December 9, 2025 — Board of Zoning Adjustment Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:01] And… we are… we should be good to go. Okay, so this is a meeting of the Board of Zoning Adjustment, and we have just one variance item to consider today, but we also have some other items on the agenda. So, I guess the first item is swearing-in of Jill. So, Dashauna, do you want to, take the lead on that? Yes, I can… I can do that, thank you. May I please have permission to share my screen so that I may display the oath of office? Sure, just one moment, let me go ahead and… Make you… there you go. Shut up. Thank you. I do. And so I'm sharing the oath of office. Jill, I'm gonna, read it into the record, one clause at a time, pause, give you an opportunity to repeat what I just stated, and then we… this will be,

[1:08] complete for purposes today. However, Robbie, correct me if I am mistaken, that Jill will follow up with staff to, formally sign before the Board Secretary the oath of office. You are muted, Robbie. Correct. Thank you. So… I, Jill Lester. I, Jill Lester. Do solemnly swear or affirm? Do solemnly affirm? that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America. that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America. and of the state of Colorado. End of the state of Colorado. and the Charter and Ordinances of the City of Boulder. and the Charter and Ordinances of the City of Boulder.

[2:03] and faithfully perform the duties of the Office of a member of the Board of a Zoning Adjustment. and faithfully perform the duties of the office of a member of the Board of Zoning Adjustment. Which I am about to enter. Which I am about to enter. Thank you. BOSA member Lester has been formally sworn in, so I defer to the board to proceed with the next item. Okay, it looks like next item is, nominating and… or electing the new board chair and vice chair. And I guess previously, Nikki was chair, but then I'm blanking on who was vice chair. Was it Drew? No, oh, yeah, right.

[3:01] It was not me. It was, Ben. actually been… Okay. Ben departed for personal reasons. We were without a vice chair, and then we lost our chair. So, we have neither. Right now. Alright. So I guess, what's the best way to go about it? Just… Wait for somebody to nominate a chair? Typically, if anybody, any of you four, have somebody who you'd like to nominate as chair. And then we can do vice chair, that's typically how we start. You can battle it out, you can deliberate, or you can just say, I'm cool with it. But once somebody has kind of agreed that they would be okay with it, then the board just votes them in, and then we do the same for the vice chair. Okay. So, Jill, how do you feel about being chair again? I think you did a great job previously. Thank you, Drew. That's up to you guys. I'm fine with it either way.

[4:03] Would anyone else want to be chair? Great. I nominate Jill to be chair of the Board of Zoning Adjustment. Okay, I'll second it. Do I… I don't have to vote, do I? Daswana, do they all four need to vote on it, or is it just a… How does that work? According to the procedural regulations of the Board of Zoning Adjustment. The board must vote by a majority vote, so everyone would need to… who is present in the quorum this evening would need to vote yay or nay. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so I… Should we just go around? Yeah, and then since… since at least until,

[5:02] and at least until we voted, I'm officially chair, so I'll… do I… I guess the most junior member would vote first? Yeah, go right. However you'd like. Doesn't matter. Sure. Sean? Aye. True? Aye? Me? I? And… Yep, that makes you chair, Jill. Gee, it just feels like old home, like… We need a chair, a vice chair. Vice chair, correct. So, can I ask Katie if you want to do that? Or Drew? Sean, I imagine being new, you'd rather not start there. But… certainly could. I would prefer to not start because I am still within my first year, but if there is a need, no one else wants to do it, you know, I can do what's needed.

[6:03] Katie or Drew, do you have an interest? I'd be happy to do it if… Unless, Drew, you're just… Ready to beat down the doors to do it. No, I can do it as well, but I'm happy for you to do it, Katie, if you're interested. Sure. Okay, so I'm gonna nominate Katie. Crane? to be the vice chair this go-round, and we'll keep that in mind, Drew. As time progresses, thank you for your vote of confidence. Do I have a second? A second? Thank you. So, all those in favor, I'll go around the room. Sean? Aye. True? Alright. Katie? Do I go to myself? I mean… Like I had to, you have to. I, I guess. So, we now have a chair and a vice chair.

[7:00] So, That means I have to turn around and get my notes for running the board meeting, so let me just grab that real quick. And… Jill, Katie, you can continue as acting. I believe we can still do that, that since Jill was just voted in, or Jill, if you're okay taking over as chair, you're more than welcome to. Well, Katie, if you have the notes, I would have to find my notes, because I didn't pull them out on how to run the meeting, so if you have them there, why don't you run the meeting and… I can… Absolutely. Absolutely. Okay, so today we just have one, variance item to consider. It's BOSA… 2025-0012, We'll first have a staff presentation, and then the applicant presentation. And then have discussion and a vote. So, Robbie, you wanna kick it off?

[8:04] Definitely can do. And let me just share my screen real quick. Okay, again, this is docket number BOZ2025-00012. The address is 4380 Butler Circle. And this is a setback variance. As part of an addition to the single-family home, including expanding the existing single-car garage into a two-car garage, the applicant is requesting a variance to the combined side west yard setback. standard for a principal structure in the RL1 zoning district. The resulting side west setback from the garage addition will be approximately 5.3 feet. At the closest point from the west property line, where 9 feet is required, and approximately 12.7 feet at the closest point of the home from the west property line exists today. Section of the Land Use Code to be modified, Section 971, Boulder Revised Code 1981.

[9:04] And up on the screen, I have circled the property, and one of the unique characteristics of the property that will be talked about tonight is its shape. It is somewhat of a wedge. shaped, lot, but it is meeting the minimum lot standards for R01, and I'll go into those details here in a second. We did not receive, as of now, we did not receive any formal, public comment. for this application, so I do not have any, denotations on the map. Of where neighbors, are located that did provide that correspondence, so I will move on to the history of the property. Again, it is zoned R01, and the lot is just above the minimum lot size for R01 zoning districts, so it is not a substandardized lot, it is a typical R01 lot. The home was permitted and built circa 1965, and this, request has a unique element in that it has already gone through

[10:05] the building permit, the building review process, that is the reference building permit that I have up on the screen, and the garage addition that the board is considering tonight is part of a larger project or addition project to the home. It has already gone through one round of review, and the combined setback issue being discussed tonight, presented itself during that initial round of review from zoning. And then the existing and proposed floor area, the, existing, or the proposed floor area will be about 3,287. That's including the entire project, not just the garage. And the maximum floor area for the property is 3,605, approximately. And again, this has been verified through the building permit already for compliance, and the proposed building coverage, including the entire

[11:00] Project is around 1,910 square feet, and the maximum for the slot is 2,555 square feet, so there are no floor area or building coverage issues, and this has the courtesy of already having gone through one round of review through building permit, So the only issue, really, that is outstanding at this point, preventing continuation of the review is the setback issue that the board is considering tonight. And then solar access, side yard wall articulation, side yard bulk plan, and height. There, is no issue due to the design and location of the garage, and again, this has been verified through the building permit referenced on the screen. And this just gives you an idea of the existing site conditions. The upper left is the aerial. Circled in red is the area where the One car garage is to be added. I also have the survey with the same denotation of where the addition's gonna be, and then we have a street view lower left of the house today. So the garage that the board… the garage addition that the board is considering tonight will be where that red circle is on the lower left image.

[12:13] So tonight, the request is for a setback variance, and it is for the combined side west. So, with R01 zoned properties, there are technically two side setbacks that need to be met. There's the minimum, which for R01 is 5 feet on each side. And then both sides need to add up to no less than 15 feet, and that's the combined setback requirement. With this property, they are meeting the minimum 5 foot west, or side setback. You can see the proposed setback there is 5.35, or approximately 5.3 feet. But also, the green line that I show, that is the… approximately where the 9-foot combined setback marker is located. And that 9 feet comes from the east setback on the other side of the house being 6 feet. So, any addition to the house on the west side, because the east setback is 6 feet, has to be no less than 9 feet. So, it's meeting the minimum setback, but it's not meeting the combined setback requirement.

[13:17] And you can see that it's about 25% of the new garage is located within that 9 feet. The majority of the garage is meeting setbacks, both front and side, and those lines have been shown. On the screen. So the request tonight is for a setback variance of approximately 5.3 feet, where 9 feet is required, and approximately 12.7 feet exists today, and those, markers are taken from the closest point from the west property line. And then this is a floor area. I just showed the lower level. There is more to the overall project, but that is not within the board's consideration tonight. The board is only considering the setback and specific to the subject garage, and you can see they're labeled as new garage. That's what the board is considering tonight.

[14:07] And this just gives you an idea of the location compared to the remainder of the interior of the home. And then we also have some elevations. This… these are proposed elevations. We have the front south, which is the top image, and the side west, which is the bottom image. You can see here the remainder of the project, the addition project. That has already gone through review, and no issues were presented. It meets the land use code standards as needed. The only issue was for the West Garage Edition. You can see that in the image. Right here, and then we also have the proposed side east, which is the top image, and then the proposed rear north, which is the bottom image. And then, in case the board needed to come back to this, I have the existing elevations, as it sits today.

[15:00] So with that, Steph is in support of the variance request as it has been presented within the application. We feel that it does meet H1A through D and H5A through D. The layout of the lot is somewhat unique in that the house is oriented Not perpendicular. are… or parallel… not parallel to the east or west property lines, so it creates somewhat of a wedge buildable area. And also, we feel that the majority of the subject garage addition is meeting setbacks. It's meeting that 9 feet, and it's meeting the front yard. Landscape setback of 25 feet. So, to either reduce the size of the garage by 25 feet, it would make it essentially non-functional. It could not… you could not park a garage in it, because the current design of the garage is somewhat minimal for a one-car garage. And then we also feel that, it does not negatively impact the surrounding properties. It's meeting the front yard setback. It's a one-story addition, one-story garage.

[16:08] So, with that, staff does feel that, both H1 and H5 are being met with this request, and we are in support of it and recommending approval. So with that, I will hand it back over to you. Oh, you're muted. Yep. Does anybody have any questions for Robbie? I noticed, Robbie, that the, The gross building coverage and the square foot increase are… are similar, however, it… well, the gross building coverage, it says it's a 700 square feet increase. I don't quite see that in the, drawings. I don't know where that 700 square feet increase is coming from.

[17:02] Of the floor area, or of the building coverage? Sorry. Building coverage. Let's see… Looks like Chad might have the answer, but I guess… And yeah, we can bring Chad in, because this has already gone through the permit review, so I'm sure Chad has an answer to that. Hey, Drew, I'm Chad Kipfer. I'm an architect with Caddis Collaborative in Boulder. There's a permit that already went through for an accessory structure in the back of the lot, and that's where the additional square footage came from. The front really isn't growing too much, it's just by that garage and a little bit of a bump at the entry. Got it. Thanks. Sean or Jill, do you have any questions for Robbie? Okay, then we can move to the applicant presentation. Chad, do you want to just, speak a little bit more about the project?

[18:02] Sure, I don't have a lot to add. I mean, that was a really thorough, presentation, but this lot is incredibly, tight, in the back. I mean, it narrows down to, I think it's, like, 20-something, feet in the back. And it's just incredibly difficult, to get the garage, you know, for the client, for the extra storage, you know, that's in there. And so, just hoping that, You know, that we could… get this variance here. The front of the garage is because of the pie shape that comes out, you know, the perceived setback, you know, is larger, you know, than just the 5.3 that's there, so to feel like there is a bigger setback, it's just that really tight pinch point, you know, to make it work. If I may interject, and my apologies to the applicant, speakers should introduce themselves by name and address, and I know that the speaker has already introduced by name, but if we can get the address of the property in question on the record, please?

[19:02] Sure. Hi, I'm Chad Kipfer, architect with Caddis Collaborative. The address is 4380 Butler Circle, Boulder, Colorado. I'm the applicant, for the property owner, Amanda… Amanda Shuey. I have a question. Yes, ma'am. Matter of procedure, not for use. Okay. So, typically, we have them provide the name, their address. So, if it's a business, it would be their business address. Is that correct or incorrect? That is correct, and I appreciate the point of clarification, if I… if the speaker can also give the address for the CADIS office. The CADIS office is 1521 EZ Rider Lane, number 102, Boulder, Colorado, 80304. Thank you. Yes. And I guess…

[20:01] I didn't have a lot of other things to add, you know, into that, but I'd be happy to answer any other questions. I would love your support for this, for my client. So, I think that's about what I have. I probably have a question, Katie. Okay, yeah, I was gonna just… I'm just curious, just looking at the schematic, it is a fairly small… space, right? Is it adequate for a vehicle? I was just looking at the width, and I know that's wide enough, but does it have to be 19? I'm trying to look at where it was, I've lost it now, I'm not on my screen. This is Chad Kafer. It'll fit a compact space. It just makes it work in there. It is on the smaller side, and it's just trying to make it fit as best we can. Park one of her cars in there, and storage, and bicycles, and, you know, just needing, you know, that… that space. Just because I don't have the schematic up, how long is it?

[21:02] Let me, let me pull that open. Give me one second. That'll make me feel better, too, to know that you don't have it right off the top of your head. I'm gonna share my screen real quick, and I'll show the layout, so bear with me, and I'll let you take over, Chad. So… and there we go. Yeah, so it is, 19.4, it's… the inside dimension is 18.9, and then I have that 10.9, on the inside. Yeah, I saw the 1099… so, isn't there a parking space minimum? So, with our new parking standards, that's an interesting ask. Typically, if they're already meeting, we do still have parking standards, but we are flexible when it comes to if somebody wants additional parking, we can let them have compact parking. I mean, it doesn't change anything, I'm just looking at it going, well… Thanks, bye.

[22:02] It's… it's on the small side, for sure. But it is, you know, it's basically like your 9x18 type of parking space. That was my question. Thank you. Thank you. Sean or Drew, do you guys have any questions for Chad? I do have a question. And we may need to bring up the schematics again, but It looks like, the actual garage itself, the four walls, are within that, 5-foot minimum setback, but it looks like the roof overhang is past that. And it looks like, I guess, the roof overhang is to match with the existing garage's roofline. Has there been any consideration of, separating those two roofs and maybe having a smaller roof with no over… little or no overhang, so that it doesn't go back on that setback line?

[23:02] This is Chad Kipfer, Roof projections are allowed to go over the setback line. The setback line is for the primary building, which would be the corners, and then there's a limitation for having the… for how far the roof can go beyond the setbacks, and we're not past what's allowable in that condition. Thank you, yep, it definitely clarifies it. Drew, are you good? Yes, I have no questions. Okay. If there are no further questions for Chad, Thomas, can you tell if there's any members of the public that, Are interested in, commenting. Yes, I do know that we have, one individual, and I believe they have two independent speakers. I spoke with somebody earlier today who… it's her and her mother that are calling in, they both want to speak, and I believe this is, I believe this is her, Christine.

[24:17] So, if we are moving to the public hearing, she has her hand raised, so I can go ahead and call on her. Okay, it… yeah, and once they're in, I can just remind… Remind them to state their names, and that they have just 3 minutes, to express their, their comments. Sure. And yes, they're both going to want to speak independently, but she's just helping her mother out. They're sharing one account, if I understand correctly. Okay. So, Christine, I'm gonna go ahead and unmute you, and then I will pull up your timer. And you'll have 3 minutes to speak, but you should be unmuted now if you want to go ahead and test.

[25:08] C: Can you hear me? Yes, we can… period. C: Oh, excellent. Okay, hi. This is Christine Welker. I own the house… Hey, Christine. Could you… could you give us just one second to get this timer? C: Of course! Yeah. And… And she'll need to state her name and address. Yeah, and please begin with stating your name and address for the record. C: Christine Welker, 4370 Butler Circle. Go ahead when you're ready. C: Yes, my concerns are as follows. C: the C: This is the first we're hearing about the project ever, so we were unaware of the other larger scope of this. C: As far as, addressing the issues for this only, the issues are that…

[26:08] C: I'm sorry, I'm reading your notes. C: Is there a way to pause this for a second? Okay, here it is. C: I'm concerned about the fire hazard. I'm concerned about the unsightliness. C: My mother, Julie Welker, owns 4376 Butler Circle, so she will address those specifically for next door. C: But it's going to create a snowdrift C: It's going to create higher heating bills in the winter. C: I'm concerned about my house and Julie's house having deeper snow, the snow frozen all winter between the houses. C: Julie's house has… C: a rock wall that is going to the backyard. I don't know how this is gonna affect it. C: I'm concerned overall that this… adding the second garage space will spoil the dining room and living room view, which directly affects any time I'm at Julie's house.

[27:10] C: Eating or hanging out in the living room. C: I'm… the biggest… I'm gonna reiterate the fire hazard, the unsightliness, increase in property taxes, because it'll be worth more. C: And the other biggest thing is that from a resale standpoint, or if we ever choose to rent the home, or sell the home directly next door, or if I choose to sell my home, which I look right into the backyard of 4380 Butler Circle. C: It is going to be unsightly and so close. It's going to create shade and snowdrift. We can't do a garden, and I'm going to be viewing this from my backyard. Julie's gonna be viewing it, my whole family's gonna view it from the front and backyards. C: And again, the biggest thing is the shadow creating higher heating bills and snowdrift.

[28:02] C: Those are my most applicable concerns for this particular piece of the project. C: One question still, I still have 28 seconds. C: Can I and Julie ever have a right to say anything for the rest of the project, or is that over without us ever giving a chance to give our voice? Thank you for your consideration. Okay. Thank you, and if you all have another speaker with you, we can go ahead and get this set back. to 3 minutes. C: Julie start, then? Yes, if Julie's ready. C: Okay, so say your name and your address. Hi, I'm Julie Welkers, 4376 Butler Circle, directly west from 4380 Butler Circle, so I'm the only neighbor that's going to get a big impact on this project. And Christine covered most of our concerns. My biggest worry is,

[29:04] C: the view, of course, from the Liberman dining room, and then how will the, C: landscaping equipment get through to the gate. We have a gate on the west side of the house that goes to the backyard, but it's the only way to get into the backyard, because it's fenced, and I don't know how to visualize if there's going to be enough room for landscaping equipment people to get through. C: Otherwise, Christine covered everything else about the fire hazard, about snow drifting between the two houses and stay frozen forever. We could never do a garden on that side of the yard. C: there'll be, I already met… well, we mentioned the snow, in the winter, it's gonna be drifting between the two houses. C: Too close together. C: And I thought that the zoning code was done for a reason. I never knew. I've lived in Boulder. We bought this house in 1971. I never knew you could change the zoning codes.

[30:13] C: Okay, you still have another minute and a half. So, you covered everything else, Christine. I don't want to repeat myself. Is she allowed to repeat herself, or do you not want her to repeat mine? C: We don't know. C: I think you should repeat if it's a concern, and you have a minute left, so be quick. I'm very concerned if this is going to decrease the value of my house. C: And, like I said, the… C: The fire hazard, the view, it's gonna be, like, we're gonna be, like, closed in between two walls. C: Are you finished? Yeah. C: Can you hear me okay? Yes, thank you both so much for joining us. If you're finished with your comment, we can go ahead and wrap up public comment.

[31:03] C: Thank you. I think, I don't know, I mean, this infringes on our airspace, it's a shock for us. C: We just, don't feel comfortable with all this… new, changes. C: And it's not in the zoning, you wanted me to say that? Yeah. Say it, say it. And it's not in the zoning. Yep. Well, thank you so much for being here with us and for offering your comments tonight. Poppy. C: Thank you for letting us, speak out. Thank you, and with that concluded, I'm gonna go ahead and pass it back to the board chair. And we can proceed with deliberation. Thank you all. Okay, that concludes the public comment period, so… at this point, I would open it up to the board for discussion. Jill, you wanna… Kick it off in terms of, sort of, trying to sift through what you heard from the public comments.

[32:04] Well, probably we could ask Robbie a couple questions for clarification. So when something's gone, I don't believe there's a zoning change here, so I'd like to clarify that first of all. Robbie, can you start with that question? Yep, so the approval of a variance is not changing the land use code. It is simply adding a variance to it. So, approving a variance of 5.3 feet does not change their setback requirement to 5.3 feet. If they were to come in and just, for example, add a second story above this, they would have to get another setback variance. It's not changing the standard, so no standards are being changed, they're just, adhering a variance to it to allow for this very specific addition. I think the second question I would have, and maybe, Chad, you can address it, is when they're talking about landscape access, they don't have a right to use the neighbor's property. I'm not sure

[33:05] what their concern is with that. We could ask them that question, but I think first I want to know from the architect's position what they might be talking about. So right now, they're… There's this, there's a gate in the fence that's a little closer up to the property that's coming in, so there's that, you know, 12 feet-ish, you know, from the existing, garage to the property line, that's at the tight point. And the new plan here, you know, there'll be a new gate, and they'll be able to access it through the 5-point, you know, the 5-point 3 feet that's through there, which should be fine, you know, to get a lawnmower or any kind of equipment, you know, back there for maintenance of the yard, if that's the… if that's the question. Who's they? Oh. I thought the question was about… excuse me if I'm not speaking correctly. I think… I believe that the question was, how would landscapers, get to the back of the property to access it? That was what I heard. And so there will be a new

[34:15] Fence gate that will be adequate for the type of equipment that would be used in this backyard, which isn't super big. So this should be easily, usable in that perspective. Yeah, I think… I thought they were referencing to Lens, they being the speakers, were referencing their own access, and they're just being concerned about the maintenance by the… owners at the property that will be revised. Okay. Got it. And my understanding, There's no access on anyone else's property or the adjacent property on this one. It's all self-included on 4380 Butler Circle. So then, I… It's always hard to have this conversation with people, but…

[35:07] We are not entitled to a view in Boulder. We have wonderful views, but the only way to preserve them is to purchase the adjacent property and protect the view. I believe that's a fair restatement, but I'd certainly like to have Robbie support me, or Deshauna on that point. For purposes of this evening's hearing, the only… relevancy discerned by the city attorney's office would be, if it relates to the solar access provisions of 9-2-3H. And so, that is the only context in which obstruction would be relevant to this matter that we were here before. So, unfortunately, with the matters that are raised by the public, who, you know, I think the biggest concern I would have is

[36:03] that this is the first that they've heard of it. So, if their properties are adjacent, they would have Chad. Correct me if I'm wrong, and Robbie, they would have had notice. So, there was… proper public notice was provided. We did, public mailings that was sent out, and then we also have the public notice yard sign, and then we also have the posting twice within the newspaper. Thank you. So, you know, it's unfortunate when you come to something like this that the change is difficult, for neighbors to manage, it's changing Martin Akers. This… you know, things are changing here, and have been for a while, and there's, an adjustment to be made by everybody. But, when we have somebody come in with a variance of this type, which is actually fairly minimal, creating a fairly small garage. I guess, board, since I'm speaking first, I don't have a… I just haven't heard anything that…

[37:05] would make me say, no to this variance request, but maybe other people have a different perspective, so I'd like to hear whoever has something to say next. I just had a… I generally agree with what you said just there, Jill. I just had a question. I wasn't clear about, the, the… in the public comment, how, like, the extra snowdrift? I wasn't clear on what they were referring to there, like, how this change would somehow add up to additional snowdrift, and therefore. somehow increase their heating costs? That part was confusing to me. And maybe it's not even relevant, since it's not really related to any of the zoning criteria, but I just wasn't clear about that point.

[38:08] And I don't even know if the public comment… if they're still… if they're still around, but did anybody else have any insights about that comment? Nice. read on that was… now, I'm not so sure about the snowdrift, but at least, the heating and cooling costs may have been related to the additional shadow cover on the property, and I'm not sure if a shadow analysis was done, because it sounded like this didn't, have anything to do with solar access. So in that case, I'm not sure how much shadow was calculated to be on the property, but that was my, Read on what the concern was about the heating and cooling costs. Well, and certainly if there's a building permit that's been approved, they would have had to provide a shadow analysis, so… But again, that's a Robbie question.

[39:02] So this has already gone through a round of review, and a part of that review is ensuring that the solar protections, solar access protections are being met. This, property and the neighbor to the west are, granted protection of a Solar Access Area 1. Which is a 12-foot solar fence, meaning the shadow of the home cannot cast a shadow greater than a 12-foot solar fence on the property line would cast, and that has already gone through review, and it complies with that standard, so… The design is, as it is being presented, does meet our solar access standards. Okay, that… that… that sort of answers my questions. Drew, anything? I guess I had two comments. There was a question from the public comment on, are we evaluating the whole, structure, or are we just evaluating the setback? And maybe, Robbie, you can clarify that piece.

[40:07] You're only, you're only considering the garage addition specific to the 5.3-foot setback. The remainder of the project is in compliance with the land use standards. Yeah, and it's really, the owner of that property's prerogative on how they want to change it within the, you know, code, and I guess we're just evaluating the setback piece of that garage, that one little corner. And I guess to that, you know, to their question about they didn't know that you can change zoning or code. There's very specific criteria in the, you know, city revised code on if you can change setbacks, or allow lower setbacks, and we have to follow those criteria, And when I read through the criteria, which are listed out in the application as well.

[41:03] You know, I find that this application meets all the criteria. It is a non-standard lot shape. And that does create, difficulty, to having a usable area. So, I would be in favor of this. Application. And I think, from, like, the intent of the combined side yard setback, I believe the intent is also to have adequate airspace, on either side, enough air space between homes, and I think, as Robbie, or in the application mentioned, the effective, combined yard setback from the street and how it looks. It would look much wider than the 10 or 11 feet that's currently proposed. Sean, do you have any, additional comments?

[42:00] Yeah, and I have a question clarification for Robbie. We're, specifically, looking at just the four walls of the garage addition. I know I brought up the roof earlier. The overhangs of the roof, that's outside of our jurisdiction currently, correct? Correct. So, as Chad mentioned earlier, we have specific standards for what we call setback encroachments. Regardless of it getting a variance or not, setbacks are taken from the wall. Or the exterior surface, excluding roof overhangs, so those are kind of a… you can build up to a two and a half foot roof overhang into a setback, bury it or not. And, otherwise, you're considering that 5.3, that kind of northwest corner of the garage. If they were to reduce it by that 25% that I mentioned to meet the 9-foot setback, then no variance would be needed, but that… pretty much makes it non-functional for a garage, which is why they're in front of you tonight. So, the roof overhangs are kind of an allowance in addition to whether or not you get a variance, but you are limited to no more than two and a half feet beyond

[43:09] Within a setback. Gotcha, thanks for clarifying that. Because, you know, going back to some of the public comment concerns, there were a few that stuck out, such as, increased fire risk, The snowdrift, which… if I'm understanding correctly, it could be snow falling from the top of the roof. or also increase in shadows, which are all things that I feel like may be affected by the size and shape of the roof, but that's, separate from what we're discussing here, as far as looking at the actual addition of the garage itself. I don't think that the size of the garage is really affecting any of those, three things I mentioned. And especially looking at other houses in the neighborhood, I don't think this addition is really

[44:00] encroaching much more than what, typical neighbors would have on the more regular-shaped lots. I think this lot, it's kind of weird in that, It's smaller in the back, which is creating a hardship for, this particular resident, or applicant, but then the front is so wide that, as it stands currently, there's a much bigger space between houses than anywhere else in the neighborhood. So with that, just based on looking at the size of the garage, I'm inclined to approve, but happy to hear what other board members think. Well, at this point, it seems like we're ready to… call for a motion. Does anybody want to offer a motion, on this application? If I may, prior to the board formally, entertaining a motion and voting, I'd like to remind the Board that to,

[45:06] ensure the integrity of this record. If the board could speak with particularity about how or how not the application complies with the criteria in question, it would be ideal just to, to, be as specific as possible when referencing provisions of 9-2-3H1 through H5. Thank you. Okay, Do one of… one of the three of you want to offer a motion? I'm just trying to get the… I like to have the language in front of me. I don't know, Drew, do you have that in front of you? Already. Otherwise, I'll just take the time to do it, it's not a big deal.

[46:02] Well, I think Dashana's comment is more to maybe add some more context, to our decision before making a vote, is that correct, Dashauna? it… My apologies, would you like to clarify? Well, I'd like to… I'd like to clarify what I heard, so I make sure that I understood you. So, I understood you to say that… so, a lot of times when we do these, And for those of you that don't know me, I served on this board for a long time, and I've had about a year hiatus, and I've just come back, so I'm… a little bit of experience here with it. But, Drew. Is it more… what I was thinking, is that more around, this is the hardship, this is the criteria number, this is why it meets it, and maybe some specificity, so it's a little combination of what you're saying, where there's more description, but it's also pointing specifically to the exceptions with which we ground our decision.

[47:01] Am I right? Yes, in that it was my intent when I interjected to remind the board that, it would… it's not the best practice to make blanket statements such as, I find it meets the criteria generally. If you could please identify the specific criteria that has been met or not met. That would be, to the benefit of the record and, for any, understanding of the participants. It's my understanding that, this board uses relatively, short motion language, and so I know we are coming out of the board's straw poll of sorts, and so if individuals would like to supplement their initial reactions with more specificity, that would be fine, but it would also be legally permissible to make a more robust motion integrating all of the specific findings as it pertains to the criteria. Either is fine, as long as it is clear how each board member feels about the criteria implicated in today's decision, either in the motion or with a

[48:08] Further supplement of the straw poll. Could I… maybe to just make things a little bit easier, Robbie, could you just go over… in the beginning, you made clear that staff believed that, all the criteria for H1, through, H5 had been met. And… So, could you just review… Just put up that… that screenshot again of those criteria. Of course. So, staff's recommendation was we were recommending support, and that we felt that it met, and I'm putting that screen up, that it fully met criterion, or criteria H1, A through D, as well as H5A through D.

[49:03] And here… And there you go, and these are the criteria that I just mentioned. Great. So… I'm gonna try… Drew, help me, if… as you can. to address this with more specificity, and I've listened to the applicant, and I've listened to the neighbor's concerns. And, you know, we are constrained to respond based upon our… Established legal criteria. for the variance. The architect has demonstrated through his drawings that there are unusual physical circumstances or conditions, under H1A1. It's it. Yeah, one. The narrowness of the lot as it… is a pie-shaped lot, which impacts their ability to have a second garage space. And our… the inquiry of us is whether the setback encroachment is

[50:11] Both. Allowable, and the minimal criteria. So, from what I see, they do not exist throughout the neighborhood, Port B. There's one other pie-shaped lot on the… on the neighborhood schematic that we saw. And… We can't reasonably develop what they'd like to do, which is a second garage, and it's a fairly small garage. And this hardship was not created by the applicant. It was a pre-existing thing. So… Then we go into, H… Five. talking about requirements for all variance approvals. Would this alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the lot is located?

[51:03] I can't address the rest of the structure, as we know, but we can talk about the garage itself, which is the same format as it is, as the main house is right now, so I don't think that it's altering the essential character of the neighborhood. I guess the piece that would be arguable, would it not substantially or permanently impair the reasonable use and enjoyment or development of the adjacent property? And according to the application, and as confirmed by Robbie City staff, the analysis is solar shadow, and this does not Approximate anything that is a problem with the solar shadow. And would this be the minimum variance that would afford relief, and would it be the lease modification of the applicable provisions of this title? So for me, when I look at it, and you guys can have your opinion about that, I don't think they could get any smaller and provide function.

[52:01] You know, if you're going to functionally use this garage for parking a vehicle, it can't be any smaller than it is now. So, I feel like it is the minimum variance. And we've already addressed the solar access, so… that might, for those reasons, I would make a motion to approve. This submission, if that is sufficient for the purposes of As outlined by our city attorney. And… usually we'd say the number, and I'm trying to find the numbers. Can help me with that. It is BOZ2025-00012. Thank you.

[53:02] Oh, I was just gonna say, I was… I was gonna second the motion, Based on meeting… H1, A through D, and H5, A through D. Yep, and I… I would vote in favor, and I'll just add to that, is on the, affecting neighbors, is that this also is greater than the minimum, setback for one side, which is 5 feet. And we're talking about the combined side yard setback, and from that perspective, and the intent of the ruling, or the intent of that code is for visibility, and I think it meets that requirement. Thanks for bringing that up, Drew, because that was something I looked at as well. I just wanted to make sure, you know, we're not talking about Going into that 5-foot setback, so yeah.

[54:00] Thank you. I agree. Yeah, it's a little complicated for the, to understand, but, I think that's… it's very important that you have at least 5 feet. It'd be a different application if it was less than 5 feet. I vote in favor, yes. We need to take a vote, Katie. Okay, yeah, so, drew, you've already stated your vote. Jill? Bye. Sean? I vote aye, and should I also just outline exactly what I'm… what I think meets it, or… Because Jill said essentially everything that I was going to say. It's the attorney. Sean, Member Hanning, excuse me, you may supplement if you feel like there's additional information. However, we are voting on the motion that, was

[55:00] prefaced by, Member Lester's analysis. So, if you are comfortable voting based on what Member Lester has expressed and other people have voted to, that would be fine, but you are entitled to add a factual record, if you so desired. Thank you. Yeah, that clears it up. I do vote, in favor of what Jill Lester proposed. Because Jill's always right. Okay, and I… I… I also vote aye. So that's… So that's four… four ayes, that means the motion is approved. That's right, sorry for the interruption of my spouse. We, we like, we like color commentary. It's color commentary, alright. Yeah, great. So now that the motion is approved, I guess we can go on to, other items on the agenda?

[56:06] Which… I think first off would be approval of the minutes from the August meeting. And I will not be able to accept that. I wanted to know that those actually… we didn't end up including those in the packet. We… Kind of ran out of time on those, so we do plan to just approve two sets of minutes at the… January meeting. Okay. Okay. Ra, are there other, matters from, staff or the city attorney? You want to go to Shawna, and I'll follow you, if you have anything. And may I interrupt and just say, Chad, you're welcome to stay or go? Thank you very much, I think I'll… I'll bow out. Thank you. You're welcome.

[57:00] So, thank you, Robbie. Looking at our agenda for this evening, the next item would be under 3B, Matters from the Board, Discussion of Letter to Council. And so I am prepared to provide some legal advice about the parameters of the letter, and making sure that the board, if it chooses to write a letter that does not violate the Colorado Open Meetings Law, and I'm happy to discuss that if applicable. I would defer to the board, and staff as needed to begin discussion of the letter as a general matter, and whether the board would like to proceed with drafting one. Okay, I will kind of take over from there, unless you want to… interject Thomas, but… and Thomas, feel free to correct me or add on to anything I say, but this is discussion of the annual letter to Council. there was somewhat of a two-year hiatus, and Council is now back at it. They would like to hear from boards and commissions if there is anything to be said. These are completely optional. Please don't feel like it's necessary. Some boards are doing it, some boards are not.

[58:14] But they're also changing it up just a little bit this year. They wanted to be more focused on, and this is the email that I sent you with, the attachment, the draft letter, as well as the links to the citywide strategic plan. they're really wanting, any letters or suggestions or comment to be kind of tied into the citywide strategic plan. I don't know if any of you had the opportunity to open that up. It is a website, and there's a lot of… this is kind of what we're looking at in terms of a strategic plan. They would like for boards and commissions to tie it into that if they have anything to say. In the past, the board has provided some letters with, we would like to see this. That's no different. It's just this go-around, it would be good to maybe tie it into one of the specific

[59:05] strategic plans, and there's a lot of them, if you're able to open up that page that I provided in the email. And I can also open it up on my screen if the board wants to scroll through it, but there's a lot of language. So, again, this is an optional letter. The board tonight can decide, A, whether or not they want to do a letter. If there's anything… that you're really wanting to, let Council know, now's your opportunity. It would be from the board, not staff. And, if the board decides that a letter is needed, we can kind of discuss what topics specifically That you would like to provide in that later, and then at the end, we can, delegate one, and to Shawna, are we allowed to delegate two people to kind of finalize this outside of the meeting, or does it have to be just one? legally, two people can be delegated that task. How the task is finished does have nuance, and I'm happy to speak to that when it becomes applicable in this conversation.

[60:12] Acknowledging that, we, as a BOSA, does not meet, more than once a month, so… Robbie, what is the deadline for the letter to Council? September 19th, and correct me if I'm wrong, Thomas, but I believe it's the 19th, so there's a little bit of time to draft something up behind the scenes. And, just to kind of expand on what I was saying about they want it kind of focused on the strategic plan this past year, or the year we're currently in, a lot of the, the WUI, I'm sure people have heard that acronym, WUI, Wildlife Urban Interface, a lot of fire protection, meaning a lot of standards, have come out of Council's priorities. The Family-Friendly, Vibrant Neighborhoods standards.

[61:04] A lot of the parking standards, those all came out of these priorities. So, It probably won't be, dropped on deaf ears, but, Council has taken some of these, and they would like for it to be a project that they can accomplish before the end of next year. So, I will leave it at that, and first, I guess we should decide whether or not the board even wants to provide a letter to City Council, and then we'll go from there. it, I mean… it… in a way, I suppose, you know, everybody sort of has to ask themselves, the four of us could ask ourselves, is, are there anything, as we've… as we've evaluated applications over the last year,

[62:02] Where certain, you know, certain standards or certain parts of this process have stood out as maybe you know. not appropriate, or somehow inefficient in some ways, or, you know, any inequities that we've… that have sort of stood out to us. Speaking personally, I can't think of anything, You know, the process… seems to work pretty well as it is. So I… I personally don't have any ways that I would consider, you know, any points that I would consider in a letter to the council, but I'm… maybe I'm in the minority. What do you… what do you… the three of you think? So far, I'm in agreement with that. I mean, I've only been on this board for less than a year, but I think the process seems to be, straightforward, it seems to work. And I haven't yet noticed anything that I think should change from a process standpoint. But then again, you know, maybe it's just my, lack of time on the board yet that I just haven't noticed it. But so far, I don't… I can't think of anything that I would,

[63:15] Want to ask the city to revisit. So, given that you probably have the most experience of the four of us, I mean, is there anything in particular that stands out to you, where you'd want to have, you know, make suggestions to Council? I mean, first of all, I haven't been on the board since March, so I wouldn't know what has happened this year that is a cause for concern. I think in the past, it's been the ADUs, which it took a long time to get. Now we almost are in freeland with ADUs. So I can't think at this juncture of any burning issue that

[64:02] not that I feel like they listen that much to us anyway, but I mean, just nothing I can think of. Maybe Drew has something that I'm… I'm… I'm just like, maybe in a year I can think of something, but I can't right now. Okay. I mean, yeah, I think about applications where I go, does this really need to be an application? And I guess the one that… I feel like once a year, we always get one where… It's a, addition in the back of the house, that meets the combined yard setback, and is in the shadow of the original house. But, needs to get a variance because… The original house is too wide. that's a very detailed thing, and it happens once a year. I don't think it's needed to be raised. We can just handle it when it comes to us. That's something that I can think of. That's… that comes up once a year, and…

[65:02] And, you know, the last, the last letter me and Maureen wrote. And it was actually on the parking standards, and additional garage, you know, the access to the garages, I don't know whatever came of that, but the parking standards did change. That's a good point. I actually don't know what the parking standards are anymore. So I can say that… The board, in the past, we no longer have parking standards. across the board. Before, at first, it was just for ADUs, then it was kind of changed a little bit. And then it was changed even more this past year to where we have zero minimum parking standards. We still have parking design standards and site access and driveway standards, but we don't have minimum parking requirements. And a part of that was, typically, the board would see

[66:02] parking in the front yard landscape setback variances come to you. They were rare, but they did happen. Those have now been, converted to you can start out administratively. If you can get your neighbors to sign off on it. I know, I think the last one that this board saw with some of you involved, probably about 10 to 15 neighbors in support of this variance request. And, it was brought up that, you know, it'd be nice if support like this could be done administratively and not taken through a public hearing, and that is now the case, I'm happy to say. They could still go to BOSA, but they do have the option, if they can get all their neighbors to sign off, that they can get that done through the administrative review or administrative process, and not have to go to the hearing. So that is kind of a result of something that this board has brought up in the past to Council. It just seems like there's just not a burning issue right now. And if that is the case, then… I guess…

[67:02] If we hear from all of you that there's really nothing specific that you want to provide in a letter, we do not need to provide a letter. Again, it's optional. Sounds… sounds like we're opting not. This year or not. Yeah. Yeah, this will come up again next year, same thing. There will probably be somewhat of the same kind of strategic plan Topics, so, as soon as we hear about next year's, we'll bring it up to the board. And with that, I guess I'll go ahead and jump to, matters from Planning and Development Services. There is just one thing. As a part of the, kind of the recruiting and hiring process. We are down, as you know, one member of Boza with Nikki's departure last month. And it just happened that her term ended in March of this upcoming year, so rather than kind of doing what we did with Jill, which was a mid-year kind of recruitment and appointment.

[68:09] To replace Ben Doyle's term. We're just kinda, kinda… pulled off on that, because as of yesterday, application season, I guess you could say, is open for all boards and commissions. I am planning to send an email out to all of you, either at, later today after this meeting, or first thing tomorrow, just with, FYI. If you know of anybody who would like to be on BOSA, we highly encourage you to kind of talk with them and let them know. I'm going to give you a flyer that you can send out to everybody. This is being sent out to all boards and commissions. This also provides you with the timeline of When application closes, when the interviews are gonna happen, when the appointments are going to occur, but there is one thing that they're doing a little differently. I believe they've done it in the past, but they're really trying to make it happen this year, which is there's an open house for all boards and commissions, and they're asking that staff

[69:08] And, if possible, one board member, and you see where I'm going with this, attend, and just kind of sit at a table with staff and answer any questions that people may have about BOSA, It's not gonna be anything fancy. I don't even know if there's gonna be cookies and juice, I don't know. But, it is January 5th, which is a Monday. Right after the holidays, so not the easiest time of year. I know a lot of people have plans still going on. But, it's going to be from 4.30 to 6 p.m, so probably we would ask that people get there about 4, and it might go a little late, but it would be, the evening of Monday, January 5th. I'm planning on going, whether Pending, pending the weather, but… And where is it? It is going to be at the East Boulder Community Center.

[70:03] So, I'm gonna… and I'll send an email with all of this information, after this meeting, just so you have it, but is there… of you four? Is there anybody who would be interested in, kind of, representing BOSA and being a board member, sitting at the table with staff, answering any questions? And we may not get anybody who asks a question. I don't know. I just figured I'd throw that out there to see if anybody has any interest to… Num. Sit with staff and talk boza. I mean, normally I would, but I'm leaving for Germany on the 7th. And that's exactly at a time of an exercise class that I take. I always get worried I won't get enough exercise in Germany. I could come for part of it if. And this is optional, too, sorry if I didn't say that. They're not requiring it, but it's optional. So if anybody was interested in splitting the time. You know, maybe stopping by for a little while.

[71:02] But he's okay. And I won't be sad, we won't be sad if nobody can do it. It's kind of short notice, but I figured I'd bring it up tonight, just so people can think about it. And we don't even need an answer tonight. I'll send my email out, and if any of you want to kind of think about it and get back with us. At a better time, you're more than welcome to. I may be able to do it. It does… I usually don't get off work till 5, but I think leaving early should not be an issue. Okay. Yeah, we don't need an answer, so I'll leave it at that. Think about it, any of you, thank you, Sean, for saying that. I'll send my email out, and then… I might give a little bit of a deadline, maybe, like, here in a week, if anybody wants to do it, just to let us know by then. So stay tuned for that email, and I'll let you sleep on it. I'm not gonna put you on the spot tonight and make you confirm anything.

[72:04] Thank you. And other than… unless anybody has any questions or anything about the open house, we… this week was the application deadline for the January I don't even know the date. I believe it's the 12th, January 13th. is the next BOSA meeting, and we do have one item. On the agenda, so, anticipate there being a January meeting. And, if you have any anticipated absences, sounds like, Jill, you might be out of the country. We will be down to the four of you, just keep in mind, but, just let us know as soon as you know whether or not you can attend that meeting. So would that be the 13th? 13th, Tuesday the 13th. I'll be out of the country. Okay, so we are down to a board of 3 for that evening. Still a quorum, it can still be done, but for the other 3, Katie, Sean, and Drew, just, if there is an issue, let us know as soon as possible, because we will run across a quorum issue if we have any more absences.

[73:12] Yeah, I mean, it's midnight in Germany. If it was any earlier, I could do it, but… Thank you, appreciate it. So that is it from Steph, so I'll hand it back over to you, Acting Chair. Crane. Oh, okay, I… I will be here on the 13th, so I… I… I will… I can be there, so at least we'll have… I'll be one of the three. Drew and Sean, hopefully you guys will be there too, and… and… and also just add, Sean, if it's some sort of… if it's a problem for you to go to that open house on the 5th, I can… I can fill in. I… I am in town, so I could… I could make it work if need be. Sounds good, thank you for that.

[74:00] It should be fine for me to get there. If anything, maybe it would end up being a little bit late. Didn't the start time, but so far, I don't have anything on my calendar for that day, so I should be able to attend. Okay. All right, and Drew and Sean, you guys are going to be in town on the 13th for that meeting? Okay. Yep. So I guess if that's it, we can adjourn, right? I believe so. I have nothing else, so… Just see everybody. All right, have a… have a Merry Christmas, everybody! Happy holidays, welcome aboard, Jill. Welcome back aboard. Happy New Year. Thank you very much. Bye, everyone. Bye.