Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/28/2006CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADN5TMENT AGENDA September 28, 2006 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on September 28, 2006, 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-06-14: An application filed by Mazk Shively for approval of an 18 foot side yazd setback variance from the 30 foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in a 12 foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 6675 W. 44th Place. B. Case No. WA-06-15: An application filed by Richazd Moreno for approval of a 9 foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 6 foot side yard setback AND a request for approval of a 514 squaze foot variance to the 1000 square foot maxunum resulting in a 1,800 square foot bam on property zoned Residential One (R-1) and located at 6671 W. 26th Avenue. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Request for a rehearing of Case No. WA-06-12 which was denied by Board of Adjustment on August 24, 2006. B. Approval of minutes - August 24, 2006 8.. ADJOURNIVENT WHE'T a CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE ~ m PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Travis Crane CASE NO. & NAME: WA-06-14/Shively DATE OF MEETING: September 28, 2006 ACTION REQUESTED: Request for approval of an 18-foot side yard setback variance resulting in a 12-foot side yard setback when adjacent to a public street for property zoned Residential Two. LOCATION OF REQTJEST: 6675 W. 44"' Place APPLICANT (S): Mark Shively OWNER (S): Same 6675 W. 44°i Pl. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 APPROXIMATE AREA: 9588 sq. ft. (0.22 ac.) PRESENT ZONING: Residential Two (R-2) ENTER INTO RECORD (X) CASE PILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map 4505 asoo I aeos ' 1N 45TH AVE ~...4495 ~ . N .R"2~ . 4475 U) . . . } . .Q~. . , . . ~ . . ~ 4465 ~ 0 . ~ ~ O ~ tD N V CJ N. . Site aa55 cn N W T . . U P{, 41 , 4445 ~ A'1 . . w ' ^'av~~+fir ` ~ ~ ~ ~ n'y'* t a n ~ e s n tttl 4435 . ~t3 ~ ~ . ~ ~ R r C 4425 . . ; . - : . , . . All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. Board of Adjustment 1 WA-06-14/Shively I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of an 18-foot side yard setback variance for a greenhouse, resulring in a 12 foot side yard setback (Exhibit l, Letter of Request). II. CASE ANALYSIS The property is 9,588 square feet in size, has a rectangular shape, and contains an exisring single family structure. The property is located on the corner of West 44th Place and Pierce Street. The applicant wishes to construct a 192 square foot greenhouse 12 feet from the western property line (Exhibit 2, Site Plan). The R-2 zone district requires a minimum front yard (southern property line) setback of 30 feet, a minimum 5-foot rear yard setback and a minimum 5-foot side (eastern property line) setback. Because the western property line is adjacent to Pierce Street, a 30 foot side yard setback is required. The site contains an existing 1,161 square foot house and a 480 square foot detached garage. The R-2 zone district allows a maximum lot coverage of 40%. Based on a lot size of 9,588 square feet, 3,835.2 square feet of structures are allowed. The Zoning Code does not specify a maximuxn size for a greenhouse; however staff has determined that the greenhouse functions much like a shed. Therefore, the structure may be 400 square feet in size and 10 feet tall. The applicant is proposing a 192 square foot greenhouse which will be 8 feet tall. The greenhouse will comply with all other standards outlined in Article II of the Zoning Code. The applicant would like to locate the greenhouse 12 feet from the western property line to capture direct sunlight. The existing detached garage is located in the northeastern corner of the property. Given the angle of the sun, it is difficult if not impossible to locate the greenhouse in a conforming location to capture natural sunlight. An existing tree is located in the southwest corner of the lot which further restricts direct sunlight to the property. Simply put, the greenhouse would not fully funcrion if it were located in a confornung locarion. A letter of support has been included as Exhibit 3. III. VARIANCE CRITERIA Staff has the following criteria to evaluate variance requests: 1. Can the property in question yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located? If the request were denied, the property can yield a return in use. The property currently contains an existing single-family structure, and this use may remain regardless of the outcome of the variance request. The applicant would not be able to locate a functioning greenhouse on the property if the request were denied. 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? Board of Adjustment WA-06-14/Sluvely If the request were granted, the character of the locality would not be altered. It appears that there are some existing primary shuctures which do not meet the minimum 5-foot side yard setback. Additionally, there appear to be a few shuctures located on comer lots which do not meet the required 30-foot side yard setback. The proposed greenhouse would be 8 feet tall, and should not be out of character with the neighborhood. 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? While rectangular in shape, the property does have public right-of-way located on the southern and westem property lines. Any shucture located adjacent to right-of-way must have a minimum setback of 30 feet. If this lot were not located on a comer, only a 5-foot setback would be required on the western property line. 4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship 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. The applicant wishes to construct a greenhouse, which is dependant on direct sunlight. There is a very small window on this property to construct a conforming shucture. Unfortunately, this small area does not receive direct sunlight, given the existing structures and mature landscaping. If the applicant were to conshuct the greenhouse in a conforming location, the greenhouse would not be fully functional. 5. Would the granting of the variance be detrimeutal 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? The request would not be detrimental to the public welfare. The adequate supply of light and air would not be compromised as a result of the request. The request would not increase congestion in the streets, nor increase the danger of fire. The request would most likely not have an effect on property values in the neighborhood. The greenhouse would not cause an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets, not would it impede the sight distance triangle. 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 a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood, only the property owner. The request would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities, as the applicant is confined to a wheelchair. Board of Adjustment WA-06-14/Shively IV. STAFF CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDED MOTION (S) Staff concludes that the hardship has not been created by the property owner, and that unique circumstances warrant the approval of the variance request. Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the criteria are supportive of the request. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1. There are limited oprions to place a fixnctional greenhouse in a conforming location on the property. Existing structures and large mature trees obstruct the supply of direct sunlight to many areas on the property. 2. The hardship has not been caused by the applicant. 3. The proposed greenhouse will not be out of character with the neighborhood. There are several existing structures which do not meet the minimum required side yard setback; specifically some shuctures do not meet the minimum 30 foot setback when adjacent to right-of-way. Board of Adjushnent 4 WA-06-14/Slrively September 6, 2006 City of Wheat Ridge Boazd of Adjustment Ms. 3anet Blair, Mr. Paul Drda„ Mr. Davis Reinhart, Mr. Robert Blair, Mr. Robert Howard, Mr. Thomas Abbott, Mr. Larry Linkler and Mr. Paut Howard RE: Setback Variance/6675 W. 44P Place Dear Members, Please accept this agplication for a setback variance for the side yard of the house at 6675 West 44`" Place. I am requesting the variance on behalf of my disabled brother, Mazk. Sluvely, the homeowner. Mark suffered a stroke three years ago and is confined to a wheelchair. He is paralyzed on his right side and has an amputated left foot. The stroke also left him with aphasia, meaning he is unable to speak or write on his own behalf. We are requesting the setback variance to build a small greenhouse in iris side yard. Gardening is an important part of Mark's life and the greenhouse will enable him to canrinue his pursuits in his current condition. It is important for Mark's physical and psychological wellbeing. The greenhonse will be 16'Wx12'Dx8'H and handicapped accessible. We need a setback variance of 12' instead of the standazd 30' to position the greenhouse to take maximum advantage of sun angles while accommodating the eusting detached garage, mature trees in the yard, and handicap accessibility. The attached application and documents detail our plans. Mark and I appreciate your consideration of ow request and respectfuliy request your approval. Sincerely, Mark Shively Homeowner Barbara E. Sluvely Sister EXHIBIT 1 RaEoPOIffF DATE 08/30/2006 FEE 125.00 JOB# 06-857 CLIENT MARK ALLEN SHIVELY L A N D S U R V E Y I N G ADDRESS 6675 W. 44TH PL. 5460 WARD ROAD • SUITE 160 NAME SHIVELY ARVADA,COLORAD080002 (303) 420-4788 - IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE ' i crni nvccainrinN Attn: narxaaun SHIVELY N Scate: 1 "=20' Note: Conc., Brick Garage & Shed Encroach onto Easement as Shown. Note: Survey is Based on Existing Possession Lines , as Shown. According to my Interpretarion of Colorado Law a Boundary Survey is Recommended. ~ O Ca o ° ~ o m ~ ~ d H N a _ 5' Easement (Plat) FLoT 16, CLUB CORNER, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO ~ 76.0 6.9'x 7.9' Metal Shed - ~ ,6• , ~2~ 20.1 , i i c ~ Brick ~ LOT 16 u Gazage ~ I ~ C --1.7 LOT 15 -1 I O ~ ~ X O ~ A<1 ~ 0 G ~ W M G ~ FX il rJ% \dp.. Os 6675 West 44th Place 50' R.O.W. EXHIBIT 2 On the basis of my knowledge, information and belief, I hereby certi ~I~atffiis improvement locatiorrcertificate was~,prepared for t~fitx aiiEx SxrVELY s,not a Land Surveyplat or Improvement Survey Plat, and that it is not to b elied upon for th establishment of fence, buttd' g, or other future improvement lines. I further certify that the i ovements on the ove described parcel on t is da except utility connections, are entirely within the boundarie of the parcel, exc.sp as shown,that there are no ncroachm nts upon the described premises by improvements on any a oining premises, exc pt as indicated, and that the is no apparen evidence or sign of any easement crossing or burdening an part of said parcel, except as noted. "NOTICE: According to, Colorado law you must com nce any legal act n based up X"A" this survey within three ears after you first discover suctr defect. In no event may any action base pon any defec in this su~'1~p~ jJnore than ten years f m the date ot the certilication shown hereonP : ~ P` .C .i. NOTE: -!SUflVEY IS DPAWN USING VLATfEDANCLE50H BEAPINGS AND AIMENSIONS or 9-31, September 6, 2006 City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment Ms. Janet Blair, Mr. Paul- Drda„ Mr. Davis Reinhart, Mr. Robert Blair, Mr. Robert Howazd, Mr. Thomas Abbott, MR. Larry Linkler and Mr. Paut Howazd RE: Setback Variancel6675 W. 44`b Placa Dear Members, We are the neighbors of Mark Shively. He flas informed us of lris plans to build a small greenhouse in his side yard. This letter will confirm our support of his plans. We recommend your acceptance of his request for a setback variance. Nei hbor g Address ~G'I~✓l, ~f1„(~'NV~ ' / 4y C9 t!(/L/ ~ ~7~ -(j `7 ~e / ~ ~i / 1'c 665~-, W /P L . EXHIBIT 3 City of Wheat Ridge ~F WHEqT~ Community Development Department ~ ° Memorandum ~~~oRA~~ TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Travis Crane, Planner II111~ SUBJECT: WA-06-15/Mareno DATE: 20 September 2006 Due to an error in publication, case number WA-06-15 cannot be heard at the September 26, 2006 hearing. The case will be republished and heard at the October 26, 2006 hearing. Scptember 21, 2006 KathyBield City of Wheat T2iflge 7500 W. 291"Ave. Wheat Ridge, Ca. 80033 FaY. 303 235 2857 Subject Pmperty: 3825 Chase Sirtct, Case No:WA-06-12 xathy, Thank'Y'ou for allowing the reconsideradon of the apprwal of the designation of a Duplex on the subject site. Unfortiwately our cammunication with the Planning staff's recommendation was limited. Afrer understanding their positioa on parldng we aze prepazed to su6mit a new p]an for ffie parldng situation. We ue retainrog the assistance of a ProfZSS`tonal to assist in tLe prepuaflon aFrhis new plan. We wil) work diligently with the Staff in the prepatarion of this plau Hopefully we wilI be a61e to gaintheir suppotC 'aVe also will provide information the exisfing R-3 wning, and have dociunentadon on the blended zoning in the azea. Please aceept this letter as our request for reconsidetadoa Slwuld you Lave airy questions, please feeC free tn call me. ZO FZ~'-- ~ d, a a<<< ON waa~~~ 900z '~z'das CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting August 24, 2006 1. 2. 3. 4. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustxnent was called to order by Chair BELL at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29`h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. ROLL CALL Commission Members Present: Janet Bell Bob Blair Paul Drda Paul Hovland Bob Howard Larry Linker Comxnission Members Absent: Staff Members Present: Tom Abbott Davis Reinhart MeredithReckert, Sr.\Planner. Travis Crane, Planner II Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary PUBLIC FORUM No one wished to address the Board at tlus time PUBLIC HEARINGS Prior to presentation of cases, all individuals who wished to testify during the hearings stood and were sworn in by Chair Bell. A. Case No. WA-06-12: An application filed by Gary DiGiorgio for approval of a 19-square foot variance from the 9,000 square foot minimum lot area requirement and a 9-foot variance from the 75-foot minimum lot width requirement to allow a two-family dwelling unit on property zoned Residential-Three (R-3) and located at 3825 Chase Street. The case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staffrecommended denial for reasons outlined in the staff report. Boazd of Adjustment August 24, 2006 - 1 - Board Member DRDA asked how the city became aware that the property was being used as a duplex. Meredith Reckert explained that a person living in the basement of the residence applied far high speed internet service and, upon contact from the internet provider, the city found that there were not two addresses for this property. In response to a question from Board Member DRDA, Meredith Reckert stated that she didn't see any evidence of multi-family units in the area. In response to a question from Boazd Member BLAIR, Meredith Reckert stated that the one objection to the application received by the city concemed noisy tenants and that a duplex is inconsistent with the single family neighborhood. Gary DiGiorgio 9461 West 63`d Place, Arvada Mr. Digiorgio submitted a letter signed by area residents that they were in agreement with his application. This letter was entered into the record. He also submitted copies of various photographs of his property for the Board's review. These were also entered into the record. He stated that he purchased the subject property two years ago with the understanding that it was a duplex property. The house was built in 1942 before the incorporation of Wheat Ridge. The downstairs unit is completely sepazate from the upstairs unit. There is no interior connection. The downstairs unit has an outside entrance. He stated that he would install a lazge window in the downstairs portion of the dwelling to meet egress requirements. He stated the property has adequate parking including on-street pazking. The property is surrounded by R-3 and commercial zoning. He believed a duplex should be allowed because the property is also zoned R-3. A duplex would not be hannful to the neighborhood and would provide affordable housing far the city. A hardship exists due to loss of income and inability to rent the property as a duplex. There is also a physical hardship due to the location of the gazage. He commented that he is within only 1% of required square footage for a duplex. In response to a comment from Board Member HOWARD concerning the width of the driveway, Mr. DiGiorgio stated that he could widen the driveway to allow another parking space. He also stated he could install a"pullout" to allow more parking. In addition, there is about two feet of vegetation along the south side of the driveway that could be removed. In response to a question from Board Member LINKER, the applicant stated that the unit was occupied as a duplex when be purchased it. Boazd Member DRDA asked the applicant if he had any documentation indicating the property was a duplex. Mr. DiGiorgio replied that he assumed it could be used as a duplex because of the R-3 zoning. Boud of Adjushnent August 24, 2006 - 2 - Pat Zanol 3835 Depew Ms. Zanol spoke in opposition to the application due to the run-down condition of the property and there are no other rental properties in the neighborhood. There were no other individuals who wished to speak at this fune. Chair BELL closed public testimony. Boazd Member HOVLAND commented that he didn't believe approval of the request would haue a great impact; however, he had difficulty finding a hardship in the case. Board Member BLAIR commented that maintenance of the property should not be a factor in the case. The applicant requested to address the Boud. There was a consensus of the Boazd to reopen public testimony to give the applicant an opportunity to make additional statements. Gary DiGiorgio returned to the podium. He stated that a hardslup exists in that he purchased a duplex and is not allowed to use it as such in R-3 zoning. The location of the structure does not allow the parking it would normally have. It would be very difficult to rent the property as a single family unit. He commented that he is only 1% short of the square footage requirement. He stated that he would make every attempt to improve the maintenance of the property. He disagreed with an earlier statement that there were no other multi-family uses in the azea because there was a nearby lot with iwo dwellings on it. No one else wished to address the Boazd. Chair BELL closed the public testimony. Upon a motion by Board Member DRDA and second by Board Member LINKER, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the appiicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-06-12 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 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 August 24, 2006 - 3 - Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Case No. WA-06-12 be, and hereby is denied. For the following reasons: 1. The hardships found have been self imposed. 2. Meeting the required parking capacity is highly questionable. 3. Staff recommended denial. 4. The proposed use does not conform with surrounding residential properties. The motion for denial carried 4-2 with Board Members BLAIR and LINKER voting no. B. Case No. TUP-06-02: An application filed by L&H Auto Body & Glass for approval of a one-year Temporary Structure Perxnit on property zoned Industrial (I) and located at 4790 Independence Street. The case was presented by Travis Crane. 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. Staff recommended approval for reasons, and with one condition, outlined in the staff report. Randy Massey 4790 Independence Mr. Massey, the applicant, stated that he was requesting a variance to allow a temporary shucture until a permanent shucture can be built. There are two mobile structures on the property that will be removed when the temporary structure is installed. The temporary building would be used for vehicle damage estimation, disassembly, cleaning and washing. Even though the temporary structure is fire-rated, there would be no painting or repairs taking place within the shucture. He stated that he has worked closely with the tlrvada Fire Department in planning uses for the temporary structure. The Fire Deparhnent will also monitor uses. In response to a question from Boazd Member BLAII2, Travis Crane stated that the city has not received any feedback from neighbors conceming the application. Board Member HOWARD asked how long it would take to erect the temporary structure. Mr. Massey estunated it would take three to four days and would probably be erected mid-September. Footings far the new structure would probably not be poured before spring. Board Member DRDA asked if it would be necessazy to specify usage restrictions on the temporary stnxchue. Travis Crane replied that usage and/or restrictions Board of Adjustment August 24, 2006 - 4 - would be governed by the zone district and therefore there would be no need to apply condirions. Upon a motion by Board Member BLAIR and second by Board Member HOVLAND, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. TUP-06-02 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 pu6lic 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. TUP-06-02 be, and hereby is approved. For the following reasons: 1. Approval of the temporary building would not alter the essential character of the locality. The structure will be located so as not to be visible from the right-of-way. Additionally, the structure will be at least 140 feet from the nearest property line. 2. Approval of the request would not impair the adequate light and air to adjacent properties. 3. Approval of the temporary structure would not be injurious to other properties in the neighborhood. 4. Staff recommended approval. With the following condition: 1. The temporary structure shall be allowed for a period of one year. The one-year time period shall begin with issuance of a building permit for the temporary structure. Board Member DRDA offered a friendly amendment to add a condition to require that no repairs are to take place in the building. The amendment was accepted by Board Member BLAIR but not accepted by Boazd Member HOVLAND because he did not feel it was necessazy. Therefore, the request for amendment failed. Board Member DRDA stated that he could not support the request without his amendment. Board of Adjustment August 24, 2006 - 5 - The motion passed 5-1 with Board Member DRDA voting no. 5: CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair Bell closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. 6. OLD BUSINESS . In response to a question from Boazd Member HOWARD, Meredith Reckert stated that the city had not yet received any applications for altemates to the Board. Chair BELL encouraged members to continue looking for alternates. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes - July 27, 2006 It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member DRDA to approve the minutes of July 27, 2006. The motion passed unanimously. 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m. Janet Bell, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary Board of Adjushnent August 24, 2006 - 6 -