HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/28/2007CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
June 28, 2007
(A dinner study session will be held beginning at 6:00 p.m. in the Lobby conference room.)
Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board
of Adjustment on June 28, 2007, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the
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 not appearing on
the agenda:)
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Case No. WA-07-06: An application filed by William Andrews for approval of a
9 foot side yard setback variance from the 10 foot side yud setback requirement
resulting in 1 foot side yard setback on property zoned Residential-Three (R-3)
and located at 2836 Chase Street.
5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
6. OLD BUSINESS
7. NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of minutes - April 26, 2007
8. ADJOURNMENT
City of Wheat Ridge oF WHEqT~
>
Community Development Department ~ °
Memorandum ~~~oRao~
TO:
Board of Adjustment
FROM:
Meredith Reckert
SUBJECT:
Revised variance process
DATE:
June 18, 2007
In 2005, the Wheat Ridge City Council adopted the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy;
Repositioning Wheat Ridge, with the goal of making Wheat Ridge once again a community of
choice for businesses and residents.
The multi-layered strategy included the creation of a non-profit community-based development
corporation (Wheat Ridge 2020) with the mandate to facilitate and partner in neighborhood and
commercial projects that implement the goals of the NRS. The NRS also identified nine strategies
for the City which includes the following:
• Develop new market rate housing at key locations throughout the city
• Acquire, upgrade and sell out-of-date housing stocks at key locations.
• Improve existing multi-family rental property at key locations.
• Redevelop the Wadsworth corridor
• Develop West 44`h Avenue into an "Orchard DistricY".
• Accelerate and shape the development along 38"' Avenue.
• Develop a town center.
• Continue to increase the visibility and accessibility of the Wheat Ridge open space.
• Develop identity signage and gateways and improve the City's general appearance.
One of the actions recoirunended to implement the identified strategies, was to critically examine the
City's various land use development processes and standards to achieve the following goals:
• To streamline the review and public hearing processes, so that entitlements could be in place
quicker.
• To elevate the site design and architectural quality of development projects.
• To develop more flexible development standards that work in infill development situations.
The Wheat Ridge planning staff took a two-tier approach for implementation of this recommended
action:
1. Revision to the Str-eetscape and Architectural Design Manual which was adopted in 2001.
Changes to the Manual included reorganization of the material, deletion of redundant
sections, creatiou of specific design principles, and clearer illustrations of what is required by
the standards. The revised manual (now called the Architectural and Site Design Manual) was
adopted by City Council on June 11, 2007.
Revision to several of the existing land use development review processes including the
following major changes:
• Revision of the approval criteria for several processes including zone changes, special
uses, planned building group plans and variances.
• For Planned Developments, requiring more detail at the Outline Development Plan
stage (the rezoning step) and making the Final Development Plan approval stage an
administrative approval.
• Raising the threshold for administrative variances from the current 10% to 50%.
These revisions were approved and adopted by City Council on May 14, 2007 and became
effective on June S.
With regard to the variance criteria, Staff has consistently observed variances being denied because
the hardship standard could not be met. In particular with residential projects, the result has been an
obstacle towards investment in the current housing stock with potential long-term negative impacts
on the neighborhood and the City of Wheat Ridge. The revised criteria are intended to focus on other
considerations such as imestment in the property, compatibility with the neighborhood character and
similar conditions being present in the area.
The following are the new criteria to be used in evaluating variance requests. It is still the job of the
applicant to demonstrate the extent to which a majority of the following criteria have been met:
a. 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.
b. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
C. The applicant is proposing a substantial investrnent in the property with this
application, which would not be possible without the variance.
d. 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.
e. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having
an interest in the property.
f. 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.
g. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are
present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. l
h. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person
with disabilities.
i. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in
the Architectural and Site Design Manual.
The City Attomey has reviewed the revised criteria and has indicated that he does not have a
problem with less emphasis on the hardship criterion as long as variance approvals have substantial
findings of fact supporting other criteria.
Attached as Exhibit 1 are the approved changes to the variance process.
Section 4. Section 26 ll 5~rp%Nanc~s} B and C are hereby amended as follows:
B. Application requir^ements. All requests for a variance, waiver, temporary permit or
interpretation, as described herein, shall be made by the filing of an application, together
with the required fee and supporting documentation.
1. Where a request covered within this subsection is made a part of another
administrative process, then both fees shall be imposed.
2. Documentation required:
a. Copy of the deed for the property.
b. Power of attorney if the applicant is not the owner of the property.
c. Property survey if the request involves relationship of structure(s) to lot lines
or lot area.
d. Reasons for flling an appeal or variance request. Requests for variances
must include a brief description of the evidence supporting the conditions
under which a variance can be granted as found in subsection (C) 4 hereof.
e. A"to scale" site plan.
f. Architectural elevations for any new structures.
d- g. Posting certification (to be submitted at the hearing to the clerk).
e-. h. Other infonnation which the applicant, the director of community
development ar the hearing authority determines is necessary in order to
adequately evaluate the application.
C. TTariances and waivers:
1. Mitier Administrative variances ar- waivers (teri(19) fifty (50) percent ar
less): The director of community development is empowered to decide upon
applications for intne~ administrative variances er waivers from the strict
application of any of the "development standards" pertaining to zone districts in
article II and Sections 26-501 (Off-Street Parking) and 26-502 (Landscaping
Requirements), and 26-603 (Fencing) and Article VII (Signage) of this
chapter, which apply throughout the various zone district regulations and in other
situations which may be specifically authorized in the various sections, without
requirement of a public hearing, under the following conditions:
a. The variance or waive does not exceed tetr(19) fifty (50) percent of
the minimum or masimum standard; and
b. The director of community development finds that a majority of the
"~~-~.tEli-:gs f aet," criteria as set forth in subsection (C) 4 hereof,
are substantially complied with and support the request; and
a The director of community development has notified adjacent property
owners by letter notice and posting of the site at least ten (10) days prior to
rendering his decision, and that no objections have been received during
such ten-day period. Any objections must be received in writing and be
directly related to concerns regarding the request. General objections
EXHIBIT 1
regarding existing land use conditions or issues not related to the request
will notbe considered grounds for objection.
d. That no additional dwelling units would result from approval of such
variance or waiver.
e. That the In no instance shall the community development director
hear or grant a variance as to use or as to an activity or development
which is prohibited by this chapter nor shall the limitations of Charter
section 5.10.1 are ne! be exceeded.
2. Administrative Variance Appeals: A decision by the community
development director to deny an administrative variance or any conditions of
approval imposed by the community development director may be appealed
to the Board of Adjustment and shall follow procedures in accordance with
Section 2-61. A written appeal shall be submitted by the applicant to the
community development department within 10 days of such administrative
decision.
-2.3. Variances °nn aaaivefs of more than teir(19) fifty (50) percent: The board of
adjustment is empowered to hold public hearings to hear and decide only upon
appeals for variances °n from the strict application of the development
standards pertaining to zone districts in article II, sections 26-501, 26-503, 26-603
or Article VII of this chapter. Where a variance ~r waive is made a part of
another administrative process, such as a change of zone, subdivision or a formal
site plan or development plan review which requires a public hearing before the
planning commission and/or city council, then the planning commission and/or
city council shall be empowered to decide upon such variance ar waive request
concurrent with such other process; however, in deciding such variance or waiver
the planning commission and/or city council shall be subject to the voting ratio as
applies to the board of adjustment, set forth in Wheat Ridge Code of Laws section
2-53 2-454-. In no instance shall the board of adjustment hear or grant a variance as
to use or as to an activity or development which is prohibited by this chapter or by
section 5.10.1 of the Charter.
3- 4 A^-:^.- ^na f:n-',ii^^ ^FF^^'_ Criteria for review : The
community development director, board of adjustment, planning commission or
city council shall base its decision in consideration of the extent to which the
applicant demonstrates a majority of the following €ae~ criteria €averabl@-te
i1e applieant; have been met es*°b'i°h°ab° th° f::?e:ee:
a. Ga}i-tkie 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?.
b. If the. The variance w~e graiAed, would it not alter the essential character of
the locality? .
c. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with
this application, which would not be possible without the variance.
d. T'~~°°--'ahp, The particular physical sunounding, 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 camed out? .
e. 14as-th€ The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any
person presently having an interest in the property?.
f. `x'ou 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?.
g. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance
request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the
property.
h.. Tf r.v{e.rn n 4l«ouieh o o Fund 4hon. eula 4he .e.7n.4irg of 4h0 vnrinrno
J
1114 i« nbe«e{Irh or eorkriH.h:e« 4o 41... «:o-hbR«~oRd o« 4he r
riky n
iiU
)
.i;S+:......:S1.e.i G...B 144;.,:.711..1 7..,.«,.F.t f1.,...,...t ,.FaL.o ..««7;....,,t0-V6Wfd
grantin Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation
of a person with disabilities?.
i. is-tke The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable
standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual.
45. Expiration: Any variance granted by the board of adjushnent or director of
community development shall automatically expire within one hundred eighty
(180) days of the date it was granted, ar within such other time as the board of
adjustment or director of community development may prescribe, unless a
building permit for the variance is obtained within such period of time. If the
building permit expires, the variance shall expire at the same time. Extensions of
time may be granted by the community development director for good cause
shown, but only if an application for the extension is made prior to the expiration
of the variance.
,oF W"~'Tq,a CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
~ m pLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
c~<ORp00
TO: Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Adam Tietz
CASE NO. & NAME: WA-07-06/Andrews DATE OF MEETING:June 28, 2007
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 9 foot side yard setback variance from the 10 foot
setback requirement resulting in a 1 foot side yard setback on
property zoned Residential- Three (R-3)
LOCATION OF REQUEST:
2836 Chase St.
APPLICANT (S):
Dempsey Andrews
OWNER (S):
Dempsey and A(ma Andrews
APPROXIMATE AREA:
6,650 square feet (.15 acre)
PRESENT ZONING:
Residential- Three (R-3)
PRESENT LAND USE:
Single Family Residential
ENTER INTO RECORD:
(X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION
(X) ZONING ORDINANC
E
( ) SUBDIVISION REGU
LATIONS
Location Map I I
j R-0C
i. R 2
Board of Adjustment 1
WA-07-06/Andrews
All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdicrion to
heaz this case.
I. REQUEST
The applicant is requesting an approval of a 9 foot side yazd setback variance to replace
an existing garage, resulting in a 1 foot side yard setback (Exhibit 1, Letter of Request).
II. CASE ANLYSIS
The property is 6,650 squaze feet in size, is rectangular in shape and contains an existing
two story, single family shucture and a dilapidated, detached single caz gazage. The lot is
substandard to the minimum single family lot size of 7,500 square feet which was platted
in 1890. The properry is located on Chase Street between W. 28`h Ave and W. 291h Ave.
The applicant wishes to construct a two caz detached garage that is approximately 18 feet
wide by 28 feet deep or 504 squaze feet to replace the existing gazage. The existing
gazage is dilapidated and unsteady (Exhibit 2, Garage Photo)and was also constructed
within the required setbacks, only 3 feet from the southern property line. The garage had
already been constructed when the home was purchased by the applicant and there is no
record of when it was built. The newly conshucted gazage will be located in the same
setback area and will be 1 foot from the southern property line (Exhibit 3, Site Plan/ILC).
The home that is on the property is also located within the opposite setback azea and is
approximately 1.5 feet from the northern property line.
The site contains an existing 1,376 square foot home with a foot print of 678 square feet
and the existing 230 square foot single car garage. The R-3 zone district allows for a
maafimum lot coverage of 40%. Based on a lot size of 6,650 square feet, 2,660 square
feet of structures are allowed. With the house with footprint of 678 and the proposed
garage with 504 square feet the lot would have 1,182 square feet or 16% lot coverage.
The gazage would also meet all other development standards including the setbacks for
the front, rear, maximum size, and maximum height.
The applicant has expressed the structure will be quality built and will add to the
character of the neighborhood. The owner has put a significant investment into
improving the property already through multiple landscaped azeas, a large deck, fences, a
lazge decorative block patio, and exterior and interior work to the home. By allowing the
side yard variance it will further enhance the property and haue a positive impact to the
neighborhood. The applicant has also expressed that if the required setbacks aze followed
much of the work that he has done to improve the property will have to be demolished in
order to accommodate a new gazage.
Additionally, there appeazs to be multiple detached and attached garages and homes that
haue been built within the required setbacks. In many cases some of these structures .
Board of Adjustment
WA-07-06%Andrews
have been constructed all the way up to their respective property lines, including the lots
on all sides of the applicant, as it is within the chazacter of the azea due to the nature of
the small lots (Eachibit 4, Aerial Vicinity Map). Over the past 10 yeazs there have been 6
approved variances to side and front setbacks in the immediate vicnuty and numerous
others withiu this azea of Wheat Ridge. The most recent was approved in 2006 when
setback variances were approved at 3227 Chase Street.
III. VARIANCE CRITERIA
StafFhas the following criteria to evaluate variance requests:
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 may yield a return. The property
currently contains an existing single family structure and its use may remain
regardless of outcome of the variance request. The applicant would not be able to
replace the existing dilapidated gazage with a new garage if the request were
denied.
2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
The variance would not alter the essential chazacter of the locality. Many of the
lots in the area have homes, carports, garages, and sheds that are built in the
required setback area. The homes to the north, south and east all have garages
that are within lfoot of their property lines. Additionally, the applicanYs home is
1.5 feet from the northern property line and the exisdng garage is also in the
required setback area.
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 properiy that will result
in a positive outcome to the character of the neighborhood. The investment will
not be possible without granting of a variance. Even if the applicant were to
replace the existing garage in the same location a variance would need to be
granted for its construction. The new gazage will enhance the many
improvements already done on and throughout this entire property.
4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the
specific properly 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 surrounding physical conditions have resulted in a hardship on the property
owner. The applicant wishes to construct a.gazage to replace an existing garage in
Board of Adjustment
WA-07-06/Andrews
poor condition. Due to the size of the lot, which was not created by the owner, it
would be impossible to construct the gazage according to the plans without a
variance. If the garage complied with the 10 foot required setbacks it would only
leaue 1 foot between the house and the garage which would have several negative
results on the existing improvements to the property.
It would violate fire code separation requirements as a minimum of three feet is
required to be between the outer walls of a home and gazage. Second, the homes
main access is located on the south side of the home and by moving the gazage 1
foot from the home it would cut off all access to the home except through the rear
patio entry. Finally, it would require the demolition of a covered deck that is used
to access the main entrance of the home and is tied directly into the home.
5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person
presently having an interest in the property.
A person who has interest in the property has not caused the hardship. It is within
the nature of the surrounding neighborhood to have substandard lots in which
variances are needed in order to place sheds, build garages and to make other
improvements to ones property.
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
properly, substantially increasing the congesrion 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 properiy. 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 increase the danger of fire. The request
will most likely not have an effect on property values in the neighborhood. The
garage would not cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent street and
would not impede in the sight distance triangle.
The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request
are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property.
The circumstances that make the variance necessary aze due to the substandazd lot
size of the property. This property is not unique in this manner. This azea of the
Wheat Ridge is known for its small lots that are non-conforming to today's
Board of Adjustment
WA-07-06/Andrews
standards. The lots were created in 1890 before Wheat Ridge was incorporated
and the most appropriate zoning was applied to them after the city was
incorporated.
Over the past several years, numerous variances to setbacks have been requested
and approved in the azea so property owners may be able to use their properiy to
their full extent.
8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a
person with disabilities.
The granting of the variance would not result in the accommodation of a person
with disabilities.
9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set
forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manuab
The Architectural and Site Design Manual does not apply to single and two
family dwelling units. However, the applicant has indicated garage will be of
quality construction, the architecture of the garage will be given careful
consideration and the design will tie existing home, covered entry and the garage
together making it visually appealing. It will also add to the character of the
neighborhood and enhance the property as well.
IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the above criteria are supportive
of the variance request. 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. Compliance with the 10 foot side setback would all but viriually cut off
access to the main home.
2. Alternate placement of the gazage would eliminate and require a
significant demolition of improvements already done on the property by
the owner which greatly enhance the property.
3. The request is consistent with the existing conditions in the surrounding
area, as a majority of the homes, sheds, and garages in the area have been
constructed within the required setback azeas.
4. The hazdship has not been caused by the applicant.
5. The garage being constructed is to replace an unsafe structure that has
become unusable to this extent.
with the following conditions:
Boazd of Adjustment
WA-07-06/Andrews
1. The gazage must be constructed in a manner which is complimentary to the
existing home on the properry including a similaz roof pitch and materials
used.
Board of Adjustment
WA-07-06/Andrews
From: pempsey nnd Alma Andrews
To: Ciry of Wheat Ridgc Planning llepartmcnt
Subject: Vaziance Requesi for 2836 Chase St.
We are applying for a variance in orcier to build a iwacar garage on our properry. We
currendy have a dilapidated one-car, detached garage to thc right oCovr house. As per
the impcovemem iocation certitcate (see attacfied copy), we would tike to build the new
garage in the same bcation, but extend it ta fit two cars.
The vaziance that Nvc are asking fvr is pcrmissian ta build fhc acw garage onc foot
from the property line. Due to the nature of the properties in our neigh6orhood, the
legal setbacks are impossible to Follow and still mainiain an up-to-clate, valuecl propetty.
From the nno-foot houndary, rve would lilce to tie ihe garnge imo the deck and the
roofline of the house (see ILC), creating an aesthetic, fiaactional struemre.
The mighborhowl has rvcenlly shnwn signs of ovetail improvemsnt and iksis vatiance
request would be in 1ine with that impruvement. We gratefully request your apptoval of
ihis variance.
EXHIBIT 1
Board of Adjustment 7
WA-07-06/Andrews
EXHIBIT 2
Board of Adjustment
WA-07-06/Andrews
_ors zs & s2. EI..ocK s
RE-SU@7IVISION OF ELpCKS ONE TO SEVEN 8 f'2TH HALF OF BLOCK EIGHT
I,v THE CRIGINAL PLA7T'NG tJF LNCES[CE
:.~UNTY OF JEFFERSON
S i ATE GF COLORRCCI
133'
W
~
u~i m LQT 30
u 'n LCT 29 i
~
<
u 26.3 1
RSPHALT DRNE
a2g3S N
2 STO2Y 1
FRAME
B ~
31.5 +ti ~
i
~
i i
J. Unr lJJ
J
x-
e
cr in
a
a
m
~d
. ~
M
H
m
x
W
COLUA9BINE SURVEYING, INC.
7573 South Ames Way
Littdeton, CO 80128
303-972-8000 faX 303-972-8001
www.columbinesurveying.com
IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTiFIdATE
! ne:eby certi`y that ¢his imFrovem¢nt iocat;on cedifqte vitas prapared fcr
COUNTY pFJEFFERSON
I
hOI~TH
Scnl~
:na~ A iarat a iar,r. suney pla: or :mp:o,¢~nc.t sar:p piat anc !he: u iz nCi :C Ce rP,.gO u;on la 1e establisnment o! tenr.e. nciyc7, crD:r& 'u:wc
~ma'ovemyrc~:neS.
~'W(~¢r ~ER~y t03f ;hc nTp(OVCrtle~t4 Cn iha atOV° tlCSIXiLib 0'i1fCC~. CnWpl u:uit~ ccr'ne:t~ns, r:g Enti~¢?; x•:Cdn Ine CQ:nCOtICi li:? parcel, emepl as
ShCwO. U1aChereare no ¢nCro3thmen[3 up00 UIC4Q6:'dM.L' pamises py imprOVglnyn1500 @Oy2tl)FNn& p'CfOisex exc?ptds:n6Cd?EC. dFtl Ihdl l^CtC ,5'-0
aFqzrent ee.CCnC¢ Ot Sign oI ny easement crossiog pr C.rJe+mg any pw of uia Fa¢el, except ne;Pn
\u:wa:cobrib~asGalx.rq:am„51:anm:ncca~'::;~a'siir.:azetluponaiy~p~; tiOTG nt:p;;n¢p~mJaO~e~e~le2svnentsa~eshmvn Re:artleflsn.me^u,:'
n IF.ii ~m[t"iElY?fL'IXalOn M9WYY2 wfON SMLE p pf g',~~).y; i;~djYliYe~¢C 30.t CPR:1. Any, Tt2'O: iICJ Gy ~Iy.'dliJn C(~' ~tlN ~y 7te c45'cti~EV W~?55 C try..W~SE
'11'O?1E11~9iY&1S'Lil^J'.0~$QQJ(-0-'JtY eNd: nisni~raettnilxro+ceYfi-;.ie.:e IIC'CC
W`TI'4A[Y.wJtll.tl W. y&3..by111he CdIC01b...14R13..5YOn11APEOt. _ ~ F\jO~~~().•. • L •
BuyP.r . P`G4 f{ .
MicNael A. Fra t
~1Address : 2838
CHASE ST. Pro£essionaf 71tle co Order 30570052 na
Board of Adjushnent 9
WA-07-06/Andrews
EXHIBIT 4
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Minutes of Meeting
Apri126, 2007
1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Whet Ridge Board of Adjustment was called to order
by Chair BLAIR at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal
Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
Meredith Reckert introduced and welcoined Betty Jo Page and Alan Bucknam as
new members of the Board of Adjustment.
2. ROLL CALL
.
Board Members Present: Tom Abbott
Janet Bell '
Bob Blair
Alan Bucknam
Lany Lmker
Betty Jo Page
Staff Members Presenf: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner
Ann Lazzeri,rSecretary
3. PUBLIC FORUM
No one wished to address:the Board at this time.
4. PU$LIC HEARINGS
A. Case No. WA-06-21: An application filed by Alan Wiedmaier for
approval of a variance to Section 26-501.D.1 (Parking Lot Paving) for
property zoned Indush-ial and located at 11990 West 52nd Avenue
This 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. This case is an
appeal from a two-part request relating to parking lot paving and landscaping. At
the January 25, 2007 meeting, the request for a landscaping variance was
approved and the paving request was denied. New evidence has been submitted
by the applicant for this hearing. Staff recommended approval for reasons
outlined in the staff report. If the case is approved, a design for a swale on the
adj acent property to accoimnodate runoff from the existing site will be required as
Boazd of Adjustment Minutes - 1-
Apri126,2007
recommended by the consulting engineer and reviewed by the Department of
Public Works.
Board Member BELL asked if the subject property and the adjacent property
were under the same ownership. Ms. Reckert stated that the adjacent property is
under a different ownership and therefore the applicant and his engineer would
have to work with that owner to obtain an easement.
In response to questions from Board Member HOWARD, Ms. Reckert explained
that the property was zoned industrial when the structures were built. Although
the zoning was industrial, the structure was used as residentiaL There is now a
glass business in the building. She also explained that:drainage from this property
goes into the Columbine Basin flowing froin northwest to southeast.
Alan Wiedmaier
Andrew Marner, Alliance Consulting Engineers and Surveyors
Mr. Wiedmaier, the applicant, and Mr. Marner, engineer for the applicant, were
sworn in by chair BLAIR. Mr. Marner stated that he is a registered professional
engineer with the State of Colorado
In response to a question fron
swale approximately ten feet
drainage from the applicant's
flood event.
In response to a questiori fron
there is abouf a 2% erade acrc
Board Member ABBQTT, Mr. Marner stated that a
ide and three inches deep would adequately carry
,roperty across the adjacent property in a 100-year
Board 1Vlember LINKER, Mr. Marner stated that
~s the properties.
Board Member BELL'
allows some water to i
consideration given to
Ivlr. Marner replied ft
landscaping irrigation.
at she was in favor of the gravel drive because it
into the soil. She asked if there had been any
ng runoff in order to use the water for landscaping.
all scale of the site precludes using runoff for
Mr. Wiedmaier stated that there is a cistern behind the house and most of the
water from driveway drains into it. The water then filters out from the cistern into
the ground.
In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Meredith Reckert
stated that the gravel portion of the driveway contains an adequate amount of
gravel.
Board Member ABBOTT asked why it is necessary far the swale to be on the
neighbor's property. Mr. Marner explained that it is necessary to have a swale to
safely pass run-off water from the applicant's property across the neighbor's
Board of Adjustment Minutes - 2-
Apri126, 2007
property. The water would flow diagonally across the property to the southeast
and would be shallow and slow.
Chair BLAIR asked if anyone else wished to address this matter. There was no
response.
Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member
BELL, the following resolution was stated:
Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer;
and
Whereas, Board of Adjustment Case No. WA-06-21 is an appeal to this
Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and
Whereas, the property has been posted fhe Ffteen days required by law, and
in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; and
Whereas, the relief applied for may be granted'ivithout 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-06-21
be, and hereby is, APPROVEA
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 change of fire ar endanger the public safety.
4. In accordance with the goals and policies of the Northwest Area Sub-
area Plan, there could be a long-term negative impact on the
neighboxhood due to investment in this property discouraging
redevelopment.
5. Given the current use, there is no apparent public benefit in
increasing the areas of impervious paving on this property.
Installation of further impervious surface paving would increase the
need for channelization of storm runoff and storm runoff retention on
the property. Therefore, installation of further impervious surface
paving would aggravate storm runoff problem from this small
property.
Board of Adjustment Minutes - 3-
Apri126, 2007
6. Currently, a significant amount of water runoff from the concrete
driveway is channeled into a cistern thus causing some significant
mitigation of the storm runoff potential.
With the following condition:
1. Applicant will have built channelization for storm water runoff as
designed and located by a professional registered engineer and as
approved as to both by the Wheat Ridge Director of Public Works so
as not to increase the negative effects of the historic runoff pattern.
The motion carried 7-1 with Board Member HOWARD voting no.
5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
There were no other cases to be heard by the Board at this time. Chair BLAIR
closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.
6. OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to come before the:Board.
7. NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of Minutes - March 22, 2007
Board Member ABBOTT offered the following ainendments to minutes of
On page one,,the first sentence of the last paragraph should be amended to
add.the word "only" in order to read: "Board Member ABBOTT
commented that the only unique thing about the subject sign is that it
would indicate where and at what time the Rotary Club meets."
On page two, the first sentence of the third paragraph should be replaced
with the following sentence: `Board Member ABBOTT asked Mr.
other than permission from the City as the property
unique about this situation to allow more than one sign
per
It was moved by Board Member PAGE and seconded by Board
Member HOVLAND to approve the minutes of March 22, 2007 as
amended by Board Member ABBOTT. The motion passed 6-0 with
Board Members PAGE and BUCKNAM abstaining.
Board Member ABBOTT asked if any action had been taken by the
Rotary Club regarding the condition placed on the motion that stated:
"The Rotary Club will approach City Council to consider modifying this
Board of Adjustment Minutes - 4-
Apri126, 2007
ordinance toward the benefit of all other organizations affected by this
ordinance."
Meredith Reckert recommended that, since the city is in the process of
making changes to the sign code, the Rotary Club should submit a letter to
City Council. Board Member ABBOTT agreed, as maker of the motion,
that a letter to City Council would be sufficient.
8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m.
Robert Blair, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Secretary
Board of Adjustmen[ Minutes
April 26, 2007
-5-