October 8, 2024 — Board of Zoning Adjustment Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] You ready? Go ahead! Good evening and welcome to the Board of Zoning Adjustment Monthly meeting. We have 4 items on the agenda tonight. just a second. Okay, I'm going to make this messed up. Yes, we have 4 items, and the order of the items will be Boz, 2024, dash 0 0 0 9, 2050 mesa drive, followed by Boz, 2024, dash 0, 0, 11, 1313, 7th street. then Boz, 2024, 0 0 1, 2, 2715, Elm Avenue. and finally, Boz, 2024, dash 0, 0, 1, 3, 4, 3, 5, Dewey Avenue. on each item. Staff will present 1st and the applicant second. The public will then be invited to comment, and then the Board will discuss.

[1:01] Now I'm going to turn this over to Amanda for our rules of decorum. Great thanks, Jill. Just gonna share my screen here for you. All. Okay. thank you. Everyone for joining us this afternoon. I'm just going to go through a few rules for the meeting. 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 boards, 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 rules 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.

[2:14] obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. and 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. We're in the Zoom Webinar format. So when you are invited to speak, if you wish to participate in our public participate? You may use the raise hand function at the bottom of your screen. I don't see anybody on the phone, so I'll skip that part and when it is your turn I will just adjust the settings so that and unmute you so that you can speak you'll have 3 min.

[3:03] let's see, and then the there's another way to raise your hand. Also. If you hover over the reactions. Button, there is this raise hand function? As I mentioned, we'll have 3 min, and then I just wanted to let all of the applicants know for your presentations. We do only have a 3 min timer. You are allowed 10 min for your presentation. But I will put up the 3 min timer when when you're down to. When you have 3 min remaining. and, Jill, I'll turn it back over to you. Thank you, Amanda. I'm going to review the voting rules. and then we'll hear from Robbie. So 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 1st take vote taken on a motion to approve or deny an application results in a tie. 2 to 2.

[4:01] 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. So I'm going to now call the 1st item on the agenda, Boz 2024, 0 0 0 9, 2050 mesa drive. Thank you. Okay? And let's see, share my screen. Alright. Does the board see the presentation? My screen kind of glitched a little. This is Docket. This is docket number boz. 2024, dash 0 0 0 9. The address is 2050 mesa drive. This is a bulk plan variance, and this is also a returning item from a Boz case that was continued or issued a continuance at the August 13, th 2024 Bosa meeting. So this is the second hearing of Boz 2024, dash 0 0 0 9.

[5:14] And as part of a proposal to construct a new single family house on a substandard size, vacant lot. The applicant is requesting a variance to the bulk plan requirements for a principal structure in the Rmx. One zoning district. The revised design results in a vertical bulk plane projection beyond the bulk plane at the west side of the house by approximately 4 feet at the greatest vertical measurement section of the land use code to be modified. Section 979, Boulder Revised Code 1981. And up on the screen we have a location of the property and the applicant at the 1st hearing. I know, Jill, Madam Chair, you were not present for the august meeting, but we did provide a link to the recording of that meeting, and I won't dive too deep into that for the sake of time at this meeting. But, there is a lengthy history to this property, and very long story short, they are in front of the board this evening seeking a revised bulk plan, variance, application, and

[6:20] if any of you need to revisit anything that was said at the 1st hearing, or anything about the history of the property, and how it got to where it was today. Please ask me or the applicant, and I'm sure we'd be more than happy to kind of divulge on that a little more, but for the sake of this meeting I will kind of dive into the revised plans. So up on the screen we have a location of the property. It is zoned, Rmx. One, and this property is required to adhere to many of the typical development standards, bulk plane being one of those, and it is also a substandard size lot. So I'm gonna switch it up a little bit like I did at the August meeting and kind of go into some of the zoning details.

[7:01] Prior to getting into the meat and potatoes of the application. But again zoned Rmx. One. The lot size is 4,403 square feet. The typical Rmx. One lot is about 6,000 square feet or more. So it is a noticeably a substandard size lot existing and proposed building coverage in addition to the existing and proposed floor area. Right now it's vacant. But as proposed they are proposing it to be under the maximum allowance for this property, so no variances to the bulk of the building, more particularly the floor area and the building coverage are being requested at this time, and those would be verified at building permit pending the outcome of tonight's hearing. Solar access area 2, which is a 25 foot solar fence. Because of the design and location, no issues. Solar access violations have been found for the proposal, and that again would be verified at time of building permit, and then also no side yard wall articulation issues and then highlighted in Blue Side Yard bulk plan. That is what the board is considering tonight under Boz 2024,

[8:13] 0 0 0 9. And then the proposed height is at 34 feet, even though this is a substandard size lot and typically homes on substandard size lots require a lesser of allowed height. The special ordinance ordinance 85, 79 did permit, or does permit a house on this property to be built up to 35 feet. still using the same method of determining height. But, as proposed, this home is at 34 feet just under the maximum allowance. and then history of the property. It is a vacant lot. Again. Special sites site standards were approved via the ordinance ordinance, 8,579, and that was back in June of 2023. But for the most part typical title Ix. Standards and regulations for Rmx. One properties are to be met aside from special setbacks, and as just mentioned, the height.

[9:09] and also I provide a little diagram in terms of how bulk plane the intent of bulk plane, what it's for and how we measure it. I can go into this a little more. But the diagram you see up on the screen is gonna look very familiar. And here, in a few slides when the applicant provided the same diagram, the same visual. And then we also have the survey and aerial view again, vacant lot. So there's nothing on the lot right. Now and then we have some pictures that were provided by the applicant showing the lots and we can dive into these a little more if the board needs to. and then we also have some information provided by the applicant. A lot of this was provided within the original application submittal, or what was taken to the august meeting, only revised. Information and materials were provided as a part of the this item going forward tonight, but I did include the full packet of the August meeting. As a part of that, and those have all been labeled accordingly, so the Board should have all the information they need from both the August meeting and tonight's meeting. And this was a part of the august submittal.

[10:22] So what the Board is looking at tonight is again, it's a bulk plane variance. These are elevation views and revised ones. This is for the revised design. So the board is considering tonight a bulk plan variance to just the side west. and that is for a maximum vertical projection outside of the bulk plane of approximately 4 feet. This is another top view site view, and then also another elevation kind of looking at it straight on of the same information. Again, it's a 4 foot vertical projection beyond the bulk plane. And this is what was proposed at the 1st hearing. During the August meeting there were both East and West Side projections, and the West side projection was upwards of 9 feet. So I will let the applicant provide a little more detail in terms of what exactly was changed.

[11:18] But what the board is looking at tonight is this, which is a projection of 4 feet into that bulk plane. and then we also have some architectural drawings. These are the revised drawings. For the forefoot. And then right here you can see that forefoot there. and the red triangles. That is where the vertical projections are located. and then we also have some floor plans. We can revisit these. If the board needs to. So tonight, the applicant did respond to criterion h. 1 and H. 5. With the revised materials, the revised information and application, and also the 4 foot. Vertical projection versus the original vertical projection on both sides. Staff is supporting this bulk plan variance as it has been presented with the revised materials.

[12:11] I can go into the criteria and a little the board once, but for the most part this property is somewhat unique. It has a very unique history. And it is restricted when it comes to what can be placed on it. That said efforts were made by the property owner and the applicant to reduce the amount of vertical projection into the bulk plane. They even eliminated one of the 2 the East Side bulk plane projection outright to where it is now just a west bulk plane projection. And now one that's about half the size of the original. No. One. So with that staff again, is in support of the book. Plan, variance, as it hinted by the applicant. and I will leave it at that, for now. If you have any questions? You please feel free to direct those to either me or the applicant who, I believe, is going to speak right after me.

[13:12] Thank you, Robbie. looking for my directions here. so do the board before we move on to the applicant. Have any questions for staff. Robbie Vicki, please. Robbie, I would like to hear the criteria. You said that you could go over it at a later time, but I would like to know how staff view the criteria and making their recommendation. Of course. So when when it comes to h. 1, the physical circumstances or conditions that are unique to the lot. it is a substandard size lot. Yes, it did go through a special ordinance that gave it less setbacks, but it's still in our opinion, an incredibly steep lot, especially at the north end of it.

[14:05] where they were given a lesser setback. So we understand that the topography of the lot, just the overall condition, physical condition of the lot is very unique. Even to Boulder. Given that, it's a small lot with a very steep topography. So with that, we looked at what did they do in terms of kind of did they lessen the degree of the vertical projection of the bulk plane on one side of the house, the east side there was originally a projection of a few feet that is now gone. and on the west side we looked at what they did, and it was a 9 foot projection, and now it's down to a 4 foot projection. So yes, it is still there, but also the reasoning for maintaining that has to do with an elevator shaft for the use and enjoyment of the home. It would be very probably be very difficult to reduce it by another 4 feet when it comes to an elevator shaft, and then some of the surrounding architectural features. So we did feel. This is kind of the minimum relief or the minimum amount of variance to afford a relief, and that relief is to have a functioning home and functional for the property owner

[15:13] so, and then, when it comes to H. 5 would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. There weren't really any too many concerns projected at the 1st hearing, and I have not heard from any of the surrounding properties. but they are wanting to develop on a what is a somewhat rare thing in Boulder, which is a vacant lot. So to create that home, and it doesn't appear there are any aggrieved neighbors at least, based on what we've heard from them. and then it also we don't believe it would substantially or permanently impair reasonable use and enjoyment of neighboring properties, especially with the reduced scope of the bulk plane projection, and then again would be the minimum variance to afford a relief, and it would be the least modification of the codes.

[16:00] They've whittled it down quite a bit. And what's left, really? And this is something that maybe the homeowner or the applicant can speak to. What's left is really something that's going to be somewhat hard to further reduce, especially if it involves the elevator shaft that this home needs. So with that, yeah, that's Staff's reasoning. Thank you, Robbie. Does anyone else have any questions of staff? Thank you. So at this time we'd like to have the applicant to present is someone here for the applicant. Yes, I am promoting them to join us right now. Christopher and Peter. Hi! And before you start, may I ask you guys to please introduce yourselves with your full name and your residence address? Thank you. Hi! This is Peter Carey. I was the applicant

[17:02] for this project. I live at 800, Dickens Court, Longmont, Colorado. Christopher Melton is the architect. And hopefully he's on board because he did want to speak. Basically, he just wanted to know if you had any questions. Hello! I'm here. Hello! Can anyone hear me? We can hear you and Christopher, if you'd be so kind as to state your address, that would be great. Your name and your address. Christopher Melton at 7 61 North Avenue, Macon, Georgia. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right, Peter. You want to proceed. No, to speak. You're gonna speak. I beg your pardon. Go ahead. Sorry I misunderstood. Oh, well, I have 10 min divided up. Anybody wanna ask me a question.

[18:00] Then I assume you'll approve this project. Are you saying you do not have a presentation. No, I don't have. I've already presented this to to everyone. In in, not in this format. but the the information that you all got from Robbie Weiler prior to this meeting? Is the information? Have you read it? Have you looked at it? Have you studied it? Are you familiar with it? Did you have any questions about it? Sir, I respect your concern, and I think most of us will have read this. I was unfortunately not present at the previous meeting, where this application was not approved. And so, if you have any salient facts or statements that you'd like to make, now is your opportunity. And certainly, if we have questions we will direct them to you.

[19:07] I think he's frozen. Peter. I think Christopher's frozen. He? He might be frozen. He he's in Georgia, so. Yeah, he said. The hurricane didn't didn't affect him, though, so. I mean, this is your time. You can use it how you wish. Please don't let me get in your way. If it's something you'd like to say it sounds like he doesn't he'd prefer to just answer questions, and I don't think that I don't think the Board would necessarily have an issue with that. He's gonna try to come back in. Looks like he's dropped out. So let's give him a minute to come back in and yes, Ben, you have a question. Is it for Peter or or Christopher? Sure I'll ask Peter, and and maybe he can start to answer, and Mr. Melton can pick up

[20:00] so it I think we have the information we need to make a decision. But I just wanted to hear a little bit more about that elevator design challenge that Robbie mentioned. Right, and that was the the main challenge, I think. He changed some roof slopes on the East Side that fairly easy to accommodate and closets and bedrooms and things like that. The elevator was critical. Part of that encroachment prior was that the stairs also wrapped around the elevator. My apologies, little dogs going off there? So he moved the stairs to the upper level out towards the entry. If you notice that on the plans so is just the elevator that is encroaching at this time, and there's really not anything we can do with that just, but based on the nature of an elevator.

[21:00] and it is an elderly client who's looking forward to retiring at this location. So I think that's going to be very useful. In the future of his enjoyment of the property. Thank you. Thank you. Only other thing I'd mention is that street is so high up that you know that that street again is almost 10 feet above the the main level of the house already, so we can't really sync it down any lower than it is already. and also that the owner has owned the property with intent to build since the eighties. So I I think that is important as well. Thank you, Peter. Does anyone else have a question for Peter? It looks like we lost Christopher, but he can also call in if you need him, Peter, you can. you know, try to bring him back in if you want to. By phone, if he can't reach us. Is that right, Amanda. Can he call in. Might be him on my phone.

[22:02] Hello. yeah. There. They just asked me a couple of questions, and I told them that the elevator is about as small as we can get it, and that it's important to the design. Amanda, do you want to give him a number? Is there a number he can call in. Yeah, let me look it up here. Do you want to call in a number and you can talk to them directly? Okay, Amanda's gonna get that for me. She's hoping to get it for you. About that. Hold on one second. That's okay. I wonder if it's in the copy in the link. You're somewhere. Yeah, there's a bunch of different phone numbers. It's on the website, too. What?

[23:00] Where's the telephone at. Like a whole series of numbers. No great. Oh, is that simple to see if anybody else catches on trying to do the same thing. Chucks, my app website's just taking its sweet time. That's okay. Okay. Sorry about oh, dang it! Where is. Probably is. Wow, sorry about this. that's the phone number. That's right. Okay, there's a bunch of phone numbers. I've got it.

[24:00] so do you. He's in Georgia. Have him try. Look at! He's there! He's there. He's back. Yeah, he's back. He's back. There we go. Thank you. Guys. Hopefully. I love that. Okay, thank you, Christopher, for trying to get back. We were trying to get you a phone number. But welcome back. I think we've we've. There! Those answers. So unless you have something you want. I didn't even hear them. Please please repeat, can you hear me? We can hear you. And there. Probably a little rather than repeat. I think. Let's have the board go into discussion. You're there now for us. If we have questions we'll ask you. okay. okay. Okay. So at this time.

[25:00] I need to also ask if there's any public comment. Amanda. Is there anyone here. See if anybody you would wish to. Comment on this. Now's your time to raise your hand. And I really, I'm sort of skipping this question. I just want to make sure. Ben spoke, asked a question. Does anyone else have a question for the applicant. I yeah, I didn't think so. But thank you. Yeah. So let us know, Amanda. If we have a citizen. I don't see any hands raised at this time. Okay, thank you so much at this time. If there's no public comment on this matter, it's open to the board for discussion, and that discussion can include directing questions to the applicant or staff. So is there someone who has a point of reflection? They want to start with, please. I can just call on you the way that you appear on my screen. Then. Sure I'd be happy to start. Appreciate the changes that the applicant has made since the August hearing

[26:06] particularly on removing the encroachment on the east plane. I think that helps a lot to address at least what I remember where the Board's concerns back in August. and I do agree also that the I think it's about 4 foot remaining encroachment on the west side seems like a reasonable compromise here given. The design constraints of the elevator and the substandard or unusual nature of the site. Everything that you know Staff presented. So I I find Staff's presentation compelling. I would be in in favor of approving this. Thank you. Nikki. You're next on my screen. Hi, yes, agree completely with what Ben said. I would be in favor approving. Thank you.

[27:02] Katie. Yeah, I I also agree with Ben. I feel like they they oh. you know, change their their proposal, and it's now at the sort of the Mini minimum variance. so I also am in favor. Well, thank you. And although I wasn't here, I'm aware of some of the things that created the issues with the last application. And I, too, agree that they worked hard to bring this in in a way that we could approve it. So with that consensus, may I have a motion from someone to approve this application. I would move that we approve a docket. Item BOZ. 2024, dash 0, 0 0 0 9. Don't have a second. Second. All those in favor, and, as you know, I'll call you again in order of the way or in reverse order. The way you appear on my screen. So Katie.

[28:03] I. Nikki. Aye. And. Fine. And myself. I thank you so much, gentlemen, for your application, and for revising things. Wish you the best, and your client the best moving forward. Thanks for your time. Thank you kindly. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay, at this time we will move on to our next matter. Boz, 2024. Dash! Hold on! Can you guys give me that number because I just blipped up to where it is on my screen. It's 11. I thought it was 11. Yeah, thank you so much, Robbie. It's yours. Okay, thank you, madam, Chair. And again, this is docket number Boz, 2024, dash 0 0 1 1. The address is 1313 7th Street.

[29:05] and this is a setback variance as part of a proposal to reconstruct an increase in height, a portion of the home's roof. The applicant is requesting a variance to both the rear, west, and interior side, north setback standards for a principal structure in the RO. 1 zoning district. This home is located on a substandard size lot, and no new additional floor area is being proposed. The resulting rear setback will be approximately 3.9 feet at the closest point where 25 feet is required and approximately 3.9 feet exists today. The resulting interior side setback will be approximately 3.6 feet at the closest point where 5 feet is required and approximately 3.6 feet exists today. Section of the land use code to be modified. Section 9 7, 1 boulder revised Code 1981, and sorry I'm fighting. A beam of sun hit in my face, so I apologize for that. But

[30:02] The up on the screen. You have a the location of the property. It is zoned r. 0 1, and to the north of the property is an alley, and to the east is 7th Street, which is the front yard. and part of the packet did include the single written letter of written support that we got from 655 Pleasant Street. In there on the screen I have a green star denoting where that is. This is the property to the West or behind the house. and there we go. And this property also has a little bit of a unique history. So I'm going to get into the zoning information 1st before getting into the application. it is again zoned. r. 0 1. The lot size is 5,003 square feet minimum lot size for r, 0, 1 is 7,000 square feet. So we have another substandard size lot being considered tonight, the existing and proposed building coverage. There is no change to either building coverage or floor area as it's being designed.

[31:03] and there is reason for that, and I can let the applicant go into more detail in terms of why, exactly. They want to do what they're proposing. But both building coverage and floor area they would be verified at time of building permit. But nothing is being increased as a part that's in front of the board tonight. Solar access area one, which is a 12 foot solar fence, due to the design of the new roof. No issue has presented itself, and we would again verify this at time of building permit, pending tonight's decision. and then again, with side yard, wall, articulation, side yard bulk playing. No issues have presented themselves, but those will be verified at a later time, and the height the existing and proposed. The existing height of the home is around 15.8 feet. and the proposed height with the new roof is around 20.6 feet. The maximum allowed for this property because it is a substandard size lot is around 29.2 feet, so they are coming in significantly less than the maximum allow maximum allowed for the property.

[32:05] And then, when it comes to the history, the home was built circa, 19 0 4, and the subject rear edition that the Board is looking at this evening was built in the late 19 twenties and remodeled in the late 19 forties. Based on records that were provided. Applicant provided a lot of history and staff very much appreciates that. So I'm I don't know if the Board had a chance to read through that. But this home does have a lengthy history. It's just not a lot of it is documented. So we kind of have to put 2 and 2 together. But it does appear that it was remodeled in the late 19 forties and the garage use was actually removed, and it's believed those were removed sometime prior to when boulders, parking standards were even put in place. So with that this is a site. The survey, as well as an aerial view, circled there in red

[33:01] of the property. Again, the front yard, 7th Street is to the east, or the right of the aerial image, and then we also have a street view image on the lower left, and there on the right, you can see that alley that runs along the north side of the property. and tonight the board is considering setback variances. and it's to the existing home modifications. Number one is the rear west, and that's a variance for approximately 3.9 feet where 25 feet is required. That's a rear yard setback requirement for r. 0 1 zoning. And we're approximately 3.9 feet exist today. And for the side north, that's the alley side. It's a variance request of approximate for approximately 3.6 feet, where 5 feet is required in approximately 3.6 feet exist today. And they're on the screen because the applicant did provide this information. I wanted to show where the buy right buildable area or where the area of the property that meets setbacks is located. That's that light pink

[34:03] color that you see on the screen. and the subject edition is in the upper left corner of the site plan. So they're wanting to not expand the house, but modify what's already there. and those are within both the rear and side, Sebex. and then we have some views. I thought the images on the right painted a pretty clear picture of what exactly is happening. The lower right image is what is out there today, and the upper right image is what is proposed. So the the bulk of the building, the walls of the building are not being expanded out. They are. however, going up a little, and the roof form is being modified, as you can see in this photo. and then we don't we can go through these in more detail if the board wants, but the applicant did provide some floor plans of the proposed top and existing bottom of the lower level. We also have the upper level of the home.

[35:01] and this is, it is worth noting. This is a split level home. So not all the floors align with the other floors. It's kind of a different bit of a layout. We would call this otherwise a split level home. But the reasoning for tonight's proposal is to kind of bring everything into more of a habitable and flowing kind of layout within the home for the use and enjoyment of the homeowners. But we can go through these in more detail if the board needs to, and then we also have some proposed top and existing bottom. Elevation drawings, and this is for the north side of the home. This is along the alley, so the subject, addition, or wing of the home that the board is looking at this evening is on the right hand side of both images, and again the proposed is top, and the existing is the bottom. and then we also have the proposed top and existing bottom side. Elevation drawings. This is from what is otherwise the yard, the south yard of the property looking north into the home.

[36:01] So the subject. Addition or wing of the home is on the left hand side for this image. and then we also have the rear view, which also includes the bulk plan diagram, verifying that bulk plan will be met as a part of this proposal, and then we also have a roof plan of proposed top and existing bottom. So tonight the applicant did provide a lot of response to multiple criteria. But staff just focused on Criterion h. 1 and H. 5. When it came to our recommendation, and we are recommending approval of the setback variance as it has been presented within the application primarily, because this property does have a history. The home was built in the early 19 hundreds. The subject addition, which was a former garage, was converted to non garage space upwards of 75 years ago, and it is believed, even prior to the zoning Regs.

[37:01] For the city of Boulder, which kicked in in the 19 fifties. So it's possibly that they didn't have a garage when the the parking standards did come into play. and what they're wanting to do is not expand, meaning increase floor area or building coverage, but rather make it more habitable by raising ceiling heights within. That also requires some modification to the exterior of the building, which is why we see a change in the roof plan. and then also go into h 1 or h. 5. I'm sorry, would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. or would not substantially or permanently impair reasonable use and enjoyment of the adjacent properties. We did actually receive the one letter of support from the neighbor to the west. which arguably would be the most impacted person when it comes to modifying the roof form of the the west side of the house, and then would be the minimum variance to afford a relief, and would be the least modification of the title.

[38:03] Considering that they're not want to expand either in floor, area or size, or do a an addition. They're simply wanting to modify and fix what is already there and what was built many decades ago. Staff does feel that this would be us, that this is a minimum variance to afford relief, and that relief is to habitate the home and to use rooms with proper head height that would meet today's standards standards from many decades ago. So with that Steph is again in support and recommending approval of the variance as it has been presented within the application. and I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you have, and then I also believe the homeowners and or the design professional is also here who can speak to the project. So with that I will hand it back over to you. Thank you, Robbie. Does the Board have any questions of staff?

[39:02] Thank you very much. Applicant. Whoever's at, you know, going to present. Please. Amanda, proceed. Yes, just promoting them. Now wait. Kyle, as well. One more. There he is. Thank you, Amanda. I'm not sure which of you is going to present, but as each person speaks, if you would please be so kind as to identify yourself by your full name and your home address for the record, and then you can proceed. Do they have 10 min. Is that right, Amanda? Yes. So you have 10 min.

[40:03] Thank you. We can. How are you, Kyle? Oh, there he is. Okay. There we go. hey? I'm I'm gonna present. I've developed slideshow. I'll just go through. Good night. And Fred and Lisa would like to say a few words to the board as well. Kyle Callahan architect in Boulder. I live in Louisville to 20 South Jefferson, Louisville. My office is in Boulder at 2975, Belmont cool. Yeah. You bet I'm gonna go ahead and I think, kick in this oop. Okay, let's see if I can share my screen. this is 11. Sorry 2 of them active. Okay, is everybody seeing my screen?

[41:00] It's a title, Boz, 2024 0 0 0 1 1. Gotcha. Got it. Construction within the required side and rear yard set back raise and reconstruct the roof. Only You've seen the map that Robbie produced. This is the site. Most of the lots in the neighborhood are kind of the typical boulder. 50 by a hundred 30 or so. These lots along 7th Street were split probably at the original plat the house that faces pleasant here faces pleasant, and this house faces university. These 2, however, face towards the east, and they have a adjacency. So the front yard is on the east side of both the subject lot and the neighboring lot to the north. the aerial zooming in closer. Here's the original home built in 19 0 4.

[42:02] Wonderful lady she is in the twenties. We think it was the twenties. There was an addition out. The back indications are might have been sleeping porch and some kind of parking down below and the south side yard doesn't look like it was ever developed. So front yard, rear, yard. north side, and south side yard to ground that to put it in a map form. And Robbie had this up on screen. There's a 25 foot front yard setback that produces this development constraint, we can see the house already exists within it, 25 foot rear yard setback. So the addition from the 20 twenties excuse me, and part of the original structure are in the rear yard setback north side, south side, this being the developable part of the lot. We'd rather not do that.

[43:01] So one of the issues the Corrado's purchase property this past spring, and we want to bring it up to code and make it more useful building code requires building code, and practical use requires 7 foot ceiling height. This is a cross section through that addition on the northwest, and it shows that we have 5 foot 11, so I can barely get in there and visit with my clients in this space, because I hit my head all the time. It does pitch up to 6 foot 8 in the center of the room. But this this would create unoccupiable space. The main floor is as well unoccupiable. But we're not focusing on that. We want to just get this up to speed in this portion of the project. So so our design intent is to take this, which is the dash lines here show the original existing roof as it is today.

[44:03] bringing the side walls up to a height of 7 foot 3. That's a 1 foot 4. Increase in height, and then pitching the roof up much more much steeper at 6 12 pitch. This is a 1 12 pitch on the original existing roof this would provide 7 foot 3 head height in at the perimeter and nearly 11 feet in the center of the room. and and plenty of occupied occupiable floor area. Additionally, there's an issue of structural capacity. The way this roof is framed is 2 by 12 s. That have been ripped across the top to give it that slope. So they actually taper from 11 inches tall in the middle of the room to about 4 inches tall at the edge. When inquiring of our structural Engineer, Steve Pendergrass. You said he doesn't know why it's still standing so. Anyway.

[45:02] we wanna fix the structural capacity of this roof so it doesn't end up on somebody's lap. In doing so we would have 2 by 10 rafters. There'll be a ridge beam here, and 2 by 10 rafters coming down to bear on new bearing elevation which would be plenty of structure. That also gives us the ability to support a photovoltaic solar array on the south facing slope of this roof which brings me to the next point. Energy performance. Yeah, if there's any insulation in that roof at all, it some of it is. Some of it does not appear to be. It could be R. 11. In the new configuration we propose to fill the cavity of the roof, framing numbers with close cell spray foam, which would give us a an insulation value of R. 64. While we're at it we'll spray that same foam in the exterior walls and bring that insulation up from our 11

[46:00] to R. 24, and the windows will all be replaced with the U. 0 point 2 7. We recognize that that's not part of the consideration here, although we we did consider that when we applied for the variance. So we want to increase the energy performance. We had our guys over at Scott energy come in and do a hers rating, and I don't know if you guys have ever seen hers. Index of 378 before I have not. But that's the hers rating for the house as it sits today after, and and couple other things are the heating. Mbtus are 293.9 annual and 10 for cooling. So, after analyzing the proposed changes, brings our hers index down to 131, and and really reduces the heating and cooling load. Your requirement for a solar and a energy retrofit is to increase the

[47:03] or decrease the heating energy requirement by 10% whereas this actually will increase decrease the heating energy requirement by 66%. So it's a pretty darn good, even though it's a 1 31 still on the hers rating. It's a it's a good retrofit. we want to take a look at what the impact is to the neighborhood. We know you don't see things in pure elevation, but in pure elevation. That's the extent of the visible portion of the addition from 7th Street. So it's it's all tucked in behind behind the addition. These are the renderings that Robbie was mentioning. There's the roof plan with the 1 12 pitch, and this is showing our proposed orientation of the proposed roof change, and this is this is the proposed roof. Change with the 612 pitch which matches the upper portion of that gambrail roof, and you can see it's

[48:09] higher in the center, and then it steps down and proceeds at a much lower pitch towards the west. Kind of well, 1st of all, complies Solar, but it does gesture to the west and and decreases some of the massing of that house on the west. We've done a solar analysis. The existing roof cast the solar shadow inside the green dashed line which is crosshatched, and the proposed roof casts the shadow in gray. It does extend into the alley that is allowed. but we've made sure that it doesn't extend into the neighbor's yard on the west side. We do have neighborhood support. There's our lot, and Fred and Lisa went to the neighbors that bought their property and showed them the plans

[49:03] Gary on on the south. he's he's he's very much in favor. and wrote this letter, which you guys didn't get but he discusses it and and and talks about how one of the homes across the street was raised and a new home built in its place, and he's really very pleased that the Corrados have chosen to get what they need, and without really ripping the heart out of what's there. So he's very much support that Tom and Sheila. They're on the West side, and they wrote the letter that you have in your packet. and they have used the word enthusiastically twice, and I love that word. But at the very end. We enthusiastically recommend approval the variants. So we recognize that they're in favor. We recognize that they would be most impacted if we did an expansion on the south yard, which would be which would be

[50:07] unwise, we think. And then we have an email from Lori on the north, and she's a little less verbose, but she supports the changes that we propose to make to the home. So this was done with the same set of plants that you had that Fred and Lisa went to the neighbors and showed them showed them the plants so that they could have an understanding of that. We may have a neighbor here to speak tonight. I can't be sure of that. anyway, that's that's my presentation. I wanted to leave a little bit time for Lisa and Fred to come on and say, Hi so Robbie, if if you could admit the homeowners that would be great. or Jill. Yeah, they they are with us, if they're able. Okay. Unmute, and you have about 5 min left.

[51:00] I'll start Lisa Corrado, 1313 7th Street, Boulder, Colorado, which is very exciting for me to say, and this is a really really sweet house. It's a really sweet house. We love the look of it, we love the feel of it. We're really grateful to be able to make this our home. We're grateful to have landed in a neighborhood where we really love our neighbors and our neighbors support us, and are so friendly and such. has such a great neighborhood community. Vibe. It's everything we were looking for. In our in our new house. So, friend, are both very happy to have found this house, and we love the character of the house, and just looking forward to making it a long term home for us, and be there for many years and becoming strong members of the community. So thank you all for your time tonight. I really appreciate it and thank you to. We do have some neighbors here in support. So thank you to Sheila and Tom for being here in support as well, and thank you to Kyle for such a great presentation, and all of your support and help.

[52:16] Thank you. And is Fred going to speak? Yes, I'm here. Hi, friend. So again. Thank you. And and I think Robbie and Kyle and Lisa really summarize this, you know all pretty well, but just emphasize what Lisa said is, that is, we are really happy to be residents of Boulder. The neighborhood, the town, the community, you know, is really something that's that's special to us, and you know we've taken on this home. We've purchased a 120 year old home in, you know, in the city And, needless to say it, you know it needs a lot of love. But that's something that you know we're willing to provide, and looking forward to providing to it. You know, we've already

[53:05] gotten our permit. We've started some renovation work. You know, and we're just really, you know, really loving it. But in order to to really fulfill it, you know, we do need your help with this rear. 19 twenties, you know addition. And in discussion with Kyle, we've really tried to ask for the minimum amount that we can possibly go for. You know, we we're not looking to increase the square footage. We're not in looking to impact the existing setbacks. We're not exceeding the bulk plane. We're not looking to change the solar shading. We're really just looking to bring the rear structure back to some sort of a code compliant dwelling. So the height of the room. the energy efficiency, it's it's not insulated. And and structurally, it's not capable of being insulated right? So we're asking for to create a new roof, to be able to put it all together and really just make this. You know the home that it wants to be. And

[54:13] so we've tried to be respectful for everything, and you know we just would really love your support, and allowing us to, you know, to make this dream come true. And that's it. Thank you very much. Thank you for that information applicant. Does the Board have any questions of the applicant or any of the applicants? I don't have any questions. So myself. At this time. I'm gonna ask Amanda if there's any citizen comment. Yeah. Great. So if anybody would like to speak, now's your chance to raise your hand. It looks like we have one hand raised at the moment. So, Sheila, I will.

[55:01] and allow you to unmute yourself, and you'll have 3 min. And Sheila, if you'd state your name and address for the record before you speak, that would be great. Okay, this is Sheila Gates. My address is 6 55 Pleasant Street, which is adjacent to the property. and Tom Krieger is here with me, and we are shared owners of this house. He is going to do the talking, but I'll just say quickly that I'm in very much in support of what they're planning to do. Thank you, Sheila, and the same thing goes to you, Tom, to identify yourself by name and address. Sure, Tom Krieger, 6 55, Pleasant Street. and we're just here to reiterate our enthusiastic support for this proposal that Fred and Lisa have brought forward. Fred was very clear about what the the meaningful impacts are here.

[56:00] Clearly, the physical circumstances supersede any current regulations. So that's 1 of your criteria, and that is clearly met the others that Kyle had mentioned the neighbor effect to the neighborhood character. This house is the neighborhood character, and we are so pleased to hear that it's going to stay with us, rather than. as Gary mentioned in his letter having the building go away. it may actually turn out to be historically significant because of the previous owners of it. But we'll we'll see how that shakes out a little bit later on. The impairment to our property is pretty much non-existent. In fact, the modifications to the west facing roof roof have made the solar ordinance compliant. so there isn't even an issue in terms of that. And this is the minimum that's required to meet the structural and energy efficiency

[57:06] requirements to make this a really meaningful, habitable space, and so we, as I say, are enthusiastically in support of the work that Fred and Lisa and their architect have done. and been very considerate of the neighbors in terms of the impact that is not going to happen. So thank you, board members. Thank you, Staff, for your time, and we would strongly urge you to approve the application. Thank you. Appreciate that. So. Is there anyone else here from the public that would like to speak. I don't see any other hands raised at this time. So if there's no other public comment on this matter, then it is open to the board for discussion.

[58:02] I I don't have any additional discussion. I feel in favor of supporting this, based upon the criteria h. 1 and H. 5. Thank you, Nikki. Anyone else. I I agree. I I it's based on the criteria. It seems like they certainly have met it. And and it's kind of nice to see. Something like this in. Boulder is sort of keeping an old structure in place. So I'm in support. The only question I have. and I think it's for you, Robbie. So this is obviously historic home. It's not, however. landmarked or identified as historic at this time. Is that correct? I don't believe so. And, Kyle, you might be able to fill in a little more on this, but I do not see any record of historic needing to look at it, at least as what is proposed right now.

[59:05] But that is something that would be looked into at time of building permit. Kyle, before you answer, let me just explain. So it was raised in the discussion, in the comments in I mean to me, it's obvious. It's historic building, and it would have to go through a demolition permit before it could be taken down. So the only thing I'm pointing out is that it. In my opinion it is highly unlikely that this building would be approved for demolition. However pieces of it might be. And I wanted to. If you could address that, that would be great. Thank you. Sure. I think in landmarks parlance it's it's an old house. It's over 50, so that includes most houses down at Martin acres. Now, anything that is over 50 years old

[60:01] does need to be considered for the impact to to the historic fabric of the community. Now there's an extra layer. Because anything before 19 40, if there are changes proposed to the street facing facade. Let me go ahead and bring that back up there. If there are any changes proposed that it would need a landmarks. Alteration certificate. Yeah, no. yeah, it's it's not a district. It's not individually landmark, but it's a cool building, and it would. It would be a travesty to change that. And it would need to go through the landmarks review process. If If changes were proposed to this facade. Does that answer your question, Joe?

[61:01] Absolutely thank you for the clarification. Ben, do you have anything. No I thought Staff's presentation was persuasive. And yeah, I really have no questions for the applicant. I'm in support of this. And like straightforward. Yeah. And Kyle, I also wanted to thank you for the extremely detailed application. Very thorough, a very understandable. And it just makes our job easier. Nikki. I see you nodding your head in agreement. So I appreciate that because I think we have encountered challenges before. not with you, but with other applicants, and this was great. So it sounds like we are an approval and and have an approval here. So again, I need a motion, please. And again, this is BOZ. A. 2024, dash 0 0 0 1 1. I'm moving. We approve. Boz 2024, dash 0 0 11. Thank you, Ben. I'll second it. All those in favor.

[62:00] Ben. Bye. Nikki. Hi. City. Bye. And myself. I thank you so much for your application, wishing you the best in your reconstruction. Thanks for your time. Thank you. appreciate it. Time for us. Robbie. Boz. 2020, sorry, 2024, dash 0, 0, 1, 2. We proceed. Thank you. Okay, again, this is docket number Boz 2024, dash 0, 0 1, 2. The address is 2715, Elm Street. And this is a parking setback variance as part of a proposal to recognize and establish conforming off street parking for the single family home onto an existing driveway with access off Elm Avenue. A property that currently does not have conforming parking due to a prior attached garage conversion.

[63:01] The applicant is requesting a variance to the front yard landscape setback standards for parking in the RO. 1 zoning district. The subject 9 foot wide by 19 foot deep parking space will be located approximately 13.7 feet from the front South property line. where 25 feet is required and no conforming or recognized parking exists at this location today. Section of the land use code to be modified. Sections 9, 7, 1 and 9, 9, 6. Boulder revised Code 1981. And up on the screen, you can see the location of this property. It is zoned. Rl, one. and it is your typical looking house. At this location. It just happens that this home has a little bit of a history when it comes to the what was a 1 car garage attached to it, and I will get to that here in just a second. and this gives you an aerial view. We also have a The survey, or it's actually an Ilc look at on the right, showing the existing site conditions. And then we have a more recent street view of the prop

[64:07] the lower left image, and you can see what was a 1. Car garage is now just kind of an addition onto the house where the garage was, and the only parking on this property is from the South, where you see that car parked in what is an existing and to be maintained driveway on the house so a little bit in the way of the zoning information is zoned. r. 0 1. The lot size is 6,300 square feet. Another substandard size lot. given 7,000 is the typically the minimum for our all one zoning districts. Because this is a parking setback variance. I'm not gonna and we don't probably don't need to get into the building height, bulk, standards, and all of that. Given that a parking variance doesn't impact those necessarily. But I did want to provide a little bit more in the way of the history of the property, and why the application? Why, a parking setback variance is in front of the board tonight. So the house was built circuit in 1952 with a 1 car garage. The applicant did provide a lot of information and pictures showing

[65:12] the original construction, the original look, and it did very much have a 1 car, a very small but it did have a 1 car garage attached to it, where that storage area is located today, conforming parking within the one car garage was converted by previous owners. Without permit record to a non vehicular, habitable space primarily storage sometime prior to 2,001 based on provided records. And again, the Kyle did provide a lot of information, and did some deep digging to find that it was done sometime prior to 2,001. When we did find permit record that there was no garage at that time. And this little bit of information is pertinent to the discussion, especially when we get into the variance criterion here in a little bit

[66:02] but the garage was, conversion was done prior to 2,001, and was not done by the current owners, who took over the or who purchased the property. I believe, in 2023, and then pending Bose action. A building permit would then be needed to establish the conforming parking in the driveway and for the interior work. As a part of the overall project. And there's also a non permitted storage shed area to the right of the property that is to be removed, and that was reflected within the the site plan. So tonight the Board is considering a parking setback variance to establish parking on the existing driveway. That happens to be partially within the front yard landscape setback. It is a request for approximately 13.7 feet from the south extent of the 9. By 19 space where 25 feet is required and no conforming or recognized parking exists today.

[67:00] The site plan on the right, the big blue box that's that 9 foot wide by 19 foot deep, conforming parking space located on the driveway. CD. And what was the garage immediately to the north and the 13.7 feet is there circled in red. That is, the closest it gets to the property line, so you can see of almost about half of that parking space is located within the front yard landscape setback. Because of that, and for the city to be able to recognize this as the conforming parking that this property needs they will be required to obtain a parking setback variance, which is what is in front of the board this evening. and then this is a more zoomed out version. There were a lot of details provided within the floor plans and elevations. As I put them into my presentation, they did lose some details, so if the board needs to zoom in on something or look at something specifically. Please let me or the applicant know, and we can do that. But the blue box that is the parking space, and you can see there the 13.7 feet on the south side that is, within the front yard landscape setback.

[68:10] and then we also have more floor plans of existing left and proposed right, and this is for the ups. I did not provide the upstairs bedroom and bath. There is a small addition to the back of the house. That was done a while ago. But for the sake of presentation I did not provide those details, but no work as a part of the overall project is proposed to that part of the home at this time. and then we also have some elevations. We have the south elevation, which is the front elevation, and they proposed is on top. You can see the removal of that small shed. Addition, bump out to the east. That will be going away, and then you can see where the current storage and proposed bedroom will be located, and then the lower left image, you can see the existing conditions which does include that storage bump out, and then also the already enclosed former garage space.

[69:04] So when it comes to parking setback variances, there are unique criterion. hopefully, board members in my email were able to pick up on that that you're gonna be looking at. Criterion. 9, 2, 3 j. This is what the applicant responded to, and this is also what Staff considered when determining what our recommendation would be when it comes to j. 1. The dwelling unit was built in RRER. o. 1 zoning district they do meet that this is an RO. 1. Property, J. 2 is the dwelling unit originally had an attached carport or garage that met off street parking required at this time are required at the time of initial development. That is true. We have original pictures of the what was a 1 car garage attached to the house. So Staff does feel that they are meeting J. 2, J. 3. The garage or carport, was converted to living space prior to January 2,005. That's why it mentioned that the

[70:06] prior to 2,001 conversion was important, because, the per the J. 3. It would have to have been done prior to 2,005, which it was. So they are meeting J. 3 and Staff's opinion, J. 4. The current property owner was not responsible for the conversion they purchased the home last year. I believe so. They were not involved in the conversion of the former one car garage to now, storage space. So J. 4 is being met. J. 5. A. Parking space, in compliance with parking regulations of 9 9, 6 cannot reasonably be provided anywhere else on the site due to the location of the buildings and lack of alley access or other unusual physical circumstances, because of the existing East setback of around 7 feet. You cannot put a conforming driveway or parking space to the east of the property. There is no alley on the back side, so they cannot access it from the north, and the same restrictions occur on the West side.

[71:05] Even if they were to try to put in a new curb cut and driveway. It would be somewhat difficult to provide parking on that side of the house. So staff to J 5 is also being met. J. 6, restoring the original garage or carport to a parking space, would result in significant economic hardship. The applicant did provide some numbers when it comes to converting it back into a garage versus the renovation of the storage into habitable a bedroom, and those numbers were provided within the application, and if the board wants to dive more into those numbers. I'm sure the Kyle would be more than happy to talk those numbers, but given what was provided staff does agree that J. 6 is being met. and then J. 7. The proposed parking space to be located within the front yard. Space shall be paved with asphalt, concrete or other surface. It is an existing concrete driveway or existing driveway

[72:04] and they are planning to maintain that driveway. So it is a surface that the city does recognize for single family homes. So staffed also feels that J. 7 is being met so with that staff is recommending, or is in support, and is recommending approval of, the parking setback variance as it has been presented within the application. And I'd be more than happy to answer any other questions you have, and then we also have, Mr. Kyle Callahan for this item as well. So I'm sure he can answer any of the historical or the numbers that were presented within the application. So with that I will hand it back over to you, madam, Chair. Thank you. appreciate it. So at this time. Does the Board have questions of staff?

[73:01] Don't seem to be any questions. Kyle, would you like to do an applicant presentation for us? Please. Apologies. Kyle. I should have just left you on the screen. Yeah, you betcha. Actually, the homeowner was going to 10, but something came up, and he's not able to to attend tonight. So my apologies. I'll be here for for the both of us. Let me get my camera. cause you forgot what it looked like already. Alright, so I I can share screen. I it's kind of a recap of what Robbie went through, maybe with a little bit more information kind of summarizing some of the things that Robbie, said I, I think you can see my screen now. Yes. Okay, good. There it is. Blows up

[74:01] 202-40-0012. Parking within a required front yard setback. you saw this on the screen before. Here's the site 2715 ohm. It's surrounded by a couple of homes. This is where Elm Street comes in off of Moorhead, and turns into 27th Street right on the corner. Here they have some. and in addition, done about well, I think it was about 30 years ago, where the back was popped up. Most of these homes are fairly consistent with the way that they were initially constructed. Anyway, there's that's the neighborhood. The current homeowners bought the house. They closed on it, and July of last year. It's a young couple. they have one daughter at home and thinking about another one.

[75:00] So the issue that they had with this is that when they bought the home it actually it. It's only 2 bedroom home. This is the upstairs that Robbie was alluding to. This is the main floor. The original home was here. and this was the original garage and there's a kitchen now back and then an office. Both homeowners actually work from home. so they need space. They share the space. They also work out in there. So it's a pretty compact space. They're also contemplating another child. So they've been looking around and in addition. for a bedroom very cost uneffective. They determined this might be a good spot. They need a bedroom more than they need storage. They actually tried to put some storage on the outside as well, but to talk them out of that so, anyway, going on, the current home had an attached unconditioned storage room.

[76:04] and it had an interior door connecting it by virtue of the fact that it was one time a garage, and so the proposal was to just convert it, make it finished space and get rid of that door that's on the outside currently, and add a few windows to it. These would be new windows. and then one additional egress window on the south face. that provides for their extended family in the interim and and immediate family when they do choose to have another child. They retained a builder to help them do this. Builder did what builders tend to do from time to time is forget to get a permit. So there was stop work. Quarter issued. I think it was in April, or maybe May of this year. which is, when the homeowners got in touch with me and asked if I could help get through this because the stop work order said that you must get a permit to do this work fair.

[77:08] and if they were going to do that, then they needed to justify how they were gonna park on site. There isn't any current parking there and and and they don't. They don't have the ability to convert this back into a garage parking space. Do want to say. I think I might have listed a little bit later, but the homeowners have have actually lived there a little longer. They were renters here for 2 years before they bought the home. So I think that's kind of a nice thing they lived there and ended up liking it so much. anyway, the whole purpose for this zoning variance is so that we can then ultimately get a building permit to create the changes that have to be done to create the interior condition, finished square footage. Here are the 7 points that you just went through with Robbie. I won't belabor that.

[78:03] So rl, one. We already discussed that requirement. 2 at the time of construction to home had an attached garage. So this was number 2. This is the picture that we found from Boulder County assessors. That's our garage space there that has been converted into a shed you can see on the original permit record here. They have a garage that's 11 by 19. Here it calls it a 10 by 19 with the letter G in it. So that's our original garage. So back in 1952 I guess cars were smaller, and we didn't have a lot of bikes and all the other paraphernalia come with living in boulder. But that's the original construction photos from the home. This was a real estate photo, actually requirement 3. That garage was converted to a living space prior to January 1, 2,005. So again, without the benefit of a building permit, that conversion took place, we discovered this, or we were provided this by the Assessor's office.

[79:10] It's a real estate document, dated February 23, rd 2,001, and in this document it states they had 0 garages. So it seemed clear that the garage had been converted by this time down here in the description. It does say there's a 19 by 10 unfin storage which has been handwritten by somebody other than me as the former garage. So there was this sort of circumstantial evidence that we contribute to say that it was done before 2,005 but no permit exists to show us that requirement for the current property owner didn't convert it. This is the deed of trust for Kyle and Florencia, and it's July of last year.

[80:03] so I I guess they could have bought it from themselves. They're young. Gosh! They're like in their late twenties, early thirties. So The compliant parking space can't otherwise be provided. Ravi was discussing this pretty well. There's 7.7 feet here, and a compliant parking space in boulder is 9 feet wide. So we looked at that initially, saying, Well, maybe we could park next to us. But we can't. Because the space can't fit here. It actually can't fit over here, either. because on the west side it's 8.8 feet. That gets pretty close. But there's a fire hydrant that was recently approved actually here that would make that difficult to access. So that that just told us we couldn't drive through there. We couldn't, couldn't actually find a good parking space here. There's a big multifamily apartment building on the north side here with a couple of retaining walls and fences. So the back of the site's not accessible.

[81:04] So we couldn't build one. And and we really can't get to the backyard now, for construction cost. The restoring the original garage would be prohibitively expensive. This really kind of distills down to the fact that they need a bedroom. And so I went to the city boulders. The city of Boulder adopts the construction cost table. It's provided by the Icc. And the one that we use here in town is August 2023, yeah. And I looked at the size of the bedroom and what it would cost to con. Reconvert the garage, the storage, to a garage, and then build a bedroom and use this square foot number, and came up with a number that's just for consistency. It would be more than $55,700. But that's the number that shakes out when you when you consider this document and this square footage number

[82:03] converting the garage into the use of as a bedroom space is significantly less than that. It. It's a component of this actually $10,300. So it'd be 5 5 times more costly to to create the bedroom elsewhere. And then. convert that space back to a garage? So that and requirement 7. The parking space shall comply with all the conditions outlined in 9, 9, 5, and this is the existing is concrete driveway. And it's 10 feet wide so it had to be at least 9 feet wide. It had to be at least 19 feet deep. And this is the parking space. So it I think it's about yeah. 13 more feet to the back of the sidewalk, and then there's a few more

[83:00] feet to the street and the final requirement is this couldn't overhang the right of way, and we're 13 feet 8 and a half inches from the right of way, so it conforms to to that requirement for the on-site parking. So like I tell on my clients. Go talk to your neighbors, and they talk to the gentleman across the street. That's Michael, and he's very much in favor of actually helping them get back and do what they have to do to get this built, which is, there are some code issues that the the original builder. Did not integrate so Michael is general contractor, and he's lived here for 15 years, and he loves these guys. He says they take care of the yard. They're they're not students. So he was very much in favor and supportive of of of their converting

[84:01] or they're, basically, I guess, continuing the status the way it is currently. And then this morning I got an email from from Greg, and he lives in in this house here, and I guess I'm whom it may concern he supports converting the storage space into living space. So we had 2 of the neighbors the most affected that came out in favor of of proceeding. With that. So with that, there's the picture of our house and and I'm I'm here for your questions. Thank you. Kyle. Yeah, you're welcome. Does the Board have questions of the applicant? You might want to drop your share screen for now, Kyle, please. Oh, good point! Just because my window?

[85:02] yeah, any questions? No questions. Okay. how about citizen? Comment Cindy. I'm sorry, Cindy. Amanda. Remember Cindy, back in the day. Been a little while, Jill. No, I'm just kidding. Saw the blonde hair there, and I was like oh, she. Yeah. Let's see if anybody wishes to speak on this item. Now is your chance to raise your hand, but I don't see any hands raised. Okay. Alright. So if there's no other public comment in this matter, then it's open to the board for discussion. Katie, you have anything to say. No, I I thought, you know, going through the the 7 criteria of were. It was pretty clear, and it seems like they met every single one, so I can't. I don't have really anything to add. Thank you, Nikki.

[86:06] You're fine. Yeah, sorry about that. Took me a while to unmute. I agree, I believe, that they meet all criteria of jay, and so I would be in support of approval of this application. Thank you. And Ben. I agree. I think Mr. Callahan is setting the standard for what we want to see in our presentations. My only little knit is that as to the criteria about when they took title. we should be looking at a deed not a deed of trust. I don't think that affects the outcome here or my vote just little technical detail in the presentation. But I'm in support. Thank you. Yeah. It's a common condition down in this area. And we've we keep seeing these applications come in this way.

[87:01] Thank you, Kyle again for your detail level of detail. So again, may I have a motion, please? Oh, no. So we support talking. Boz, 2024, dash 0 0 0 12. Second. Second. Thank you. All those in favor, Ben. I am. Vicki. Aye. 80. Bye. Jill. I we're done. Thanks, Kyle, appreciate it. Are you here for the next one? No, I'm gonna let you go. Thank you very much, everybody. I hope you have a lovely evening. Thank you. Bye. Robbie, we're ready for Boz 2024, dash 0, 0 1, 3. Thank you. The last variance item of the evening. Sorry. Why, that's making all that noise. Okay. Again, this is docket number Boz 2024, dash 0, 0, 1, 3. The address is 4, 35, Dewey Avenue.

[88:02] This is a setback variance as part of a proposal to reconstruct and expand a portion of the home recently damaged by a fire. The applicant is requesting a variance to the interior side. West setback standards for a principal structure in the RO. 1 zoning district. The resulting side setback will be approximately 2.2 feet where 5 feet is required and approximately 2.2 feet exists today. Section of the land use code to be modified. Boulder Revised code section 9 7 1. So up on the screen we have a location of the property, Dewey. The front yard along Dewey is located to the south, and then we have an alley to the north. and it is zoned r. 0 1. We also have some aerial views, and then also the Survey Land use document on the left shown the what was the or what is the existing conditions of the property. And then this was a good visual of what is out there today, and what is being proposed. So the upper left image is what is out there today, and you can see the 2 images on the right show some of the damage

[89:13] that was done by the recent fire. It wasn't a total destruction, but it did do significant damage to the point where renovations are needed. so as a part of the overall renovation the homeowner is also wanting to do in addition to the house but also maintain the existing walls in the form of what is currently a lower level. Bump out or addition done to the house. And the code does permit property owners to reconstruct a home, or a part of a home that was damaged by a calamity or act of God, as it's worded fire damage, wind damage flood damage as long as it's done within 2 years, and also as long as it's replaced in kind.

[90:03] because this small addition includes in a the small bump out includes an addition, which is that upper story, part of the home, and then also some of the home to the they do not qualify for our nonconformance additions or modifications to homes damaged by a natural Mother Nature, I guess you could say so with that they are required to obtain a variance to establish the existing lower level setback on the west side, which is at 2.2 feet, then also to increase some of that wall space and then do a portion of the addition that happens to be within the 5 foot minimum setback for the upper story. So all of that is being captured tonight in the proposal. So what the Board is considering tonight is a setback variance for the side west of the house for approximately 2.2 feet, where 5 feet is required and approximately 2.2 feet exist today.

[91:08] and we have existing top and proposed bottom elevation drawings, and from left to right we have the east side. we have the rear, which is the middle, the 2 middle images, and then we have the west side which is on the right, so the you can see the front of the house on the 2 images on the left is to the left, and the addition is on the right. and then we have the back of the house. That shows the kind of straightforward view. Looking from the back of the house, it is far away from the minimum rear yard setback. But it is within that West Side minimum, 5 foot requirement, and they are proposing again to maintain the 2.2 foot setback for the work that is being proposed, and then we also have some floor plans existing top and proposed bottom.

[92:01] and the basement level is on the left of the 2 images. Then we have the main level, which is the middle left upper level, which is the middle right, and then we have the roof plan for both existing and proposed on the right and the reasoning for maintaining, for especially for the addition. Part of the project is because there are existing stairs leading down to the lower level that the property owner would like to maintain without having to relocate the stairs going down to meet that 5 foot minimum. They would rather just maintain those stairs, and then have the addition be built on top of that. and then a little bit more in the way of the zoning information. It is zoned. Rl. One. The lot size is 7,974. So it is above the minimum allowed for Rl. One zoning. and then the existing and proposed building coverage is at 1569, and then proposed is at 1819.

[93:02] The maximum allowed for the site is 2,645 so well under the maximum allowed for building coverage. and then, when it comes to existing and proposed floor area, they are they show 2,247, with a proposed, including all of the addition of 2,883 square feet, and the maximum allowed for this property would be 3,695 square feet. So again, well under the maximum allowed for floor area, both of these would be verified at building permit. It is solar access area one and due to the design and location of the addition, not just the reconstruction of what is there today? No solar access? Violations were found, and we would verify this building permit as well. And then also no issues due to the design and location for side yard, wall, articulation or side yard, bulk plane, and when it comes to height the existing and proposed the existing height is around 19.5 feet.

[94:01] and the proposed height, is shown at around 19 and a half feet. and the maximum permitted is, I'm sorry the proposed height is around 24.5 feet, and the maximum allowed for this property is 35 feet so well under the maximum allowed, and the home was built circa 1930, and purchased by the current homeowner around 1990. And the applicant did respond to criterion h. 1 and H. 5. This is also what staff used when determining our recommendation. and when it comes to h 1 unusual physical circumstances or conditions existing. The home was constructed originally at around this setback the 2.2 from the west. So it is an existing condition. And then there's also stairs going down to the lower level that prove somewhat difficult to have to relocate to maintain the access to the lower level. So the unusual circumstances really come down to the existing

[95:05] location of the house on the property and this was established well before the current owner. Took ownership of the property h. 1 b. The unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood or zoning district. When it comes to the r. 0 1 zoning district. It's not typical that we have houses, especially newer homes, built at 2.2 feet. But it is something that is found in the more historic, older neighborhoods. But it is not typical. If this were to be built today from scratch on a vacant lot. we would not see something at 2.2 feet, but it was established many decades ago in this condition, including the stairs. That are really a big reason why this can't be bumped in another 3 feet. and then h. 1 c. Because of such physical circumstances or conditions, the property cannot reasonably be developed

[96:00] in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. Again, it's the location of the house. The physical circumstance or condition is the house itself being in that location, and also the stairs leading down to the lower level. Really don't make it feasible to completely remove, reconstruct the stairs in a different location. Rather, the homeowner would rather just maintain those stairs and build the home around that. And then h. 1 d. Hardship has not begin being created by the applicant. I think I've gone through that multiple times that this was established many years prior or many decades prior to current ownership. and then H. 5. A. Would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district. We haven't heard from any neighbors as of this moment, and then also the majority of the addition. Even the new addition that mostly meets the setbacks. Is tucked behind the house from the street. There is not really much to be seen except for the top of the new gable the roof, but that portion of the house is meeting the setbacks.

[97:07] and then 5 B. Would not substantially or permanently impair reasonable use and enjoyment of development of adjacent properties. We haven't heard from any of the impacted, directly impacted neighbors. So staff is, does feel that 5 B is being met. 5 C would be the minimum variant onto they wanna reconstruct what is already there, but also add on to the house, and the majority of the addition which includes that upper story. Art studio space. Meets the setbacks. They did kind of taper it in to where there's minimal impacts from both side yards. There's also a 50, 15 foot setback on the east side of the property, so tucking it behind the house, and not really doing a full second story. On top of this staff does feel that 5 C is being met based on the proposal. That was that is being presented to the board, and then 5 c. Would not conflict with the provisions of solar access.

[98:08] A solar access die, or analysis was asked of the applicant, and they did verify that due to the location and size of the project, that no solar violation would occur, and this would all be verified at time of building permit pending the outcome of tonight. So with that, I'd be more than happy to answer any questions. And I believe we also have someone here representing the property. Who can answer any of the more direct or historic questions that the Board might have. So with that I will hand it back over to you, madam. Chair. Thank you, Robbie. Do any board members have questions for staff. I kind of have a question. hoping that I'm just not misreading this. I can't understand what you're saying. Could you just point out to me where the new

[99:02] construction tucks in and is reduced so that it fits inside the setback. Usually you draw those things like with color. and I don't know, did I miss that. No, and what I was saying I'm trying to find the visual is. The rear edition includes the existing kind of bump out. And then on top of that is a gabled roof addition the point of me saying that was that the majority of what you see for the second story is actually more than 5 feet from that west property line. It's just the the wall height goes up a little bit, and then it starts tapering in when you get to that studio space. So sorry if I worded that not as clearly as I could have, but I was just trying to make the point that the majority of the new the addition part of this project. It does meet setbacks. So what you're talking about is the fact that we can see the deck

[100:00] and is that are the decks and columns in the setback, and then we're not outside the setback. And then it's the structure isn't like, I said. There's a colored lines. So let me I'm gonna share my screen real quick. I don't want to belabor it, but I just want to, under. Understand? Very valid. Let's see. Alright. Can you see my cursor? Yeah. Okay, so this is the back of the house. This is the proposed. So we've got existing up here and proposed right now, this, you can see this wall right here. This is that 2.2 feet. and what I was saying was, most of this is beyond 5 feet. So right here is about where that 5 foot setback marker is. So everything within, including that deck, is meeting setbacks. It's just this 2 and a half feet right here that is not meeting the setbacks. And there's some wall increase right here

[101:01] that is, within that setback, so that requires a variance. Okay. thank you. Okay, at this time, if no one else has questions, I'll ask the applicant for presentation. If there's someone here. Yes, james should be joining us. And James. If, as you join us hopefully, you can hear me. Please introduce yourself with your full name and address, residence address. Thank you. You're muted. I started to answer before I unmuted. My name is James Plagman. I'm an architect with human nature, architecture and my you. You said you needed my address. 2687, 5th Street in Boulder. and I have with me the owner of the home. This is Kim Hi, Parsons. Hi! Thanks for your time.

[102:00] And I'm a little daunted having to follow Kyle. I'm wondering if he's available to do the presentation for me. Yeah, were there specific questions, or and I because I really I haven't really prepared an elaborate presentation like Kyle. When I saw the the, the information I was like. Oh, boy, I hope I gave him enough information, although I do feel like this is fairly simple. The house was damaged by fire, and what I didn't include is the images of the roof structure inside that shed roof portion. They were damaged beyond repair, and the existing floor level at that north portion that is going to be demolished is low enough, that the grade kind of slopes towards it. So we wanted to raise that up. And also Kim thought, well, if she's going to have to rebuild, let's do a studio above

[103:03] and I don't know if it was one of the really essential pieces of this is that stairway coming up from the basement. I don't know if I should share my screen, or if Robbie can share the floor plans again. But the the stairway that comes up from the basement, the well, the basement does not. There's not a full basement under the entire house. There's only most of the basement is under the west side, and that's where the stairway comes up the east Side. There's only a tiny laundry room that is actually goes all the way to the east wall. So the stairway from the basement to the existing garden level cannot be moved. Thank you, Robbie. Yeah, I don't, can you? I don't know. Can you see my cursor? I don't believe. They can see yours. It's my screen, but I will try to follow as best as possible.

[104:01] Well, Robbie, if you can go all the way over to the basement where the basement plan. Yeah, right there. Well, I guess either the existing or the the deconstruction. Yeah, okay, go a little further left. So there's a yeah, the the existing where it says deconstruct existing stairs. the the initial flight of stairs. Yeah, right there the flight well, and you can see how little of the of the plan is actually a habitable basement space. You can see the unexcavated portions. This, the existing stairs go up from the basement to the existing or the what? What is the existing garden level? And then they turn up and come up the little stair section to the right of the there's a longer run that comes from the basement to the garden level, and a shorter run that comes from the garden level to the main floor. and those would be virtually impossible to relocate, because, without having to go in and excavate the

[105:07] portion of the basement there that's called unexcavated on the northern portion. So the desire was to create the addition to just continue those stairs to keep them where they are, and to create the new stairs that access the upper level. you know, in alignment with the the existing stairway. and and initially I looked at. how could we possibly, build this in conformance with the 5 foot setback? And it would be extremely extremely difficult and especially maintaining the existing stairs to the basement. Thank you. Yeah, I'm I'm happy to answer and answer any other questions.

[106:02] we did, you know. One thing I did do was to keep the I I to abide by the bulk plane requirements, you know, so that stairway that goes up to the new addition goes up and then turns so that we can keep the ceiling level low. And if Robbie, if you scroll to the right a little bit or drag this to the right, yeah. there's you can see the dashed lines in the what is the studio? There's dashed lines where there's a and that's a 7 foot ceiling height. I was. I was thinking that the 7 foot was habitable space. But I see now, on the latest code that it's actually 6 feet. So the habitable area up there would be a little bit wider, but not a great deal wider. Yeah.

[107:07] Guess. The only other question I have is, there's not because there wasn't any response from neighbors with what you might have seen, as the impact on the neighbors. If any. Well, if you go back to that photograph from well, so the only neighbors impacted would be to the west. and they have no windows on that portion of their house and the we're and we are not proposing any windows or any openings at all facing the the west to the yeah. and we're only 6 feet longer than the existing property. It is taller, but it will But we kept the roof as low as possible to still be able to put the Second Level on. Right. Thank you.

[108:01] Does anyone else on the board have questions to the applicant since I I asked some questions. Hey? Do we have any citizen comment. We don't have any attendees to comment so we can skip that section. I believe. Thank you. If there's no public comment on this matter, then it's open to the board for discussion. Anybody have something to say. 80 just self explanatory. It's fine. If you just say, Yeah. Yeah, it seems pretty clear. Okay. Nikki. Yeah, I'm pretty clear on kind of the one for one replacement in terms of there was 2.3 before, and it's going to be 2.3.

[109:01] I think that's what's really swaying me. I I do understand that we're going to get a new addition. but it doesn't seem to violate any of the any of the other requirements. So because of that. I'm in favor based upon the h 1 and H. 5 criteria. Thank you. Nikki and Ben. Yeah, I think I'm I'm with with Nikki here, and and Katie as well. At 1st I struggled a little bit with this one, because it seems like if there's a casualty like a fire, maybe have a chance to build back in greater compliance with code. But I think because there's not really a change here other than the addition going up seems supportable to me. And I guess I just so. Here's my 2 cents for what it's worth. I would have liked to seen

[110:00] the relationship with other houses that are nearby, so that I so I didn't have the opportunity, because of my schedule to get out to the site. And so when you talk about Kyle. We talk about how comprehensive of a presentation he did, and we had 2 of them from his tonight, and you came on and said, well, I wish Kyle would present for me, and I just am saying I think this is supportable, but I think I would been a little more comfortable with it. Had there been it been really clear to me by drawings or pictures what the impact was on the neighbors. Yeah, sorry. Do you feel like you, if you can explain it by all means. But. Well, if if if Robbie and I can either I can share my screen and pull up the photo, or if Robbie can pull up that photo that is looking along the north edge. you can see the neighbor's house. Yeah, is that with the Blue House? Is that what you mean? Yes, yes, that's the Blue House, and that's the only impacted neighbor. Because again, on the East side, we actually have 15 feet set back.

[111:05] Right, and that's what you said. And so I think I was just trying to figure out what's the orientation of that house. And if that visual is there which is, would have been helpful. I'm not criticizing. I'm just saying that's some of it of where, when it Kyle. when other architects have done these I just I will tell you in general, the more information, the easier it is for us. Plus one more. Yeah, it's been. It's been several years since I've been through a zoning setback. I'm batten a thousand so far, but I've only had 2 in the past, and those were in person. So that tells you how long ago it was. It's been a while for. You know, correct. At this time. I think we'll close. Well, I already closed the public hearing. And I think it sounds like you. You have support here. I don't hear anybody who's not in support of this, so shall we proceed with a motion. Please. Sure I'll make a motion. Thank you. I make a motion to approve. Spo.

[112:02] BOZ, 2, 0, 2, 4, 0 0, 1, 3 for approval. Second. All those in favor. Katie. Hi. Vicki. and. Fine. Hi. all right. This submission has been approved, can proceed and thank you for your time, and your client as well wish you the best in the reconstruction. I'm sure it's tragic to have a fire. and I'm glad you can proceed. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. It's been extremely traumatic. I'm sure. Take care! All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, guys, that's a lot of no, no. When we last had a meeting that had 4, 2 h not too terrible. So the applications were all approved. I need to go through minutes. Right?

[113:01] Is everybody okay with the minutes? Can I have a oh, I'm sorry. I'm gonna no, I just, I'm just gonna I'm I wanted to make sure it was okay. If I. Absolutely you may leave. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. I think you're muted. Oh, I'm sorry I was. Gonna say that we didn't have any minutes for approval at this time. Because we didn't have a meeting last month right. I think we just didn't quite have them ready, but we plan to have them at the next meeting. I think I saw something about that. Okay. Any matters from the board. any matters from the city attorney. Nope. planning and development services. Of course, 2 things, one Amanda. If we could promote Jack into the as a panelist. Jack has been with us since June. He is the zoning administration intern, and he's been kind of riding alongside these past few months which have

[114:04] not been boring, I guess, to put it. So I just wanted to introduce Jack to Boza. You may very well see him assisting Brian at the November meeting, if we have one because I will not be here for the November meeting, so I will let Jack kind of introduce himself if you want. Just so, you kind of know who he is. Hello, everyone. I think Robbie did a pretty good well of introducing me. But I'm basically kind of tagging along with Bosa matters. I've been kinda sitting in the back, you know, listening and enjoying everything so far. So so yeah, I'm glad I'm able to kind of meet you screen to screen, I guess. Now. thanks for having me on. Hey, Jack, nice to meet you. Okay. And with that, thank you, Jack. And with that again, there's a chance. I will not be here for the November meeting. This month happened to be one of those months where the application Deadline falls after the meeting.

[115:04] So we do not know the application deadline for the November meeting is this upcoming Monday? So we are not aware at this time what it looks like. If we do have a meeting, it's likely going to be Brian Holmes, I know at least some of you remember when Brian was handling Bosa, so you may get to see him again and experience him again. But we will know next week, and we'll send an email out what the November meeting looks like. But if there is one, it'll be Brian, and possibly Jack handling that meeting, and I mean. I'll and I'll be joining you for November as well. I'd rather. In the canvas. We're double booked with planning board. So you get me. So Thomas is still with us. He's just not able to. He's he's still with us. He is just getting ready for planning board tonight, so he couldn't be in 2 places at once. Hard to do. We've all tried. Oh, yeah. And I'm traveling a lot in the month later in the month and into November, and I

[116:03] I will be back in the State on that date on the 12.th But I will be up in steamboat, I hope. for a trip we have planned up there, so I might be Dicey. We'll have to see. Yeah, we'll send an email out once we know what it looks like. But don't plan on seeing me regardless. Hey? Best wishes. Yes, Katie. Right before we started. I I don't know if you all also got an email. But I got an email like forwarded from somebody from the city about potentially, not not meeting the deadline for tonight's meeting. Robbie, what can you tell us about that? Unfortunately, A member of staff thought that it was something that was pertinent to Boza. What it was was a possibly a future applicant for possibly the November meeting submitted last week. and just was thinking, that was worried that tonight was the night that they had to go to Bose, and they were just wanting to check so little miscommunication on Staff's part. But we're handling it. We're responding to the applicant, and you may very well see that person in front of you in November.

[117:14] Okay. And and second question was, Do you, as city staff, have any sort of opinion on the upcoming municipal ballot measure about like sounds just like clarifying City Council's roles in in appointing boards and commissions like it sounds like a pretty pro forma ballot measure, but I didn't know if if there was any, and I don't know, and any opinion from city staff. And I just want to say it's totally reasonable question, because most of the time we're like. What is this valid issue. So the unfortunately, I don't have a whole lot of feedback and information, Amanda. I don't know if you've heard through any of the other boards and commissions, or Aaron. I'm sorry.

[118:00] We? We can't take a position as city staff but the but the proposal would allow. boards that are not bosa that are not quasi judicial who are at advisory boards. So instead of having 5 year terms, they could change it and say, Okay, Housing Advisory Board, we're going to appoint for 2 years or, and it's based on feedback that they received from a consultant who did a big study on the boards and commissions in. found that for some people 5 years was a long time and a deterrent to. you know, to to volunteering. So so it gives council a little more discretion, and take some of those requirements that are in the charter. and would allow council to change it by ordinance. so there would be no change unless council takes a second step and passes an ordinance to make changes to those you know, whatever board or commission, and it would not affect the boards or commissions that have terms set by their own charter. Provision

[119:08] your planning board. Boza has a charter provision. Open space parks and Rec. Are some of the ones that have their own separate charter provisions with terms and eligibility criteria that would not change even if this item is passed by voters in November. and I don't know if that helps or just makes it more confusing, but on its own it will change nothing until Council takes a second step of passing an ordinance for a specific board or commission. When you say that we have a charter with eligibility requirements like I don't know that I've ever seen that. It's charter section 130 and it has things like people have to be a resident with the city of boulder. They have to be over 18 years of age. It sets the term for 5 years. Those are the ones that I can remember off the top of my head.

[120:08] Not really specific. It's just that boring. General stuff. Thank you. Fair question, Katie. Thank you. Anybody else. in which case I I had hoped to close by 6. But it's 6 0 3. So thank you, everybody. I'm going to adjourn this meeting. Hope you have a good month and see you on the other side. Thank you. Everyone. Everyone. Thank you.