HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/25/2007CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
January 25, 2007
Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board
of Adjustment on January 25, 2007, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of tlie
Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject notappearing on
the agenda.)
4. PUBLIC.HEARINGS
A. Case No. WA-06-21: An application filed by Alan Wiedmaier for approval of
variances to Section 26-501.D.1 (Parking Lot Paving) and Section 26-502
(Landscaping Requirements) for property zoned Industrial (I) and located at
11990 W. 52nd Avenue.
5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC I3EARING
6. OLD BUSINESS
7. NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of minutes - December 13, 2006 8. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
TO: Board of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING: January 25, 2007 CASE MANAGER Meredith Reckert
CASE NO. & NAME: Case No. WA-06-21/Wiedmaier
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a variances for commercial paving and commercial
landscaping in an I zone district
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 11990 W. 52nd Avenue
NAME OF OWNER(S): Alan Wiedmaier
APPROXIMATE AREA:
PRESENT ZONING:
PRESENT LAND USE:
11,793 square feet
Light Industrial (I)
glass shop office and warehouse
ENTER INTO THE RECORD:
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
(X) CASE FILE AND PACKET MATERIALS
(X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION
o
C
m
m
m
J
I
N
~
F
Board of Adjushnent
Case No. WA-06-2 1 /Wiedmaier
Site
1
The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notificarion and posting requirements have be
met, therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case.
1. REQUESTS /EXISTING CONDITIONS
The property in question is located at 11990 W. 52"d Avenue and is zoned Light Industrial (I).
Current use of the property is as a commercial glass business office and shop area.
Although the property has Light Industrial zoning, it was originally developed residentially prior to the
incorporation of the City. The property contains 11,793 square feet of land area and has the original
house on it which is approximately 800 square foot in size. According to the Jefferson County Assessor
information, the house was built in 1948. In 1999, the applicant purchased the property. A large garage
with 1800 s.f. of footprint was constructed in 2001. At the time of permitting, the property owner
indicated that it was a garage accessory to the house where he was residing and would be for his own
personal use. (Exhibit 1, Survey/Site Plan)
In 2003, the applicant met with the Community Development deparhnent to discuss the requirements
needed to operate a glass business on his property. He was informed that he needed to apply for a
building permit to bring the property up to commercial standards with required parking and paving,
commercial landscaping and interior structure modifications. To this date, a permit for this
renovation/improvement has never been approved or issued. Code enforcement action has been pursued
several times with no resolution to the situation. The property has now sold and the former owner is ,
attempting to legitimize the existing situation through the variance process as part of the purchase
contract.
The City of Wheat Ridge has many existing homes along major corridors zoned commercially ar
industrially, most of which were built prior to incorporation. As the City of Wheat Ridge has continued
to develop and commercialize, many once-residential streets have now become commercial collector
and arterials. Stnxctures and properties originally developed as homes have become undesirable for
residential use as traffic on these streets has intensified. The exisring commercial zone dishicts allow
existing single family homes to remain in perpetuity, however no new freestanding residential units are
permitted.
Many of the residenrial properties with commercial zoning located on the arterials and collector streets
have been converted to commercial businesses. When a property is converted from residential to
commercial, it must be in conformance with all codes and regtzlations prior to being considered a legal
conversion. These requirements include, but may not be limited to, compliance by the structure with
applicable building and fire codes, installation of commercial paving and striping based on an approved
drainage report and installarion of commercial landscaping.
The applicanYs variance requests relate to commercial paving and landscaping requirements in order to
legitimize the use of the property for a commercial glass operation.
Request A: Off-Street parking requirements
Board of Adjustment
Case No. WA-06-21/Wiedmaier
Section 26: SOi.D1. requires all uses other than single and two family residential to have hard surfaced
, paving by concrete, asphalt, brick pavers or other hard materials. In this case portions of the parking
and drive area are covered in asphalt or concrete. Other portions are graveled. The applicant wishes to
retain the graveled areas "as is".
The current circulation pattem on the property allows for entry to the site from a curb cut located
adjacent to the western property line. Proceeding straight in, parking is located on the west side of the
office which is paued in concrete. Proceeding across the front of the property leads to the east side of
the office. Continuing south leads toward the warehouse area. This area of the property is the graveled
portion. There is adequate parking on the site given the building sizes (7 total parking spaces with one
handicapped space); however, these parking spaces are not currently striped.
If the parking lot is required to be paved, Public Works will require submission of a drainage plan and
report meeting today's standards and will likely require a large detention pond at the southeast comer of
the property. The property currently slopes from northwest to southeast. Drainage on the property
follows this historic flow pattern.
Request B: Landscaping requirements
Pursuant to the zoning and development code, the commercial landscaping coverage requirement is 20%
(Section 26-502.D.3.c.1.) Of this 20%, up to 35% can be made up of non-living materials such as bark
and rock (Section 26-502.C.1.). The current property configuration allows for 14.6% landscaped
coverage. This coverage includes a 5' wide rock strip extending down the eastern property line and a
20' wide rock strip on the southern property line. The strip along the eastem property line is separated
from the drive area by a concrete curb. Both of these areas are devoid of any live plant materials. There
is one tree existing on the property located adjacent to the eastern property line. It is a deciduous tree
(species unknown) and is located about two-tlurds of the way down the eastern property line. It is
roughly 2' in diameter. Staff has calculated that the "landscaping" on the property is comprised of 95%
non-living materials. Staff would note that the 20% commercial landscaped coverage requirement was
increased from 10% during the 2001 zoning code rewrite.
Existing on the front of the property in the W. 52"a Avenue right-of-way is a large landscaped area
comprised of a brick planter measuring 45' x 5' containing an 18" diameter coniferous tree. Because it is
in the r-o-w, it can't be counted towards on-site landscaping, evemthough it appears that it is part of the
property. The property owner has always maintained this area and has indicated that he is willing to
plant additional plant materials in this area.
Section 26-502.C.3.a. requires one street tree far every 30' of lot frontage. Based on a lot width of 75'
three street trees would be required where there are none existing. The existing mature tree in the front
planting area gives the appearance of having a tree on the property and if it were, it would qualify as at
least three street trees due to its size.
Section 26-502.C.3.b. requires an additional tree and 10 shrubs for every 1000 square feet of landscaped
area. Given this lot size, an addirional three trees and 30 shrubs would be required on the property in
addition to the required street trees. Staff believes that the lazge deciduous tree on the eastern property
line would compensate for the three additional trees required.
Boazd of Adjushnent
Case No. WA-06-21/Wiedmaier
II. ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND AREA CONDITIONS
The property is abutted on the east, west and south by property zoned I, Light Industrial.
Corresponding development includes vacant property to the east and south which is part of a
larger parcel consisting of 9.5 acres. The southern one-third of that parcel is used for RV
storage. (Exhibit 2, Aerial photo with zoning) Farther to the east on W. 52"a Avenue is a single
family residence and alpaca farm. Under that same ownership to the south and west is Hance
Subdivision which is zoned R-1 and platted as single family lots. This subdivision has not been
developed to date. (Exhibit 3, Hance Subdivision Plat)
Abutting the property on the west is a single family home zoned I which appears as if it is still
used residentially. Farther to the west on the south side of 52"a Avenue is an animal
crematorium. Continuing west towards Ward Road on the south side of 52"a Avenue is
commercial property under a variety of ownership used as office/warehouse, retail, commercial
parking and gasoline sales.
Across the street is property located in the City of Arvada, zoned residentially. Traveling west
on Ward Road, the residential units transition to commercial uses.
III. NORTHWEST SUBAREA PLAN
In 2004, the City initiated a study on the state of the City in an effort to identify issues facing the
community. "Repositioning Wheat Ridge: Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy" focuses on
popularion and household trends, jobs, housing market and commercial inventory. The goal was
to restore Wheat Ridge to a community of choice for homeowners and businesses. One of the
recommendations was for the City to undertake subarea planning to focus on unique
opportunities and challenges facing certain areas in the City. The northwest subarea with
boundaries generally of 52"a Avenue on the north, Simms and Tabor Streets to the east, I-70 on
the south and Ward Road to the west was one of these targeted areas.
This subarea plan completed in 2006 was considered a priority since it is the locarion of the
proposed RTD Gold Line transit station. The potential for a light rail station brings opportunities
for development and redevelopment for transit oriented land uses. Transit-oriented land use
typically produces a mix of uses including retail, office and residential that is in close proximity
to convenient transit. It is oriented to the pedestrian rather than the private automobile and
encourages higher density land uses.
The Northwest Subarea is identified as having the potential to become a mixed use "village"
with a slightly urban character near the transit station in the vicinity of 50`h and Ward,
transitioning to more suburban as it extends to the north and east. The plan does not change
existing allowable uses or zoning but provides broad guidance regarding future land use
decisions in the area. The preferred land use map designates the subject property as "light
industrial". (Exhibit 4, Preferred land use map)
Board of Adjustment
Case No. WA-06-21/Wiedxnaier
The light industrial designation is defined as having permitted uses that are commercial and light
industrial in nature. Buildings should be designed as timeless transirional buildings which
enhance the pedestrian environment so that the shucture can transition &om commercial use to
commercial use (such as a retail facility to a restaurant use). The ground floor should have 60%
transparency and the buildings should be pushed to the streets with a 0' setback. Parking should
be located in the rear.
The plan indicates that since the light rail development is several years away; existing businesses
must be allowed to operate and expand but must not preclude the ultimate development
objectives. More specifically that "existing buildings and uses are encouraged to continue" and
that "new buildings and improvements that are not consistent with the...plan... should be of a
temporary nature such that they can be amortized and removed with modest expense at such time
that the planned roads and other infrastructure are developed."
There aze implications for road connections including the widening of W. 52"a Avenue with a
pedestrian path and a north-south street connection which could impact the property and any
substantial improvements.
IV. VARIANCE CRITERIA
There are two variance actions which must occur to approve the applicanYs requests.
Request A: A variance to Section 26.-501.D.1. for commercial pauing requirements.
Request B: A variance to Section 26-502.D3.c. 1. (20% commercial landscaped coverage
requirement), a variance to Section 26-502.C.1. (maacimum of 35% non-living landscaping), a
variance to Section 26-502.C.3.a. (commercial street tree requirement) and a variance to Section
26-502.C.3.b. (additional trees and shrubs required).
Staff has the following comments regazding the criteria used to evaluate a variance request:
1. Can the property in question 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?
Request A: If the paving is required, the property owner will haue to install hard
surfacing which will require the submission of a drainage plan and report including a
water quality basin. Given the small size of the property, it is questionable whether this
could be accommodated on site. If the variance is approved, staff will be recommending
that given the existing layout of the site, drainage improvements be analyzed and
installed to mitigate existing impacts to adjacent property owner.
Request B: If the landscaping variances are denied, the site layout would have to be
recontigured to accommodate the additional landscaping space needed. The missing
plant materials would need to be added in the areas devoid of living materials (for
example, along the eastern property line and/or rear graveled area). The addition of plant
materials in these areas could conflict with recommended drainage improvements.
Boatd of Adjushnent
Case No. WA-06-21/Wiedmaier
2. If the variauce were granted, would it alter the essential character of the tocality?
Request A: If the paving variance is granted, it would not impact the essential character
of the area. There are numerous commercial properties in the area which have graveled
or recycled asphalt parking and drive areas.
Request B: Approval of the landscaping variances would also have minimal impact on
the area. Many of the existing commercial sites were developed or "commercialized"
under the 10% coverage requirement which changed in 2001. The existence of the
landscaped planter in the right-of-way gives the appearance of landscaping on the
property.
3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the
specific property involved result 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?
Reguest A: The lot in question has a typical rectangular shape and slopes from northwest
to southeast. If the entire lot is paued, accommodation of the required drainage facilities
is questionable. According to the adjacent property owner, the improvements installed by
the applicant over the past five years have already impacted his property. While he does
not want additional paving on the property which will exacerbate the drainage concerns,
he would like to have some accommodation of the existing situation to lessen the impact
to his property.
Request B: There are no unique circumstances relative to shape of the site. There may
be additional room to add landscaping and increase the non-living materials by the
addition of more plant materials to existing graveled areas. Installation of plant materials
in these rock areas could conflict with drainage improvements. Staff would prefer to see
the island at the front upgraded as it is more visible than areas in the interior of the site.
4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having
an interest in the property?
Requests A and B: The hardship has been created by the property owner who started
using the property commercially without completing the required commercial site and
building improvements.
5. Would the granting of the variance 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, 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?
Requests A and B: Granting of the variances would not be detrimental to the public
welfare. The paving and landscaped variances would not impact the adequate supply of
Board of Adjustment
Case No. WA-06-21/Wiedmaier
light and air to adjacent properties, would not increase the chance of fire or endanger the
public safety. There have already been negative drainage impacts on the property owner
to the south and east which must be mitigated.
There could be a negative impact on the neighborhood if the variances are not granted as
installation of additional improvements in the property could discourage the assemblage
of adjacent parcels for fixture redevelopment. It is clearly stated in the Northwest Subarea
Plan that interim uses without substantial monetary investment should be encouraged to
facilitate future redevelopment.
6. If criteria 1 through 5 are found, then, would the granting of the variance result in a
benefit or contributioa to the neighborhood or the community, as distinguished
from an individual benetit on the part of the applicant, or would granting of the
variance result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities?
Requests A and B: The requested paving and landscaping variance would result in an
individual benefit for the property and would not result in the accommodation of a person
with disabilities. There may be a benefit to the neighborhood and the community if the
property were assembled with adjacent parcels and redeveloped. However, the property
owner must minimize the exisring impacts to adjacent property through drainage
improvements as recommended by Staff in the recommended motions.
IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Request A:
Upon review of the request, staff concludes that the above criteria are supportive of the
commercial paving variance request. Therefore, staff recommends approval for the following
reasons:
1. There will be no negative impact on the character of the area.
2. Granting of the paving variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare.
3. Granting of the paving variance would not impact the adequate supply of light and
air to adjacent properties and would not increase the chance of fire or endanger the
public safety.
4. There could be a long-term negative impact on the neighborhood due to inveshnent
in the property discouraging redevelopment.
With the following conditions:
1. The existing pazking areas be striped as laid out by Staff on Exhibit 1 including the
handicapped loading space with freestanding sign. This must be completed by
March 31, 2007.
2. The existing shed, vehicles and all other outside materials stored in the graveled
"landscaped "areas along the eastern property line and at the south end of the
property must be removed. This must be completed by February 28, 2007.
3. A professional engineer must be hired to perform an analysis of the existing
conditions on the site to determine what improvements could be made on the south
end of the property to relieve current impacts on the property to the east and south.
Boazd of Adjustment
Case No. WA-06-21/Wiedmaier
This analysis must be completed by February 28, 2007 and the required
improvements installed by March 31, 2007.
Request B:
Upon review of the request, staff concludes that the above criteria are supportive of the
landscaping variance requests. Therefore, staff recommends approval for the following reasons:
1. There are will be no negative impact on the character of the area.
2. There are unique circuxnstances as an existing landscaped bufferis located in the
52"a Avenue right-of-way.
3. Granfing of the landscape variances would not impact the adequate supply of light
and air to adjacent properties and would not increase the chance of fire or endanger
the public safety.
4. The variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
properties or improvements in the neighborhood.
5. There could be a long-term negative impact on the neighborhood due to inveshnent
in the property discouraging redevelopment.
With the following condition:
The property owner plant 15 5-gallon sized low growing deciduous shrubs in the
planter area in the front of the property. This is to be completed by March 31,
2007.
If any of the recommended improvements have not been completed within the timeframes
specified above, the former property owner will be summoned into court and StafPs
recommendation will be that it be converted back to a residential use.
(
Board of Adjustment
Case No. WA-06-21/Wiedmaier
a~
~
N t
~ b
x
lJ
-
Z
~
D
o
° ~ .
. Z ~
~
OO~LS 1 1-7 1
00a00 N
~
~
.
. .
.
70 Ok
.
~
` '
'
.Q'OL
.
. ...,_o
~
Q.
.
Y
O
oo
v
a
5
-
.
z
.
~
,
. ~
~
~ .
o •
e
z
.
,
.
.
N
. ~
Z
o
~
2
U
=
. U'
~
p U~
a
0Z.
N~
W
o
a-
.
~
04
o~
a
j
~
°
Lci
c
3~as oi W ,
Y
=
~
[ .
-:I
~ 4~ _M-
~S
N
w
e
U
IV
~ fA
V
.
.
_W
IsJ
.
.
.
t
'
.
Va
N
_
V
F'09
0
7
.
a
O
,
•
O
,
\
N
~
W
.
Q-
NO
~
>
~ 00 . t ~a`~.
z
Cl\j ~ ~o< Q
Ln
i. ~ ~ o J F O.
¢
¢ ~ ' ~ •
e o a
. . ~.O~e~ ~o.
~
v
S
~
~
Z
a
~
J
d .
M
C'1
°
T
~
a . a
.~n z
^ ~ 0 p
~
0 0
^ (~/1 S
N N
N a
0330 mvio lino
06LfL60J 'ON '03?J
a . Q . .a . aµ . a
400'L5 1 ]<<V 1,00a00 N
a
N
V i.
Z
~
Z
O ~
0 V
O
~ N
~
G7 -
oc)
a
z
o
Q o
r7
t. W
wN
~
EXHIBIT 1
3
~s
~
Y
~ . .
t.
> • ~
~
r q
.
-
•
~
. . ~
k
2Y5
.in~.1eN'411. .
ag
~
{
Y
:E
t3 :y~.
~ ii .
3
Exhibit 2
•
~ ,
~
}t~
~Y
'
~
5
. *F
.iE .
3
g
> ; ~
.
^
_ . . .
t` •
.
~
~
3
~p
}
t
.
. . ~ ~
~ 4
. . :
}a.
. , . ~ ~ . - . .
. 3 . . . . t
~ . . . . , . x ~
. . . - _ . ~ . . . . . . "F
3Q4k . p);~- ltL_ 11
~e • 'E' .
. .4 r jl
N.... . T
y ~ T E 1:
~
s ~
t~'~Y
F Al 1f s !
- . 3T/aNCL6Y HE/GNTA~,in Je.fFCRSOw CewvTr (cucGVr THC 6.s.s'e 43 rat'r iMLRGOfJ Ninvc v.a'o pury:
. . scspso.v~aco reiz swnc inte B~xref. a.ars~ Tiawa ST¢~tr ~'AM"Sr¢ccr,'W 52'iO Avetauit 4~ W~yA ~T
HlVEA~waia- vu~ NR~~ MNOtq Yli O~ F'SANGC' S SlY6ClV(b{ON.ANO 0OH4YC4Y GYqrtT AMD GeN1[CT (N PL${a51
y~T~« . . L~G Vii~ T~1Z fiie4lSAfY -3T4LCCS qnC AKNYiV vO aS6IrCLbN Q.OUMTY. . ' .
,
;
.
A
. " . ~ ' . . -
, _ , 4 . ; , . . .
r-
~ . . _ _ . _ . . . . ' -
z
~ Noat« Plab'tE+CTiNE COVENANTS ' •
~ MOTA2Yg R4;Kf4qWi;~~"'f
L fYiu~~r`4~.15ub~v~~wS~uuP@ Onff£~l w~.Mf~P R' . ~ . ~
N....q • a, sa r.ae. w w+ r..d.«. n.. ~v.f fux ~ `d~
, . - w"e~~ua. u.r uus.s.. .o~,q,far.r+:ww~.w ..w 'SrI.TS wr Cec~?Rnom~ z~ .
sT*'''+!Rt. ~PRU~ui+wsww~xr~!S(~'Y st2NU .....+antr+x6n-' Ca~Hiro~1¢cFt 'sew E
O M~1[Y~tR ub+~~MA /aML t!~K3601P1 ~a1~y~M ~1f~Kr blw~u M~- _A[ Is[ .
+te swrr++ utY ' e .e.a.a .i c+Ewv a ~ h•gi.~F b L.iaitl' ~
fnrrt l0 u. n{,p fl~t 44iCV fut~p u~'R4a. ~ ~~!V liG ~N_AHO fMt Sws C~eYf1 f~ RP i,eanht y-r~~~ ~ . AM.Yvv..... ~t~ 'w.v uYSfu.~. m r..~a tl wa f~a . . ~t ~ . P , .
l
~L
f
Z{ -Ai k~~k "k t - K fl~~~~
x ; s 1 # f ~ . ~lRF vc> Fv rwc ~}'~J F 11
~ { ~r • ~ ~
trAv#=~ ! Z.-.
w e ~ ~e ~ A~Dd+acSA*wav. efu~Y s . .
L r~Kt+s . DL'sit ClU~a i ~e Ceu~a me e~ - !Y$~~y° ♦ a~' ~tt4N~wcP 6 s~. ~w~+.~~. ~u~r{r{a~ wlt4 q-~ T~.M~~i~"aeaa6e aa Mi,~~ KC~gy n.s
i~1t. ` .
~r~..e~ 4+aiet i iKtaiK ns 44~Ct.a ~f.1L~ . ~•A~+~~FL.~RAbor YN ~--/S-~C
8H 4t}lTi~14'FH'~1
r. ~fr~A. I~GitiA~J
~~~E'cwwra..fr~4S d
`~i~i+'~F,s ~ . .
'3 , g"~ ~ _ ,q:~; ~ k s - ` • ' 3" -
l
~ _ _ y'
si'i - x[ Aaeveee iui r`is..ew aw'~~
aLSC4i+'~TY CLCaK nsae RICC,~~`COE
IaBZ. C
4 Y c ~ ! ~
,
=x I
s K
z~
EXHIBIT 3
~ n
~ r~rt
~
ro H
V
ao
n
~
~-l
rD
cn
Cf)
n
n
°
~
~
~
T
IC
C
N
'D
N
N
N
2
r
m
3
n
c
m
~
a
N
d
b
0
Q-
cn
~ a [ p v~ (1 ~ r ~ ~ H
d"a E~. 5 r£ E.= c
0 0 0, o
yC.~ Fc 3.~ ~e
F ~
S S n F~- n.p~ c G~ n ~
O n N 9 ~ Q_ X' ~ 1
9 ~ }
u F Bt
~
5
I ~
~
Rr° rD
~V~[..~ti
1--~'
n N
0 Q
~ N
a
~
~
~
~
~
~
~.A
~31
O
n
+
~
n
p
N
~
Y
~
~
W
f0
~
n
~
N
W
f'
'f
~
n
f'
t
Q.
~
a
~
O
N.
Q
cn
~
rt
cn
f0
P+
r~i
`C
P"
N
Exhibit 4
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Minutes of Meeting
December 13, 2006
1.
3.
4.
CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjushnent was called to arder
by Chair BELL at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal
Building, 7500 West 291h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colarado.
ROLL CALL
Commission Members Present:
Tom Abbott
Janet Bell
Bob Blair
Paul Hovland
Bob Howard
Larry Linker
Staff Members Absent:
Staff Members Present:
PUBLIC FORUM
Paul Drda
Davis Reinhart
Meredith Reckert, Sr. Planner
Travis Crane, Planner II
Adam Tietz, Planner I
Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary
Randall Sampson
Mr. Sampson is a senior assistant city attorney for the City of Arvada as well as a
graduate student at the University of Colorado at Denver. He has been attending
Board of Adjustment meetings in the metropolitan area over the past nine months
as a part of his work on a masters degree. His thesis concerns boards of
adjustment. He asked if any members of the Board would be willing to be
interviewed as a part of his project. Tom Abbott and Bob Blair volunteered to be
interviewed. Chair BELL requested a copy of Mr. Sampson's thesis when it is
completed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Prior to presentation of cases, all individuals who wished to testify during the
hearings stood and were sworn in by Chair Bell.
Board of Adjustment
Deceinber 13, 2006 - 1 -
A. Case No. WA-06-16 (continued from October 26, 2006): An
application filed by Jason Timmes for approval of a 15-foot 1-inch front
yard setback variance from the 30-foot front yard setback requirement
when adjacent to a public street resulting in a 14-foot 11-inch front yard
setback for property zoned Residential-Two and located at 4675 Lamar
Street.
The case was presented by Travis Crane. He entered all pertinent documents into
the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He
reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. He entered Exhibit 6 into the
record which was a letter of support from Andy Cameron at 4675 Lamar Street.
Staff recommended approval of the request for reasons outlined in the staff report.
Jason Timmes
Mr. Timmes, the applicant, stated his purpose in requesting the variance is to
enlarge his house in order to remain there to raise his family in Wheat Ridge. He
commented that he has recently joined Wheat Ridge 2020. Regarding the third
bay of the garage, he stated there is an additional 1-foot 8-1/2 inches difference
from a flush design.
In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. Timmes explained
that he wanted the extra foot and 8 inches in order to make the structure more
aesthetically pleasing. He is also trying to preserve as much of his back yard as
possible since his house is located on a corner with 30-foot setbacks from two
streets. He stated that he hasn't decided whether he will remove the tree in the
front yard.
Rhonda Champion
Ms. Champion referred to a comment made at the previous hearing on this matter
that the variance would fit with the goals of Wheat Ridge 2020. She commented
that the vast majority of homes in this area are one-story, two-bedroom, one-bath
homes. If others decide to alter their homes as the applicant wishes to do, it will
significantly change the character of the neighborhood. She believed the variance
was for a side yard setback, not a front yard setback. She was wncerned that
inconsistent setbacks would interfere with delivery of mail, hinder police efforts
to patrol the neighborhood, and could affect Xcel Energy's easement. She
believed the applicants could achieve all of their goals without a variance. She
asked the Board not to approve the variance in order to accommodate a design.
There were no other individuals present who wished to address the case, therefore
Chair BELL closed public testimony on this case.
Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member
BLAIR the following resolution was stated:
Board of Adjustment
December 13, 2006 - Z -
Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer;
and
Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-06-16 is an appeal
to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and
Whereas the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law, and
in recognition that there was one protest registered against it; and
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 Case No. WA-06-16
be and hereby is approved.
For the following reasons:
1. The request will not negatively change the character of the locality.
Many adjacent properties have main or secondary buildings which do
not meet the required 30-foot setback when adjacent to right-of-way.
2. While the hardship can be perceived as being self-imposed, the
presence of right-of-way on two property frontages severely impacts
design alternatives for an addition to the existing structure on a
corner lot.
3. The request would not be detrimental to the public welfare. The
request would not impair the adequate supply of light or air to
adjacent properties.
4. No height variance is being requested therefore minimizing the
possible bulk plane appearance.
5. Petitions in favor were submitted by eight adjacent neighbors and
staff recommended approval.
6. By turning the garage on its vertical axis, it allows minimal side
setback encroachment while maintaining functionality of the
structure and driveway parking and provides an interesting design
element.
7. Improvements are in concert with concepts outlined in the
Neighborhood Revitalization Study.
The motion carried 6-0.
B. Case No. WA-06-17: An application filed by Robert Christensen for
approval of a 13,650 square foot variance to the one-acre minimum to
allow expansion of a cattery on property zoned Agricultural-Two and
located at 4300 Wright Street.
Board of Adjusrinent
December 13, 2006 - 3 -
Chair BELL announced that this case had been withdrawn. Meredith Reckert
reported that the applicant needs a multiple-request approval tbat will include the
variance and require a hearing before city council. She informed members of the
public that this will involve a neighborhood ineeting at some time in the future.
C. Case No. WA-06-18: An application filed by Shem Leggett and Julie
Peters for approval of a fence height variance to allow a fence which is 7
feet 9 inches tall at its highest point for property zoned Residential-One
and located at 14 Twilight Drive.
The case was presented by Travis Crane. He entered all pertinent documents into
the recard and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He
reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recominended approval
for reasons outlined in the staff report. One letter of objection was received from
a nearby neighbor.
Board Member LINKER referred to the applicants' letter that stated they were not
advised they could not build a fence of this height. Travis Crane stated that a
permit was granted for a 6-foot fence. The detail of the fence did not show any
extension nor did it show a cantilever design. It was after construction, that the
height of the fence was brought to staff's attention through a citizen complaint.
Sherri Leggett
Julie Peters
Ms. Leggett stated that because the fence company received a pennit from the
city, they believed the fence was legal. It wasn't until after the fence was
installed that the city calied and said it was not consistent with city code. She
stated that much research went into finding an attractive fence that would meet
their needs of keeping their cats inside the yard and keeping foxes and coyotes
from entering the yard. She stated that cats have the ability to jump a 6-foot
fence unless there is some type of barrier at the top of the fence. She stated that
she and Ms. Peters also take care of foster cats, but these cats are not allowed
outside the house.
Board member ABBOTT asked how much of the fence was over 6 feet. Ms.
Leggett explained that the fence was 7 feet on the west side and a portion of the
fence on the east side is 7 feet 9 inches. Board Member ABBOTT questioned the
need for a fence of this height and suggested that a 5 foot fence with a barrier
would work as well. Ms. Leggett stated that cats could easily jump a 5 or 6 foot
tall fence.
Chair BELL commented that the fence is nicely done with a very open
appearance as opposed to a solid fence. She drove by the property of the person
who wrote a letter of objection and could not see that the fence was visible from
that person's property.
Board of Adjustment
December 13, 2006 - 4 -
Board Member BLAIR agreed that the open fence was more attractive than a
solid fence.
Board Member HOVLAND commented that the fence is very open and maintains
the integrity of the area.
Board Member HOWARD agreed that the fence was attractive, fits well into the
neighborhood, and is probably the best kind of fence to accommodate the
applicants' situation.
Dan Brennan
Mr. Brennan lives directly across the street from the applicant. While he agreed
that the fence was open, he objected to the angled extension on the fence that
gives the appearance of a compound or detention area. He stated that he was the
citizen who made a phone call to the city to find out whether or not the fence met
code. He apologized to the applicant and stated that he didn't intend far the
matter to end up before the Board of Adjustment. However he thought there
would be other creative ways to meet their needs.
Alex Tanner
Mr. Tanner's property borders the east side of the subject property. He spoke in
support of the applicanYs fence. He appreciated the fact that the fence is open
and not a solid fence and he understands the need for it. He stated that he has
known Ms. Leggett and Ms. Peters for 21 years and they have been excellent
neighbors.
Board Member ABBOTT commented that he had difficulty finding a hardship.
He asked if the applicants had spoken with their neighbors regarding the fence.
Ms. Leggett stated that two adjacent neighbors (to the east and west across the
street) indicated their support of the fence.
In response to a question from Chair BELL, Ms. Leggett explained that
volunteering to shelter foster cats was not a function of living in the house. The
fence functions to keep foxes and coyotes out and also serves as a security fence.
There were no other individuals present who wished to address the case, therefore
Chair BELL closed public testimony on this case.
Upon a motion by Board Member BLAIR and second by Board Member
HOWARD the following resolution was stated:
Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer;
and
Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-06-18 is an appeal
to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and
Board of Adjustment
December 13, 2006 - 5 -
Whereas the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law, and
in recognition that there were two protests registered against it and support
from neighbors was also forthcoming; and
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 Case No. WA-06-18
be, and hereby is approved.
For the following reasons:
1. The style of fence is physically less imposing than a solid fence,
thereby decreasing impact to the surrounding area by maintaining an
open appearance.
2. The applicants' desire to keep cats within their yard and keep wildlife
out should be enhanced by this fence with its angled extension.
3. The request should not have negative impact on the neighborhood nor
change the character of the existing neighborhood.
4. The fence is located in the back yard and obscured by mature trees so
that most of the fence is barely visible from the street.
5. Staff recommended approval.
Motion passed 5-1 with Board Member ABBOTT voting no.
(The meeting was recessed from 8:25 to 8:36 p.m.)
D. Case No. WA-06-19: An application filed by Mansour Fotovat for Gas
Plus for approval of (A) a sign height variance of'7 feet and (B) sign
setback variances for up to 5 feet to allow a freestanding sign on property
zoned Commercial-One and located at 6595 West 44"' Avenue.
The case was presented by Meredith Reckert. 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, and with conditions, as outlined in the staff report.
Board Member ABBOTT asked if the City Council sign committee decisions had
any impact on trus case. Meredith Reckert replied that those decisions would not
have any impact. She further explained that a variance would override any future
city council decisions regarding signs.
In response to questions from Board Member HOWARD, Meredith Reckert
stated that staff did not believe there was a sight triangle issue at Newland and
Board of Adjushnent
December 13, 2006 - 6 -
44"'. She further stated that the hardship is partly economic but the fact that the
sign code was changed without requiring an amortization period for non-
conforming signs is also a hardship.
Board Member LINKER commented that prospective buyers should research
these types of sign situations before purchasing a property.
Mansour Fotovat
Mr. Fotovat, the applicant, stated he was requesting the variance because his sign
is not visible from the street and it has been difficult to compete with Diamond
Shamrock across the street. He stated he has spent a lot of money to improve the
property but needs the variance to provide more sign visibility for his business.
He entered photographs of the sign situation into the record.
In response to a question from Board Member LINKER, Mr. Fotovat stated that
the sign is not visible from either the east or west and therefore needs to be moved
closer to 44th Avenue. There are also trees on another property to the east that
block the existing sign. He further stated that he would be owner/operator of the
business.
Board Member HOWARD asked about the vacant portion of the building. Mr.
Fotovat explained that this portion of the building would either be used for
expansion of the convenience store or rented out to another business. Board
Member HOWARD advised the applicant that any tenants of that portion of the
building would not be allowed to have their own freestanding sign for their
business.
There were no other individuals present who wished to address the case, therefore
Chair BELL closed public testimony on this case.
Upon a motion by Board Member HOVLAND and second by Board Member
BLAIR the following resolution was stated:
Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer;
and
Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-06-19(A) is an
appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and
Whereas the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law, and
in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; and
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.
Board of Adjustment
December 13, 2006 - 7 -
Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Case No. WA-06-
19(A) be, and hereby is approved.
For the following reasons:
1. There are unique circumstances based on other signs in the area
which have nonconforming sign heights.
2. The City of Wheat Ridge may have created a hardship when the
permitted sign height was modified and no amortization of
nonconforming signs was required.
3. There will be no negative impact on the character of the area as there
are several other nonconforming signs in the area.
4. The variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other properties or improvements in the neighborhood.
5. The sign height variance would not impact the adequate supply of air
and light to adjacent properties, would not increase the chance of fire
or endanger the public welfare.
With the following conditions:
1. The sign be permitted up to 120 square feet in size.
2. Only one freestanding sign shall be allowed on the property and the
other sign pole with blank sign face on the eastern property line be
removed.
3. The sign be designed with an engineered foundation and be built to
withstand a 110 mph, 3-second wind gust.
Board Member HOWARD offered the following friendly amendment: That
the variance be amended to read: "A sign height variance of 7 feet with an
overall height of 22 feez " The amendment was accepted by Board Members
HOVLAND and BLAIR.
The motion passed 6-0.
Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT 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-06-19(B) is an
appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and
Whereas the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law, and
in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; and
Board of Adjustment
December 13, 2006 - 8 -
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 Case No. WA-06-
19(B) be, and hereby is, approved.
For the following reasons:
1. There are unique circumstances based on other signs in the area
which have nonconforming setbacks. The hardship is created at the
current location by severe shielding of visibility caused by older
signage on adjacent properties.
2. There will be no negative impact on the character of the area.
3. The variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other properties or improvements in the neighborhood.
4. The sign setback variance will not impact the adequate supply of light
and air to adjacent properties, will not increase the chance of fire or
endanger the public welfare.
5. The variance was recommended for approval by staff.
With the following condition:
No sight triangle obstruction will be created.
The motion passed 5-1 with LINKER voting no.
5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
Chair BELL closed the public hearing.
6. OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business.
NEW BUSINESS
A. It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board
Member BLAIR to approve the minutes of October 26, 2006 as
presented. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Chair BELL discussed the invitation for Board Members to participate in
the Citizens Planning Academy. Board Member ABBOTT explained that
the Academy is being sponsored by Wheat Ridge 2020.
C. Meredith Reckert informed the Board that Adam Tietz has recently been
hired as a Planner I.
Board of Adjustment
December 13, 2006 - 9 -
D. Board Member ABBOTT discussed the sign task force and stated the he
would like to see design standards addressed in the sign code.
8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:46 p.m.
Janet Bell, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary
Board of Adjushnent
December 13, 2006 - 10 -