Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/23/2006CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA February 23,2006 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on February 23, 2006, atIP30 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. ELECTION OF OFFICERS 4. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appeazing on the agenda.) 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. WA-06-02: An application filed by Leigh Gauger for approval of up to 2,190 square foot variance from the 12,500 square foot minimum lot area requirement AND a 25 foot vaziance to the 100 foot lot width requirement to allow a two-family dwelling unit on property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at approximately 4525 Gazland Street. 6. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - January 26, 2006 B. Board of Adjustment Bylaws Work Session 9. ADJOURNMENT . i.~~4 WXE4J,y0 is m COLOpP~O TO: CITY OF WFIEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Jeff Airt CASE NO. & NAME: WA-06-02/Gauger DATE OF MEETING: February23, 2006 ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of up to a 2,190 squaze foot variance from the 12,500 square foot minimum lot area requirement and a 25 foot variance to the 100 foot lot width requirement to allow a two family dwelling on property zoned Residential-Two (R-Z). LOCATION OF REQUEST: Approximately 4325 Garland Street, Lot 51 Sun Valley Subdivision APPLICANT (S): OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZO1vING: Leigh Gauger Leigh Gauger 10,312.5 (34 acres) Residential-Two (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Single Family Detached Residential and Existing Two Family Conforming Structures and Lots (Not to exceed 6 du's per acre) ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) COMPREHENSNE PLAN (X) (X) ZONING ORDINANCE (X) ( ) SUBDNISION REGULATIONS Location Map Subject Property CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS DIGITAL PRESENTATION Board of Adjushnent 1 Case WA-06-02/Gauger Jurisdiction All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to heaz this case. 1. REQUEST The property in question is located at approximately 4325 Garland Street, or Lot 51 of the Sun Valley Subdivision. The property has Residential Two (R-2) zoning and is currently vacant with no structures on it. The applicanUproperty owner, Leigh Gauger requests approval of a 2,187.5 square foot variance from the 12,500 square foot minimum lot area required to allow for a two family dwelling on property zoned R-2. The applicant also requests a variance of 25 feet from the required 100 feet of lot width to allow for a two family dwelling on property zoned R-2 The existing conditions on the subject lot and the development standards can be summarized as follows: Subject Lot • 10,312.5 square feet • 75 feet in width • 1375 feetin depth Residential-Two Development Standards One Family Dwelling • Minimum Lot Area • Minimum Lot Width Two Family Dwelling • Minimum Lot Area • Minimum Lot Width 9,000 square feet 75 feet 12,500 square feet 100 feet :herefcre, in arder for the applicant to construct a two family dwelling on the subject property, the above mentioned variances to lot size and lot width are required. There are no requirements in the planning and development code for the applicant to submit specific architectural and/or site plans for improvements to the proper[y for this variance request. The applicant has however submitted sample elevations and photographs ~~it~~'`^ mule . The applicant has also submitted 4 site plan altematives for the layout of the proposed two family dwelling II. CASE ANALYSIS The proper[y is 10,312.5 square feet, or 34 acres. The proper[y measures 75 feet wide, with a depth of 137.5 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for a two family dwelling on the subject property. R-2 development standards specify a minimum lot area of 12,500 square feet, and 100 feet of lot width to allow a two family dwelling. A variance to lot size and lot width is therefore required. The applicant meets lot size and lot width requirements to conshuct a single family dwelling without the need for any variances. The area surrounding the subject property is a mix of one and two family dwellings, with commercial uses to the south (See Exhibit 1, Aeria] Image). Immediately adjacent to the subject property are single family to the north, south and east. To the immediate west is an existing two family dwelling. The majority of the properties with rivo family dwellings in this vicinity appear to meet applicable lot size and lot width requirements under current regulations. The two family dwellings to the south Board of Adjustment Case WA-06-02/Gauger (on 45'h Avenue) appear to be deficient in this regard however. According to the Jefferson CounTy Assessors Office records, these structures were built in the years 1961-1962, prior to the incorporation of Wheat Ridge. The applicant has disfibuted a petition for surrounding property owners and tenants regarding this proposal. It is not specified if those signing are property owners, however there are 10 signahues with 6 in favor and 4 with no opinion on this proposal''~' The property is currently the only vacant ]ot in the vicinity, surrounded on all sides by residential sh-uctures. There is an existing approximately 6 foot solid wall on the south side of the property, and a 6 foot solid fence on the west side of the property. There were no other comparable variances or similar requests made found in this area. II. VARIANCE CffiTERIA Staffhas the following comments regarding 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 regularion for the district in which it is located? If the request is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable return in use. The property could be developed as a single family residence without the need for any variances. 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? The use proposed may have an impact on the surrounding area, as the block and street the subject property is on consists primarily of single family residences. All properties adjacent to the subject property on Garland Street are single family residences. In the general vicinity however (beyond the subject properties' street) there is a mix of single and two family residences along with some commercial uses (See Exhibit 6; Land Use Map). 3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific properry involved result in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as disHnguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? There are no unique conditions related to physical surrounding, shape or topography that render any portion of the property in quesrion unbuildable. The property is rectangular in shape and flat. 4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the ProPe1.ty? The proper[y owner has created her own hardship by requesting a variance from the R-2 development standards. Even as R-2 allows for one and two family dwellings, the subject property does not meet the minimum lot size and lot width requirements to allow for a two family dwelling. 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? Approval of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area. There will ]ikely be more traffic generated by two units than one, however Garland Sheet is a Board of Adjustrnent Case WA-06-02/Gauger full width street and should be able to accommodate the resultant increase in traffic. Proper[y values should not be significantly impacted due to the wide diversity of land uses in the general vicinity. 6. If criteria 1 through 5 are found, then, would the granting of the variance result in a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood or the community, as distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant, or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities? The request would not result in a substantial benefit or contriburion to the neighborhood distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant, although approval of the variance would likely provide an incentive to develop a vacant lot. The request would not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. The applicant has stated however that it is their intenrion to conshvct accessible units in a neighborhood that has mostly inaccessible homes (See Exhibit 1, Letter of Request). III. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the above criteria are not supportive of the variance request. Staff has found that there are not unique circumstances attributed to these requests that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL for the following reasons: 1. If the request is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable retum in use. The property could be developed as a single-family residence without the need for any variances. 2. There are no significant features which render any portion of the lot unbuildable. 3. The applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by requesting a variance. Board of Adjustment 4 Case WA-06-02/Gauger Dear Planners and Board Members I own property in the city of Wheat Ridge and I need to ask for your help. The property is at 4535 Garland St. It is zoned R2 and is bordered and surrounded by a mix of single family homes, duplexes and multi-family homes'. 4535 Garland has approximately 10,454 square feet. I'm seeking a variance of approximately 16% for square foot and lot width requirements. Duplex homes require 12,500 and 1'm seeking a variance of 1,023 (about 8%) per unit. The exact variance will be iilustrated by the ILC from the land survey company. Twelve homes (6 duplexes), within 200 feet from the property have structures that exceed 40% lot coverage2 and do not have lot sizes of 12,500 sq. ft. Even after a permitted variance the proposed two-home, single structure duplex will: • Use less than the allotted 40% lot coverage, and . Meet the average of 1,300 square footage of neighborhood homes, with • Comparable three bedrooms, two bathrooms plans, and • Be available at the prevailing market value to fit community needs. Additionally we have photographed over 150 homes3 in this neighborhood in order to develop the duplex ranch homes to purposely blend while adding aesthetic value. As an important aside, my Realtor is disabled and understands disability needs. He has encouraged me to use this property to develop accessible ranch homes to add value for disabled and elderly peopte to this neighborhood that has mostly inaccessible homes. I've enclosed the application and supporting documents and illustrations. The required ILC improvement Location Certificate (survey) will be delivered within a few days of this application as soon as the land surveyor company completes the work. I look forward to a positive review of this request and the ability to provide the City of Wheat Ridge, and this neighborhood, two beautiful and accessible homes. Kind regards, Leigh Gauger ' Please see Safel/ite Phofo lllustration. Z Please also refer to Dense Duplexes Photos EXHIBIT 1 3 Please see also Examp/es of Homes Photos Attached Letter - Page t of 5 Satellite Photo Illustration Not to Scale. Estimated for reference Attached Letter - Page 2 oC 5 Dense Duplexes Photos Attached Letter - Page 3 of 5 Examples of Homes Photos Attached Letter - Page 4 of 5 Examples of Homes Photos confinued AHached Letter - Page 5 of 5 FEB-7-2006 10:37R FROM:RE PORT 3039200959 T0:3032352857 P.3 L A N D 8 U R V E Y 1 N G 5460 W/.AO ROAD • SUrtE 160 . AMAOA.COLOPADOBOD02 (303)420-4788 'IMPPOVEMENT IOCATION GENTIFICNTE AtGa: LSIGH N Scale: 1"-W DATE 02/07/2006 FEE130.00 JOBp O6-67 CuE'+i LYi6H GADG6R ADDRE56 aSTH L 6AALAND 811iL+6T 8VN INVE9TKENTB LEGFL OESCRIPf10N raC~vn &xC8P1' T16 NOATH 10 PYBT AIID T8E NOR4'8 10 BPET 08 LOT 52, 80[i VALLEY 9i1BOM9ZON, COONTY OH JESSER90N, LTE oe clo~ LOT 50 ~ O I 1 ~ ~I L I 137.5 5' Fesement (Plet) ~ 5'Fasemmt(Plat) ~ I ExistingFenoe(Approx.) 137.5 LOT51 i I ~I E~ ~ ~ N ~ I Ponion of LOT 51 . s ~ vacturt o o, I I Existing . . Frnce(ApproxJ . I S Besement (Plst) - PortionofLot52 1375 ~ ~S~gssement(plat) r---------------------- I Exte6.¢g Stonto & Pance (Approx.) 1375 j LOT 52 ~ On the bflsls of my~ = edpe, IniortneNon and beliei, I here ertlty that thle Improv meriTfo otl 7tea GAOC6R or Improvemant Survey Plet, entl thet N le not to rellad upon for the abilahment of fenee, improvement Ilnas. I turther certlty thet the im ovemenis an the eb e descrlDetl percel on connections, are enUraly wlMin ihe bounCaAes o the parcel. except a ahown, lhet inere are no e gDrems.exceD Intllceted,entlNatlhereis CescAbetlpremieeebylmprovemenfsonenyad)ol In ~ aign ot any eaeement craeaing or burtlening eny rt of seldiseparcel, e apt ea noted. "NOTIC& Acm&%+0 rojCobretlo IewYW murt mmne ary legel acYMi tase! upo- (I fiM Nswver ash eelecG In m exent, meY anY ealan beaed enY tlslBCY in ~ Ns n"ga w.~mn~~a ° _ ~y`•x_ pobar! C. Poet, 11-11IM3211 M e awK •s ~ ~7N A l l P N ~ a``~• EX1jLJjLIBIT_„n,,,o,,,u~ xitlNn MraeY..rs t mn ymn Ittm Ne ~ J a ° 0 ~ b o~ n `d t7 Plet iha e or 50 z,w EXHIBIT 3 4535 Garland Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Site Plan Examples, and Exterior and Interior Examples From Preferred Home Builders February 2006 Attached Letter - Page 1 of 3 Exterior Illustrations Attached Letter - Page 2 of 3 Interior Iltustrations Attached Letter - Page 3 of 3 GARLAND STREET 0 0 M e ~ ~ m iii:::ii:iiii:i::ii:i i=€::iii:i::iii:ii ::::ii:iiii:€iii€iii:iiiiiiis:iiiiiis: ; ~ _ : ::::::::::::€:::::€i€:::: €°:€:::::::t:€€€: ~ €€€::€€€€€€€€;€€s:€::€s:::€€€_;::€:€€;:€ :::€€€::€€€:€:€€€€€€::€::€€€:s:€:€€€s€;€ 0 1--, ~ PLAN -1 Single Structure Duplex Two Disability Accessible Ranch Homes -Three Bedroom - Two Bathroom - 1330 Square Feet (each) CopyrightOO 2006, Epic Service, LLC, The Real Estate Experience Company. All Rights Reserved. Approx. Scale: lft.=0.055in. for IIIUSValion Oniy. GARLAND STREET o' 0 ~ a i ~ I r' I l k I f., ~ t I ` t?>.? I ~ I I 0 o ~ T_TF a 0 1 PORCH PLAN - 2 Single Structure Duplex Two Disability Accessible Ranch Homes -Three Bedroom - Two Bathroom - 1330 Square Feet (each) each with an Attached Two Car Garage for 4535 Garland St Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 PIN:690322202016 February 2006 PoRCH a m E N S W 97ft.-6in. x 60ft.: 5850.00 sq. ft. I 137ft. 6in. x 75ft.: 10312.50 sq. ft. ---------~7-6 ~ Copyright0 2006, Epic Service, LLC, The Real Estate Experience Company. All Rights Reserved. Approx. Scale: 1ft =0.055in. for IIIusVation Only.) GARLAND STREET 0 0 M ~ ~ F OR FOVER PLAN - 3 Single Structure Duplex Two Disability Accessible Ranch Homes - Three Bedroom - Two Bathroom - 1330 Square Feet (each) each with an Attached Two Car Garage for . 4535 Garland St Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Copyright0 2006, Epic Service, LLC, The Real Estate 6cperience Company. All Rights Reserved. Approx. Scale: 1fl=0.055in. for Illustra6on Only. GARLAND STREET 0 0 M a PLAN - 4 0 e RCH - Acwa ~ r :~w PORCH OR Single Structure Duplex Two Disability Accessible Ranch Homes - Three Bedroom - Two Bathroom - 1330 Square Feet (each) each with an Attached Two Car Garage for 4535 Garland St Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 PIN:690322202016 February 2006 0 0 E N S W 97ft.-6in. x 60ft.: 5850.00 sq. ft. 137ft. 6in. x 75ft.: 10312.50 sq. ft. 7~7-6 I OR FOYER I l I ` I I ` ~ 7 7'~" ~ CopynghlOO 2006, Epic Service, LLC, The Real Estafe 6cperience Company. Ail Rights Reserved. Approx. Scale: 1R=0.055in. for Illustration Only. Feb 15 06 11:21a Chris Eller Fax:303-235-2857 Jeff Hirt City of Wheat Ridge Community Development Dear Jeff. We went door to door adjacent to 4535 Garland St. 303-265-9977 p.1 Phone:303-235-2848 The signature sheet is lists homes where a resident answered the door and was willing to sign regarding theu opinion about building a duplex on the vacant land at approximately 4525 Garland (adjacent to the south of 4535 Garland). We asked each person who answered the door if they were aware of the vacant land and ifthey wouid be opposed, in support of or have no opinion about building a duplex on the vacant land. We let them know that the lot had a sign posted if they needed more information. Leigh Gauger Chris Eller EXHIBIT 6 q B C D E F 142 143 ° 144 I m I Z Z O Date: N E Z N C 14 146 147 D"ri O a r 148 4j " 149 y 0 " lz~ ~ ~ ! ? 1 7 JI ° r t 150 ` 151 152 153 y ~ 154 t, 155 st ~ 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 Gi d o . ~o 165 166 ~ 167 ' 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 I 181 ~ 182 183 184 185 I 186 187 ~ 1RR _ CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting January 26,2006 CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Drda at 630 pm. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29`b Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Tom Abbott Bob Blair Paul Drda Paul Hovland Betty Jo Page Members Absent: Bob Howard Janet Bell Dan Bybee Staff Present Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Jeff Hirt, Planning Technician Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary The following is the official set of Board of Adjustment minutes for the public hearing of Januazy 26, 2006. A set of these mulutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Community Development Department of the City of Wheat Ridge. 3. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one to address the Board at this time. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA-05-20: An application filed by Advance Auto Parts for approval of (A) a variance from the masimum allowable height, maximum allowable size and setback requirements for freestanding signs and (B) a variance to the maxunuxn size allowed for wall signs for property located at 5400 W. 38`h Adenue and zoned Commercial-One (C-1). The case was presented by Jeff Hirt. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Boazd there was ji:risdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended denial of the freestanding sign variance and recommended approval of the wall signage variance for reasons outlined in the staff report. This is the first significant commercial development within the 38h Avenue streetscape improvement azea. The design elements of this project will likely set Board of Adjustment - 1 - 01-26-06 the tone for future redevelopment on this corridor. A 25-foot high pole sign with a 5-foot setback from 38~' Avenue is inconsistent with the objectives of the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual and the intent of the City's investment in this corridor. The allowance for two wall signs on the building provides sufficient visibility far motorists and pedestrians. Allowance of a 25-foot high pole sign in this location would also contribute to visual clutter on 38th Avenue and would not compliment the building's azchitecture and materials. The applicant could construct a freestanding monument style sign 7 feet in height with a 5-foot setback without the need for a variance. Ryan Kring 18034 Pierce Road Greenland, IN Mr. Kring was sworn in by.Chair DRDA. He stated that good exposure through signage is very important in order to direct customers to the business. The sign requested is compatible with other Advance Auto Parts stores througbout the country. He entered twc additional options for signage into the record. Copies were provided for Board members. He stated the applicant was complying with city requirements regarding landscaping and building materials. Without the city's Streetscape and Architectural Manual requirements, the building could have been set fartlier back and had room for a lazger sign without need for a vaziance. John Montoya 3755 Benton Street Mr. Montoya was sworn in by Chair DRDA. Mr. Montoya lives next door to the proposed building and spoke in favor of the application. He stated that the applicanY s contractor had built a 6-foot fence for him and also paid for water the Montoya's allowed him to use. He stated that the signs would not bother him. Charles Durbin 3703 Ames Street Mr. Durbin was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He stated that he was not opposed to the business but spoke in opposition to the variance. He stated that the city has spent over three million dollars to improve 38~' Avenue and the variance would not be compatible with other businesses in that area. The variance would also violate five sections of the sign code. He submitted two photos of Advanced Auto Parts store signs in Arvada. Ronald Peterson 4106 Yates Street Mr. Peterson was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He is the owner of the car wash adjacent to the proposed building. He stated that he was not opposed to the business but was opposed to the sign variance because the sign would practically block the view of his caz wash. There were no other individuals who wished to address this matter. Chair DRDA closed the public hearing. Board of Adjustment - 2 - 01-26-06 Chair DRDA commented that he did not believe that a hardship had been demonstrated in this case. Boazd Member HOVLAND agreed that a hardship had not been demonstrated for the freestanding sign variance. There were no other individuals who wished to address this case. Chair DRDA closed the public hearing. . Upon a mofion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member PAGE, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-05-20 (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 protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for may not be granted 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- 05-24 (A) be, and hereby is, denied. Type of Variance: A variance from the maximum allowable height, maximum allowable size and setback requirements for freestanding signs over 7 feet in height for property zoned C-1. For the following reasons: 1. The Board found the arguments of "problematic" and "awkward" as to a hardship unpersuasive as to practical benefit to visibility in this case. 2. The problem of visibility described as being addressed by the setback encroachment will not be unique to this building but common to any building built along the corridor in accordance with current design standards. The motion passed 5-0. Chair DRDA advised the applicant that this request for variance for a sign height, size and setback variance for a freestanding sign was denied. Board of Adjustment - 3 - O1-26-06 Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-05-20 (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 protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for may not be granted 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- 05-20 (B) be, and hereby is, denied. Type of Variance: A variance from the maximum size allowed for wall signs for property zoned Commercial One. For the following reasons: 1. The Board found the arguments of "problematic" and "awkward" as to a hardship unpersuasive as to practical benefit to visibility in this case. 2. The problem of visibility described as being addressed by the setback encroachment will not be unique to this building but common to any building built along the corridor in accordance with current design standards. The motion died for lack of a second. Upon a motion by Board Member PAGE 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-05-20 (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 Whereas, Yhe relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantiaily impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Boazd of Adjustment ' 4 - 01-26-06 Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA- 05-20 (B) be, and hereby is, approved. Type of Variance: A variance of 28.5 square feet from the maximum allowable area for wall signs on the north elevation of the building for property zoned Commercial One. For the following reasons: 1. it does not affect the essential character of the neighborhood. 2. It is a commercial corridor and motorists traveling will expect signage to allow them to locate and safely access the property. 3. Having signage different sizes on the north and east is problematic for the shorter side of the building. 4. Constructing a wall sign on the north elevation smaller than the sign on the east may look awkward given their proximity to one another. 5. Staff recommended approval of the variance. The mofion failed by a vote of 3-2 with Board Members DRDA and ABBOTT voting no. (A motion for approval required a super-majority of 4 affirmative votes.) Chair DRDA advised the applicant that his request for vaziance for wall signage square footage was denied. B. Case No. WA-05-21: An application filed by Paul Halliday for approval of a 2 foot rear yard setback vaziance from the 10 foot reaz yazd setback requirement resulting in an 8 foot rear yard setback and a variance to the maximum building coverage requirement for a detached garage on property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 3440 Estes Street. This case was presented by Jeff Hirt. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to heaz the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. He advised the Board that the request for a 2-foot rear yard setback variance had been withdrawn and only the variance to the maximum building coverage would be required at this time. Staff recommended denial for reasons outlined in the staff report. Paul Halliday 3440 Estes Street Mr. Halliday, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He stated that he plans to use the detached garage as an artist studio and woodworking shop. Presently, the art studio is Board of Adjushnent - 5 - 01-26-06 set up in the living room and the shop set up in half of the existing detached gazage. Therefore, they are not able to use the living room for its original purpose and aze not able to pazk one of two vehicles in the garage. Adding an attached garage would infringe on the circular drive around the house, detract from #he original bungalow architectural style of the house, be difficult to exactly match the existing brick and would lessen natural light on the interior of the existing residence. He entered into the record a petition signed by seven neighbors indicating their approval of the application. In response to comments from Board Member ABBOTT, Mr. Halliday stated that he has removed one of the sheds on the property and he plans to remove the others to filrther clean up the property. In response to a question from Board Member DRDA, Mr. Halliday stated that a smaller gazage would not meet his needs. In response to a question from Board Member BLAIR, Mr. Halliday stated that the studio and shop would have no commercial use and would be used for hobbies only. Robert Connor 3470 Estes Street Mr. Connor was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He lives next door to the applicant and spoke in favor of the application. He commented that the applicant has already improved the property and the proposed garage would be a further improvement. There were no other individuals who wished to address this case. Chair DRDA closed the public hearing. 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-05-21 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. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA- 05-21 be, and hereby is, approved. Board of Adjustment - 6 - 01-26-06 Type of Variance: A variance to the maximum building coverage requirement for a detached garage on property zoned Residential-Two. For the following reasons: 1. A hardship is created by the ordinance requirements to allowing recognition for very large Iots related to proportions and visual impact to the neighborhood and therefore the improved use to a very large lot. 2. A petition was submitted indicating seven neighbors in approval. There were no protests registered against it. 3. Building this structure in compliance would infringe on the circular drive surrounding the dwelling, would detract from the original bungalow architectural style of the house, and would lessen natural light on the interior of the existing residence. 4. Existing sheds are proposed to be removed. This effectively and significantly reduces the effect on the neighborhood by this variance. 5. The 1000 square feet allowed for a detached garage is a much smaller percentage of a.6 acre than the same 1000 feet on a standard building lot. Therefore, this oversized structure seems in proportion to the community standard. With the following cond'ation: The design and materials shall be as illustrated in the packet by the applicant. Boazd Member DRDA commented that this lot is normal size in compazison with other properties in the neighborhood. In response to a question from Board Member DRDA, Jeff Hirt explained that, if the gazage were attached, it could be larger than 1000 squaze feet. The motion passed by a vote of 4-1 with Board Member DRDA vofing no. Chair DRDA advised the applicant that his application for variance was approved. (Chair DRDA declazed a brief recess at 8:20 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:28 pm.) C. Case No. WA-05-22: An application filed by Doug Pollock for approval of a 5 foot side yard and 5 foot rear yard setback variance from the 10 foot side yard and 10 foot reaz yazd setback requirement for detached gazages over 8 feet in height for property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 4280 Pierson Street. This case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdicrion to hear the case. She reviewed Board of Adjustment - 7 - 01-26-06 the case file and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval for reasons outlined in the staff report. Doug Pollock 9898 West 20th Avenue, Lakewood . Mr. Pollock, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair DRDA. His reason for requesting the variance is that the standard 10-foot setback would make the garage difficult to use and an existing sunroom on the south side of the house would block a large portion of the garage door. If the vaziance is granted, the garage door would be offset as far south as possible making the garage more useable. Jill Reasoner 4240 Parfet Ms. Reasoner was sworn in by Chair DRDA. She stated that she was not opposed to the application. Board Member DRDA commented that the applicant knew the hardship existed when he bought the property and therefore the hazdship would be self-imposed. Board Member PAGE asked staffls opinion on how important it is for Wheat Ridge residents to have covered parking. Meredith Reckert commented that the city would like to improve property values in residential areas. The applicant is nnproving a very dilapidated property which should increase property values in the area. Board Member ABBOTT commented that when this house was built, it was not a hazdship not to have a garage. It is now a societal issue that people expect a garage with a single family residential property. Board Member DRDA stated that his concern was where the garage would sit. There were no other individuals who wished to address this case. Chair DRDA closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT 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-05-22 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas, the property has beec posted the fifteen days required by law, and in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; and Board of Adjustment - ~ - 01-26-06 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- 05-22 be, and hereby is, approved. Type of Variance: A 5 foot side yard and 5 foot rear yard setback variance from the 10 foot side yard and 10 foot rear yard setback requirement for detached garages over 8 feet in height for property zoned Residential-Two. For the following reasons: 1. The hardships are that there are no covered parking sites on the property; and there are limited alternatives for placement of a garage due to locafion of the sunroom addition and a larger than normal front setback. 2. If approved, the request should not have a negative effect on the essential character of the neighborhood or on property values in the neighborhood. 3. There will be no negative impact to the public welfare or other properties in the area. 4. The request would not substantially increase congestion in public streets, increase the danger of fire or endanger the nublic safety. 5. A garage lined up with the sunroom would seriously impact the viability of the sunroom. 6. The variance would provide for practical alignment of the driveway geometry necessary to access the garage which is not provided by location meeting code standards. 7. The garage will improve the value of the property to the benefit of the neighborhood. With the following condition: The design and architecture of the proposed garage shall be similar in character to the existing house. Board Member HOVLAND commented that this area was developed some time ago with 5-foot setbacks. Now that city regulations have changed, the properties are no longer in conformance. The motion passed 4-1 with Board Member DRDA voting no. Chair DRDA advised the applicant that his application for variance was approved. D. Case No. WA-05-23: An application filed by Scott Rensch for approval of a vaziance to the maximum fence height standard pursuant to Section 26-603 of the Boazd of Adjustment - 9 - 01-26-06 Code of Laws for property located in the public right-of-way adjacent to property at 3805 Garrison Street and zoned Residential One (R-1). This case was presented by Jeff Hirt. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Boazd there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the case file and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval of this case for reasons outlined in the staff report. David Ebersole 3805 Garrison Street Mr. Ebersole, the property owner, was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He was requesting a variance because his side yazd faces 38`i' Avenue and provides easy view into his property. The street and sidewalk are elevated about 5 feet above the level of the entrance to the house and he is located on a busy section of the street, close to a high school and between two RTD stops. A normal 6 foot fence would not provide any additional privacy due to the raised grade of the property. Only 3 feet of a 6 foot fence would extend past the height of the street and sidewalk. An 8 foot fence would in essence have 5 feet visible from the street and provide more adequate privacy and elimination of road noise. There were no other individuals who wished to address this case. Chair DRDA closed the public heazing. Upon a motion by Board Member HOVLAND and second by Board Member PAGE, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-05-23 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. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA- 05-23 be, and hereby is, approved. Type of Variance: A variance from to the maximum fence height standard pursuant to Section 26-603 of the Code of Laws for property located in the public right-of-way adjacent to property at 3805 Garrison Street and zoned Residential One. Board ofAdjustment - 10- 01-26-06 For the following reasons: 1. There is an approximately 3 foot retaining wall on the south property line and a significant grade change on the property which creates a hardship for the property owners to have a true 6 foot privacy fence on the south property line. The retaining wall was built by the city. 2. The request will have a minimal effect on the essential character of the locality. An 8 foot fence at the proposed location will be less impactive given the grade change between the 38th Avenue right-of-way and the subject property. The 8 foot fence at the location proposed would have the same visual impact as a 5-6 foot fence. With the following conditions: 1. The fence height variance is approved for the fence as shown on the site plan submitted by the applicant. The applieant must submit information with the building permit which illustrates that the fence will be out of the sight distance triangle. 2. The variance is not applicable to the sight distance triangle on the subject property. The fence must adhere to all sight distance triangle requirements in the Code of Laws. 3. The property owners must obtain a right-of-way permit from the Public Works Department prior to constructing the fence in the right-of-way. Boazd Member DRDA offered the following friendly amendment: The applicant shall maintain the proposed fence and landscaping up to the new fence. The amendment was accepted by Board Members HOVLAND and PAGE. The motion passed 5-0. Chair DRDA advised the applicant his request for vaziance was approved. E. Case No. WA-05-25: An application filed by Jerry Kannapinn for approval of a variance from the masimum number of freestanding signs allowed on property located at 10160 West 50t' Avenue and zoned Commercial-One (G1). This case was presented by Jeff Hirt. He entered all pertinent docuxnents into the record and advised the Boazd there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the case file and digital presentation. Jerry Kannapinn 8670 Jellison Court, Arvada Mr. Kannapinn, the applicant, was swom in by Chair DRDA. He requested a variance due to the fact that Blue Grass Terrace fronts on three streets (50'' Avenue, Stxeet A and Boazd of Adjustment - 11 - O1-26-06 Street B). Streets A& B are private streets and aze not taken into account when determining the number of freestanding signs on a property. He would like to identify the retail development from the intersection of 50`h Avenue and Kipling and also have identification before the main entrance at Street B. His signage would compliment the sign program of the Arvada Ridge development and aesthetically blend into the project in both setting and architectural compatibility. This would increase the leasing space appeal for the building. Mr. Kannapinn presented an architectural rendering of the sign to the Board. Board Member ABBOTT complimented Mr. Kannapinn on the form and function of his design. There were no other individuals who wished to address this case. Chair DRDA closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member BLAIR, the following resolurion was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative oFficer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-05-25 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. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA- 05-25 be, and hereby is, approved. Type of Variance: A variance from the maximum number of freestanding signs allowed on property located at 10160 West SOth Avenue and zoned Commercial- One. For the following reasons: 1. The request will have no effect on the essential character of the locality. The property functions as a corner lot with multiple frontages. In most cases, corner lots are allowed two freestanding signs. 2. There are unique conditions in that the property has street frontages on all sides, with only one being public right-of-way and the others being private Board of Adjustment - 12 - 01-26-06 streets. Current regulations only allow public rights-of-way to be considered street frontages for the purposes of freestanding signage. 3. Staff considers the request reasonable for visibility purposes. 4. Staff has stated that as to the intent of the current code and design criteria, this private street does, in practice, function as a public street. With the following condition: 1. The signage shall be constructed as illustrated to the Board. The motion passed 5-0. Chair DRDA advised the applicant his request for variance was granted. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair DRDA closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. 6. OLD BUSINESS Chair DRDA inquired about the status of appointing alternates to the Board of Adjustment. Meredith Reckert stated that staff is working on this. A change in start time from for the Board of Adjustment meetings was discussed. This will be addressed at the next meeting. Board Member ABBOTT suggested that, in the future, applicants be encouraged to present photo simulations of how their signs will look from the street, etc. 7. NEW BUSINESS Meredith Reckert encouraged Board members to attend a public planning session for the Wadsworth Corridor Plan to be held on Januazy 27 and January 28. • Approval of minutes - September 22, 2005 It was moved by Board Member ABBOTT and seconded by Board Member HOVLAND to approve the minutes of September 22, 2005 as presented. The motion passed 4-0 with Board Member DRDA abstaining. . Election of Officers Bob Blair was elected as Vice Chair. Election of Chair will take place at the next meeting. Board of Adjustment - 13 - 01-26-06 8. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Board Member BLAIR and seconded by Board Member ABBOTT to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Paul Drda, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary Boazd of Adjustment O1-26-06 -14- City of Wheat Ridge Community Development Deparhnent Memorandum TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Kathy Field, Admin. Asst. SUBJECT: Bylaws Work Session DATE: Februazy 17, 2006 Attached is a copy of the Board of Adjustment bylaws for you to review prior to a work session at the February 23`a Boazd of Adjustment meeting. C~riainv~6vA~tnnemos\bvlaws~nelided.wvd CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY-LAWS ARTICLE I: MEETINGS Regulaz heazings before the Boazd of Adjustment shall be held on the fourth Thursday of each month beginning at 730 P.M, provided however, if Thursday falls on a City holiday, the Boazd will convene on the next Thursday which does not conflict with Planning Commission, or on a date otherwise set by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Board. 2. Special meetings and/or heazings shall be held at the call of the Chairman and at such other times that the Boazd shall determine. 3. All heazings shall be open to the public. Heazing notice shall be by newspaper publication, site posting and letter notice as provided in Section 26-109 of the City of Wheat Ridge Code of Laws. 4. A quorum of the Board of Adjustment shall consist of five (5) members. 5. All members shall attend all Board meetings in person unless excused for cause by the Chairman of the Board of Adjustment. 1 i m • r s. • r_,..,L ~.v J d. ~ he Board shall keep rtiiriLL2es v~ ~Ls Prc,cee2~iIIgS, St10WIIIS YZ'iE Jvi2 vi ca~u uiEiutvEl Ou every case or if absent or failing to vote, indicating such fact, and it shall also keep records of such proceedings znd other official actions, and s>>ch records shzli be filed in the office of the Boazd. The Board shall heaz a request for relief from the requirements of the Zoning and Development Code by any person aggrieved by such requirements as provided in Chapter 26 of the City of Wheat Ridge Code of Laws. ARTICLE II: CASES BEFORE THE BOARD Every request for relief shall be made to the Boazd in the name of the owner or owners of the affected property or his or her or their designee and shall include the data required in the applicable form so as to supply all the information (including such plans or plats as may be necessary) required for a cieaz understanding of the case by the Boazd. 2. No comxnunication purporting to be a request for relief, shall be regazded as such until it is made in the form required (including all required documentation). 3. -1- (a) Where property affected in any hearing before this Board is held in singie ownership, the owner shall be required to be present or be represented by an attorney or his or her contracted agent or a person who has a Power-of-Attorney to represent the owner. (b) Where property is held in a co-ownership, and all owners cannot appear, at least one of the owners or his or her assigned agent must appear and present written consent to acY for all owners, which consent shall be properly signed and acknowledged. (c) Where property affected is held in ownership by a corporation, company, association or par[nership, an agent must appear at the hearing and present a letter of authorization signed and acknowledged by a PRINCIPAL OFFICER of said corporation, company, association or partnership, empowering him or her to act in the particulaz heazing. 4. The applicant shall prove his or her case by presenring evidence in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 26. 5. The Boazd shall not hold hearings on requests which have been denied within the previous twelve (12) calendar months, unless new evidence pertaining to the request is submitted in writing which could not have been, with due diligence, presented at the original heazing. ~ ARTICLE IIIa THE CALENDAR Each case filed in the proper form, with the required data, shall be numbered serially and shall be placed on the secretary's calendaz. The case numbers shall begin anew on January 1 st of each year and shall be numbered to reflect the yeaz and type of case. 2. As soon as the case is put on the calendar, the applicant shall be notified to appeaz on the date when the case will be heazd. ARTICLE IV: PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES i. At the time of public hearing, the Planning Department shall present the case stating recommendations, the applicant shall state his or her case, then any person in fauor or opposed to the request shall be heazd and the applicant shall be given the opportunity to reply. Each side shall be given an opportunity to summarize its case. At the conclusion of a11 the evidence, the Board shall declare the public hearing ciosed. 2. The Board of Adjushnent will base its decision on the following Findings of Facts: (a) Can the property in question yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if -2- pernutted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located? (b) If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? (c) 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 regula6ons were carried out? (d) Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? (e) Would the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public welfaze 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? ( fl If criteria a through e are found to exist, then, would the granting of the variance resuk in a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood or the community, as distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant, or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with ~ disabilities? ARTICLE V: DISPOSITION OF CASES Every decision of the Board on any case shall be by resolution indicating the reasons of the Boazd therefor. Resolutions shall specify type of action requested, amount of relief granted for what pwpose and any stipulations or conditions. 2. The Board shall take action on every request for relief to either approve, deny, approve with modifications or continue the hearing. A concurring vote based on the adjusted majority table set forth below shall be necessazy to grant any variance, waiver, temporary building or use pernut, any interpretation or flood plain special exception permit or any matter requiring decision by the planning commission or the city council. All other actions sha11 be taken by majority vote of the members present. If a resolution or motion fails to receive the required number of votes in favor of the applicant, the action shall be deemed a denial, and a resolution denying the request shall be entered in the record. Adjusted Majority Vote Tabulation Table Members Present Votes Needed to Approve -3- 3. The case may be contuiued, tabled or postponed by a vote of simple majority for an indefinite period of time or for a given period of time. If the case is continued or tabled for an indefuute period of time, the case shall be reset and renotified. If the case is continued or tabled for a definite time, no additional notice sha11 be given. 4: Applicants may request a rehearing in front of the Boazd. No request for a rehearing can be entertained unless such request is filed in the office of the Boazd within thirty (30) days from the date of the original decision on the case, and unless new evidence is submitted in writing which could not have been, with due diligence, presented at the previous hearing. If, at the next regulazly scheduled meeting of the Board following the original decision, upon affirmative vote as specified under Article IV, Section 2, the request for a rehearing is granted, the case shall be put on the next available calendaz for a rehearing, and parties appearing in the original case shall be notified of the date of reheazing. 5. Only one postponement of a hearing at the request of the applicant is allowed unless ~ approved by the required number of affirmative votes as specified under Article IV, ~ Section 2 of the Board. Unless impossible, applicant may be at the scheduled hearing and ask for a postponement in person or notify the Planning Deparhnent of the request for --J postponement in advance oi riie neazing. ii uie neazing is postponed, 'tne case wiii be placed last on the agenda for the next meeting. No renotification of the heazing shall be required; however, the aYplica.r.t will be requi:ed to re-gest the property. 6. If an applicant or representative fails to appeaz for the scheduled heazing, the case shall be placed on the next available meeting of the Board. The item shall be placed last on the agenda. Renotification of the hearing shall be required. ARTICLE VI: ADOPTION AND SUSPENSION OF RULES Amendments to these Rules of Procedure may be proposed and approved by the Boazd of Adjustment at any regulaz mee6ng upon the aFfirmative vote of a simple majority of members present. Copies of such amendments shall be filed with the City Attorney and thereafter, forwazded to the City Council for approval. ARTICLE VII: OFFICERS 1. At the November meeting of each yeaz, the Boazd shall elect a Chairman to preside at meetings during the ensuing year, and a Vice Chauman to preside at meetings during the absence or disability of the Chairman. Neither the Chairman or Vice Chairman shall be -4- eligible to succeed him or herself. In the absence of both the Chairman and Vice Chairman, the senior member of the Board shall preside. 2. The Chairman, subject to these rules, shall decide all points of order and procedure, unless otherwise directed by a resolution passed by a simple majority of the Board members present. The secretary, who sha11 not be a member of the Board, shall be provided by the City to record minutes of ineetings, assemble docuxnents, duplicate reports, and perform such other clerical duties as the Board shall from time to time assign. Such clerical employee shall serve under the immediate supervision of the head of the department assigned to work with the Boazd. Chairperson Rev. 4/8/02 Date -5-