Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/22/2006CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA June 22, 2006 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on June 22, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colarado. l. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the tune for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. WA-06-08: An application filed by Walter Mackie for approval of a 5 foot side yard setback variance from the 10 foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 5 foot side yard setback and a 5 foot rear yard setback variance from the 10 foot rear yard setback requirement resulting in a 5 foot rear yard setback for property zoned Residential One B(R-1B) and located at 3892 Nelson Street. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Discussion about Alternates & Training 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - May 25, 2006 8. ADJOURNMENT . ti~ WHEAT,PO ci m C~COHP~O TO: CITY OF WAEAT RIDGE PLAATNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Jeff Hn-t CASE NO. & NAME: WA-06-08/Maclde DATE OF MEETING: 7une 22, 2006 ACTION REQiTESTED: Approval of a 5 foot side yard setback variance from the 10 foot side yard setback requirement resulring in a 5 foot side yard setback and a 5 foot rear yard setback variance from the 10 foot reaz yud setback requirement resulting in a 5 foot rear yard setback. LOCATION OF REQiJEST: 3892 Nelson Street APPLICANT (S): OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZONiNG: Walter Mackie Walter Mackie 7,585 square feet (.14 aeres) Residential-One B (R-1B) ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FII.E & PACKET MATERIAi,S (X) DIGTTAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE ( ) SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Locarion Map Subject Prope BoazdofAdjustment 1 Case WA-06-08/Niackie Jurisdiction All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. 1. REQUEST The properry in quesfion is located at 3892 Nelson Street, and is approximately .14 acres in size _ . The properiy has Residential-One B(R-1B) zoning and currently has a single family residential structure on it. The applicant, Walter Mackie, is requesting this variance as the property owner " The request is for approval of 5 foot side and rear yazd setback vaziances from the 10 foot side and rear yard setback requirements resulting in 5 foot side and rear yard setbacks for the purposes of construcring a detached garage. The development standards for detached garages in the R-1B zone district can be summarized as follows: o Front Yard Setback: 30 feet o Side Yard Setback: 5 feet if the structure is less than 8 feet in height; 10 feet if the structure is greater than 8 feet in height. o Rear Yard Setback: 5 feet if the structure is less than 8 feet in height; 10 feet if the structure is greater than 8 feet in height. The applicant is proposing a detached garage setback 5 feet from both the side (south) and the rear (east) roperiy lines. The detached garage is approximately 22 feet wide by 20 feet deep (440 square feet) lffEM s~, s~, II. CASE ANALYSIS The property is 7,585 square feet in size, or .14 acres. The properiy measures 63.85 feet wide with a depth of 118.8 feet. The property cunently has a single family residential structure on it of approximately 1008 square feet in size. The applicant has expressed that conforxning to the required 10 foot side and reaz yard setbacks would be problemaric because of tuming radii given the location of the house and the size of the lot. The applicant has also expressed that allowance for the garage with 5 foot setbacks would be consistent with the exisfing built environment in the neighborhood, as this particular regulation for 10 foot setbacks compared to 5 foot setbacks was enacted recently. It is correct that in 2003, the setback requirement which is applicable to this variance was changed. Prior to the current regularion, adopted by City Council in 2003, the setback requirement was 5 feet in the R-113 zone district for detached garages, regardless of height. Therefore the proposed garage would have been allowed under the previous setback requirements. The applicant is also proposing a standard sized two car detached garage. A Typical dimension for a two car gazage is 22' X 22'. The proposed garage will be 22' X 20'. There appears to be mulfiple detached garages in the viciniry that are less than 10 feet from either side or rear property lines Two permits found indicate structures built with less than 10 foot side and/or rear yard setbacks. A persnit was issued in 1994 for a 1200 square foot detached garage on the property located at 4000 Nelson Slreet, with a conforming 5 foot iear yard setback. A permit was also issued for a 600 square foot detached garage with a 5'6" reaz yard setback for the property located at 3862 Nelson i \ Boazd of Adjustment Case WA-06-08/Mackie Street. There have been several variance cases in the vicinity of this request, however none were found that were specifically compazable to this case. The applicant has also submitted a petition from sunounding property owners in support of the request i UJIM. Analysis and calcularions have been done regazding all other development standards with this request, such as lot coverage requirements and size requirements for detached garages. All other development standards have been met with this request. II. VARIANCE CffiTERIA Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to eualuate a variance request: 1. Can the property in question yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in wluch it is located? If the request is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable return in use. The property may still be used as a single-family residence without the need for any vaziances. 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? The request would have a minimal on the essential character of the locality. The majority of the physical improvements done in the vicinity were under prior regulations, specifically a 5 foot rear and side yard setback requirement prior to 2003. There are multiple detached garages in the vicinity that appear to be closer than the current 10 foot side and rear yard setbacks, however none immediately adjacent to the subject property. 3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved result in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? There are no unique conditions related to shape or topography that render any portion of the property in question unbuildable. 4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? The applicant has created his own hazdship by requesting a garage in this locafion. There may be other alternatives for placement of the garage to be more in compliance with setback requirements. 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 deh-imental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area. There may be a slight decrease in the supply of light and air to the properties to the east and south, given that approval of the variance would result in a shucture closer to the property lines than is allowed under current development standards. The request would not substantially increase the congestion in public streets, increase the danger of fue or endanger the public safety. Property values should not be impacted as a result of this request. Boazd of Adjustment Case WA-06-08/Mackie 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 conhibution to the neighborhood disringuished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant. The request would not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. III. 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 aze unique circumstances atLributed to these requests that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1) Compliance with 10 foot side and rear yard setbacks would result in difficult turning movements into the gazage for vehicles if the garage were placed in the location shown on the site plan. 2) Alternarive placement would eliminate a significant portion of usable backyard space for the property owner. 3) The request is consistent with the existing conditions in the surrounding area, as the majority of the detached garages in the vicinity were constructed under prior regulafions, specifically a 5 foot side and rear yard setback requirement. 4) Multiple property owners in the yicinity have signed a petition in support of the request. Board of Adjustment Case WA-06-08/MacMe NOTICE: According to Colorado law you must commence any legal action 6ased . upon any defect In ihis Improvement Lowtion Certihcale wilhin 3 years after you frsl . , discover such tlefecL In no event, may any aclion based upon any defect in Ihis A~- Improvement Location Certificate be commenced more lhan tea years from the date Mefiropolitan S urveyors, LLC. . qf the certificalion shown hereon. ~ NOTE TO USER: - 3534 SoUth LinCOln Street This document Is for title insurance purposes oniy and is the product of a site Englewood, Colorado 80110 iection. Deed line evidence not suppoded by found property comer marker§ was (303)-761-5607 ~ ,ed on anaytical wrrela(ion ofpublic improvements antl lines of occupation. M FAX (303)-761-5166 ' 2cWal Properry survey is recommended if exacUocaAons ot improvements and deed - JOB N~: NEL - 389L lines are requlred. BORROWER: MACKIE IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE *An actual Property Survey may yield different value(s). "NqTE: The subject property is not within a"Special Flood Hazard Area" however it is within a Rlood Hazard Area descriUed as "Areas between the limits of the 100-year flood and 500-year flood; or certain areas subject to 100-year flooding with average depths less than o.ne (1) foot or where the contriUuting drainage area is less than one square nlile; or areas protected by levees from the base flood." ~ ~ - w ~ w ' -H 8' 11$ . ~ ~ T w CoNCRVE 39't n s LOT 4 . I #3892 ~ M ~ n ONE h o T ~ .5 W ~ FRAME ~ ' s.o' RES. : m -i Q . - V O • ~ _ W YPS' A K CONCRETE ' . . W ' ' ' -0 :oarve ~5' D ^'i . ::.i - + . E. ~ 118.8 Address: . 3892 Nelson Street, Wlleat Ridge, Colorado Description: Lot 4, Block l, (per I,ender) WHEATRIDGE MANOR THIRD FILING, County of JEFFERSON, State of COLORADO. ■nCERTIFICATIONo■ T'iereby certify that this Improvement Location Certificate was prepared for: COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. L..at it is not a Land Survey Plat or Improvement Survey Plat and that it is not to Ue relied upon for the estaUlishment of fence, Uuilding or other future improvement lines. I further certify that the improveuients on the above descriUed parcel on this date 1/8/2001 except utility connections, are entirely within the boundaries of the parcel, except as shown, that there are no encroaclmients on the described premises by improvements on any adjoining premises, except as indicated, and there is no apparent evidence or sign of any easement crossing or burdening any part of said parcel, except as noted. This certificate does not constitute a title search to determine ownership or easements of record not shown on the recorded plat. All easements shown are per the recorded plat unless otherwise stated. The property described hereon is (XX) is not within a Special Flood Hazard Uoundary in accordance with the current H.U.D. I'lood Insurance Rate Map dated 2/4/1988 befc',~ Community Panel number 085079 0005 C. The accuracy of the flood map is not part of this~~~p~gp,~ RES Residence APT Apartment U E Utility Easement G E Gas Easement D E Dreinage Easement GAR Garage STY Story WL Level STO Storage 5T8 Slabie DW Driveway SAT Satellite Dish FRM BLK Freme Block CH BW Chimney Ba or Box Window j V': p. ~~^~mU~;•<4 ~ 1 G y ~ ~ ~ J , BRK Brick OH Overhang y o= MTL CON Metal Concrele AC FNC Air Conditioner Fence = ,O e = 4 • y E ASP Asphalt ENG Encroachment ~ o W~ FLG Flagslone t Plus or Minus ` Q ~ GVL Gravel W Well (Water s J AT Patio ND ross or Mark oe 4 ~~iij0 °°p~Qa S CS Stoop Crawl S ace Access o • Pluy Tag Pin Rebar or Pi e a ! R/q p , p 1111„11Januarv 12. 2001 ` George G. Haller, P.L.S. No. 25946 or EXHIBIT 1 Robin D. Rasinussen, P.L.S. No. 26604 June 1, 2006 I would like to request a variance in lot setback from 10 ft. to 5 ft. to build a 2 car garage, 22 ft. wide by 20 ft. deep. When I bought the house in 2001 the setback was 5 ft. Under the current setback of 10 ft., It would be extremely Difficult to turn into the proposed garage from the existing Driveway, as there is a support post holding up the corner of the patio. Thank you for your consideration. EXHIBIT 2 pfo Pasa/ iw r~ ~ 'se- ~ hAe NELSON STREET 63.3' - . . : . ' . : , . + . , . . . , ~ ~ • ~ •-o ' . : z-'.• . •1 . ~ m ~ W • r~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ H- ~ : ~ ~ . . ' . . . : • _ ~ r . . ~ ~ - . 1 ~L. , . . : ~ ~ENCE' • ~ ~ 'PORCH : • . . (TYYPlG4L)`~ . ~ ~r j ~ 10.5 'V 31J ' S~t ~ O ~O .r.~. . . N ' ' m Z m N # ~ F~► ~ ' . . : • v; m ~ ~ .z . ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ , 42 3' ; ~ ~ . . ~ ~ . • ~ ~ : . . ~ : ~ co ~ . ; , . . PAT10 . ~ ' . . , . . ; ~ . . ~ - - - 4bfvxnv ~asw~ad Z`' 0 ~ BXo! 4 63.35" EXHIBIT 3 NELSON STREET , . . . . : . ~ : ~ . . . . . . . . ~ . "r • . , ~ • ..f . • : : • • ' . W . . --i . • ' ~ H- _ . . :Y ~ , . . : ~ . ~ . . : : .i . . . - . - . . . ~ L . . : - ENCE": . . ~ ' 'PORCH:• , : (T'fYPICAI) • • . _ • . . _ 59f 10.5 . • . ' ~ ~ -~-i ~ O ~ N ' ~ . ~ . N ~D r , . ~ . U : rn ~ CO .OZ ~..i . . ~ m' t7. ~ 42.3' ; ~ ~ . . . ' - - ~ : . . . " . ~ ~ o ~ ~k~: . 'PAT1O , ' ; ~ . ~ • . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ _ _ _ I ~'uPPa~'~ F~'st Im ~p91 O ~ '"3 . ~ 63.35 The Home Depot # 1502 5215 WADSWORTH BLVD, ARVADA, CO 80002 (303) 456-4000 ~:ri Jun 02 09:16:49 2006 JALTER MACKIE GARAGE 271147 The materials in this garage will cost $1592.74 This Price does not include any Special Order Items. Drawing: 3-Dimensional View v A 0 100 200 Feet -omm%-~- -1 I am Walter Mackie, I am in the process of building a garage at 3892 Nelson St. Wheatridge, co 80033. I have applied for a variance to build five feet from the side and back of my property line, instead of the required ten feet. I would like your view on this matter. Thank you. ~ Sri~e ,&hln4 .4- q7 EXHIBIT 5 r,o1 2~12 242 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADNSTMENT Minutes of Meeting May 25, 2006 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair BELL at 7:00 pm. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Tom Abbott Janet Bell Bob Blair Paul Hovland Bob Howard Larry Linker Davis Reinhart Members Absent: Paul Drda Staff Present: Travis Crane, Planner JeffHirt, Planning Tech Tim Paranto, Public Works Director Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary The following is the official set of Board of Adjustment minutes for the public hearing of May 25, 2006. A set of these minutes 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 were no individuals present who wished to address the Board at this time. 4. PUBLIC HEARING Board Member REINHART moved and Board Member BLAIR seconded to revise the order of the agenda to hear Case No. TUP-06-01 as the first item. The motion passed unanimously. A. Case No. TUP-06-01: An application filed by Medved Autoplex for approval of a one-year Temporary Structure Permit to allow an office trailer on property zoned Commercial One and located at 11001 West I-70 Frontage Road North The case was presented by Travis Crane. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Boazd there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He Board of Adjushnent - 1 - OS-25-06 reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval for reasons, and with conditions, as outlined in the staff report. Those individuals wishing to address this case were swom in by Chair BELL. 5cott Albertson 1667 Cole Blvd, 9100, Golden Mr. Albertson, attorney for the applicant, was swom in by Chair BELL. In response to questions from the Board, he confirmed that there would be no loss of net parking spaces as a result of the temparary use permit. Hummer Corporation is requiring Medved to construct a new building for the Huwiner dealership. The new building would be constructed in the location of the present temporazy building. It was not necessary to obtain a temporary use pemut for the existing temporary building because the area was zoned for such a building. He stated that the temporary building would not exacerbate parking issues along Parfet Street. He commented that parking along Parfet has decreased due to additional on-site parking as well as a decrease in the amount of inventory and number of employees. He stated that the applicant is in agreement with conditions suggested in the staff report. In response to a question from Board Member REINIIART, Mr. Albertson stated that a one-year temporuy perxnit would be sufficient time for construction of the new building. In response to question from Boazd Member ABBOTT, Travis Crane stated that he did not believe the temporary use would exacerbate pazking on Parfet Street. Enforcement of parking issues on Pazfet Street would be handled on a complaint basis. 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. TUP-06-01 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas the property has been posted the ten days required by law, and in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Board of Adjustment - Z - OS-25-06 Now; therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Case No. TUP-06-01 . be, and hereby is approved. For the following reasons: 1. There should be no impact on the amount of light and air in the neighborhood. 2. There should be no resultant air, water or noise pollution in excess of what is already occurring. 3. There will be no impact on utilities, parks or schools. 4. There will be no anticipated increase in automobile traffic in the area. With the following conditions: 1. Written permission shall be obtained from Xcel Energy to allow encroachment into their easement prior to issuance of a building permit for the structure. 2. The temporary building shall be allowed for one year starting from the date of occupancy of the structure in the new location. 3. Current landscaping displaced by these improvements shall be accommodated elsewhere on the site in a location that is visible by the general public and as approved by staff. 4. No additional parking shall be allowed on Parfet Street and, as per testimony from staff, this shall be enforced on a complaint basis. The motion passed 7-0. B. Case No. WF-06-02 (continued from Apri127, 2006): An application filed by Patrick and Laura Koentges for approval of a Class II Floodplain Exception Permit to allow construction of a single family home on property zoned Residential One and located at approximately 3430 Simms Street. Board Member ABBOTT disclosed that he is an acquaintance of the applicant and that he has no financial interest in this case. The case was presented by Jeff Hirt. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He also entered a memorandum from the city's floodplain administrator dated May 24, 2006 into tiie record. Staff originally recommended denial of the applicarion for reasons ouUined in the staff report. However, staff agrees with the floodplain administrator's recommendation contaihed in the May 24th memo (received after the staff report was prepazed) that the application should be approved with one condition. Board of Adjushnent - 3 - OS-25-06 Tun Paranto, Director of Public Works and Floodplain Administrator, stated that he recommended approval of the application with the condition that the applicant provide evidence of the righf to enter the adjacent property to perform the required grading. Board members reviewed the memo at this time. Those individuals wishing to address this cas.e were sworn in by Chair BELL. Patrick Koentges 3391 Oak Street Mr. Koentges, the applicant, assured the Board that he would not build a structure in an area that could incur future flood problems. In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Tim Paranto stated that the revised grading plan would remove any fill from the floodway so the volume would remain constant without raising the floodplain elevation. The grading plan requires 25-30 feet of grading north of the subject property toward Lena Gulch to ensure the adequate flow of water. Mr. Pazanto stated that he would withhold approval of the application until such time as the applicant shows he has permission to access that property. The proposed shucture will not haue a basement and all livable space will be well above the 100-yeaz floodplain. The applicant also plans to build a retaining wall in order to provide fixrther protection. Board Member BELL asked about runoff problems during construction. Mr. Pazanto explained that, if this application is approved, the applicant will submit a grading plan and erosion control plan to be approved by the city before a building permit will be issued. There were no other individuals who wished to speak at this time. Therefore, Chair BELL closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. 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. WF-06-02 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas the properTy has been posted the ten days required by law, and in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Board of Adjustment - 4 - OS-25-06 Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Case No. WF-06-02 be, and hereby is approved. For the following reasons: l. The variance has been approved by the director of public works who is the city's floodplain administrator, and the project has been recommended for approval by staff. With the following conditions: 1. All the floors of the structure, including mechanical systems, must be placed at a minimum of one foot or more above the 100-year flood level as per city ordinance. 2. No impairment of the floodway shall occur. Structures and site grade shall be built at a level as submitted by the applicant to the city, including the retaining wall. 3. Off-site grading of the site to the north must be approved by the city prior to issuance of a building permit. The motion passed 7-0. (Chair Bell declared a brief recess at 8:00 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:06 p.m.) C. Case No. WA-06-06: An application filed by Holly Hall and Stephanie McNamaza for approval of (A) a 3.5 foot side yazd setback variance from the 15-foot side yard setback requirement resulting in an 11.5 foot side yard setback; (B) a 10-foot rear yard setback variance from the 15-foot rear yard setback requirement resulting in a 5-foot rear yard setback; and (C) a 136 square foot variance to masimum lot coverage for property zoned Residential One (R-1) and located at 3880 Everett Street. Board Member HOVLAND disclosed that he is associated with the applicant through membership in the same homeowners association and that he has no financial interest in the case. The case was presented by Trauis Crane. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. He advised that two additional letters of objection had been received by staff. These were entered into the record and reviewed by the Board. Staff recommended approval of all three variance requests for reasons outlined in the staff report. Boazd of Adjustment - 5 - OS-25-06 In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Trauis Crane stated that he did not feel the hazdship was self-imposed given limited lot coverage requirements in this zone district, larger setbacks and grade changes. Boazd Member HOWARD asked if there was any comment regarding the shed during the building permit process for the applicant. Trauis Crane responded that it was not considered because the plans showed the shed would be demolished. Since then the applicant decided to keep the shed. Those individuals wishing to address this case were sworn in by Chair BELL. Holly Hall 3880 Everett Drive Ms. Hall, the applicant, stated that She didn't intend to violate zoning ordinances. She made an assumption, based on adj acent properties, to keep the shed five feet from the lot line. Due to setback limits, she had to change the design of her garage to a smaller one which eliminated storage space. Therefore, she decided to keep the storage shed. She entered into the record five documents depicting the site plan and photos of her back yard and the shed. Improvements were made to the grading of her back yazd which preclude placement of the shed in the graded area. Paint and roofmg on the shed were improved to match the house. She stated there are mature trees on the north and east sides of the shed. There will be a 6' fence on the south. Her neighbor, Elizabeth Grant believes her property value would be decreased by the location of the shed; however, her property values have stayed the same in 2005 and 2006 according to county assessar's records. In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Ms. Hall stated the shed was 12-feet by 12-feet in size and 9-1/2 feet on the high end and 9 feet on the lower end. It is 2 feet higher than the fence on the low end and 2-1/2 feet higher than the fence on the high end. Bill Whitfield 4015 Everett Street , Mr. Whitfield lives across the street from the applicant. He spoke in support of the variance because he believed it would be an improvement to the neighborhood. He is involved with Wheat Ridge 2020 and stated that the applicanYs renovation of her house is a shining example of the type of renewal that Wheat Ridge is hying to foster. He believed the applicanYs renovation to her property has added value to other properties in the neighborhood: The shed represents 25.9% lot coverage which is only .9% over city requirements. Elizabeth Grant 3881 Estes Ms. Grant lives directly behind the applicant ancl spoke in opposition to the variance request. The shed is next to her property line and is very visible and Board of Adjustment - 6 - OS-25-06 presents an obstruction to her property that will reduce her property values. She suggested that there were three other locations for the shed on the applicanYs property affect her property. She did not agree with the city's staff report because the applicant was aware of the setback requirements before she started to build. The applicant also promised to remove the shed and then changed her mind. The location of the shed violates the R-1 zoning regulations. She stated that she had been informed by the city that the applicant would be required to comply with setback regulations. She stated that the reason the applicant is asking for a variance is that she made her house too large. She commented that many older sheds are encroaching in the neighbarhood and iYs time to stop these situations from occurring and further degrading the neighborhood. Board Member HOWARD asked where the property line existed. Ms. Grant stated that she believed it was midway between the two fences Catherine Grant 3881 Estes Ms. Grant is the daughter of Elizabeth Grant. She spoke in opposition to the application. She stated that there aze no mature trees involved to screen the shed but scrub trees that are going fo be removed. The shed will shade the azea where her mother wanted to plant a garden. Jay Peck 825 Carmel Drive Mr. Peck stated that realtors and appraisers have indicated the shed would amount to a$5,600 economic loss in property value to the applicant. . Holly Hall returned to podium to state that an ILC exists which shows that the chain link fence is on the property line. Board Member ABBOTT commented that the staff couid have made an admiuistrative variance for lot coverage. Travis Crane agreed and explained that the application is before the Boazd because of the other two variance requests. He commented that when city council modified setback requirements for accessory structures in 2003, the R-1 zone district was the only district which remained unchanged. There were no other individuals who wished to address the case. Upon a motion by Board Member HOVLAND and second by Board Member BLAIR, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative offlcer; and Boazd of Adjushnent - 7 - OS-25-06 Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-06-06 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas the property has been posted the ten days required by law, and in recognition that there were 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 Case No. WA-06- 06(A) be, and hereby is approved. For the following reasons: 1. The 136 square foot increase to maximum lot coverage is fairly insignificant given a lot size of 15,000 square feet. 2. The lot is oversized at 15,000 square feet and the impact of the increase to lot coverage will not have an impact on the surrounding neighborhood. There are several lots within the neighborhood which meet or exceed the 25% maximum lot coverage in the R-1 zone district. The 136 foot increase is less than 1% increase in total lot coverage making it less than 26%. 3. The shed has been appropriately designed to match the character of the main structure and, as such, will give the property a cohesive feel. 4. The request will not affect the adequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties. Board Member REIHNART stated that he would support the motion because lot coverage is not the issue that would impact the adjacent property. Board Member ABBOTT stated he would not support the motion because he believed the property could still yield a retum in use without the need for a shed or related variances; the variance would not result in a benefit or contribution to the general neighborhood; and letters in opposition were submitted by three immediately adjacent neighbors. He believed the hardship was self-imposed by the applicant due to recent construction and landscape unprovements. Since the shed is 12-foot by 12-foot by 9-feet in height a smaller shed could be built and still be within the ordinance. Board Member HOVLAND commented that if the variance is granted, there is still the option to move the shed elsewhere on the property. Further, the request only exceeds lot coverage requuements, which are the most restrictive in the city, by less than 1% Board of Adjustment OS-25-06 Board Member HOWARD offered a friendly amendment that if the motion is denied, the shed is to be removed within thirty days. The amendment was not accepted by Board Members HOVLAND and BLAIR. Motion failed 4-3 with Board Members ABBOTT, HOWARD and LINKER voting no. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member HOWARD, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-06-06 (B) and (C) is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas the property has been posted the ten 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 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-06-06 (A) and (B) be, and hereby is denied. For the following reasons: The square footage lot coverage variance was denied. The motion passed 7-0. 6. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair BELL closed the public hearing. 7. OLD BUSINESS Chair BELL announced that new bylaws for the Board of Adjustment have been approved by City Council. Trauis Crane announced that Rob Osbom has been appointed as executive director of Wheat Ridge 2020. Chair BELL commented that, since the new bylaws have been approved, members could now begin encouraging cirizens to serve as alternates on the Board. 8. NEW BUSINESS Board of Adjustment - 9 - OS-25-06 A. Approval of Minutes - April 27, 2006 It was moved by Board Member BLAIR and seconded by Board Member ABBOTT to approve the minutes of April 27, 2006 as presented. The motion passed unanimously. B. Other Matters • Chair BELL suggested that it is time to schedule an orientation session for the Board with Jerry Dahl. • Chair BELL expressed appreciation to members for remembering to make any disclosures they may have regarding cases scheduled before the Board. Chair BELL distributed copies of a Denver Post newspaper article concerning a proj ect by the city of Northglenn to update two older homes in the city to demonstrate to residents what can be done to improve their older, smaller homes. She commented that this coincides with the goals of Wheat Ridge 2020. Board Member ABBOTT commented that Wheat Ridge 2020 plans to provide similar help for homeowners who wish to update their homes. He comxnented that some of the current setback regulations inhibit homeowners who want to increase the sizes of their garages, for example. Board Member HOVLAND commented that he believed a proj ect similar to the one in Northglenn would be a good idea for Wheat Ridge. Travis Crane stated that the city has recently hired a new planner who will be working on the comprehensive plan and sub-azea plans. Staff and the consultant are also in process of re-examining the entire zoning code. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 pm. Janet Bell, Chair Board of Adjustment Ann Lazzeri Recording Secretazy Board of Adjustment - 10 - OS-25-06