Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/13/2006CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA December 13, 2006 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on December 13, 2006, at 7:00 p:m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. L CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subj ect not appearing on the agenda.) 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. WA-06-16: An application filed by Jason Timmes for approval of a 15' 1" front yard setback variance from the 30 foot front yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in a 14' 11" front yard setback for property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 4675 Lamar Street. B. Case No. WA-06-17: An application filed by Robert Christensen for approval of a 13,560 squaze foot variance to the one-acre minimum to allow expansion of a cattery on property zoned Agricultural-Two (A-2) and located at 4300 Wright Street. C. Case No. WA-06-18: An application filed by Sherri Leggett & Julie Peters for approval of a fence height variance to allow a fence which is 7 feet 9 inches tall of its highest point for property zoned Residential-One (R-1) and located at 14 Twilight Drive. D. Case No. WA-06-19: An application filed by Mansour Fotovat for Gas Plus for approval of a sign height variance of 7 feet and sign setback variances for up to 5 feet to allow a free-standing sign on property zoned Commercial-0ne (G1) and located at 6595 West 44th Avenue. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes -0ctober 26, 2006 8. ADJOURNMENT WHEAT ~o qa CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE ~ m PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT c~CORA~O TO: Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Travis Crane CASE NO. & NAME: WA-06-16/Timmes DATE OF MEETING: December 13, 2006 ACTION REQUESTED: Request for approval of a 15-foot 1-inch front yard setback variance resul4ing in a 14-foot 11-inch front yard setback on property zoned Residenrial Two. LOCATION OF REQUEST: 4675 Lamar Street APPLICANT (S): Jason Timmes OW NCR (S): Same 4675 Lamar Sh-eet Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 APPROXIMATE AREA: 10,522 sq. ft. (0.24 ac.) PRESENT ZONING: Residential Two (R-2) ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGIT AL PR ESENTATIO N (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map .o o ~ g I , I 4701 ' a~w , ~ 4701 MI ~ ~ N~, N, N I , W47T HAVE ~ m I g'~S`~i.~~t1~ o~3sa~+P'cs ' I W 4 7TH k VE: ~ ~ I :O 9.~hry~'aeL'f~41~4~~ ~d~ T ~ I a} (O I I ~ 01 0 V 1pi D~ b . II , 4875 . i ~ 1 - ~ u% N ry ~n ABBS ..OV I~ O 1 ~n~ AV Y ; ~ y ( • ~ i ~h NA . Oy I I v) O> ~ i 1 t0 ] u)I t0 .u) .N ~ ufl V~ ~n~ M N I N ~j . Slte W 46TH Pl b~ a f p i o o'. o, of b 4 ~ oi . ~i ' ol M Q~ ~ bl o ~ o~ br o~ e o ~ 1 m ' ml I w l R•2- k` i'tlyy'~i \.A 01 LO r y~. ~ b N N I I OJ ~ 10 ~ C b h I - ~ ffi m ~ ~ m tO M W DI .O qt t [O N~ ~C i0 1Vf 10 ~ N lD~ O N [p l0 ~O ...=1D ~Jy~r~M1f.. ..V~ ~ . . 1 W 0 : ..[O ~ . W 46TH AVE . 0 0l - NI ~ bl b ~ o N m a 10I ~ oIo N Oy ~ b o. ~ lOl o~ ~O ld I el Y!I 0~ -o Q lm9 a OJ I~D~ p (D~ N o ~I o O m ~ II ( I I . I ~ I Board of Adjushnent 1 WA-06-16/Tixnmes All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. 1. REQUEST The applicant is requesring approval a 15-foot 1-inch front yard setback variance resulting in a 14-foot 11-inch front yard setback. The variance would allow an expansion of an existing single family structure (Exhibit 1, Letter of Request). The appiicant has indicated that this addition would aliow an expansion to the existing structure while preserving a small azea for a usable back yard. It should be noted that the applicant indicates that an administrative side yard setback variance is needed for the southem property line. This is not a true statement; the proposed side yard setback on the southern property line does not need a variance. This case was originally scheduled far hearing in October. The case was continued because a publication advertised the request as being a side setback variance. The Board of Adjustment felt it was appropriate to continue the case and republish for the December hearing. The applicant has since circulated a letter of explanation to neighbors since the October hearing. This letter has been included as Exhibit 2. II. CASE ANALYSIS The property is 10,522 square feet in size, has a rectangular shape, is located adjacent to two street frontages and contains an existing single family shucture. The applicant wishes to add to the existing single family structure (Exhibit 3, Site Plan). The property is bounded by Lamar Street on the east and West 46`h Place on the north. The addition would face Lamar Street. The addition will be conshucted on the south end of the existing house angled towards Lamar Street (Exhibit 4, Elevations). The enrire addition will not be conshucted 14-feet 11- inches from the eastern property line. Only the southeast corner of the addition wilt encroach to that limit. The addition will be for a three car garage and living space above. The garage will be 22 feet deep; a standard garage length. The applicant is showing living space above the garage and above the existing shucture. The R-2 zone district requires a 30 foot front yard setback and a 30 foot setback for any structure adjacent to right-of-way. Further, the R-2 district requires a minimum 5 foot side yard setback, with a combined total side yard setback (on both sides) of 15 feet. The rear yard setback is 10 feet. The front yard of this property is the eastern properiy line adj acent to Lamar Street. Because this is a corner lot, a 30 foot setback is required for both the north and eastern property lines. All other required setbacks (northern, western and southern property lines) will be met. The property is 10,522 squaze feet in size. The R-2 district requires a minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet for a single family structure. The site contains an existing 1,539 square foot one story house and a 96 square foot shed. The R-2 zone district allows a maacimum lot coverage of 40%. Based on a lot size of 10,522 square feet, 4,209 square feet of building footprint is allowed. The applicant is proposing 2,710 square feet of total lot coverage, or 25.75% of the lot. The structure will comply with all other standazds outlined in Article II of the Zoning Code. It should be noted that the south-eastern corner of the addition will be located 14 feet 11 Board of Adjushnent WA-06-16/Timmes inches from the property line. This area of the structure will be a garage. A typical driveway length is at least 18 feet, the length of a standards parking space. Projecting a perpendicular driveway to the right-of-way shows that the south-east corner of the driveway will only be 17 feet in length. The northeast corner of this driveway will be at least 22 feet in length, meeting the minimum requirement. The Code requires two parking spaces for this property, and this will be achieved with the additional garage space. There haue been two variances granted for properties in the neighborhood to reduce setbacks adjacent to the right-of-way. The first variance was granted for the property directly south and east of the subject parcel at 6385 Wdst 46~h Avenue. This property is located on the corner of Lamar Street and West 46`h Avenue. The property received a 26-foot side yard setback variance for a detached garage adjacent to Lamar Street. The second variance granted was for 6415 West 45`h Place. This property received a 12-foot side yard setback variance for a detached gazage adjacent to Lamar Street. In addition to these variances, there appear to be numerous other properties which contain shuctures which do not meet the required 30 foot setback when adjacent to right-of-way. Many of these non-conforming shuctures are located on corner lots in the surrounding neighborhood. A signed letter of support has been included as Exhibit 5. This letter includes additional names which were gathered since the October hearing. III. VARIANCE CRITEffiA 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? Ifthe request were denied, the property can yield a return in use. The property currently contains an existing single-family structure and attached garage, and these uses may remain regardless of the outcome of the variance request. If the request were denied, the applicant would not be able to conshuct in the proposed location. 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? If the request were granted, the character of the locality would not be altered. There are multiple shuctures in the area which do not meet the required 30-foot setback when adjacent to right-of-way. The location of the proposed addition would be comparible with other attached and detached structures in 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? The property is rectangular in shape, and meets the required lot size for a single-family shucture in the R-2 zone district. The property does haue right-of-way located on the northern and eastern property lines. The presence of this right-of-way requires a greater Boazd of Adjustment WA-06-16/Timmes setback for the northern property line. If this were an internal lot not adj acent to right-of- way, the applicant could construct an addition 6 feet from the northern 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 caused the hardship. The structure could be constructed to meet the required 30-foot setback; however this would diminish any small amount of usable back yard. It can be argued that the presence of right-of-way on two property lines causes a unique situarion and severely impacts design alternatives on this property. 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 increasiug 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 a negative effect on property values in the neighborhood. 6. If criteria 1 through 5 are found, then, would the granting of the variance result in a beneC►t 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 not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. IV. STAFF CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDED MOTION (S) Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the criteria are supportive of the request. Therefore, staff recominends APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1. The request will not change the character of the locality. Many adjacent properties haue main or secondary buildings which do not meet the required 30 foot setback when adjacent to right-of-way. There haue been two variances approved for structures on corner lots in the immediate area. 2. The applicant is proposing an addition to the existing structure which would be an attractive expansion and significant investment in the property. 3. While the hardship can be perceived as being self-imposed, the presence of right- of-way on two property frontages severely impacts design alternatives for an addition to the existing shucture. 4. The request would not be detrimental to the public welfare. The request would not impair the adequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties. Board of Adjustment WA-06-16/Timmes October 3, 2006 To Whom It May Concern This letter is to detail my request for a Variance for a proposed addition at 4675 Lamar St. in Wheat Ridge, CO. We are planning to add a three (3) car garage on the south side of our existing home, as well as adding a second story over the entire structure. In the interests of preserving a backyard space as well as designing with a nice aesthetic appearance, we plan on building the garage at an angle towards Lamaz St. to the east (please reference the site plan included with this letter). This angle would have the front corner of the gazage 14' 11" from the front property line, which requires a Variance be granted for the addition. The southern reaz comer of the garage would also be encroaching 8" our on side setback (9'4" from the property line), although it is my understanding that this side setback Variance may be handled administratively. To address any concerns regarding elevation, the new structure would be approximately 26' tall, well below the city limit of 3 5' for the current zoning at our address. Since we are nowhere near the elevation limits, no elevation plot has been submitted with this Variance application. The overall appeazance of the structure upon completion, although still being designed, will be done with the intention of maintaining a clean, consistent appeazance. It will not be obvious to people viewing the home which section was the existing home, and which section is the new addition. The intention of this addition is to create a home large enough that we may raise a family in Wheat Ridge, without ever needing to worry about having to move into a lazger home. My wife and I have decided that we like our neighborhood, respect and appreciate our neighbors, and would like to remain long term residents of this city. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. Regazds, ~Gf~ts~ro~ JaC~Timmes 303-278-6975 jtimmes@yahoo.com EXHIBIT 1 October 29, 2006 An open letter co ow neighbors: Please allow us to introduce ourselves. We aze 7ason and Courtney Timmes, living at 4675 Lamaz St (on the southwest comer of 46`h Place and Lamar St.). Some of you know us well; some of you do not. Although we are relatively quiet neighbors who tend to keep to ourselves and stay busy with our jobs, we have been living at that address for over four years now. Courtney is a native of Edgewater and has lived in this area her whole life. Jason came to Colorado for college at the School of Mines in Golden, and has neverleft. We are currently planning to build a significant addition to our home, with the intention of building a home large enough to raise a family. We like this neighborhood, like our neighbors, and hope to remain long term residents of the area. We also have family in Wheat Ridge, Edgewater, and Littletoq which is funher incentive for us to stay in ttris azea. Recently you should have received a letter from the City of Wheat Ridge via certified mail letting you know of a public hearing related to our planned addition. I recently received feedback from one of my neighbors that some people didn't understand what this letter was referring to, and that they found the legal wording of this letter confixsing. As it tumed out, the City made a typo in this letter. To correct this enor, new letters aze going to be sent out, new signs will be posted in our yard, and another hearing will be held on December 13. To try and clarify the official letter, Courtney and I wanted to put together our own letter explaining to everyone in the neighborhood what we are planning to do, and why a public hearing is being held. We want everyone to be properly informed of our plans, and we hope you'll support our desire to raise a family in the neighborhood and live here for many years to come. The City of Wheat Ridge has zoning requirements for every house, which includes details iike how close the front of your house can get to the street it faces. This is called the "front setback" (other setbacks aze defined for the sides and reaz of your house). The front setback for our home (and most of the homes in our neighborhood) is 30 feet. EXHIBIT 2 We plan to add on a laundry room and a 3 car garage to the south of our existing house. Please refer to Figure i; the yellow area is our existing house. There is also a front and back patio shown on this diagram. Our current house has a large front yard and a large yard to the north (which also has a 30 foot setback, since the north yard also faces a street). But our home has a relatively small backyard. In p(anning our additioq we are hoping to preserve as much of our current backyard as possible. To accomplish this, we are hoping to ang(e the garage towards I,amar St. This resulted in a design that gets closer to Lamar St than the official front setback. This requires us to get a Variance from the City of Wheat Ridge; a waiver to allow us to build closer than the front setback. The area in orange in Figure 1 is the area that requires a Variance, and is the topic of the public hearing. The front carner of the garage would be 14 feet, 11 inches from the City's "Right of Way". It would actually be 25 feet from the street itself, but the City technicatly owns part of our yard, and coutd widen Lamar if they ever chose to (or put in a sidewaik, etc.). If they widened it to the maximum limit, the garage wouid be 14' 11" from anything the city could build. In deciding if you are in support of our Variance request or not, please keep in mind that several homes on Lamaz Street in ow neighborhood have structures that violate the current zoning setbacks. In fact, one of my neighbors directly across the street has a gazage that is much closer to the street than 14' i l". I do not wish to publish anyone else's address or information, but I encourage you to go waik Lamar St if you are curious. My current garage is exactly 30 feet from the City's Right of Way. Any structure (garage, shed, etc.) on any house that is closer to L,amar than my current garage is closer than the official setback. Some of these homes received Variances; many did not. I'm Figure 1: Proposed addition site plan guessing many homes were built before the setbacks were set at their current limits, but it doesn't really matter. The point is, we're not asking permission for anything that isn't akeady in the neighborhood. IYgure 2: Finished house (front porch, number of windows, etc. is incomplete) We aiso plan to add a second story over the ent'ue house (the existing house and the new garage, see Figure 2). We lnow at least one of our neighbors has concems about a two story house being built in the neighborhood. We'd like to point out that there are severa( homes in the area that are already two stories. If you're not fanvliar with these properties, please come talk to us; we'd be happy to show them to you. We hope you'll also understand that we ate not trying to change the neighborhood, nor are we trying to create a focus of attention in the neighborhood. The simple truth is that our current home is too small to raise a family in, and as long as we're building an addition, we want to buiid one large enough to accommodate our future plans, so we can stay in the neighborhood we love for many yeus to come. Given our 30 foot setbacks facing Lamar and 46`" Place, we simply can't build a home of that size without adding a sewnd story. We'd also like to clarify that no Variance is required for us to add a second story, although we are happy to discuss all our plans with you if you are interested. Zoning also has height limits to buildings. Our home could be built up to 35 feet high; we are only planning the top of our roof to be 26 feet high, so we're stil19 feet below the point where we'd need to consider a Variance for the height of our home. Obtaining a Vaziance not only helps preserve our backyard, but also helps angle our addition away from our neighbor to the west, who has already expressed concerns about ow addition reducing privacy and blocking available light. By angling our home further away from the home to the west, we aze attempting to be as respectful of our neighbor's privacy and access to light as we can be. We have always tried to be good neighbors in our community, and we are trying our best to pian for our future while continuing to be good neighbors. This is why we decided to put together tlris letter, to help inform everyone of exactly what the City's letter is describing. We would welcome the chance to discuss this with you if you're curious or have any questions. You already have our address, or you can also call us at 303-278-6975. If you do choose to support our Variance request, we would appreciate it if you'd be willing to add your name and address to a list we have of neighbors who are supporting our request. We initially went azound and talked directly to our immediate neighbors, although some of you weren't home when we came knocking. We decided to send this letter to everyone who received the City's letter, after we heard that some people were confused by what the City sent out. Thank you for your time and consideration, \ ~N Wesf 46#h Pbw 50' R.O.W. sw~ r = 39 75.e9 °P m m c °08 ~'O a 3 0 d w m E O ; O ~ ti ~ V kiOE ii-lvi (iqdl W-~ ,S aiI iaxnd PoaH .anp diqsiug EXHIBIT 3 V~ ~ 0 ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ I_r ~2 0 ~ ~ 0 1~4 d 'f- d 0 c N~ ~ ~ 8 ~ 0 0 ` - c-) e 3 ~ `a 3 \Z: 4! a c J ~ C q o ~J V + ~ ~ ~ ~e 14- c 3 d 0 c EXHIBIT 4 Pe#ition far buildin variance at 467$ I.amar St. We, t[ie undersigned, being neightxars of 4575 Lamar Si., give our support to the appiication for a variance ta the '1'immes famsiy resid* at 4675 Lamar St. in Wheaf Ridge. We understand thac the garage o€the proposed addition wouid resi3s Gtoser ta the front and side property iimits than is typicalJy aEtaweci, but feel tihat Yhis woufd not harm er c{iminish the neighboehaod 'rn atty way. ~~I L)I rl C~' ` EXHIBIT 5 Petition for building variance at 4675 Lamar St. We, the undersigned, being neighbors of 4675 Lamar St., give our support to the application for a vaziance to the Timmes family residing at 4675 Lamar St. in Wheat Ridge. We understand that the garage of the proposed addition would reside closer to the front property limits than is typically allowed, but feel that this would not harm or diminish the neighborhood in any way. Name: ~lw., Address: Comments: N lL -~}(~'P '~-Fl~l S~ 1"( ~ o IJ (.1~0'V l(J7 a Name: Address: p Comments: Name: Address Comments: Name: Address: CommeMs: 1 ~ ~ ~ Petition for 6uildina variance at 4675 Lamar St. We, the undersigned, being neighbors of 4675 Lamar St., give our support to the application for a variance to the Timmes family residing at 4675 Lamar St. in Wheat Ridge. We understand that the gazage of the proposed addition would reside closer to the front property limits than is typically allowed, but feel that this would not harm or diminish the neighborhood in any way. Name: 1 IAtiRY ~ G3 -II 4P- I a'1oZ Address: c, C); 90033 Comments: 6UQP~~ AtS Name: Address: Comments: Name: Address: Comments: Name: Address: Comments: City of Wheat Ridge OF WHEqT~ , Community Development Department ~ m Memorandum C~~~RA~O TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Meredith Reckert SUBJECT: Case No.WA-06-17/Christensen DATE: December 8, 2006 Please be advised that Case No. WA-06-17 has been withdrawn by the applicant. The applicant is required to pursue a special use permit for expansion of the cattery and the variance will be evaluated at that time as part of the SUP request. CITY OF WHLAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT ~o,.....o~ TO: Boazd of Adjushnent CASE MANAGER: Travis Crane CASE NO. & NA1VE: WA-06-18/Leggett & Peters DATE OF MEETING: December 13, 2006 ACTION REQITESTED: Request for approval of a variance to allow a fence with a maacimum height of 7 feet 9 inches on property zoned Residential One. LOCATION OF REQiJEST: 14 Twilight Drive APPLICANT (S): Sherri Leggett & Julie Peters OWNER (S): Same 14 Twilight Drive Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 APPROXIMATE AREA: 13,562 sq. ft. PRESENT ZOPRNG: Residential One (R-1) ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGiTAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map "VIE , CIR ~ R Site 14 ~ V ~O 2s ~ Board of Adjustment 1 WA-06-18/Leggett & Peters All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. 1. REQUEST The applicants are requesting approval a variance to allow a fence which is 7 feet 9 inches tall at its highest point. The variance would allow a taller fence which would prevent cats from escaping (Exhibit 1, Letter of Request). II. CASE ANALYSIS The property is 13,562 square feet in size, has an abnormal shape and contains an existing single family shucture. The property is bounded by Twilight Drive on the northeast and northwest property frontages. The applicants would like approval for a fence which is 7 feet 9 inches at its highest point. The R-1 zone allows a maximum fence height of 6 feet in the rear and side yards. The fence will be used to contain cats in the back yard and keep wild animals out (Exhibit 2, Site Plan). The applicants applied for and received a building permit to construct a six foot fence in the rear yard. The fence was constructed; however an extension was conshucted on top of the six foot fence which serves to contain cats. The extension is angled at approximately 45 degrees in towards the subject property. The permit did not contain any language or evidence that an extension would be conshucted on top of the six foot fence. The fence is constnxcted of inetal mesh with metal posts (Exhibit 3, Applicant Pictures). The fence is constructed in a similar fashion to a chain link fence. This style of fence makes the fence appear less imposing. The fence would not consritute a sight distance triangle obshuction. There have been no variances granted for properties in the neighborhood to increase fence height. One letter of objection has been received (Exhibit 4, L,etter of Objection). 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. A six foot fence is allowed in the side and reaz yards. If the request were denied, the applicants would need to remove the portions of the fence extension which exceed the six foot height limitarion. 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? If the request were granted, the character of the locality would not be altered. The fence is not extremely visible from the right-of-way. Many mature trees help to obscure the fence. There have not been any variances granted in the neighborhood which allow a fence taller Board of Adjustment WA-06-18/Leggett & Peters than six feet. This open style of fence will not seem overbearing nor out of place in 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? The property does have a unique shape; however the shape has no bearing on the request for a taller fence. The lot meets the required lot size for a single-family structure in the R- 1 zone district. 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 applicants wish to prevent cats from escaping the property and keep wildlife out of the back yard. The fence was specially designated to accommodate these purposes. A taller fence will accomplish these goals. 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, substantialiy 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 a negative effect on property values in the neighborhood. 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 commuuity, 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 not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Boazd of Adjustment WA-06-18/Leggett & Peters IV. STAFF CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDED MOTION (S) Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the criteria are supportive of the request. Therefare, staff recommends APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1. The style of fence is physically less imposing than a solid fence, thereby decreasing impact to the surrounding area. 2. The applicants wish to keep cats within their yard and keep wildlife out. The fence with an angled extension should accomplish this goal. 3. The request should not have any negative impact on the neighborhood, nor change the character of the existing neighborhood. 4. The fence is located in the back yard and obscured by mature trees. Board of Adjustment WA-06-18/Leggett & Peters Date: 11/27/2006 To: City of Wheat Ridge From: Sherri Leggett & Julie Peters Re: Fence Variance Request for 14 Twilight Drive We have lived in our current residence at 14 Twilight Drive since 1985. This last summer we replaced our back yazd fence with a custom-made iron wire fence. We researched fence designs and options for several years before choosing this particular fence. The purposes of our fence are to provide security for us and for our cats. When we moved into this home our cats were free roaming. It soon became appazent that wildlife (foxes and coyotes) lived in the neighborhood and that Twilight was a busy intersection. We added "cat proofing" ctricken wire to our eacisting 4-foot fence to keep our cats in ow yard. The cat proofing was unsightly but effective. In addition to our four cats, we foster cats and kittens for Cat Care Society. Cat Care Society is a nonprofit shelter in Lakewood that serves as a rescue and adoption facility for stray, abandoned, and abused cats. Sherri is shelter manager for CCS. Foster homes are needed to mirture underage or sick kittens until they can be retumed to the sttelter for adoption. Normally, we foster two to four Iflttens at a time. The kittens may stay for a weekend or longer, depending on their needs and space availability at the shelter. ff there weren't foster homes, kittens would most likely have to be euthanized. Over the summer we fostered more than 40 kittens for the shelter along with a number of adult cats, several of which were transported to Colorado from Florida and Mississippi after Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma. All the cats from the hurricanes were sick and needed fostering before they could be adopted. Occasionaily, we foster older cats or "temporary care" cats from homeless people, elderly infum people, people in transition, or women who are victims of domestic violence. Since our yazd is small and protected, we feel that with a cat fence iYs a safe haven for our cats and our foster cats. Usually cat fences aze constructed with mesh, or are wired etrtensions to privacy fences that extend at a 45% angle. (See enclosed pictures.) We wanted a cat fence to be more aesthetically pleasing for us and for our neighbors. The fence we chose is 80% open, so that even with the e3rtension it isn't the eyesore a solid fence would be. We feel we've respected the integrity of the neighborhood with its sweeping hills and open yards. EXHIBIT 1 Fence Variance There are still a number of free roaming cats in our neighborhood that, unsupervised, are a potential nuisance. They tend to fight, create traffic hazards, and make dogs bark. VSost shelters these days require cats be kept indoors or in a cat-proof enclosure. It was our understanding that the design and dimensions of the fence were approved by the city as part of the work permit (see attached). The city planner never suggested that we might need a variance. A city inspector actually stopped by the site on the day the fence was being installed and didn't mention anything about a variance. We certainly never intended to violate city code for our cat fence. Enclosed are pictures of our new Deacero fence. It was custom-built and imported from Mexico. We think the construction is solid and secure, and open enough to blend beautifully with the landscape. After we plant shrubs or climbing foliage near the gate, the front should be as camouflaged as the back. The height of the fence and the angled extension was an important part of our decision in choosing this particulaz design to insure that the cats could not climb or jump over it. Our property sits on an incline from west to east and is lower in the back yard than front. The fence panels are 6 feet high from ground to tip, and the cat extension rises approximately a foot and a half into the back yard. The fence is highest on the east side at 7 feet 9 inches and lowest in the back at 7 feet 1 inch. The posts had to be installed at different heights to accommodate for the variation in ground levels. We do hope the fence increases properiy value and enriches the unique flavor and integrity of our lovely neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration IIVI~~OVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE 14 Twilight Drive, Lot 1, Block 10, PARAMOUNT HEIGHTS PART III, County of Jeffer: "-ate of Colorado. I~-r,on of -~Rj~ i-7 \tim ~ / ~S No-rE: / S.o' LJTL',' ESMT~ : ~ooK 721 I~AC~~ °73 ^ ~ . N i ° 9 i ~ 'a~ SGALE : 3a' .21.5' 0 ikPeT1o •toO . 4~k OIS.o;T NyqRR I-LEVEL ~ coM1IG. ~ Zc~ g I/I RAME ES _ Qj ~Jy N 31.g' i~ r \ EXHIBIT 2 "fWIL.IUHT bfZIVE 14 I hereby certify that thi.s improvement location certifi.cate was pr.epared for """RGARETTEN & COMPANY , THAT IT IS NOT A LAND SURVEV PIAT OR IMPROVFMENT VEY RLNT; and that it is not to be relied upon for the establishment oi' ,.:nce, building, or other future improvement lines. I further certify that the improvements on the above described parcel on this dare, September 18, 1985 , except utility connections, are entirely witlii.n the boundaries of the parcel, except as shown, that there are no encroachments upon the described premises by inprovements on any adjoin3.ng premi.ses, except as indicated, and that there is no APFARENT evidence or sign of any easernent crossing or burdeniny any part of said parcel, except as noted. Jt is hereby certified that the property descrioed hereon is/is not located wit.hi.n e flood hazard boundary in accordance with the current HUD federal Admini,tration Flood Hazard Maps, MaP daked 7-3-83 , Panel No.08050790005B , C / BY ' Golden West Surveying, I11C. DATE9-18-85 ,.RJ'.a,~Bs ENf :c2~ Colorado Technical Center 12687 W. Cedar Dr., Ste. 220 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 (303) 987-1141 ORDER N0: 11636 (3UYf R Leggett 'r, 65.00 n~ , ~ ~ `J ~ ~ ~ ~ v d d ~ EXHIBIT 3 ~ ~ S~7 ~ ~ ~ December 5, 2006 Wheat Ridge Planning Division City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29~' Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Re: Case No. WA-06-18 With regard to the request for approval of a fence height variance at 14 Twilight Drive I am opposed to the approval of this height variance due to the possibility of decreasing the value of my property and the adjoining properties. Sincerely, cyY.,~~~/VI JJ Jotui Garramone 14 Rangeview Drive 4Vheat Ridge, CO 80215 EXHIBIT 4 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: December 13, 2006 CASE MANAGER: Meredith Reckert CASE NO. & NAME: Case No. WA-06-19/Gas Plus ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a sign height variance of T and sign setback variances of up to 5' in a C-1 zone district LOCATION OF REQUEST: 6595 W. 44th Avenue NAME OF OWNER(S): Mansour Fotovat APPROXIMATE AREA: 15,840 square feet PRESENT ZONING: Commercial-One (G1) PRESENT LAND USE: Convenience stare with gas pumps ENTER INTO THE RECORD: (X) ZONING ORDINANCE (X) CASE FILE AND PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION m ; ~ $ m - - - ~ R-2 ni °s ~s ~ ea ~s ~ C•1 Board of Adjusrinent Case No. WA-06-19/Gas Plus W 44T H P N•C - R•3 i - f RsC ' C-1 SITE 1 JURISDICTION: The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting requirements haue bee._ met, therefore, there is jurisdicrion to hear this case. 1. REQUEST /EXISTING CONDITIONS The property in question is located at 6595 W. 44~h Avenue and is zoned Commercial-One (Gl). The property contains 15,840 square feet and has a 3200 square foot shucture on it built in 1963. Current use is as a convenience store with gas pumps. There is a small rental sp~ace in the east portion of the building which is currently vacant. The property is a corner lot with W. 44t Avenue running along the southern property line and Newland Street running along the western property line. (Exhibit 1, Survey) The applicants sign is currently 15' in height and measures 9' x 7'. It is located at the very southwest corner of the lot adjacent to the intersection of W. 44th Avenue and Newland Street. The sign is 6' back from the Newland right-of-way line; however there is 5' of excess right-of-way between the property line and the back of walk which is paved as part of the applicant parking and drive area. Visually, the sign appears further away than 6'. The sign is located 12' back from the 44th Avenue right-of-way line which is at the back of the sidewalk. There is another sign pole at the southeast corner of the site which is about 15' in height and has a blank sign face on it of roughly 16 s.f. It appears to be located on the eastern property line and is very closer to the front property line. Sign setbacks are always measured from the leading edge of the sign, not the pole location. The applicant is requesting approval of two sign setback variances and a sign height variance to allow erection of a new sign with 120 s.f. of sign area and 22' of height. (Exhibit 2, sign plan). He would like the sign to be located 5' from the western property line (Newland Street) and 5' from the southern property line (W. 44th Avenue). A building with a 3200 s.f. footprint with a single street frontage is permitted one sign with 74 s.f. of sign space per side. If a property is a corner lot, either two signs with 74 s.ff, of signage would be allowed or the sign area from one sign can be transferred to the other as long as total square footage does not exceed 150 s.f. In this situation, if the permitted sign area from one sign is transferred over to the other, a 148 s.f. sign is permitted. Under current regulations, a sign up to 15' in height would be allowed. Required setbacks are 5' from right-of-way if a sign is 7' or under in height or a 10' setback from right-of-way if the sign is over 7' in height. In 2001, the zoning and development code was rewritten which reduced the permitted freestanding sign height from 25' to 15'. There was no amortization period in which nonconforming signs were required to be brought into conformance. Pursuant to the nonconforming provisions in the sign code, a sign which is nonconforming relative to size, height or setback may remain in place in perpetuity. Once the nonconforming sign is taken down or modified, it must conform to today's standards. However, legislation recently approved by City Council permits a sign nonconforming relative to setback to have a cabinet changed without affecring the nonconforming setback. The implication of this is that the signs on adjacent properties with non- Board of Adjustment 2 Case No. WA-06-19/Gas Plus conforming setbacks and height can be improved with cabinet changes and remain at the same location and height. The applicant is requesting the sign height and setback variances so his business can be more competitive with the adjacent gas stafion across the street which has a higher sign setback closer to the property line. He believes that sign visibility is critical to the success of his business and under the existing conditions his sign is not visible to passersby because it is shorter and setback farther. Exhibit 3 is a visual comparison of the existing and proposed signs representing sign size, height and setback from W. 44`h Avenue (Exhibit 3, sign comparison) II. ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND SIGNAGE The property is abutted on the east and west by a multi-tenant insurance office and gas station/convenience store, respectively. To the north is a single family home zoned R-3. Two single family homes zoned R-2 are located south of the property across W. 441h Avenue. A visual survey and review of the building permit file has revealed that many of the commercial properties in the vicinity have signs which exceed the current standards for height and setback. Those would include the following: 6601 W. 44th Avenue: The property is located directly across Newland Street from the subject site. It is a convenience stare with as pumps. The existing freestanding sign is setback 5' from both property/r-o-w lines (W. 441 Avenue and Newland Street) and is estimated to be 25' in height. The sign contains 196 s.f of sign area. 6651 W. 44th Avenue: Club Corner Bar and Roadhouse is located two lots to the west of the subject site. It also has a large freestanding sign located 4.5' from the front property line. No information was found regarding height or size of the sign but it is similar in size with the one described above at 6601 W. 44th Avenue. 6545 W. 44th Avenue: The property directly to the east is a mulri-tenant insurance office. Although no sign permit information could be found, the sign appears to be only a few feet back from the 44°i Avenue r-o-w line and is higher than 15'. In addition, there is evidence in the building permit file for the subject property that in the past, the property has had a previous sign that was 21' in height and closer to the property line than permitted under current regulafions. There are patch mazks on the asphalt parking consistent with what is reflected in the old permit file. A pernut was issued in 1994 for the existing sign on the property. III. VARIANCE CRITERIA There are two variance acrions which must occur to allow the proposed sign to be constructed as proposed by the applicant. The setback and height variances should be considered separately. Boazd of Adjushnent Case No. WA-06-19/Gas Plus Request A: The applicant is requesting a 7' variance to the I S' mazimum sign height to allow a 22' high freestanding sign. 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 is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable return in use. The property is currently being used as a convenience store the use of which may continue if the sign height variance is denied. However, the applicant believes a taller sign would be mare visible and allow him to be mare comperitive in the gasoline sales market. 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? The height variance would not impact the essential character of the area. There are numerous commercial signs in the immediate vicinity which are nonconforming relative to current standards for height. 3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical conditiou of the speciflc 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? No, the lot is question has a typical rectangular shape and is relatively flat. While there is no geographic hardship, there is a unique hardship based on existing signs in the area which are taller, thus having more visibility. 4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? The property was recently acquired by the current owner. There was previously a taller sign which was removed and replaced with the existing sign in 1994. The removed sign was comparable in size, height and location of other signs in the area. In 2001, the City of Wheat Ridge modified the permitted sign height from 25' to 15' with no amortization clause for nonconforming signs. 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? Granting of the variances would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties or improvements in the neighborhood. The sign height variance would Board of Adjustment Case No. WA-06-19/Gas Plus not impact the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, would not increase the chance of fire or endanger the public safety. 6. If criteria 1 through 5 are found, then, would the granting of the variance result in a beneTit 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 requested height variance would result in an individual benefit for the property owner and would not produce a benefit for the neighborhood or the community. Approval of the variance would not result in the accommodation of a person with disabilities. Request B: The applicant is requesting 5' setback variances from the required 10' setback from right-of-way from both Newland and W. 44`h Avenue for signs over 7' in height. Staff has the following comments regazding the criteria used to evaluate a variance request: 1. Can the property in question yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located? If the request is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable return in use. The property is currently being used as a convenience store the use of which may continue if the setback variances are denied. = However, the applicant believes a sign located closer to the property lines would allow more visibility and allow him to be more comperitive in the gasoline sales market. 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? The setbacks variances would not impact the essential character of the area. There are numerous commercial signs in the immediate vicinity which are nonconforming relative to current standards for setback. The reduced setback along Newland will not be disfinguishable as there is 6' of excess right-of-way which has been incorporated into the convenience store parking and drive area. The excess r-o-w will make the sign appear to be setback 10' from Newland. 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? No, the lot in question has a typical rectangular shape and is relarively flat. While there is no geographic hardship, there is a unique hardship based on exisfing signs in the area which are located closer to the property line than currently permitted, thus having more visibility. Boazd of Adjustment Case No. WA-06-19/Gas Plus 4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? The property was recently acquired by the current owner. There was previously a larger sign located closer to the property lines which was removed and replaced with the existing sign in 1994. The removed sign was comparable in size, height and location of other signs in the area. 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? Granting of the variances would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties or unprovements in the neighborhood. The sign setback variances would not impact the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, would not increase the chance of fire or endanger the public safety. 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 reasouable accommodation of a person with disabilities? The requested setback variances would result in an individual benefit for the property owner and would not produce a benefit far the neighborhood or the community. Approval of the variance would not result in the accommodation of a person with disabilities. IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Request A: Upon review of the request, staff concludes that the above criteria are supportive of the sign height variance request. Therefore, staff recommends approval for the following reasons: 1. There are unique circuxnstances based on other signs in the area which have nonconforming sign heights. 2. The City of Wheat Ridge created a hardship when the permitted sign height was modified and no amortization of nonconforming signs was required. 3. There will be no negative impact on the character of the area. 4. The variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties or improvements in the neighborhood. 5. The sign height variance would not impact the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, would not increase the chance of fire or endanger the public With the following conditions: Board of Adjushnent Case No. WA-06-19/Gas Plus 1. The sign be pernutted up to 120 square feet in size. 2. Only one freestanding sign shall be allowed on the property and the other sign pole with blank sign face on the eastern property line be removed. 3. The sign be designed with an engineered foundation and be built to withstand a 110 mph,three-second wind gust. Reguest B: Upon review of the request, staff concludes that the above criteria are supportive of the sign setback variance requests. Therefore, staff recommends approval for the following reasons: 1. There are unique circumstances based on other signs in the area which have nonconforming setbacks. 2. There will be no negative impact on the character of the area. 3. The variances will not detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties or improvements in the neighborhood. 4. The sign setback variances would not impact the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, would not increase the chance of fire or endanger the public. Boazd of Adjustment Case No. WA-06-19/Gas Plus rr,~irTi S . j , i• ~ .:8~ '~_Y~ ~ ~ x'~ i . ~4wWww~~ y~ I i GONGRETE IWALK C1 ~ C < \ ti c i Q ~ LOT L,OT 2 I f0~ 8 ~ st 43 f^et of L~t: 2, L ' SCALEi . . , . . . NdTE: 1/2-inch sauare .^,tecl Pis~~ tt Tiiera ar~a no app^rent ea:;emens:~ cx,;: ;rr, noted. DL'SC2T1"fYQN: , ~ O ,C 447H• AV~'". - y.P~; t . . _ . . ~ . . b~ r " ; f 1:. Lot 1 and t io ve„ . ' ~effersrn~ Caur.ty, Colorido. , . . A 3 ~ GERTIFICA710N, e j . . . . ~'t^,~~ , I Certify that the ahove drawir,q is a cor~ccl delinea~iarr'u~{ tvrvoy modo undnr f~' j ~ i~~ tny supervision ond tomplated on Auqust 8- ~ ~e~~~'..~,~ ~ ~ . . . ~ . ~ l'.~~~ •~'r7(/ / ' ~y , ~ rl r' [1;f51E0.[D 4VCtlh~ ►~FMREO iY s ~ BAILEY ENGINEERING ata No. G3~6 - I•. 6~ ~-µRtW00D,CO101^00 . . . EXHIBIT 1 ~ 9 ~;u, g') 180" ( iv); 84" EXHIBIT 2 264 " 75 feet (overell height) 7 Feet C) 0 c 3 a w ~n Q ~ X N N • 7 . . ~ ~ D . rD.r l0 91 N fD to 7 N ~ G ~ m ~ X ~ 0 = 3 y EY ~ m P7 o . a w m ~ ~ 22 Feet i 15 Feet ~ G1 ~ 0 c D a ~ . . . N ~ ~ O . . ~ 0 00 O ~ N rD Q rD ~ w O vi -n ? ry " O 3 N 6 ry ~ CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting October 26, 2006 1. 2. 3. 4. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chair BELL at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 291h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. ROLL CALL Commission Members Present: Tom Abbott Janet Bell Bob Blair Paul Drda Paul Hovland Bob Howard Larry Linker Davis Reinhart Staff Members Present: Travis Crane, Planner II Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary PUBLIC FORUM There were no individuals present who wished to address the Board at this time. PUBLIC HEARINGS Priar 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-06-15: An application filed by Richard Mareno for approval of (A) an 800 square foot variance to the 1000 square foot masimum resulting in an 1800 square foot barn AND (B) a request for approval of a 9-foot side yard setback variance from the I S-foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 6-foot side yard setback on property zoned Residential One (R-1) and located at 6671 West 26"' Avenue. The case was presented by Travis Crane. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval of both variance requests for reasons outlined in the staff report. Board of Adjustment October 26, 2006 - 1 - Board Member BLAIR noted that the property owner immediately to the east at 6655 West 26th Avenue did not sign the letter of supp~ort. He also asked what the nature of the structure i"s at the rear of 6655 West 26` . Mr. Crane explained that the structure appeared to be a garage with a smaller structure that appears to be a shed; however, there would be no separation issue with either of those structures. Richard Moreno 6671 West 26t" Avenue Mr. Moreno, the applicant, presented a digital depiction of the proposed barn addition. In response to the question raised by Board Member Blair, he stated that he had a conversation with the property owner of 6655 West 26`h and she is in agreement with his plans. 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 administrarive officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-06-15 (A) is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative offlcer; 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 Case No. WA-06-15 (A) be, and hereby is approved. For the following reasons: 1. The increase in size of the existing barn and attached structures is negligible as explained by staff during the hearing. The increase in structure size will accommodate covered storage for hay. 2. The increase in square footage to the barn will not change the character of the locality. There are at least two accessory structures in the neighborhood which are at least 1,200 square feet in size. The property directly to the north has an outbuilding approximately 1,200 square feet in size. Board of Adjustment October 26, 2006 - 2 - Many adjacent properties have multiple outbuildings which create a cluttered landscape. The addition to the existing barn will create one cohesive structure on this property and remove two existing ancillary structures. 4. The request would not be detrimental to the public welfare. The barn is located in the extreme northeastern corner of the property. The closest residential dwelling unit is over 105 feet to the closest point of the barn. 5. The applicant testified that he had discussed the issue with his neighbor directly to the east and had obtained a verbal approval. 6. Staff recommended approval. With the following conditions: 1. The two existing structures shall be removed from the property. 2. No additional ancillary structures may be added. 3. The barn addition may not be occupied by horses. The motion carried 8-0. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member DRDA the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative ofricer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-06-15 (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, 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-06-15 (B) be, and hereby is approved. Board of Adjustment October 26, 2006 - 3 - For the following reasons: 1. The request will not change the character of the locality. Many accessory structures on adjacent parcels do not meet the required 15- foot side yard setback requirement. 2. The request would not be detrimental to the public welfare and will not impact the adequate supply of air or light to adjacent properties nor increase the danger of Fre. 3. The lot is 9 feet short of the required lot width of 100 feet in the R-1 zone district. The deficient lot width relates directly to the need for the variance for a side yard setback. 4. The applicant testified that he discussed the issue with the neighbor directly to the east and received verbal approval. 5. Staff recommended approval. The motion carried 7-1 with Board Member HOVLAND voting no. B. Case No. WA-06-16 An application filed by Jason Timmes for approval of a 15-foot 1-inch side yard setback variance from the 30-foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in a 14-foot 11-inch side yard setback for property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 4675 Lamar Street.. The case was presented by Travis Crane. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recoinmended approval of the variance request for reasons outlined in the staff report. Board Member HOVLAND asked if a greater setback is required due to the height of building. Mr. Crane replied that it would not be an issue in R-2 zone district. Board Member HOWARD asked if the code would allow the applicant to enclose the front porch. Mr. Crane replied that enclosure of the porch would require a variance. Board Member ABBOTT commented that the bulk plane mass is not an issue with the overall house, but the bulk plane mass is affected by the encroachment. He also asked for clarification as to whether the request was for a side yard or front yard setback. Mr. Crane replied that it was a front yard setback. The staff report contained an error in stating it was a side yard setback. Board of Adjustment October 26, 2006 - 4 - Board Member DRDA commented that the angular design seems to be out of character with the neighborhood and asked about the percentage of lot coverage. Mr. Crane stated that maximum lot coverage is not exceeded. In response to a question from Board Member BELL, Mr. Crane explained that a property owner could "pop the top" on a single story house as long as it is in line with the existing structure and within the 35-foot height limitation. There would be no need for a variance unless there was a setback issue. Jason Timmes 4675 Lamar Street Mr. Timmes was sworn in by Chair BELL. He clarified that he did not plan to enclose the covered porch. He stated that, although there were no immediate houses with second stories, there is one located at 46th Place and Newland as well as 45th Place and Newland. The angular construction is due to the current layout of the house and an attempt to save part of his back yard. He wants to enlarge his 1250 square foot structure in order to stay in this Wheat Ridge neighborhood and raise a family. Board Member ABBOTT commented that he liked the design which is in keeping with revitalization, however it is quite an encroachment and suggested that the third bay of the garage could be moved back to lessen the variance. In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. Timmes stated that he plans to use the existing garage for storage. Rhonda Champion 6420 West 46`h Place Ms. Champion lives directly to the west of the applicant's property and she voiced her opposition to the variance on the basis that it would change the character of the locality and would be detrimental in regard to the availability of light. She expressed frustration with the city's zoning ardinances that have only been addressed three tiines since the city's incorporation. She noted that the posted sign and the certified letter sent to neighbors indicated that the variance was for a side yard setback and not a front yard setback She stated that she also spoke with neighbors who did not feel the posting and notification were clear as to what the applicant intended to do. She also stated that the letter of support did not accurately reflect where the people live. She objected to the plans for a two-story dwelling because the neighborhood is comprised of one-story structures and she presented several photographs of the neighborhood. She stated that she had contacted other neighbars who were also in opposition. She further stated that the proposed variance would affect her privacy. Chair BELL reminded Ms. Champion that the only issue under consideration is the request for a setback variance. A two-story home is allowed in the zone district as long as it does not exceed the height limit. Board of Adjusrinent October 26, 2006 - 5 - Board Member ABBOTT asked Ms. Champion if she would still object to the variance if the portion of the structure involved in the variance was limited to one story. Ms. Champion replied that she would have no objection to that portion of the structure being one story but was still opposed to having the entire addition being two stories. In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Mr. Crane stated that an error was made in the posting as well as the certified letter that stated the variance was far a side yard setback rather than a front yard setback. Chair BELL asked if others were present who wished to address this matter. Hearing no response, she closed the public hearing on this case. Boazd Member HOVLAND expressed concern as to whether or not the case could proceed in light of the posting and notice errors. Board Member DRDA commented that, although there was an error in posting, the intent is not affected. Board Member REINHART agreed that the notice was adequate, however, in the presence of opposition he favored reposting and continuance of the hearing. Board Members LINKER, ABBOTT, BLAIR and HOWARD agreed that it would be best to repost and continue the hearing. It was moved by Board Member REINHART and seconded by Board Member HOVLAND to continue the hearing to December 13, 2006. Board Member ABBOTT offered a friendly amendment to require reposting and republishing of the hearing. The amendment was accepted by Board Members REINHART and HOVLAND. The motion carried 8-0. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair BELL closed the public hearing. 6. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Board. NEW BUSINESS A. Change in Meeting Date Board of Adjusrinent October 26, 2006 - 6 - It was moved by Board Member DRDA and seconded by Board Member BLAIR to cancel the regularly scheduled Board meetings of November 23 and December 28 to hold one meeting on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. The motion carried 8-0. B. Approval of Minutes of September 28, 2006 Board Member HOWARD requested an amendment to the first page of the minutes to indicate that Board Member Linker was present. It was moved by Board Member DRDA and seconded by Board Member BLAIR to approve the minutes as amended. The motion passed unanimously. C. Tour of Wonderland Homes - Chair BELL encouraged Board Members to attend. D. Case No. WA-06-12 - Travis Crane referred to the meeting of September 28, 2006 when the applicant in this case was denied a request for rehearing. The City Attorney's opinion is that the 30-day window for an applicant to appeal to District Court begins at the time the request for rehearing is denied. 8. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Board Member DRDA and seconded by Board Member BLAIR to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Janet Bell, Chair Board of Adjustment October 26, 2006 Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary 7-