Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/28/2011City of ]�qr Wh6atRidgyc BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA April 28, 2011 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on April 28, 2011, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29 Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public Information Officer at 303 - 235 -2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA- 11 -02 An application filed by Ken Relyea with Affordable Garages for approval of a 12' variance to the 15' side yard setback requirement for a detached garage on property zoned Agricultural -One (A -1) and located at 4675 Parfet Street. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes — January 27, 2011 B. Election of Officers 8. ADJOURNMENT ,I4 City of Wh6atP, dge N 013 CASE MANAGER: CASE NO. & NAME: ACTION REQUESTED CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT Board of Adjustment DATE: April 28, 2011 Lauren Mikulak WA -11 -02 /Affordable Garages Approval of a 12 -foot variance from the 15 -foot side yard setback requirement on property located at 4675 Parfet Street and zoned Agricultural -One (A -1). LOCATION OF REQUEST: 4675 Parfet Street APPLICANT (S): OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZONING: Affordable Garages c/o Ken Relyea Kenneth Penn 20,909 Square Feet (0.48 acres) Agricultural One (A -1) PRESENT LAND USE: Single Family Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map Site Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA -11 -02 1Affordable Garages JURISDICTION: All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 12 -foot variance (80 percent) from the required 15 -foot side yard setback. The purpose of this variance is to allow for the construction of a detached garage at the end of an existing driveway. Section 26 -115.0 (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Board of Adjustment to hear and decide on variances from the strict application of the zoning district development standards. Variance requests of over 50% from the development standards are required to be heard at a public hearing, before the Board of Adjustment. II. CASE ANALYSIS The applicant, Ken Relyea of Affordable Garages, is requesting the variance on behalf of the property owner, Kenneth Penn, at 4675 Parfet Street. The variance is being requested so that the applicant may construct a 30' x 40' detached garage to the west of the existing single - family home. The applicant would like to locate the garage at the end of the existing driveway halfway between the east and west property lines ( Exhibit 1, :Aerial). The property is zoned Agricultural -One and is located on the west side of Parfet Street, halfway between W. 45 Avenue and West I -70 Frontage Road. This zone district establishes a high quality, safe, quiet and stable residential estate living environment within a quasi -rural or agricultural setting. In addition to large lot, single- family residential and related uses, agricultural uses exist and are encouraged to continue in the A -1 zone district. Along this block of Parfet Street are single - family homes with agricultural zoning as well as some agricultural uses (Exhibit 2, Zoning Map), The subject property currently contains a one -story single - family home, a pole barn, and two sheds (Exhibit 3, Site Photos). The lot is considered a nonconforming lot of record because it does not meet minimum size or width requirements for the A -1 zone district. The area of the lot is 20,909 square feet (0.48 acres) and the width is approximately 57.5 feet. The minimum lot requirements for the A -1 zone district are 1 acre in area and 140 feet in width. In addition to being substandard, the lot is also unusual in its proportions; the parcel is six times longer than it is wide (57.5' x 371'). The A -1 zone district allows lot coverage up to 25 %. Based on data from the Jefferson County Assessor, current lot coverage is about 10 %. The maximum size of accessory structures on agriculturally -zoned property is based on lot coverage, not square footage. The proposed 1,200 sf garage is permitted because the total building coverage with the proposed garage would be 15.4 %, which is below the maximum 25% allowed in A -1. The A -1 zoning requires a minimum 15 -foot side yard setback for accessory structures. The applicant would like to construct the proposed garage at the end of the existing driveway, three (3) feet away from the southern property line (Exhibit 4, Site Plan). Due to the unusually narrow width of the property (57.5 feet) and the proposed width of the garage (30 feet), only 27.5 feet remain. Thus it is Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA -11 -02 /Affordable Garages not possible to meet the 15 -foot side yard setback on both the north and south sides at any location on the property. - The garage is proposed to be located closer to the southern property to preserve access to the rear yard and to an existing pole barn on the north side of the property. Alternative placement on the west side of the property would eliminate a significant portion of usable backyard space and would still require a variance to the side yard setback, albeit a smaller one. While a smaller garage may not require a variance request, the zoning does allow for a structure of this size which is common in agricultural districts and in this neighborhood, in particular. Several properties in the same block of Parfet Street have reduced side yard setbacks for primary and accessory structures. It appears that most of these structures are nonconforming because they were constructed prior to the incorporation of the City of Wheat Ridge. For example, the home on the subject property was built in 1960 and the homes to the north and south were constructed in the mid - 1940s; all of the structures encroach into minimum side yards on at least one side. On property two lots to the north, a 10 -foot variance to the 15 -foot side yard setback was approved in 1988 for a detached garage (Case No. WA- 88 -16). The public notification period is currently in progress, and to date no property owners have contacted the City with questions or objections. III. VARIANCE CRITERIA In order to approve a variance request, the Board of Adjustment must determine that a majority of the "criteria for review" listed in Section 26- 115.C.4 of the City Code have been met. The applicant has provided their analysis of the application's compliance with the variance criteria (Exhibit 5, Criteria Response). Staff provides the following review and analysis of the variance criteria. 1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. If the request were denied, the property would continue to yield a reasonable return in use. The property would continue to function as a single - family residence, regardless of the outcome of the variance request. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. A variance is not likely to alter the character of the locality. The A -1 zoning allows for detached accessory structures, and most of the properties along Parfet Street have several accessory structures — including detached barns, sheds, and garages. In addition, many of properties along Parfet Street already have primary and accessory structures with reduced side yard setbacks. In many cases, this is because the structures were in place before the City of Wheat Ridge incorporated. In at least one instance, the reduced side yard setback is based on approval of a variance request (Case No. WA- 88 -16). Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA -11 -02 /Affordable Garages The architectural style of the proposed garage is an improvement over the many metal accessory structures that characterize the area. The material selections coordinate with the primary structure on the property. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property, which would not be possible without the variance. A detached garage is expected to add value to the property. Approval of the variance will allow the garage to be located such that it preserves access to the backyard and to an existing pole barn. Alternative placement on the west side of the property would eliminate a significant portion of usable backyard space and would still require a variance to the side yard setback, albeit perhaps a smaller one. While a smaller garage may not require a variance request, the zoning does allow for a structure of this size which is common in agricultural districts and in this neighborhood, in particular. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. The lot's shape and size present a unique hardship because the property is unusually narrow and substandard. The lot is nonconforming because it does not meet minimum area or width requirements for the A -1 zone district. The lot consists of 20,909 square feet (0.48 acres) and is approximately 57.5 feet wide. Minimum lot sizes for the A -1 zone district require 1 acre in area and 140 -feet in width. Also contributing to the hardship are the unusual proportions of the lot; the parcel is six times longer than it is wide. Given the proposed size of the structure (30' x 40') and the width of the lot (57.5') it is not possible to meet the 15 -foot side yard setback on both the north and south sides at any location on the property. The proposed location of the garage seeks to balance the requirements of a side yard setback while still preserving access to the backyard. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The hardship described above was not created by the current property owner or any person currently having an interest in the property. The current owner purchased the home in 1997, did not create the lot, and thus is not responsible for the existing conditions or shape of the property. Staff finds this criterion has been met. Board ofAdjustment 4 Case No. WA -11 -02 /Affordable Garages 6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair the development of the adjacent properties. The adequate supply of air and light would not be compromised as a result of this request. The request would not increase the congestion in the streets. Nor would it cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets and would not impede the sight distance triangle. The garage would not increase the danger of fire. The proposed location of the garage is at least 50 feet from the closest neighboring single - family home. It is unlikely that the request would impair property values in the neighborhood. The garage may in fact have a positive effect on the neighborhood by allowing covered storage of large items that are currently stored outdoors on the property. Staff fmds this criterion has been met. 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. The hardship described above relates to the substandard size and shape of property zoned A -1. These conditions are present throughout the neighborhood and may necessitate the request for a variance. Most of the A -1 properties along Parfet Street are substandard in width and/or size, including two neighboring properties to the north, three properties to the south, and at least six properties across the street (Exhibit 3 zoning Mai):. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Single family homes and their accessory buildings are not required to meet building codes pertaining to the accommodation of persons with disabilities. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. The Architectural and Site Design Manual does not apply to single and two family dwelling units. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA -11 -02 /Affordable Garages IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends APPROVAL of a 12 -foot variance from the 15 -foot side yard setback requirement. Staff has found that there are unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval for the following reasons: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible without the variance. 3. The alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 5. Alternate placement of the garage would restrict access to the backyard and would still require a variance to the side yard setbacks. 6. The request is consistent with the existing conditions in the surrounding area, as a majority of the homes in the area have constructed primary or accessory structures that encroach into side yards. With the following condition: 1. The design and architecture of the proposed garage be similar in character to the existing house, subject to staff review and approval through review of a building permit. Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA -11 -02 /Affordable Garages EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL a F r, Board of Adjustment 7 Case No. WA -11 -02 /Affordable Garages EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP 170 F ROt4 VA0 : R9 - - -- 170 W B H WY Board oj'Adjustment Case No. WA -11 -02 /Affordable Garages EXHIBIT 3: SITE PHOTOS Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -11 -02 /Affordable Garages Board of Adjustment 10 Case No. WA -11 -02 /Affordable Garages EXHIBIT 4: SITE PLAN i r� 1 ,1 ,,, 17 � I 1 Board of Adjustment 11 Case No. WA -11 -02 /Affordable Garages Elevations u 3 �t ,(Ih North Facincq 40 O f� M �l c.\ ,C q / fl a , L 0 Board of Adjustment 12 Case No. WA -11 -02 /Affordable Garages V,1,7 +-1 u f n. � � �a EXHIBIT 5: CRITERIA RESPONSE A11ORdAb1E GARAGES 177 W Alameda Avenue • Denver, CO 80223 • (303) 384 -3242 Bank Financing Available Inexpensive Garages � --. 0 �.�,._ �.r y �,.�,, (2y .L I Custom Garages Expansion Detached Attached Q Licensed Insured adr O? -�Q'l�F� 1,aT ►5►&% .si- c.- --.T \. a -w►� -� w,rw ( 1 �d.ii'c lv'trGs �S �+-ts Ord -r-7- iV" t Iw 'f�� ,n1�ct4 Most' '"A WTI aAt cl ��0k6 v C / s I N ••c..�s kCL� S T1C \d-_ �• j 4 AMA So v .� ��� c...u►.3 v,re`S £t< -cLt�s r � ��' Case No. WA -11 -02 /Affordable Garages 13 Criteria Response, continued _ (� Ss�iL1�� -iT �p�.�.e... ♦ wa t'�'�� r.lt� � 1K�'`..I GG '�) ugh Tllz vkcc..9 0111 t� v rt.E w , ( l 1 ti K� a:.c�►� Tv 'rte- V3ovzq �� C�'� - �y b,,,r. oar �i�-�' vJ►�.tt.l��,e�at- 107, Board ofAdjustment 14 Case No. WA -11 -02 /Affordable Garages - ,I.1 t Clfy Of Wheat P,idge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting January 27, 2011 1. 2. 3. 4. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment was called to order by Acting Chair ABBOTT at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. ROLL CALL Board Members Present Board Members Absent: Staff Members Present Tom Abbott Bob Blair Paul Hovland Bob Howard Jennifer Walter Janet Bell Larry Linker Betty Jo Page Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Lauren Mikulak, Planner I Ann Lazzeri, Secretary Meredith Reckert introduced Lauren Mikulak who was recently hired as a Planner I. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) No members of the public wished to speak at this time. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA- 10 -11: An application filed by Judy Helm for approval of a 1.5 foot variance to the 5 -foot side yard setback requirement for a garage on property zoned Residential -One B (R -1B) located at 3861 Moore Street. Board of Adjustment January 27, 2011 The case was presented by Lauren Mikulak. She entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval for reasons outlined in the staff report. Wilton Helm 320 Old Y Road, Golden, Colorado Mr. Helm, the applicant, is the owner of the property. He was sworn by Acting Chair ABBOTT. Mr. Helm purchased the house as rental property. He stated his desire to maintain the property and rent to quality tenants. One drawback to the property is the lack of a garage and storage space. He stated that he has attempted to work with the neighbor who lodged a protest by moving the location of the garage from his original plan. Board Member HOWARD asked what type of mature tree is in the back yard. Mr. Helm stated he was not sure but it could be a type of ash. Board Member HOWARD asked why he objected to removing the tree. Mr. Helm answered that it is an asset to the property in that it provides shade for his yard as well as the neighbor's yard. Board Member WALTER asked if the applicant had considered an attached garage. Mr. Helm replied that an attached garage would be considerably more expensive and complicated to construct. Board Member HOWARD suggested that the applicant decrease the size of the garage and then there would be no need for a variance. Mr. Helen stated that decreasing the size would make it difficult to get into and out of cars. In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Mr. Helm stated that the tree is approximately 8 to 10 feet from the back of the house. Robert Erickson 2497 Fairplay Way, Aurora Mr. Erickson, contractor for the applicant, was sworn by Acting Chair ABBOTT. He explained that attaching the garage to the house would require a footing foundation (at a cost of $60 per square foot) instead of a monolithic foundation (at $5 per square foot). Further, a detached garage would look better because the house is a raised ranch. A one -hour fire rated wall would be required with either type of garage. In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Mr. Helm stated that he did work with the neighbor who protested and made accommodations by altering the location of the garage in response to her protest. She is still not satisfied and he believed the neighbor is opposed to his building a garage anywhere on his property. He further stated that his wife has spoken with most of the neighbors Board of Adjustment -2— January 27, 2011 who have expressed full support of the garage and also expressed appreciation to the Helm's for improving a run -down property. Ms. Mikulak advised Board Member ABBOTT that in addition to the one protest, there was an inquiry from a neighbor who only called to find out the details of the proposal. Acting Chair ABBOTT opened the public hearing. Jeanette Boro 10505 West 38 Place Ms. Boro was sworn by Acting Chair ABBOTT. She stated her opposition to the variance request. She does not want a garage built that close to her property line. Board Member HOVLAND asked how much a 1.5 foot variance would make since the applicant is allowed by law to build with a 5 foot setback. She replied that it makes a big difference to her. She also stated that she didn't care one way or another about the tree. She believed having the garage 1.5 feet closer to her property line presents a fire hazard. Board Member WALTER asked if the staff had fire safety concerns. Ms. Mikulak stated that a fire wall will be required even if the garage is built without the variance. Further, the city's chief building official has reviewed the site plan and had no outstanding concerns. Board Member BLAIR asked what unique circumstances applied to this case. Ms. Mikulak stated that the mature tree presented a hardship to finding an alternate location for the garage. It was moved by Board Member HOWARD that the applicant remove the tree and build a garage without a variance. The motion died for lack of a second. Upon a motion by Board Member BLAIR and second by Board Member HOVLAND, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA -10 -11 is an appeal to the Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and in recognition of one protest registered against it; and Board of Adjustment -3— January 27, 2011 Whereas, the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment application Case No. WA -10 -11 be and hereby is APPROVED. Type of Variance: A 1.5 foot variance to the 5 foot side yard setback requirement for property zoned Residential One -B. For the following reasons: 1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. Other variances have been granted and presently exist in the area. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible without the variance. 3. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 5. Alternate placement of the garage would require removal of a mature tree and eliminate a significant portion of usable backyard space which is therefore the major unique circumstance attributed to this request. 6. The request is consistent with existing conditions in the surrounding area as a majority of the homes in the area have constructed garages or carports. 7. Staff recommended approval. Board Member HOVLAND commended the owner for making improvements to the property. He stated that he would vote in favor of the request even though he had difficulty finding unique circumstances in the case. Board Member ABBOTT stated that he would vote against the variance request because an adequately serviceable garage could be build on the lot without a variance and, a protest was received by the most immediately affected neighbor. The variance would also represent a substantial impainnent to the intent and purpose of regulations governing the City. Acting Chair ABBOTT advised that a super majority vote would require four affirmative votes for approval. The motion failed by a vote of 3 to 2 with Board Members ABBOTT and HOWARD voting no. Board of Adjustment -4— January 27, 2011 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Acting Chair ABBOTT closed the public hearing. 6. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Board. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Introduction of Alternate to the Board Meredith Reckert introduced Jennifer Walter as an alternate to the Board of Adjustment. B. Approval of Minutes — July 22, 2010 It was moved by Board Member BLAIR and seconded by Board Member HOVLAND to approve the minutes of July 22, 2010 as presented. The motion carried unanimously. C. Resolution Designating a Public Place for Posting of Notices of Public Meetings. It was moved by Board Member BLAIR and seconded by Board Member HOVLAND to approve Resolution No. 01 -2011, a resolution establishing a designated public place for the posting of meeting notices as required by the Colorado Open Meetings Law. The motion carried 5 -0. D. Ms. Reckert invited Board Members to attend the first public meeting regarding the 38 "' Avenue Subarea Plan will be held at the Wheat Ridge Middle School on March 15, 2011. E. Ms. Reckert informed the Board that Planning Commission has requested a joint study session with Board of Adjustment. Ms. Reckert will also schedule a training session for the Board when the vacancies are filled. Board members responded that both meetings would be beneficial. F. There was consensus to postpone election of officers until Board vacancies have been filled. Board of Adjustment -5— January 27, 2011 8. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Board Member HOVLAND and seconded by Board Member HOWARD to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m. The motion carried unanimously. Thomas Abbott, Acting Chair Ann Lazzeri, Secretary Board of Adjustment -6— January 27, 2011