposal, for, in addition to the back of a non-standard historic home. the applicant is requesting a variance to the side, east, rear, south and building separation standards for a principal structure in the RL. One zoning district. The resulting east interior side setback taken from the subject addition will be approximately 2 and a half feet. where 5 feet is required and 2 feet exists today. The resulting South rear setback taken from the subject edition will be approximately 16.8 feet, where 25 feet is required and 16.8 feet exists today.

[7:03] The resulting building separation between the subject edition and an existing accessory. Detach detached building will be approximately 1.8 feet, taken from the roof, overhangs and eaves where 6 feet is required, and 1.8 feet exists today. Section of the land use code to be modified. Section 9, 7, one. Boulder Revised Code 1,981, and up on the screen. I have a location of this property. To the north is the front yard, and that is along Maxwell Avenue. To the east is an alley and to the south and west are other properties. It is zoned RL. One, and within the packet you have both one written support letter of written support that was from the property to the South 2444 Sixth Street, and then also we have a letter of opposition. And that is that property to the east across the alley, and that is at 6 28 Maxwell Avenue, and those were provided to the Board prior to today. So if you have any questions on those we can go through those. But they should have been provided

[8:12] to everybody for your reading pleasure. So again, it is zoned Rl, one, and the variance today that the board is considering is both a setback and separation of variance. So there's actually 3 separate parts to this, and I'll go into those in a little more detail here in a second. And here we go. So again, we have the aerial view on the left, and then we have the existing site plan. The existing setback along the east side of the house is around 2 feet. So they're wanting to build almost directly above that, but slightly in. And we also have some both. The street view from Maxwell is the image right here on the right hand side and the 2 left images. The upper left image is the rear of the house. That is the subject mud room with the proposed

[9:05] mud room edition, with the balcony above it, and then you see the subject detached building there on the left, and that is the reason for the building separation variance that the board is considering tonight. And then we also have just an image from the front of the house, the lower left image. So tonight, again, there are 3 parts to the consideration. The first is to the side east. and that is the side set back, and it's for approximately 2 and a half feet from the upper story addition for the dormers where 5 feet is required to meet the minimum setback requirement. And we're approximately 2 feet exists today, and that 2 feet again, is from the existing lower level of the house along the alley side. And then we also have number 2 is a rear setback, and is to the rear south side of the house.

[10:00] and the request is for approximately 16.8 feet from the addition. and that's the addition of both the lower level and the balcony above it, where 25 feet is required to meet the minimum rear yard setback requirements, and we're approximately 16.8 feet exists today. So the footprint of the rear mud room area is to remain the same. and then the third part to the application tonight is for building separation building code and also zoning code currently require there to be no less than 6 feet in between any 2 buildings on a single lot. It's on the lot itself, and that includes roof overhangs ease. Any structural elements? And I kinda call it the Yoga ball theory, whereas you need to get a 6 foot Yoga ball in between 2 buildings. and that is the reasoning for the request. Tonight the building separation request. And it's for approximately 1.8 feet, and that's taken from the roof overhings of both buildings. The 2 closest points of each building where 6 feet is required, and we're approximately 1.8 feet exists today. So the building separation will not be modified, but because there is replacement

[11:17] due to the addition. A variance is required to put something back in place and there are some closer images or more detailed images within the application. This is just more for visual in case there needs to be a discussion. But the images on the left are the existing and demolition plans and the images on the right of the screen are the proposed plans, and it's for all 4 sides of the house, including the detached to subject detached structure for the separation variance. And then, again, this is just more for visual the application we can zoom in if needed. But this just gives you an idea of both existing and proposed layout of the interior of the building, including on the left the roof plan

[12:07] for the project. and a little bit in the way of zoning information. The lot is zoned ro. One, and the lot size is around 3,426 square feet. That is less than 50% the size of the minimum typical minimum lot size for Ro, one, which is 7,000 square feet, so it is considered a substandard sized lot. and then the existing and proposed building coverage is to remain the same. There is no expansion out of the building, and it is to remain at around 1,369 square feet, where the maximum for this property would otherwise be 1,405. But again, there's no change to this. There's no outward expansion of the building as it sits today and then existing and proposed floor area is 1,317, and then, with the additions, it's 2,005. The maximum allowance for this property is 2,124 square feet.

[13:05] and then solar axis area one. A solar diagram was provided within the application and verification was provided that no solar violation would occur due to the location and the design of this work. And of course we will verify this at time of building permit, which, pending tonight's decision. This will ultimately have to go through. And then sideyard wall articulation and sideyard bulk plane to other zoning standards. They're actually not applicable. The sideyard wall. Articulation is exempt because it is a designated property, or it's contributing within a historic district. So under that section of code, it is actually exempt from side yard, wall articulation and then sideyard bulk plane. It is exempt because of the lot width the code under the bulk. Plane standards does exclude any property with an average lot width of less than 45 feet.

[14:00] which this property has a lot with of about 43.3 fees. So because of that both side yard, wall, articulation and sideyard bulk plan are exempt. Hythe, existing and proposed is shown at 22.1 feet. There's no increase physical increase in the hype or a lowering of the structural low point that could otherwise increase the hype. So there is no change to the determined height of the house. And it is below the substandard lot allowance of 25 feet. So the maximum allowance for a lot. This size would otherwise be 25 feet, and they're proposing it at 22.1 feet. And then history. The home was built circa 19 9. It is considered contributing to the Mapleton Hill historic district, and it's the subject design was approved and received a landmark alteration certificate through his 2024 0 0 0 7, and then also landmark support for the application that you're considering tonight under criterion for was provided, and that memorandum was provided within the materials for the board to read. So

[15:12] with that this one's a little different. The board is typically looking at Criterion h. One and 5, because this is a contributing building, and has received support from the Landmarks board under Criterion, for the board will be responding to Criterion 4 and 5. I have those up on the screen, and we can always come back to this if there's discussion about them. But with Criterion 4 and Criterion 5 staff as already stated, is in support of the application as it has been presented. we agree with the landmark boards, evaluation and response under criterion, 4 in support of the Boz application. Then also under criterion, 5. With the history, the design history that the applicant provided within their materials.

[16:08] And with surrounding neighbor, input even the one to the east, which was an opposition specific to the balcony, and then also the neighbor and support to the south staff, feels that it still meets all the criterion 4 and 5 a. Through d. And remains in support of the application as it has been presented, and I'm sure the applicant can maybe provide a little more information in terms of the history of the design, and going through the Landmarks Board and the design committee under landmarks. So with that I will stop talking and hand it back over to you, and if you have any questions I'd be more than happy to answer them. Thank you, Robbie, appreciate that clarity as usual. So Is the applicant going to make a presentation that assume that they're here.

[17:16] Sorry I haven't. I just promoted them. They are here. Okay, and I apologize about the background. I was. Gonna say so. Let me ask you anyone who's going to present to please be sure to introduce yourself with your name, state your address. And it's probably helpful for us to know if you're the applicant or representative of the applicant. and the floor is yours. Oh, yes, Karen. I can't hear you. I apologize. I may have missed it. But did you want to call for questions for Staff first? So. Yes, I guess I read that. No, so I have a cheat sheet.

[18:00] Evidently I can't read one moment, please. but we got everybody ready. So if you'd hold on applicant and applicants representative, let me check with our the Board members. I've been doing this long enough. You'd think I know what their next question is. Does the Board have questions of Staff Nicki. Hey? Thank you, Madam Chair. I had 2 questions, Robbie. If you go back to the picture that you have blue and green lights. Let me re-share my screen. This page. Okay. Can you help me understand? On the side east. where where it exists currently and where it's going, because 2 feet exists today. And then, but they're asking for 2 and a half feet. Yep. And I'm actually going to go to this image

[19:04] to show you. Can you see my little hand cursor. On the s-. It's price small. The 2 feet is being taken from this wall right here. and the 2 and a half is this wall right here. So it's inset about half a foot. So the proposed is actually from the upper story. New Dormer and the existing is the 2 feet is from the existing lower level below it. So they're not quite right above each other. Okay, excellent. Thank you. And I have one other question on your page where you talk about the the building coverage and historical data. Yes, this one. I feel like this is a dumb question, but I'm still going to ask it. How can the proposed floor area be increased if the proposed building coverage is not increasing. So the building coverage is essentially the footprint of the building, and the footprint, as it sits today is not being expanded out. So there's no additional building coverage, but floor area, which is includes both all levels, including the accessory building. They're actually adding floor area to the upper story, with the addition of those 2 bedrooms. So because of that, that's where we get the additional floor area, but not coverage.

[20:18] Thank you. Anytime. And you understand what it means is for stacking. So, yeah. yeah. Thank you. I appreciate that. You're welcome. Anyone else have questions of staff. Okay? Now. I'm going to ask the applicant for their presentation. I please appreciate it. Hi! My name is Ellie Mirand. I am the architect of the project. I think Robbie. Ellie. Sorry you need to identify your address. Oh, sorry. 2350. Kenwood. Drive in boulder 8 0 3 0 5. Anything else that.

[21:02] You can proceed. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. So I. So I won't do a presentation, because I think Robbie presented everything that needs to be presented. But I do wanna mention that the neighbor at 6 10. So the neighbor to the west also signed our letter of support. So we have 2 supporting neighbors. And I'm here to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. And does your applicant want to say anything, or you're their representative? I'm their representative. But I'm not sure if they want to speak or not. I can't see them so. Yeah, that's. I I only came on because I wasn't sure Ellie was there. But she turned up so. No, I have nothing to say. Thank you. Thank you. Iga. okay, so at this time we

[22:00] are available for public comment. If there's anyone here, Amanda, is there anyone in our audience who would like to comment. Can I ask a really quick question of the applicant. So, Amanda, can you do whatever needs to happen with them? They need to. I I don't know whose voice that is. Oh, that that was well, Nikki just asked. She wanted to see if she could ask a question of the applicant. Nikki, you're asking cause I I did. I wasn't looking at your face, so I just heard a voice. And I was like. Who is that? So, but. I think. Yeah, we can always ask questions. If if during their time period, please go ahead. Okay, I just have a very quick question. I'm looking at the code that we're going to be looking at. And I wanna understand the minimum variance that you that could be afforded. So I just wanna understand if what you all are proposing is the minimum variance variance that you could afford to to do this project.

[23:02] From our point of view, we think it is because we're stacking everything above existing square footage. We're not expanding any of the existing encroachments, and with the East and West setbacks are actually in setting slightly to avoid having a solar access violation. So from that point of view, we feel like we, we're. We've tried to maximize the little lot that we have and keep all of the historic fabric and we could have propose, maybe expanding southward, more on the lower level. But then that would have gotten rid of the carriage house, which we did not want to do, and I don't think that Historic Reservation Board would have approved that either so. Thank you. Nikki and Eli Kelly or Eli. Ellie. Yep. anyone else have any questions for the applicant.

[24:04] Okay, and then, Amanda, no one from the audience wants to speak. We actually do have one person with their hand raised. If, when I unmute, when you're allowed to speak if you could. Please give us your full name right now. It just says Schweiger. I believe it's Catherine Schweiger. But if you could give us your full name you'll have 3 min. Let's see here. And your address. Katherine. Thank you. and you should be able to unmute and and speak. And are they supposed to be on video? Amanda. No, they're not on video. It's just just the audio and Thomas will run the 3 min timer. Go ahead. I I see that you're unmuted, so I think you should be able to speak. But we can't hear you yet.

[25:04] Katherine, are? Are you hearing us? Sounds like there's a zoom issue. Was she able to speak when she logged in. yeah, we. We just adjust the settings to allow her to speak, and I see that she's unmuted. But so I'm not sure if it's if it's on her end with a microphone or not. Do you have a phone number for her? No, she she must be logged in on a device, or I mean on a PC or a pop on a personal computer. So. If you can hear us, we'd like to hear what you have to say, but we do not have any audio. So if you have questions, you're you're more than welcome to type them in the QA. Box.

[26:05] We just run the 3 min and see what happens. I do have her phone number, so I don't know if that is helpful to you all. I mean. if it was me I'd want somebody to call me and make sure of what was going on. Yeah, I I'm happy to call her. That's. Probably on in the packet material, as well. Yeah, it's on the notification letters to the neighbors. I'm trying to copy it and paste it on. There. Well, I I would just Catherine to Amanda. I wouldn't paste it in. QA. Is that okay? And she may not want it publicized. That's the only. Right? Right? Yeah. Yeah. Don't quote. Don't. A. That's not going to work.

[27:01] Oh, boy! Progress. That's a progress. DE erin? What are? What is our procedure cause? Obviously she's trying to talk. Colin. Isn't there a phone number. She can call in. There, there is the Zoom Phone number. And there's. So if she can hear this in the meeting invite. it looks like it's 1, 7, 1, 9, 3, 5, 9, 4, 5, 8, 0. And she. Be able to call that and join by phone. That's your audio is simply not going to work. So your option is to call us in. That, we can tell you can hear us, because we know you're trying. So maybe say that number one more time for her, Erin, but it is in the meeting invite information. It is 1, 7, 1, 9,

[28:02] 3, 5, 9, 4, 5, 8 0. And if if we needed to, we could hold this meeting and move on to the second one. If it. I guess you know we can give her a couple of minutes and see what she can do with joining. That's exactly what I was thinking, Erin, and so why don't we give her 3 min, Amanda or Thomas? If you could just set a timer and we'll give her 3 min to call in text. Do something. And after that I'm not sure what to do. And I pasted her phone number directly to Amanda. Okay. If she can't get in, we could just hold this one. Move on to the second item, if we have our applicant for that, and then come back to

[29:01] this item after the the second sign, agenda. The only thing I was thinking with that Erin is, she has to resolve the problem. So I think in 3 min she's either able to call in. or at least communicate with, Amanda. Amanda. Do you want? If you have her number now? Can you text her. Yeah, I will. Oh, and see if you can get an understanding of what we can do, because if she's not able to call in at all, it. It doesn't make sense to hold, but if she is. then we'll wait. Does that seem fair, Aaron? Yeah, I think she may need more than 3 min. I I guess I would not. We know she she's tried to appear. I think it's safer to. Okay, to give her. A little a little. I know sometimes myself, with technology can take me quite a bit to to get going if things aren't going well. Okay. So at the end of the 3 min we're gonna move to the next item. If we haven't heard anything and

[30:01] wait to see if she can get it resolved, but at some point she has to communicate in another way. If if she can't get on by the end of the second item, I think then we can talk again and and see what our options might be. So I tried. I think she needs the webinar id as well with that phone number. I tried sharing it, but I'm unable to message her directly. I see it there. So, Amanda, if you're still listening, even though you're you're off the screen, you might give her the webinar id. It's amazing how long 1 min takes. Yeah, so sorry. I was just trying to call her So, Catherine, if I'm sorry I just tried to call you I think you're signed in on 2 devices. And so maybe that's why the feedback is happening. So if you can just close out of one of off of the there we go. I okay. And now try to unmute and speak.

[31:05] Did that work. Yes. Us! Wait. And it was done in 3 min. I'm in press, and. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So it's Kathryn Schweiger. 6, 28, Maxwell Avenue here in Boulder 8, 0 3, 0 4, 628. Maxwell has been my home for over 50 years. I have a clear understanding of the relationship between my home and the household next door. During those 50 years there have been only 2 couples who resided in the house. After Bob's death his son Bobby rented to a couple who remained in the house until Bobby's death, over 30 years later. I never repaired the picket fence, the pegboat trying to back their golden anniversary, large gold tone, Chevrolet out of their garage. There is very little room to maneuver between our houses.

[32:03] Peg grumbled alone that she had no idea how that man was going to manage. When she was gone he managed each evening when I could hear him saying goodnight to the world while pouring himself a stiff drink. when I noticed no activity in the house. I would do a safety check. If Bob was on the bathroom floor, unable to get up, I would call 9 1 1 for most of the three-year Tennessee. Of the next couple we had a good neighbor relationship, but I was well aware when their marriage was not working well. It has been rather unsettling to not have any occupants in the home since last fall. This is my closest neighbor. I am not looking forward to the disruption that the proposed pulpit will cause to the neighborhood where we have limited street parking, and where the walk of 24 Maxwell is so small that staging materials will likely be difficult.

[33:01] although I would prefer only one bedroom, one bath in the new upstairs pop-up. I understand what Mr. Barkley is proposing only asks for a minor exception from the side yard, setbacks, and otherwise is allowed within current regulation in conversation with Mr. Barker, and he was very interested in the view, and I once suggested that the next time he got up on the roof he come, get me to steady his ladder. Our view is nothing that you would put on the picture postcard. I cannot support the exception for the year rear yard setback that includes the balcony over to the existing back porch having landmarks issue a certificate with the balcony, as the only option for egress is a usurcation of the purview of the Board of Zoning adjustment. There are other solutions for egress. The balcony is a substantial encroachment, and, if built, will impair the reasonable use and enjoyment of my property, as I have detailed in my documentation included in your packet.

[34:09] I cannot screen this encroachment because of the public alley and our very narrow side yards, attempting to me a conversation on this outside balcony is impossible, and I will hear every word that is spoken again. This is a substantial encroachment that will impair my reasonable use and enjoyment of my property. Please ignore the engagement. That's that's all. Are you good? Minutes. Thank you, Catherine. Is. Your thank you for your comments. We appreciate it. Is there anyone else from the public that's here? No, I don't see anybody else. Okay, thank you. At this time we'll close the public hearing. It is now open to the board for discussion.

[35:03] So usually. Tom, this is your first time here with us, but the chairperson usually asks the Board members to speak first, and then I'll speak last. So does anybody want to volunteer to speak first? I'm sure, Nikki, you can say something. Is there any comment? Maybe there isn't any comment. Go ahead. Drew. Well, I guess. Yeah. Going through the the criteria. You know. Obviously it meets the criteria number the criteria. 4. Being a historic home and it would not alter the the character of the neighborhood. And I do think it is the minimum variance needed and given that they've used the existing setbacks and actually added a little bit on the upper story.

[36:03] And I'm assuming the the solar analysis is correct. So that comes down to the question of the reasonable use and enjoyment. And I guess my question is for Aaron, if there are some examples of what might constitute change in, or impairment of reasonable use and enjoyment. There are not. Typically some of these things, you know, it tends to to morph a long time. So it it's really up to the lifting professional experiences of the Bosa members to determine. You know what is substantial impairment, what is reasonable use? And over time things change. I think the the most common example that has come up, or garages like at one time a one car garage was W was, you know, sufficient. But over time, as we get more bicycles. And you know, 2 people in a household working a a 2 car garage was considered pretty minimally reasonable by the board. So

[37:09] yeah, no, no specific examples that I can think of. But it really comes down to what each of you defines, those terms, given the application materials. and and it is something you could ask the applicant more about if you desire as well. No. Well, I guess you know I really appreciate Catherine's comments. And her her perspective. I guess my first inclination on the reasonable use. Seeing that the the balcony, I think, is about 30 feet from her bedroom window. You know, that's actually further distance than than many people have in boulder between homes. And so I would. I would say that this new addition is is not impairing the reasonable use and enjoyment of an adjacent property.

[38:02] So I would I would be in favor of this variance. Thank you. Drew anyone else. Nikki, you ready. Yeah, I thank you, Drew. I would agree with what Drew is saying. I was looking at 5 C, the minimum variance, and the applicant answered that question for me in terms of how much more room we're taking up. All of the all the proposed setbacks are within the current setbacks. So for that reason I would also be in favor of granting this variance. And, Ben. It's up to you sometimes people when it's their first session don't talk, but it's your call. What would you like to do. No, I'd be be happy to chime in I concur with what Drew and and Nikki just mentioned. I think the staff analysis was was sensible here. you know, in terms of this application meeting the criteria.

[39:01] I appreciate the applicant's approach to the project. You know, not trying to go beyond what what the code would accommodate here if the variances are approved as proposed. So yeah, I I would be in support. Thank you, Ben. and and I'm gonna concur. Like you said it. Well, Drew I also looked at the size of the balcony, which I believe is 85 square feet, which is not particularly large. and that fact that it's actually accessed by bedrooms, and having been a builder for many years and lived in homes. I know that balconies off bedrooms are rarely used now. Perhaps this family is going to be an exception to that. But it's not a main party balcony so, and it's quite small. So I think it. you know, in my eyes it's my estimation. So I I think, even though I do appreciate what Catherine saying, change is hard and these lots are tight.

[40:04] Well, we have to acknowledge that. And and so I hope that they they can figure out a way to be neighborly about it. And I'm gonna agree. So at this point I would like to entertain a motion. Who would like to present that motion? I generally don't present them, so somebody does need to volunteer Drew or Nikki or Ben, so. I move to approve both. A docket number Boz. 2,024, 0 0 0 2, as presented. A second. Okay, that's great. Thank you. Druk. And second. alright all those in favor. And then we do this individually, because we're being recorded, so I usually call our name, or they know to chime in. So drew. Aye. Nikki. Aye.

[41:00] Ben. Bye. Aye. so this docket matters approved, and thank you for your presentation. Ellie, and the applicant wish you the best. We'll now move on to the second item on our agenda. Which was 0 0 0 4 boz. 2024. In this item is assigned matter. So, Robbie, to your baby. Alright, I'm ready. Okay. again, this is docket number BOZ. 2, 0, 2, 4, 0 0 0 4. The address is 900 Pearl Street Suite 200, and the this is a signed spacing variance as part of a proposal to install a new projecting tenant sign at 900 Pearl Street. The applicant is requesting a variance to the minimum signed Spacing Standards. Pursuant to Boulder Revised Code section 9, 9, 2, one.

[42:04] The resulting distance between the subject proposed sign and the nearest existing sign will be approximately 20 feet 8 inches, where 25 feet is required and no sign for this tenant exists today. Section of the land use could to be modified. Section 9, 9, 2, one. Boulder Revised Code 1981. And this is a new one for the board. I think it's been quite a few years since we had an assigned variance, let alone assigned spacing variants. So I'll present this a little differently. But shouldn't be too bad again. This is at 900 Pearl Street, which is a mixed use building of both commercial and residential. Up there on the screen you can see the white circle. That's kind of the location along Pearl Street. Have a better aerial here in the next slide. But this just gives you an idea. It's location and proximity to the surrounding businesses and zoning districts.

[43:00] And here on the screen, you see the red circle again on the left image. That is the location along Pearl Street, and the image on the right is the footprint of the subject mixed use building. And this is the street view from Pearl Street and the location of the tenant is actually up here on the second floor. We have a better visual here on the next slide, and the subject location of the proposed sign is, gonna Be on the ground floor. And this is a better diagram. You can see they're kind of outlined in the red shading. That is the location of the tenant. and the blue circle is the location of the projecting sign that the board is considering tonight when it comes to sign spacing. So again, this is a sign spacing variance for the new projecting sign, and it's for approximately 20 feet 8 inches where 25 feet is required and no projecting signage for the business exists today. And section 9, 2 one. Our sign code

[44:04] pretty much just says, there shall be no less than 25 feet in between any 2 projecting signs, and anything less than that would require a variance, and they do provide a path forward. So that is why this application is in front of the board this evening is, they are proposing 20 feet 8 inches between. The proposed sign and the nearest existing sign, and 25 feet would otherwise be required. And then this is a better view of the existing signs. Along this stretch of Pearl Street. Again my red circle shows you where the subject sign is to be located behind the tree is with the arrow you see the yellow Deli sign a one that is where the 20 feet 8 inches is being taken from, and then we have 2 other signs, Jacks and West End 2 other existing projecting signs. Headed to the east, but the 2 signs that are kind of the

[45:05] more important, the focus of this application are the proposed sign and the sign that is 20 feet 8 inches away from it, which would be the yellow Deli sign. And this just shows you kind of the size and the dimensions, and as well as the look of the proposed sign, and you can see their circle is that would be the location of the sign. And just beyond that you can actually see the yellow Deli sign which again is the 20 feet 8 inches away from it. and sign spacing variances have their own unique criteria. It is a 9, 9, 2, one s. It's buried way deep into the sign code. But within that we have the ability for Bozo to grant variances specific to certain sign things. It's not all signed variances, but one of those things that the board can consider our sign spacing variances for projecting signs.

[46:04] and there are 4 criteria. And the applicant did go through each of those criteria in detail in their response. And it's worth noting that criterion 4 B is specific to noise variances, which this is not a part of. So the board actually tonight will be considering criterion a C and D, and that is what the applicant responded to. and with that and with the information provided within the application staff is in support of this application. In short meeting the 25 feet would otherwise put the subject sign on the other side of the building entrance and below a portion of the building that is not where this tenant resides. so, having a business sign directly below, a business itself seems appropriate and is understandable, and in order to do that they would have to seek a variance for the 20 feet 8 inches. So with that staff does feel that it meets all

[47:08] of the criterion under 9, 9, 2, one s. 4, and is recommending support as it has been presented. So with that I can answer any questions you may have, and I do also know that we have the applicant here with us as well. so I'll leave it at that. Thank you, Robbie. Do members of the Board have questions for staff? I'm getting shaking heads, I agree. At this time. Would the applicant like to speak. I just promoted Dale. Here he comes. Hi, everybody! I just rejoined as a panelist. So I cut out for a bit. Is it my turn now? Is that.

[48:02] It is still, and please introduce yourself, name and address, and then take it from there. Okay. Dale Hubbard. Addresses 8, 3, 3 Calmia Avenue and Boulder 80304. I'm the applicant on this. Thanks for your time. And considering this, we're super excited to have our office here and West Pearl just trying to get a a blade signed done, and I guess I am the Excuse me, victim of being in architect and wanting to Just place this sign in what seems to be the logical location on the building. it is. You know. basically, the location that we're showing is on the Pylast, or similar to where the yellow delies is and then, as the building progresses to the west, there's a

[49:03] vertical circulation break. and then it becomes residential. From that point forward. So Robbie's done a great job introducing this to you, so I won't go on too long. We have our approval from the ho board at 900 Perl. We have our revocable in place, and the insurance and this is the kind of final hurdle for permit comments. So I guess we're ready to go and happy to answer any questions you might have regarding the proposal. Thank you, Dale. appreciate it. Does anyone have a question for the applicant? Can't? Yeah. My sense is for myself, this is not a controversial issue.

[50:02] Does anyone else disagree? Alright? Meaning? Let's let's take a positive. Is there anyone opposed to this? Yeah. So let's have a motion to approve is submitted. Please. Move. We approve. Docket number boz, 2,024, dash 0 0 0 4 as proposed. Thank you. I'll second that motion. All those in favor. Let's start with Ben. Aye. Drew. Aye. Nikki. Aye. And I so thank you so much. Your submittal has been approved, and that you may proceed with your sign, I'll look forward to seeing it. Okay, thanks. Everybody. Have a have a great night. Thank you. But bye. Bye. I think we have minutes to prove, and then matters from the board I have reviewed the minutes is everyone else

[51:02] who is here because, Ben, you can't. You weren't here so. And I wasn't here either. Yeah, so what do we do? In that case, Erin, because we don't have a quorum to approve those minutes. You want to table it till next meeting, or can we do. You can you? You can vote on minutes, even if you weren't. Oh, pleasant. Forget that. I think you might have said that before. Okay, well, I can tell you the minutes are good. They're very short. They're accurate. Very short, so can we have a motion to approve the minutes. Please. And make a motion to approve the minutes. Second. Okay, here we go again. Ben. I've. Through. Aye. Nicky. A. Myself. Aye. okay, we have minutes approved. Do we have matters from staff. Yes, and just a few quick things application deadline for the May meeting was yesterday. I've yet to be able to go through and figure out what, if any are moving forward to May. So

[52:02] like, always stay tuned on an email coming from me about the May fourteenth. I forget the date. But I will email you probably by the end of this week with the status on that and there is also for our now departed member. We have a little quick coffee thing on Thursday during lunchtime, so if any of you can make it great, we'd love to see you. It'll just be super quick and easy. Even you ben can kinda see you know who your predecessor was, so if you want, but if not, no worries. It'll just be quick and easy. But we wanted to. Say thank you in farewell to our former member. So and then one last thing is, I believe we will be, or will need to vote for a new chair and vice chair at the next scheduled meeting. So have recommendations in mind. And I would say, just come prepared at the next meeting with

[53:01] who you would like to see as chair and vice share, even if it's a repeat of who we have now. So that's it from me. Thank you, Robbie, and I'm gonna respond to that. I'm I'm not able to see Maureen on Thursday because I have another meeting but please share with her. My appreciation for her time on the board. Tell her, said Hi, and I'll see you around town. may fourteenth. Currently I'm scheduled to be in Germany. So I just want to put that out there. Usually it's a rough time for me to make that meeting because it's the middle of the night. so Hopefully enough, people will come if you need to have that. Thank you. Yes. Can someone share the cheat sheet with me? This, if you're not here in May, that'll be my first meeting. The cheat sheet that I told you that I would share with you. Yes. Yes, I'm willing to share it with you. It needs an edit. I have to. There's some typos in there. It says appliance instead of applicant. So I'm just hand correct. And I always said, every time I look at I'm like, don't say appliance.

[54:14] Yeah, I'll get that, too, Amanda. You probably have them right. I mean, I got them from. Yeah, yes, I think we have something. And maybe I'll look through and update it as necessary. I might have put it up on Google docs. So I'll look and see, and I'll share it with you. And if you want, you can share it with everybody. And you know, really, once you've been to enough meetings now to know that it's just. It is pretty clockwork, unless you mess up like I did, which happens now and then. So do we have any matters from anyone else on on the board. Anything you want to bring up. Is any comment on the the letter that we sent to the City Council. I didn't see the letter. Oh, it never got shared!

[55:01] It's it, does it? Some dude. Amanda. And I just said, Yeah. I'm so I'm sorry that it didn't go back to the board. You're right apologies for that. I'm happy to send it to the board. It did make its way to city council. Yes, and I have not heard Erin. Do you know anything about the reviewing? They had their retreat last week. so I'm not sure if they discussed letters from boards and commissions during their retreat or not. I. I don't believe they did though I had to leave early one day, so they may have addressed it Thursday, but I have a feeling that most of that was devoted to setting the priorities. So it may just have come up in conversation if if it touched on a priority. I. I don't recall any specific discussion of board letters in general. so I'm sure they all read it, you know, read it individually, and that informed how they chose their priorities. 8.

[56:01] Thank you, Erin. I is. Are that any matters from you? Yes, actually, I'd like to introduce Dasha Zazueta, who's on as a panelist and just turned on her camera. Dashana is one of our prosecutors, and so has worked on code issues from an enforcement perspective. And I am going to have to cover some other night meetings. And so dashana has kindly offered to help out with Boza. so you will probably see her at a couple of more meetings. And and thank you to shauna if you'd like to say anything by way of introduction. Sure. My name is Tasha. It's very nice to meet everyone virtually hopefully in person, is coming down the pike. I'm excited to to join Boza and learn a different aspect of the law. I don't not know any of you guys personally, but I have worked with Robbie before, and I know he's stellar, and I'm happy to see him on this meeting. So yes, just excited to be here, and

[57:02] I guess hopefully we'll be a person here soon. Well, I really appreciate the explanation of who you were, because your name was up there. I was like, who is that so nice to meet you. We'll see you, I guess, at our next regularly held meeting. Well, thank you. Anyone else. Anything else. Or may I close the meeting. Yes, I'll I'll be at the Thursday lunch. It's it's my desk literally faces a Monty, so it's very easy. That's I'm glad someone will be there. That's good. Thank you. Drew. Represent us. Okay. well, thank you so much. I think at this point. Then we can adjourn the meeting. Thank you. Everybody see you soon. Thank you. Thank you. You good night.