Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/26/2005CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA May 26, 2005 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on May 26, 2005, at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29`h 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-05-08: An application filed by Brothers Fence Company for approval of a vaziance to the 6 foot maximum fence height standacd under Section 26-603 resulting in an 8 foot high fence for property zoned Commercial-One (C- 1) and located at 9505 West 44th Avenue. B. Case No. WA-05-09: An application filed by the Wheat Ridge Housing Authority for approval of a 5 Foot side yard setback variance from the 10 foot side setback requirement for detached garages over 8 feet in height on property zoned Residential-Three (R-3) and located at 4501 Everett Street. C. Case No. WA-05-10: An application filed by Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites for approval a variance of 10 feet from the required 30 foot setback from the right-of-way for signs over 25 feet high resulting in a 20 foot setback from the right-of-way for property zoned Commercial-One (C-1) and located at 10101 West I-70 Frontage Road South. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - March 24, 2005 8. ADJOURNMENT City of Wheat Ridge oF WHEAT Community Development Department ~ c~ m Memorandum ~~CORAo~ TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Case No. WA-05-08Brother's Fence DATE: May 20, 2005 Staff is recommending a continuance of Case No. WA-05-08, a request for approval of a fence height variance for property located at 9505 W. 44`h Avenue, so that issues resolving access to W. 45"' Avenue can be further discussed. . ~i~ WH~TqO c? m C~LOPP~O TO: CASE NO. & NAME: ACTION REQUESTED: CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLAN1vING DIVISION STAFF REPORT Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Jeff Hirt WA-05-09/Wheat Ridge DATE OF MEETING: May 26, 2005 Housing Authority Approval of a 5 foot side yard setback variance from the 10 foot side yazd setback requirement for detached garages over 8 feet in height on property zoned Residential Three (R-3). LOCATION OF REQUEST: 4501 Everett Street APPLICANT (S): Wheat Ridge Housing Authority OWNER (S): Wheat Ridge Housing Authority APPROXIMATE AREA: 20,052 square feet (46 acres) PRESENT ZONING: Residential-Three (R-3) ENTER INTO RECORD: I (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map f " ~ ~J LJ w R'3 ❑ U F ~-~W ~ it w ~ W w W W > W Subject Parce ftEE-- G1 C-2 m ; ~ Boazd of Adjustinent Case WA-05-09/Wheat Ridge Housing AuthoriTy (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION 1 .Turisdiction All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. 1. REQUEST The property in question is located at 4501 Everett Street: The property has Residential Three (R-3) zoning The applicant, Jerry DiTullio, Wheat Ridge Housing Authority chairperson, is requesting a variance on behalf of the owners, the Wheat Ridge Housing Authority (Exhibit 1, Application). The request is for approval of a 5 foot side yard setback vaziance from the required 10 foot side yard setback. Detached gazages over 8 feet in height must be setback 10 feet from the side yazd in the R-3 zone district. The applicant proposes to construct an approximately 1,302 square foot (62' X 21') detached gazage on the property (Exhibit 2, Site Plan, Exhibit 3, Elevations). The proposed gazage will be located 5 feet from the side property line on the north and 9 feet from the property line to the west. Per the Code of Laws, the minimum side and reaz yard setback for a detached garage in the R-3 zone district is 5 feet if the structure is less than 8 feet in height, and 10 feet if the strucmre is over 8 feet in height. The proposed gazage is over 8 feet in heighr, therefore the 10 foot setback requirement is applicable for both the side and reaz yards. As a result, a variance of 5 feet to the side yazd setback before the Board of Adjustment is required to allow for the proposed detached garage at the location shown on the site plan. The request is only for the side property line setback variance to the north. As the site plan shows the detached gazage 9 feet from the rear property line to the west, a variance would be required to allow for this setback as well. This variance request however would be classified as a minor variance. Minor variances are requests for variances of 10 percent or less from the standazd. Per Section 26-115 of the Code of Laws, the director of community development is empowered to decide upon applications for minor variances or waivers without a public hearing provided that the "findings of facP" support the request, all public notification procedures have been met, and no additional dwelling units would result from the request. A request fot a variance to atlow for a detached garage at this location was made before of the Board of Adjustment on March 24, 2005. This previous request was foY approval of a 5 foot side and 5 foor rear yard setback variance from the 10 foot side yazd and 10 foot reu yard setback requirement. The motion to approve the request failed, with 5 members voting yes, and 2 voting no; therefore the previous request was denied (Exhibit 4, Minutes). Per Section 26-107 (C) a new application for substantially the same development process may not be refiled for one year after denial. It has been determined by the zoning administrator that this application is not substantially the same development prceess as the previous request The R-3 zone dislrict also specifies that the maYimum allowable size for a detached garage is 600 squaze feet per unit. The property has an existing 8 unit multi-family residential structure on it; therefore the maximum size allowed for a detached garage on this property is 4,800 squaze feet. Access into the proposed garage will be from the existing access off of 45'" Place, going north into the property. A substantial portion of the property lies within the 100 year floodplain. It is not certain at this time whether any portion of the proposed garage will lie within the floodplain. If it is determined that it will, a Class I floodplain exception will be required to construct the gazage. This may be placed as a condition upon the variance request if approved. A Class I floodplain special excepuon permit can be approved adminisuatively by the City's Flood Plain Administrator. Eoara or najusUnent . . 2 - Case WA-05-09/Wheat Ridge Honsing Authority It should also be noted that the property is a corner lot, making the setback requirements more restrictive. The R-3 zone district regulations state that any side or reaz yazd which abuts a public street shall have a setback of 30 feet for all structures (Exhibit 5, Buildable Portion of Lot). Goals of the Wheat Ridge Housing Authority are to increase the number of owner-occupied units in the City, increase property values and provide affordable housing. Since its inception in 2001, the WRI3A has successfully bought, rehabilitated and reinnoduced 24 townhouse units into the City's housing stock. Proposed improvements to 4501 Everett include new floor coverings, new windows and kitchen remodeling (new countertops, cabinets and appliances) (Exhibit 6, Proposed Improvements). It is the opinion of staff that providing affordable housing in Wheat Ridge is an important public service, and any reasonable accommodation for this would be beneficial. The purpose of this variance request is to allow for a detached garage that is large enough to provide adequate off street parking for an 8 unit apartment complex given the setback constraints of a corner lot and the location of the existing multi-family structure. It has been expressed by the applicants that providing garage space is a very important amenity to potential buyers. In past projects done by the Wheat Ridge Housing Authority it has been expressed by the applicants that the units with garages were the first to sell. Placing the detached garage within setback requirements would also likely eliminate a large portion of the courtyard for buyers. It should be noted that in 2003, the setback requirement which is applicable to this variance was changed. Prior to the current regulation, adopted by City Council in 2003, the setback requirement was 5 feet in the R-3 zone district for detached garages, regardless of heighL Therefore the proposed garage would have been allowed under the previous setback requirements. All other development standards have been met with the proposed structure, with the exception of a possible subsequent minor variance request for the reu yard setback to the west as noted above. II. SITE PLAN The property is approximately 20,052 squaze feet, or .46 acres. The property measures 142 feet wide with a depth of 140 feet (Exhibit7, Improvement Location Certificate). There is currently no covered parking on the property for the 8 residential units. Residents park in a small paved azea behind the building, accessed off of 45t' Place, or on the street along Everett Street and 45d' Place. The area surrounding the property consists of multifamily to the north and the west, a park to the east, and a commercial use to the south. There is a common paved azea that encompasses three different properties, including the property in quesdon. Three different multifamily buildings have unimpeded access to this paved azea, although it dces encompass three different properties. II. VARIANCE CRITERIA 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 may still be used as a multi-family residence without the need for any variances. 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? The request may have an effect on the essential chazacter of the locality. None of the surrounding multi- family residential structures have garages. Board o[ Aajushment , 3 Case WA-05-09/Wheat Ridge Housing Authority . 3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condiHon of the specific property involved result in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? There aze no unique physical conditions related to shape or topography that render any portion of the property in question unbuildable. The property in question is square in shape and flat but is a comer lot resulting in more restrictive setback requirements. 4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presenUy having an interest in the property? The applicant has created his own hardship by requesting a gazage in this location. However, there aze limited options on the property for placement of a gazage to accommodate an 8 unit residential structure given the setback constraints and location of the existing structure. 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 tlungs, 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 witlun the neighborhood? Approva] of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the azea. There may be a slight decrease in the supply of light and air to the properties to the north and west, given that approval of the variance would result in a swcture closer to the property line than is allowed under current development standazds. The request would not substantially increase the congestion in public streets, increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. Property values of the property in question and adjacent properties will be improved as a result of this request, as it is the opinion of staff that the property in queseon and adjacent properties are in need of improvements. 6. If criteria 1 through 5 are found, then, would the granfing 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 granfing oF the variance result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities? The request may result in a substantial benefit or contribution to the neighborhood or community distinguished from an individua] benefit on the part of the applicant. It is the opinion of staff that the property in question, and adjacent properties aze in need of improvements. Providing an incentive to make physical improvements to a dilapidated property may be beneficial not only to the property in question, but to the surrounding azea as a result. Property owners often take note of improvements made to adjacent properties and desire to do the same. The property in question is owned by the Wheat Ridge Housing Authority, the intent of which is to provide a public service resulung in a contribution to the community. The request would not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. III. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOD'IMENDATIONS Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the above criteria are supportive of the variance request. Staff has found that there are unique circumstances attributed to these requests that would wai7ant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL for the following reasonx Board of Adjushent 4 Case WA45-09/Whmt Ridge Housing Authority 1. The applicant has very ]imited options for placement of a garage to accommodate an 8 unit multifamily structure without the need for a variance or variances. 2. Approval of the variance would hopefully provide an incentive to make improvements to a dilapidated property, and perhaps be influential for adjacent properties to do or request the same. 3. The intent of the property being owned by the Wheat Ridge Housing Authority is to provide a public service resuiting in a benefit to the community. 4. The adjacent property to the north is also zoned multi-family. 5. The comer lot stams of this apartment building places the building with a significant double front yard setback therefore limiting available space in the rear for a detached garage. 6. The 10 foot required setbacks do not seem to provide a de£mable benefitto this neighborhood as compared to a less dense location. With the following conditions: 1. If it is deternuned that any portion of the structure is within the 100 yeaz floodplain, a Class I floodplain exception will be required prior to issuance of a building pemut. 2. The structure shall not have an exterior with visible metal materials. Board of Adjustrnent Case WA-05-09/4Yheat Ridge Housing Authority ~ WHE4T9~O . LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION c; m Community Development Department 7500 West 29`b Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Phone (303) 235-2846 C?rt OR 100 (Please print or qpe all information) Applicant Nheat RidRe HousinR Auth. Address 7500 W. 29th Avenue Phone 303-235-2846 C]ty Wheat Ridge State Colorado Zip 80033 Fax ( Owner WhPat PidgP FeusinZ-Auth Address 7500 W. 29th Avenue Phone 103-215-284 City W!7eat Rid-e State Colorado Zip 80033 Fax Jerry DiZhll'o 7500 W. 29th Avenue 303-235-2846 Contact Henrv Wehrdt ~aSeiit for WRHA)Address 7490 W. 45th Avenue Phone 303-422-8600ac City WhPat RidgP State Colorado Zip 80033 F~ 3Q3-427-3229 ('the person Iisted as contact witl be contactcd to answer questions regarding this application, provide additional informazion whrn nccessary, post public hcaring signs, will receive a copy of the staff repon prior to Public Hearing and shall be responsible for forwarding all verbal and w7itten wmmunication to applicant and owner.) Location of request (address): 4501 Everett Street Type of ac6on requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request): AppGcation submiad requirements nn rrverse side O Change of zone or mne conditions ❑ Specia3 Use Permit ❑ Consolidation Plat ❑ Subdivision: Minor (5 lots or less) ❑ Flood Plain Special Exception ❑ Subdivision: Major (More than 5 lots) ❑ Lot Line Adjustrnent ❑ Right of Way Vacation ❑ Planned Building Group ❑ Temporary Use, Building, Sign ❑ Site Development Plan approval p Variance/Waiver (from Section ) 0 Other: Detaileddescriptionofrequesi: l:~~tback to north property line. (side yard) Required informaUOn: Assessors Parcel Number: Size of Lot (acres or square footage): Current Zoning: R-9 Proposed Zoning: Current llse: Proposed Use: I certify ihai the information and exhibits herewith submitted aze irue and correct to the best of my knowledge and thai in filing this application, I am acting with ihe knowledge and consent of those persons listed above, without whose consent the requested action cannot lawfully be accomplished. Applicanu other than owners the owner which approved of this action on his behalf. must submit power-of-attomZ14ea-el Signature ot Applicant ~ Subscribed d swom to me this ~ day of Anm/, 20 Notart Pub c MycommissionexpireseZ0,3 406 To be Slled out by statf: nacerecc;vea 'i~ld-9/o6- cascNo. it/A--OS-O g Comp P~~ ~ig, EXHIBIT 1 Quartn Sxtion Map /V24-7-A..2 Rdated Case No. Casc Managa f-J--1 KT 2' GENERALNOTES t. THEWORD"CONTRACTOR°ASUSEOHEREINSHALLMEANTHEGENERAICONTRACTOR,SUBCONTRACTORSANDALL PERSONSOIRECRYORINDIRECTLYEMPLOYED BYTHEM. 2. CONTRACTORSHALL COMPLV WITHAlLOR01NANCES,RULES,REGUL4TIONSAND LAWFULORDER50FAN POBLICAGENCV PAVING JURISDICTION ON THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOTIFV OWNER IMMEDIATELY UPON BECOMING AWARE THAT ANY SPECT OF iHE PROJECT DESCRIBED HEftEIN IS AT VARIANCE TNEREWITH 3. CONTRACTORSHqLL PROVIOECERTiFICATESOFINSURANGEACCEPTABLETOOWNERPRIORTOCOMMENCEMENTOFWORK. 4. BVSU9MITTALOF0ID CONTeACTORWARRANT5TO0WNERTHATALLMATERIALSAN0EQUIPMENTT06EFURNiSHEOARE NEW UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISEAND ALL WORK WILL BE OF GO00 pUALiTY AND FREE FROM FAUITS ANO OEFECTS. 5. CONTR4CTORSHALLVISITSITEAND VERIFYALLE%ISTINGCONORIONSPRIORTOSU9MIiTALOFBID. 8. CONTRACTORSNALLVERIFYALLDIMENSIONSSHOWNHEREINANDREPORTALIDISCREPANCIESTOOWNERPRI0RT0 SUBMITTAL OF BIO. ALLSTFNDPRONOTESCONTAINEOHEREINHRENPIChLl1NLE55NOTEOOTHERWISE 8. ALLTRADENAMESANDBRAND NAMESCONTAINEOHEREINESTABLISHQUALITYSTANDARDS,Sl195TITllTIONSAREPRMITIED W ITH PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE OWNER, 9. WHERE CONSTRUCTION DEfAILS FOR A PART OF THIS PROJECT ARE NOT SHOWN THE WORK SHALL BE THE SAME AS OTHER SIMI1-4R WORK FOR WHICH OETAILS ARE SHOWN. 10. THE GARAGE SHAIL CONTAIN NO OPENINGS INTO ROOMS USED FOR SLEEPING PORPOSES N. EACH TOILET SHALL BE LOCA7ED IN A CLEpR SPACE NOT LESS THAN 30' W IDE ANO SHALL PAVE A CLEAR SPACE IN FRONT OF NOT LESS THAN 24° PER IRC 2003. 12. FIRE WARNING SYSTEM SHALL COMPLV WITH IRC 2003. 13. ALLftEQUiREDEXIST55HALLBEOPENABlEF0.0MT}1EINSIDEWITHOl1TTHEUSEOFAKEYORANVSPECiALKNOWIEDGE OR EFFORT. 14. OPENINGS E%TENOING VERTICALLY THROUGH FLOORS SHALL BE ENCLOSED IN A ONE HOIJR FIRE RESISTIVESHAFf COMPLYING WITH IRC 2003. 15. PROVIDEAMINIMUM22'X30'ATTICACCESSOPENINGINEACHATTICWHOSEMAXIMUMCLEAR HEIGHTEXGEED530'. PROVIDE30"MINIMUMHE40ftOOMABOVEEACHSUCHOPENINGPERIRC2003. 16. ALL W EATHER FXPOSED SURFACES SHALL BE COVERED WITH GRADE'B' WATERPROOF BUILDING PAPER COMPLYING WITH IRC 2003 NO- 174 OR NPE 15 ASPHFLT SATURATEO ORGANIC fELT COMPLVING WITH IRC 2003. STANDARO NO. 324 AND SHPLI BE INSTALLED PER IRC 2003. 17. GASVENTSANDNONCOM9USTIBLEPIPINGMUSTBEEFFEGIiVELVDRAFI'STOPPEDATEACH FLOORANO CEIIJNGTHROUGH WHICH IT PASSES. 16. GUARD RAILS WITHIN HOME SHPLL BE AT LEAST 38" HIGH ANO SHALL BE CONSTRUCTEO SO THAT A 4"DIAMEiERSPHERECANNOTPASSTHROUGHPERIRC2003, (42"HIGHATE%TERIORGUARORAllS) 19. HOSEBIBSANDIRRIGATIONSVSTEMSSHALLBEEQUIPPEOWITHAPPROVEDBACKFLOW PREVENTION OEVICES. 20. EXHAUST PANS AND ORYER VENTS MIIST 6E DI1CTED TO OUTSIDE AIR AND BE EQUIPPEO WITH APPROVEp6ACK-ORAFTDAMPERS. 21. ALL INSULATION SHALL WAVE A FLAMESPREAO IiATING NOT TO EXCEEO 25 AND A SMOKE DENSITY NOT TO EXCEED 450 WHEN 1ESTED IN ACCOROANCE WITH U.B.C. STPNOARD N0. 42-1. 22. HANDR4ILS SHALL BE PLACEO NOT LESS THAN 34' OR MORETHAN 38' PER, IRC 2003 1. ALLESCAPEORRESCUEWINOOWSSHALLHAVEAMINIMUMNETCLEAROPENABLEARE40F5] SQUARF FEET. THE MINIMUM NET CLEAR OPENq6LE HEIGHT OIMENSION SHALL BE 241NCHE5. THE MINIMUM NET CLEPft OPENABLE WIDTH DIMENSION SHALL BE 201NCHE5. WHEN WINDOWS ARE PROVIDED AS A MEANS OF ESCAPE OR RESCUE. 2. ALLREFERENCESTOTHEINTERNATIONALBUILOINGGOOESHALL9ETOTHE2003EDITION 3. PROVIDEA2%SLOPEAWAVFORMTHEBUILDINGFORqMINIMUMOFFIVE-FEET d. THEftESHALLBENOON-SITEWATERREfEM'ION. 5. GRACE DIFFEREMIAlS GREATERTHAi 121NCHE5 SHALL 9E SUPPORTED BV AN APPROVED RETAINMG WALL 8. LOWFLOWWATERCLOSETSTOBEINSTALLEp(MAX.I.5GAlLONSPERFWSH). PRIMARVHEATINGSVSTEMFORAOOITIONSHALLBEFLOORRADIATION. STRUC7URALNOTES i. ALLOWABLESOILBEARING-1,SOOPSF 2. CONCREiET00BTAINAMINIMUMCOMPRE551VE5TRENGTHOF3,000P51 AF(ER 28 DAYS 3. REINFORCINGSTEEL - A6157 GR4DEM. 4. DIMENSIONLLIMBER.-HEMFIRi12,ib-050P51 CODE ANALYSIS ZONED R-1 lOT SIZE= 140' X 14323' LOT AREA= 19977.9 SQ FT FLOOR AREA TABUL4TION NEW CONSTRUCTION FLOOR AREA= 7292 SQ FT. OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: H-4 CONSTRUCTION TYPE V-N OCCUPANT LOAD: 5 1100 SF/PERSON) I ~ LOT13 I IR16 I ~ rouxonrawnxo mvnousu~nnn cw~s~vm xwaoave crsis.~ ~ _ ' 6'lITV1YFlSEMEM 1N ~ I ~ I ~ II L ~I N I I ~ I I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I I ~ LI.._ 2 " NEW PoRLHR J mP,Pms) ~ glP .-.~<ao¢...-.._..-.._..-.._..-..~ :~•.~m~ u~E cm ao iP n E:l \ ~ O ~ U La ~ Q O EXHIBIT 2 PLOTPL.4/V JOB N0. DATE 4121/05 S-/ oF 3 REVISIONS ELEVATION TYPICAL TRUSS 12 SIDE ELEVATION EXHIBIT 3 om I 11..3 `-p 3 3i If28 II'48' IP"Z om ~ 2 2 12HRD 2 2 12HRD 2 2x12HRD 2-2x12HR0 2-1x12HRD ~ - c I - r i - i I I B 3u 4- FLOOR PLAN AND ROOF FRAMING PLAN 3-TP13 SHINGLE SECTION-1 ROOP OL 10 PSF 12 CEILINGDLtOPSF y~ ROOF LL 30 PSF WIND LOAO 100 MPH EXPOSUREC 20'-iP I 12 SECTION-2 SCALE: 1l4" ='I'-0" DATE 4I21/OS SZ oF 3 vz vns rumwi~ ZFqa!6"O[ PoFAYIaN- ENGINEEREDTRUSSES ROOF OL 10 PSF ROOFLL30PSF- ea MPH WIND LOAO BOTTOM CHORDTRUSS DL 10 PSF aw.rse ~ L ~-T DETAIL-3 UETAIL-2 OETAIL-1 FOUNDATION PLAN. rep SEOTION-t trn) --12" SOFFIT PLV WOOD 00 ~o TIES -'--5" GUTTER 2x6 BEAM 4X4 POST sueoNCRnoe I H 1~ i i i i alSTINGFOOTJNG I I I I EXISTING I Y-NEWB'X360EEPCAISSON I I-FOtINDATIONWALL J I I r~J1 L_J SECTION-2 1:1 • \ ~Ov ~ w V ~ O ~ hW ~ ~ [E] 1. There is an approximately 2 foot grade c6ange along a retaining wall between the property in question and the property to the south, the property to the south existing approximately 2 feet above the applicant's property. The manner in which tbe height of the fence is measured pursuant to the Code of Laws (from fiaished grade 5 feet inside the property whicb it belongs) makes it problematic to have a true 6 foot privacy fence for the property owners on this portion of the lot. 2. The request will have a minimal effect on the essential character of the locality. An 8 foot fence at the proposed location will be less impactive than normal given the significant grade change betw•een the two properties. 3. Six citizens offered to speak in approval of this variance. With the following conditions: 1. T6e fence height variance is approved for 110 feet along the south property line as specified by the applicant in Exhibit 1 and as modified by the Board. Construction of a fence within the minimum required front yard must adhere to applicable height standards including the method in which the fence height is measured. 2. The fence may stairstep down to 4 feet prior to the front yard setback requirement. The motion passed 7-0. Chair DRDA advised the applicant his request for variance was approved. ~ D. Case No. WA-05-06: An application filed by ihe Wheat Ridge Housing Authority for approval of a 5 foot side and 5 foot rear yazd setback variance from the 10 foot side and 10 foot reaz yazd setback requirement for detached gazages over 8 feet in height on property zoned Residential-Three (R-3) and located at 4501 Everett Street. This case was presented by Jeff Hirt. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval of the application for reasons oudined in the staff report. Boazd Member HOWARD expressed concem that Jerry DiTullio, a member of City Council, was presenting this case. Mr. Hirt stated that Mr. DiTullio was presenting the case as Chair of the Wheat Ridge Ho,using Authority and staff had concluded there was no conflict in this regazd. Boazd Member HOVLAND asked ifthe utility easement would be affected by the variance. Ms. Reckert explained that the easements aze 5 feet wide and that is what the setback would be. Boazd oFAdjustment - l l - 03-24-05 EXHIBIT 4 Jerry DiTullio 3250 Newland Street Mr. DiTullio was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He clazified that he was appearing strictly as Chair of the Housing Authoriry and not as a member of City Council. In discussions with the Community Development Departrnent he leamed that four garages could be built on this property without a variance. Since this is an 8-plex, the Housing Authority would like to build 6 gazages to get more cars off the street and promote sale of the units. It is planned to build storage units and patios for the units. Boazd Member BELL expressed concem about the lack of a play area for children. Mr. DiTullio replied that there is a pazk across the street where children can play. Boazd Member HOVLAND expressed concern about homeowners using the gazages for storag.e rather than pazking cazs. Mr. DiTullio stated that once the units are sold, a homeowners association would address these types of matters. In response to a question from Boazd Member HOWARD, Mr. DiTullio stated the garages would be constructed with vinyl siding. Doug Knop 1260 Corona, Denver Mr. Knop is one of the Housing Authority's technical advisors with the Jefferson County Housing Authority. He stated there was no other suitable configuration for the gazages. Six garages would allow for more offstreet parking and make the units more desirable. If the number were reduced to five garages it would only eliminate one setback problem. Space is needed for tumazound radius and to provide courtyazd space. Larry Nelson 8534 West Swarthmore Place, Littleton Mr. Nelson was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He is with Comerstone Realty, broker for the Housing Authority. He stated that this is the third Housing Authority project and he has found that garages and private spaces aze very important to buyers. In previous projects, the units with garages were the first to sell. Seven of the uniis wil] have private courtyazds if six garages aze allowed and there would also be adequate turnazound for vehicles. Board Member ABBOTT commented that there aze many private homeowners who have similar situations when wanting to build a gazage and there doesn't seem to be a hardship issue here other than marketability. Mr. DiTullio replied that the variance would adjust to an area that is poorly planned and zoned and each Board of ?,djustment case is considered on its own merits and does not set precedence. This is a unique situation in the azea. The objective of the Housing Authority is to improve the azea and provide affordable housing. Boazd of Adjustment " 12 - 03-24-OS Meredith Reckert commented that staff believes there are unique circumstances because half of the lot is taken up with front setbacks. Board Member BELL commented that the need for afFordable housing in Wheat Ridge is overwhelming and garages are desirable amenities. Boazd Member HOVLAND agreed that providing affordable housing and improving the neighborhood are worthy goals, but it is important to adhere to all the variance criteria. Boazd Member DRDA stated that he was having difficulty in finding a hardship in this case. Meredith Reckert commented that a unique circumstance is also presented by an attempt to improve a nonconforming property. Board Member BYBEE expressed concem that a 10 foot setback may be more conducive to collecting junk. Board Member BELL commented that she believed a hazdship exists because of the ]ot configuration and the great need for affordable housing. This is the kind of situation that needs to be addressed when revising the Comprehensive Plan. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member BYBEE the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Ad}ustment Application Case No. WA-05-06 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 t6at there were no protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the infent and purpose of the regulafions governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA- 05-06 be, and hereby is, approved. Type of Variance: A 5 foot side and 5 foot rear yard setback variance from ihe 10 foot side yard and 10 foot rear yard setback requirement for detached garages over 8 feet in height on property zoned Residential-Three (R-3) and located at 4501 Everett Street. Board of Adjustment - 13 - 03-24-OS For the following reasons: 1. The applicant has very limited options for placement of a garage to accommodate an 8-unit multi-family structure without the need for a variance or variances. 2. Approval of the variance would hopefully provide an incentive to make improvements to a dilapidated property and perhaps be influential to adjacent properties to do or request the same. 3. The intent of the property being owned by the Wheat Ridge Housing Authority is to provide a public service therefore resulting in a benefit to the community. 4. The adjacent property to the north is also zoned multi-family. 5. The corner lot placement of this apartment building places the building with a significant double front yard setback therefore limiting available space in the rear. 6. The 10 foot required setbacks do not seem to provide a definable benefit to this neighborhood as compared to a less dense location. Witb the following conditions: 1. If it is determined that any portion of this structure is within the 100-year floodplain, a Class I floodplain exception will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. The structure shall not have an exterior with visible metal materials. Chair DRDA reminded everyone present that a super majority vote of 6 affirmative votes was necessazy to approve the application. The motion failed 5-2 with Board members DRDA and HOWARD voting no. Chair DRDA advised the applicant the request for variance was denied. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD $USINESS There was no old business to come before the Boazd. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - January 27, 2005 Boazd of Adjustment - 14 - 03-24-OS ]EXHIBIT 5 W N O (O Oo --1 0) CT A W N W -I W rn Cn A W W W ~ F ~ ~ m m rn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ um a~o m at ~ 4t ~ 0 O N C7 ~I rn Ut A W W W D N y W N i! C 5 = ~ ~ N ~ 0 = 2 0 1 C ( 0 l il ~ O. O ' O . Vi ~ S SU SV O ~ j Q S fU C~ j n ~ ~ 0 1 W ~ . J G.i . ~ ( 0 ? ~ v ' _ ° " ' o m ~ m _ C n 3 < ~ m = = ~ tD N ~ C ~L N 7 O O J y ~ m a - a ~ ~ n m 3 ~ y 3 ~ ~ 4 - n. V Q 6 ~ d ~ N tp N p~j ~ N y N ? O O~ 'O p - f~i rv O N ~ ~ n < m :n m ~ ~ ~ n J I' ti vi C ~ I D Z ~ r < ;n 01) ~ ~ cD co~I O) (T A W N-~+ p c0 W~I OJ cl1 A W N oc) nv=mDDKzTmmOmmOD g c o~ o m ~ ~ o~ m c~i ~ o m d m~ m ^ n C) m ~ n G p VJ t~ 7 v m m d m~ C> oo° om~#~~i a m O y N O ~ N p, ~ Q 0 ~ ~.~_^.f o'➢o °v x ~ nma G (n ~ n N " C R x O m ~ D m -6 0 s , d ~ ~ ~ m y n N x m y V ~ OJ W A m N ~ (O A (J V N ~ m L V ~ IJ A !P U~ O] > > Co W(O m t0 ~ W A A W Q1 0 W W VI CJ m O W Ul (D Ol (T ~ F N(J N OJ O m A ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N L~ O ~O A O N W(D O IJ tp J N-+ W A-+ O ~ ET W lD ~I W O Ut O A O UI m m A m tll IT O O fJ ~ ~ o m rn r.~ rn o 0 o c o 0 0 o co 0 0 0 0 0 3 n w ~ oa~oooooooo~o ooo oo ~ 0 o oaooooo000000 000 00 ~ 0 0 0000000oooooa ooo oo O N ~[T J O(O N A O O~ U A A~ N ~ Q (T W O O O O O O O O O V O(T N m m OJ (D O J p, O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , o ~ oo~aoooaoaooo ooa oo ~ 0 T O N N O> ~ ~ U~ ~l O ~ A Ce (S~ N O> A W ~ ~ O ~ ~ m [p ~~D l.~ N U~ O a~ p~ N~ O~ d A O V O~ ~ A O O O O O O O W O N(]t O J N m m Ut N ~ T O ~ o o~oo~o~ooo~~o 00 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O N 0 0 00oooooaooooo oa oo < N w ~ A m U(.~ A o O) + J A a..+ cJ ~ C) C V (P A Ut ~[O O j~ J a> J(F [p ~ V A CO ~ V Ca T cp (T P O> W O> O Co ~I N ~ OJ C(D r N ~ N Ut IJ W J V W N O O O N N m N O J , ~ ~ ~ O O O O O O O O O O O C O O C O O O O p~ o a o 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - ~ u W a W (O W O N O i A A V O A U~ ? A~ N ~ A m 3 ~ w <n co w o s o m a m u, o-i o 0 o c a~ ~ ~ p 0 o c~n o 0 o m o o a~ cn cn o 0 0 0 0 0 , ~ ~ a o 0 0 0 o c o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W ~ N ~ D N + O N J N A N A V O t0 ~(T CO m(v ~ W J P V Ol m (•J cD N Ol W Ui W Ca N c0 (I~ Gl O N N W V~ N OJ O O O~ W O N N CO !T O A A O V N m I~ ~I O W(.~ (.1 O l.~ V C O~! O J V J O O O W -u X > O n m _ 0 O # W n ! 2 Z ~m 0 C X m O ~-n D Z ~ cn V = D Z r L~ ~ ~ nO 0 ZO n;u ;o y my 1 m~ rn~ o~ cm DW r r O v~ DD m~ 9 m m cn z sn Z ❑ y ~ C ~ r ~ D ~ 1 O mTz N ~ ~ m _ Z 0 n Z Z G~ n r 0 U) CT ry m A W N ;U < C) C() 7 N m o 3 n a d o f ~ d a ~ O ~ 0 3 ~ O 0 ~ m O N x ~ m a X ~ O 0 W ~ W V N W (O N N CO Ca W O J OJ a O N '0 O O O O O o O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 u O N O N O O 3 n ~ omoo ~ 0 0000 ~ 0 0000 O A(J A J N o <n N ia w d W O(7i J N N t0 W m N j 0 0 0 0 0 OJ a o00o a a c> ~ J OJ A A O ~ ~ O W O(J 7. O O O O O O ~ T o ° S o o ' m ~ 0 N v O d A V N- O O (Ii W V ~ ~I O O V O Z T tT O O tT O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 < O m O) cD cO C1 C N N N V O ~ d Ol A [I1 J r w w w v cn 4 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 " d 0 0 0 0 o ~ A > > ' ° m m N A 3 O W J O N.0 N O N~ A ~ C O O O O O ] ~ a a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w a A m N N (D < m J J m O ~ a o ~ m N W W (O [O Ip N ~ C ~I O ~ tO A ~ O ~ W ~ D A Z U' D o r- ~ ~ m cn ~mCoCO =-4 mo m~n i cn -0 ;o jnm omO? m~°0 D O❑ ` OG_D or~cm C) O N 07NC= °ocn mT,K3p N W cn O 3 -iZO A~ v, w rt ~ ST V W r ° D 'D n ~ m < :0 S D Z D r ~ ~ (J) ~ T N ° :Jl J m CSt ? W N~ O(O W~I m(Ji A W N-i G) GC~p W mmwcow~~om~Gl~ fD O C N 61 N N N Ol N N (D d D ~ d n D C~ S~ S J~ J fL] ~L ~(D N(D Z d D O C~ ~ N4t 4t N N#~ N CJ O~ t~ J ~ o~F ~o < <'m fn~' cn 0 o'm~ ~ q5 N F p j G G N C " ~(D O D o 2m ~~'Z~ _ r ~ TI y ~ SU 6l ~ m m 0 n o n' U? CO m N ~ F F N N ~ 3 ~ 0 cL O O N x n m o ~ 0 o ~ tx) E O1 (O tD N O N(T N U fO W A(p O~1 N O(D V ~ C9 N O O m A p] A J O O] ~ m V N (A A N N O O O O O O O N O N O fT O N m F 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Of J[J (J A U~ O m W N(O W~1 ~ A~ A.P P O ~I N~I CO N A p] N A N(b OJ ~ A O A Y O p O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O G O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 o a o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W N ~ N~ N V W N N IJ A+ A W~ y p O <(O O O] A[J Ol ~ N O m O A m W W ~ C) 0 0 o m o 0 0 0 o 0 c 1 o 0 o cn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 3 c O C O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O .~n ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ' Q d ~ o ~ n> w w o w a a r.> w~ ~ r~ _ ~ > O O (Si (T O N d O O O J CO (T A(T (T A ~ 0 O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O y ~ o c o ' 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o a o aooo~oaoooooao O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Sy ~ O N N W ~ N O W N N N N~ W~-+ N N N (A = (O N m N W (D W O A~! fl~I N V V J W(T Ut ~ T O O m W N C W tp N W tG W O W(J fv V O W ~ U~ O N O tl~ O O O O O(P O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O C O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ 0 Q~ N~~ W m A W A A W L~ N N ~ N Q ~ N ~ V V <D ~~I V N a~I V CO N O] N(O N N ~ O ~()1 01 OJ tJ (T N CD N V L7 ~ O O> [O V O t0 » r V U~ O V Ol W N m N W N~! ^l (Ii N V~I J T 0 ° o a a o o a o 0 0 0 ~ ~ o ~ o a a a o " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - n ~ O ~ A C m Ui N~ A N m A~? ~ N N 3 fll m O O O m OJ tD m CO A O N O d N N N N_ 9 N O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O ~ C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ O O O O OO O O O O O O O O O O O O D ~ ~ N (T V (T N W (J N 1 W ~ + ~ ~ N ~ O Q1 W C Om W O W~ A N O> i W U~ 0) (J (J (p d(.~ O A OJ N OJ V C W (O O i d T CC N Ut ~(J A W O(D N W J m W A A(p {p (T d N(P N tT ~I i i J+ O L CO .P ..a N~ IC ~1 A W tp V(O ~I ~ ~ O(J 01 W A(p A rrI Z Z D n z R1 71 fA U D ? D C zz o U ~ 0 ~ r D z Z ~ zR aT Y ^ R < C C R r ~ c Jm ~ A W N- <m 0 om a c 61 N O (D (D -O ~ J C N ~ F -O ~ (p ~ F ~ N fJ m n ~ F p m > > ~ o o C) C) m # F N 6l G o ~ n ' N a m v' 0 0 L N A(T W A A O N N C O W O U~ d n (n A m Co O m W N ~ ~ O O O O O O O O R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tO N W U A O] O] T L Il~ O N J N Ql W OJ ~ Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° O 0 O 00 O O O O O n u O u A w cn u~ t0 ~ O V A N~I N pJ (J ~ ~ a O O P O O O C O N ~ W O O O O O O p_ Q . U) ~ N [ ~ . m ro m cn m m o C) W m O P O A A p C) ~ C C O O O O O 0 T Io aSo~o~ ' m ~ ~ o N w ~ n~ ~n w[n a N= I tp (J tJ A J CO N(O ~ ~ N p N !J ~ W~ J O O Ut O Ul O(P G T ' I O C O O O O O O I O O O C O O C O { J (J V W V O o n~ ~ ic cn w<n ~ a o ~ ~ N N Ol N N r ~ , A m L~ N O A A ~ ~ . o 0 0 o o a a n d . o 0 0 0 0 0 0 - I ~ O o ~ ~ O~ N A N Q1 ry~ ~I C N t0 N A(D N 9 N O O OJ ~ W UI , ~ C A O O O Co A O N ] O C O O O O O O ~ O O O O O O O O D ~ O ~(J m N Ut OJ ~ @ ~ t0 J Q: O N O N y W O m O W U~ O lp p'p> ~ A !T [T cT ~ p p O) A W J V V A W N - ;vG-) (nm (p C C X O r" ~ (p ET ~p r n N d o m n -n o, o ' o ~ d o a o ~ m o x f~ OC N 0 0 v ~ J W ~ N Cb W pl t9 (P ~ o a o 0 o p 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 o c o ~ O Ol N W V .7 ~ V N J W O ~ o ~ a cn c ~ O O O O O O O O O O z o 0 o a o 1 ~ ~ m ~ N w<o r p 1 m . o 0 o m -I n ' o 0 0 0 o 3 c D N O O O O O ' ta O O C ? O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 O O O C O ~ O o O m N P ~ O O O O O O C O C O O O fn = ? T 0 (O W N W O n~ O L N W O O N N(D J ~ r 0 O n S $ ~ o o " - ~ ~ o ~ C; rv a 3 N V A Cn :O ~D N. 9 (T n O O O ~ C A O O O > O O O O N O m CT (p O fl~ O~ O ~I G~ V W V (T (O V v P N N ~ G f:J [C1 ~ ~ m n ~ ~ n m X "I m A O ~ T 2 ~ Z ~ D z c ~ Z ~ ~C C N N ~ 07 07 Co 07 Co [P 07 G~ W W O7 Co W CA W ~ A O O O ~ O O ~ ~ ~ O O O ~ ~ O D Z at xt xt 3t xt xt zk D Z at u xt at ~t ~t ~t 77 omtn dC)[aD G~TlnOC~~➢ d ~ mm~c>mTT ~ commn-n T J o _ O ' O = O ~ a o~ O D = C~ N O 0 ~ o' n ~ o 0 ' D ~ n'~ m o = ci~m C/D - C (D y 61 - C (D y 61 N - G9 O ~ ? 61 N N ~ n ~ ~ N A N N V (T O W r tO N (T CO ~I A G ^ A ~ O ~ ~ ~ = ~ ] Q Q Q Q Q Rt p 4O O W o 6 O W 0 0 0 0 0 0 C o 0 O 0 0 o O O O c O O O O O O T~ C) W m d C7 C y A N~ cNO ~~(~J L ~ ~ IT ~ N N ~ r" 'J A V~ O1 N O1 V N m m u ~ a u o o w m o~., ~ 0 0 0 0 o a ~ w 0 o a y o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u n w m ~ m m~ rn o o m ( t !n 2 ~ Of c o ~ m O V UT A N ~ O ~ 6l O D 0 O R~ ~ T N ~ O O A O W ~ il UI f. W 0 0 0 o b b o 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O ' O z O O N N W d A ~ T ~ A A N B m o 0 0~ . F O o 9 0 C N C C C Q~ N ~ O O ~ O O O T D _ Q) O O O O O ^J Q ~ N N LJ N ,p ~ m N tT N N V N A an m w o m m ~ p m ~c ~ N W N W o O~ a o ~ p OJ m UI t0 tD Of V N ~ N ~ ~ 3~ p~ A U1 ~ ^ ~ O m O O W W D O Q~ O O O O O N c.~ o o v~ ui o o w r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 N o 0 0 0 o c c c o 0 0 0 0 0 - ~ O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ N ~D t0 A N O C Q ~ Q~ ~ O U~ .P ~1 < T O IJI f.ll O N N O O O O O O O O O O O O W N ~ CO m J tp N W O ~ Rf ~ ~ N(D O V N ~ m Q T O N A J W 0 A O J P O N 4~ ~ n O O O O O O O y O O O O O O O ~ n m m W N CO A C) O ~ a~ o o> co c.~ rn m 3 ~O O Q N CO N-+ N ~ C N O O A A A O _ J O O O O O O O ~ 0 0 o c o c o V J O O p Q Q p C~ C Q ~C N O O O O N y A Q Q Q O Q O' G~ N ~D n 0 0 W , D ~ o ~ : m n N a "o m a ' y O A m ~ W ~ t O N R m O O ~ A ~ A ~ ~(D 0~ J m U A W N~ ,n ET ODC W .ZI ~ N a 3 ~ ~ d O O ~ N o N 0 - Z m T m N c iio j°, ~ ID r U~ m N S » Q. co m ~ m . ~ x ~ 7 O N r O n C n N F i o m E m o z m o OI N ~ W(J O ~iI d 4f N p (p (p A pI ~ N A A ~ N O O A A N A W O m C i F N O O N O O O O O O O ' q o aaooaooooo 0 0000000000 N N N [J (J N A~ N L V~ 01 tp V~ m m A A Ll Ol O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o° ° ~ - o c o CI a, T N N N ~ W N - ~ p " ~ o~ w c-. <n a rn m ~ a . n Q m O Ut O(T W O O O O Ut o c o 3 c ~ 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O N . ~ T N O O O O O O O O O O O ~ 0 fn w ~1 N A W N W Q1 N-+ N m[ W CO CO ~1 m fJ A OJ O O A N N 0] A O N O N O O O O O n p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ 3 O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C m N ~ W ~ ~ W ~ N O n~ Of ~ N CO A V fJ N~I 4~ ~ T j (P N V(D N(D m N tr) ~ c ~ m m> m m~ ~ r ^ o o . - n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 o O O o O o 0 N N N N N W~ A ~ A ~ Co CV AP ~1 (T A(.> m N [p J tJ OJ T aJ O(b N(O d A N O Oo ~I O aO G~ O Ip A N O~ Ol O~ N O1 N m N O] A O O O O O O O C O O O ~T ry c L m ~ ~ ~ C m ~ ~ . D r a r z G er. ~ ~ ~ L m ~ 1 T m r m C7 ~ Z7 n D r ~ ~ - A A S ~ -p a n n X EVERETT SfREET (50' P..QW ) 0 ~ - ~ D ma ~ _ p ° C7 P O O ~ CJ °m EXHIBIT 7 IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT OF LOT 15, WOODBINE SUBDIVISION, LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO DESCRIPiION: LOT 15, WOODBME SUBDMSION, RECORDED IN BOOK 21 PAGE 2, LOCAIED W17HIN THE NOR7HEAST OUAR7ER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUiH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIX7H PRMQPAI !A[RIDIAN, COUN7Y OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFlCATE: I, NOEL L. POTiER, A REGISTERED LAND SUR THAT THE SURVEY OF THE PARCEL OF LAND UNOER MY SUPERNSION AND THAT THE ACCi SAID PARCEL AND THE SURVEY 1HEREOF. DAiE IN THE STAiE OF COI.ORADO, DO HEREBY CERIIFY DWN HEREON, WAS MADE BY ME OR DIRECiLY 1NG MAP ACCURAiELY ANU PROPERLY SHUWS POTIER i($ N0. 26291 C.C,S. CONSULTANTS, INC. HAS MADE NO INVESTIGATION OR MDEPENDENi SEARCN FOR EASEMENTS RECORDED/UNRECORDED, ENCUMBRANCES, RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, OWNERSIIIP TITLE EVIDFNCE OR OR ANY OiHER FACTS THAT AN ACCURAiE ANO CURRENT 11TLE SEARCH MAY DISCLOSE. RECORDER'S CERPFlCAIE: ECEPIIO UM ~~3 ACCEP7ING FOR FlLING IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK AND REWRDER OF JEFFERSON COUNTY AT GOLDEN, COLORADO ON 1HIS _ DAY OF , 20_ AT _ 0'CLOCK _ . M. JEFFERSON 0 N Y C ERK ND R CORUE Y: DEPUTY CLERK COUNTY SURVEYOR'S CER71fICATE DEPOSITED THIS _ OAY OF , 20J AT - M., IN BOOK AT ➢1E COUNTY SURVEYOR'S LAND SURVEY PLATS/RIGHT-OF-WAY SU2VEYS AT PAGE RECEPIION NUMBER 7HIS LAND SURVEY PLAT COMPLIES WITH SECTION 38-51-102,CRS (SIGNED) COUNiY SURVEYOR NOTES: 1. N071CE: ACCORDING TO COlORA00 LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL AC110N BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN 1HIS SURVEY W1iHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVE(i SUCII Dff[CT. IN NO EVENT, MAY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN 71-05 SURVEY BE WMMENCED MORE THAN lEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. 2. SET N0. 4 REBAR WITH 1 1/4" PLAS7IC CAP L.S. NUMBER 26296. 3. ANY PERSON WHO KNONANGLY REMOVES, AL7ERS (M DEFACES ANY PUBLIC LAND SURVEY MONUMENT OR LAND BOONDARY MONUMENT OR ACCESSORY COMMITS A CLASS TWO (2) MISOEMEANOR PURSUANi TO SiAiE 51AN1E 18-4-508, C.R.S. 4. RECORD INFORAtAiION DENOIED BY PARENTHESIS ol A~°F wHEar,po ci m C~(ORP~O TO: CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Jeff Hirt CASE NO. & NAME: WA-05-10/Holiday Inn Express DATE OF MEETING: May 26, 2005 ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a variance of 10 feet from the required 30 foot setback from the right-of-way for signs over 25 feet high resulting in a 20 foot setback from the right-of-way on property zoned Commercial-One (Gl). LOCATION OF REQLTEST: 10101 West I-70 Frontage Road South APPLICANT (S): Holiday Inn Express Hotel and Suites OWNER (S): Trisimo Motel Development Co. LLC APPROXIMATE AREA: 115,783 square feet (2.658 acres) PRESENI' ZOIVING: Commercial One (Gi) ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map ,o,w INTERSTATE 70 A-1 L r ! Approximate Locatioi of Existing Sign_ta be Reconstruc#ed (X) DIGTTAL PRESENTATION - W111 1$~ Subject Parcel soara or aajwm~t 1 Case WA-05-30/HOliday Im Eapras and Suites .Turisdiction All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to heaz this case. 1. REQUEST The property in question is located at 10101 West I-70 Frontage Road South. The property has Commercial- One (Gl) zoning. The owner of the property, Trisimo Hotel Development Company, is requesting this variance. The letter of request has been submitted by Denver Signs, with verified approval from the property owner (Exhibit i, I,etter of Request). The request is for approval of a variance of 10 feet from the required 30 foot setback from the right-of-way for signs over 25 feet high resulting in a 20 foot setback from the right-of-way. While the request is for a setback variance, it is essentially to allow the existing sign to be reconstructed in its current location, as the existing sign is nonconfomung pursuant to our current sign code setback requirements. The reconstruction of the sign is for a 50 foot, approximately 99 square foot sign utilizing the existing pole swcture (Exhibit 2, Elevation). The existing sign is 50 feet in height and approximately 96 square feet in size. Signs are allowed to be up to 50 feet in height under current standards if they are within'/a mile of an interstate. This property is adjacent to the interstate right-of-way to the north. The exisfing sign is located 20 feet from the right-of-way to the west, which is also the property line (Exhibit 3, Site Plan). However; per the Code of Laws Section 26-709 (D)(3), signs must be setback 30 feet from the right-of-way if over 25 feet in height, making the exisdng sign nonconforming pursuant to the city's current standards for setbacks. Per the Code of Laws Section 26-707 (A)(1) rebuilding, enlazgement, relocation, extension, replacement or reconstruction of a nonconforming sign is not permitted unless such sign is brought into conformance with the sign code. As the existing sign is nonconforming with a 20 foot setback adjacent to the right-of-way to the west, the proposed reconstruction of the sign would require the sign to be brought up to current regulations. The applicant has expressed that this would be problematic not only for practical reasons (given that the sign is existing and they wish to upgrade it and use the existing pole structure and retain the same approximate dimensions), but the Valley Water District has expressed that moving the sign to be in confomnance with the setback tequirement (10 feet to the east) would not be acceptable in relation to the locafion of the existing water main line to the hotel (Exhibit 4, Valley Water I,etter). There has not been any definitive information found regarding the pernutting of the construction of the existing 50 foot sigci and what the regulations were at this time. However, the existing I-70 frontage road was relocated sometime around 1983. The exisUng sign may have been put in place prior to this relocation of the right-of-way at this location; thus changing the conditions relative to required setbacks. The previous location of the frontage road was north of the subject property. It was reconfigured to the south to sepazate it from the "on" ramps from Kipling and I-70. The right-of-way to the west where the setback variance is currentiy required dces not appear to have existed prior to this reconfiguration. The existing 50 foot sign is setback well in excess of 30 feet from the northern right-of-way boundary. II. SITE PLAN The property is approximately 115,783 squaze feet, or 2.658 acres. The area surrounding the property in question consisu of Interstate 70 to the north, a hotel to the west, a fast food restaurant to the east, and primarily commercial uses to the south. The existing sign to be reconstructed is ]ocated on the northwest corner of the property, immediately adjacent to the Interstate 70 right-of-way. Board of Adjust~t 2 Case WA-05-10/Holiday Inn Ezpress and Suitg . To the best of stafPs knowledge, there has been only one sign variance case heazd in the vicinity of this request, at 4735 Kipling. Case Number WA-71-24 was a request for a variance to allow a sign 89 feet in height and 518 square feet in size was denied before the Board of Adjustment in 1971. II. VARIANCE CRITERIA Staff has the following comments regazding the criteria used to evaluate a vaziance request: 1. Can the property in question yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if pernutted 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 may still be used as a hotel without the need for any variances. 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? The request will have no effect on the essential character of the locality. The request is to upgrade an existing sign using the same height, and approximately the same size dimensions. 3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topograplucal condition of the specitic progerty involved result in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulaHons were carried out? There are no conditions related to the shape or topographical condition of the property that render any portion of the lot unbuildable for a freestanding sign. There are however unique conditions in that the property has adjacent right-of-way on three sides (N, W, S) therefore limiting options for placement of a 50 foot sign. Relocating the existing 50 foot sign within setback requirements would likely result in displacing parking spaces and/or drive aisles on the property. 4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? The existing 50 foot sign appears to have been constructed at this location under previous conditions and requirements, and it was not constructed by the applicant or property owner of this request. The Interstate 70 Frontage Road South was relocated sometime azound 1983, which may have affected the conforming status of the existing sign. The applicant wishes to upgrade the sign in its existing location. 5. Would the granting of the variance be detrunental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is Iceated, by, among other tlungs, 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 substanHally diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood? Approval of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfaze or injurious to other property in the area. There is an existing sign which is snnilaz in size and mass to the applicants proposed sign. The request would not substantially increase the congesuon in public streets, increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. Property values should not be impacted as a result of this request. 6. If criteria 1 through 5 are found, Wen, would the granting of the variance result in a benefit or contribution to t6e neighborhood or the community, as distinguished from an individuai benefit on the part of the applicant, or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities? soara orna~mtmmt Case WA-05-10/HoGday Inn Express and Suiles The request would not result in a substantial benefit or contribution to the neighborhood distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant. The request would not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. III. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the above criteria are supportive of the variance request. Staff has found that there aze unique circumstances attributed to these requests that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1) The request wiil have no effect on the essential chuacter of the ]ceality. The request is to upgrade an existing sign using the same height, and approximately the same size dimensions. 2) There are unique conditions in that the property has adjacent right-of-way on three sides therefore limiting options for placement of a 50 foot sign. 3) There are limited options for placement of the 50 foot sign within setback requirements without displacing pazking spaces and/or drive aisles on the property. 4) Approval of the variance would not result in any change in existing conditions relative to the location and size of the existing 50 foot sign. 5) Approval of the request would result in an upgrade to an existing sign along Interstate 70. somaornajustneoc 4 Case WA-OS-SO/Hofiday Im Express and Suites .85/06I2005 11:32 3832952093 DEMlER SIGN PA6E 02 D E 111 y E q AwlwkwkAmmnk~ M~ CREATING LASTING 1MpRE5SJON5 1701 31 ' Street Denver, Co 80216 (303)-295-2090 Fax (303)-295-2093 ififu@denversigns.com City of Wheat Ridge Attention: Jeff 303234-5924 Jeff, We are requesting a variance for the fifty foot high pole sign cumently ►ocated at a fhirly foot set back from the west property line. Valley Water is requesiing that we do not move the pde and structure to the east ten feet because it will interfere with the water drainage system. Piease contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Mike Nudd President mnuddftdenversiqns com www. denversians. com 16 BBB EXHIBIT 1 ~~N1°°'~~unor EXHIBIT 2 I al~ r~F~ ~I~n .&o R n ~r- I (1 0 ;'I_ ~i . ~ : - I I ~ rP ~3~ : I~~yyyI~ P Jxp m~~~ ~ j F I qqq ~ m • ~ m ~ ~ cS 74 I$ ZP m A ~ ~ ~ I I I i I i ~ - - ~ I_ ~ ~ ~ I Z x ~ n r N m n 1 ~ i i i ~ ~ ~ I I a ' ~ i I ~ i -a 0 ~ m ~ p¢ ~ 6Rb~~~ ~ S o ( MAE ~ ~1 VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 12101 WEST 52ND AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80033 TELEPHONE 303•424•9661 Fnx 303-424-0828 April 13, 2005 Todd P. Brummond Managing Member Trisimo Motel Development 19370 Bardsley Place Monument, CO 80132 Dear Mr. Brummond: We aze writing in response to the request to relocate the sign located at the proposed Holiday Inn Express located at 10101 W. 48'h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. The Valley Water District has inspected the location of the sign and has determined that the proposed relocation of the sign would not be acceptable in retation to the location of the existing water main line. The District must maintain sufficient access to its water lines in the event that maintenance must be performed on the main. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, ~ Tim Cessar Fie(d Operations Supervisor EXHIBIT 4 City of Wheat Ridge Community Development Department Memorandum TO: . Board of Adjustment FROM: Jeff Hirt, Planning TechnicianA SUBJECT: WA-05-11/Wheat Ridge Cyclery DATE: May 20, 2005 ~F WHEqT ~ ~ ti p U m C~CORA00 Case Number WA-05-11, a request for approval of a variance to the required landscaping under Section 26-502 AND a variance to the requiredXarking under Section 26-501 for property zoned Commercial- One (G1) and located at 7051 West 38 Avenue, 7065 West 38h Avenue, 7085 West 38`h Avenue and 3830 High Court has been withdrawn. It was concluded by the applicants that the variance request was no longer needed. See attached letter from applicant. &L>0 SU! d_4 3"1 oi 1-fi5fi-F:IUEN'f.C. ~ 0.••LVr.t "indi Avc VF9lEdt f'Idb'2 '_U o(%)i-< May 16, 2005 To whom it may concern, We respectfully withdraw our vaziance application for case number WA-OS-1 I. Since ~ Ronald A Kiefe ~ Vice President, NEREL Corp. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting March 24, 2005 1. 2. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Drda at 730 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. ROLL CALL Members Present: Torn Abbott Janet Bell Bob Blair Daniel Bybee Paul Drda Bob Howazd Paul Hovland Members Absent: Betty Jo Page Staff Present: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Jeff Hirt, Planning Technician Steve Nguyen, Public Works Department Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretazy 3. 4. The following is the official set of Board of Adjustment minutes for the public heazing of Mazch 24, 2005. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Community Development Department of the City of Wheat Ridge. PUBLIC FORUM No one indicated a desire to speak at this time. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA-OS-Ol: An application filed by Mazk & Kimberly Davis for approval of a waiver from the requirement for an escrow of funds in lieu of construction of public improvements pursuant to Section 545 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws for property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 4240 Gazland Street. This case was presented by Jeff Hirt. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Boazd there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed Board of Adjustment 03-24-OS the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended denial of the application for reasons outlined in the staff report. In reply to a quesUon from Boazd Member HOWARD, Mr. Hirt stated that there aze no other property owners to the best of his knowledge on the subject street who have put money into escrow for public improvements. He also stated that no interest would accrue to the property owner for escrowed funds. Board Member BELL asked if other property owners on the street would be assessed if future curb, gutter and sidewalk aze installed. Steve Nguyen explained that property owners who have not improved their property would not be assessed. Mr. and Mrs. Davis are being asked to place money in escrow based upon the improvements they aze making to the property. In reply to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. Hirt stated that thirty property owners in the azea signed a petition in support of the applicants. Further, a certificate of occupancy has been issued with a condition based upon the Board's decision tonight. Boazd Member ABBOTT questioned the statement made in the staff report that approval of this waiver would set a precedent because each case is judged on individual circumstances. Mr. Hirt explained that his intent in the staff report was to point out that it would make it more conducive for people constructing homes in the future to ask for the same waiver. In response to a question from Board Member BELL, Mr. Nguyen stated that the subject area is not included in the ten-yeaz capital improvement program for the city. He also noted that Gazland Street is very flat and therefore conducive to drainage problems. Board Member BELL commented that Wheat Ridge will have to comply with EPA storm drainage requirements which would apply to everyone on the street. Steve Nguyen stated that was a possibility in regard to water quality and erosion issues. However, flooding or drainage problems are something to be looked at in addition to EPA requirements. Boazd Member ABBOTT asked if Public Woxks had analyzed the property to determine drainage problems that would be incurred by construction of the house. Mr. Nguyen explained that they had not analyzed the situation and were going strictly by the code. Boazd Member ABBOTT asked what authority the city would have if it became apparent that runoff from the subject property was causing damage on the neighborhood. Mr. Nguyen explained that improvements would have to be made through the Capital Improvement Fund. Boazd of Adjustment - Z ' 03-24-OS Boazd Member DRDA asked if Mr. Nguyen thought potential drainage problems from the construction would manifest themselves in two or three years. Mr. Nguyen said they probably would. Kimberly and Mark Davis 4240 Garland Street Mr. and Mrs. Davis, the applicants, were sworn in by Chair DRDA. Kimberly Davis stated that, although they are constructing a new house, no grade change has occurred from the previous structure. Channeling water has been a problem since the 1950's due to the way the street was constructed. Drainage comes off the street onto properties and, therefore, each property owner has dealt with these issues on their own to drain into a ditch that drains toward 44`h. The Davises objected to the fact that they are the only property owners who are being requested to place money in escrow. They believe a hardship has been imposed on them by requesting a$3000 escrow which would be held in an account for ten years earning no interest for the applicants. This money was intended to pay for landscaping. Mrs. Davis stated that they were perfectly wiliing to pay their share of improvements but felt it was unfair to be the only property owners who are assessed. Mark Davis stated that they have complied with the city's request to keep water from draining onto neighboring properties and that they also have met the city's public improvement requirements. Board Member BELL suggested a swale with a pipe under the driveway to accommodate storm runof£ Ms. Davis explained that runoff presently goes down the driveway toward 44`n Chair DRDA invited public comment. Tish Gregerson 4389 Garland Street Ms. Gregerson was swom in by Chair DRDA. She has lived in the neighborhood for 15 yeazs. She spoke in support of the applicant and expressed concern about curb, gutter and sidewalk ever being installed in their semi-rural neighborhood. Judy Wade-George 4255 Garland Ms. Wade-George was sworn in by Chair DRDA. She spoke in support of the applicants. She lived at this address as a child and her son presenily lives in the house. She has been associated with this property for over fifty yeazs and stated there has never been a flooding problem. She also requested that this azea remain semi-rural without curb, gutter and sidewalk. Board of Adjustment - 3 - 03-24-OS Kevin George 4255 Garland Mr. George was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He spoke in support of the applicants. He commented that any flooding would come from Clear Creek and curb, gutter and sidewalk would do nothing to prevent that. He also asked that the semi-rural nature of the area be maintained. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member BELL, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-OS-Ol 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 there were no protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-OS-Ol be and hereby is approved. Type of Variance: A waiver from the requirement for an escrow of funds in lieu of construction of public improvements pursuant to Section 5-45 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws for property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 4240 Garland Street. For the following reasons: 1. Sidewalk, curb and gutter for this street are not on the 10-year capital improvement planning list as per the city's Public Works Department. 2. The property is too small to require a drainage study and, therefore, Public Works 6as not studied the building plans related to drainage. However, it appears there are no current negative safety or storm runoff situations related to the lack of curb, gutter and sidewalk on this secHon of street as per the Public Works Department and as per a petition signed and submitted by thirty adjacent neighbors. With one condition: Boazd of Adjustment ' 4 - 03-24-OS 1. A shallow swale shall be constructed and maintained at the front property line to facilitate carrying normal storm runoff along its normal course along the street. The motion passed 7-0. Chair DRDA advised the applicants that their request was approved. B. Case No. WA-05-03: An application filed by Jeffrey Battershill for approval of a 5 foot side yard setback vaziance from the 10 foot side yard setback requirement for detached garages over 8 feet in height on property zoned Residential-One A (R-lA) and located at 3811 Wright Court. This case was presented by Jeff Hirt. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Boazd there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended denial of the application for reasons outlined in the staff report. In response to a question from Board Member HOVLAND, Mr. Hirt stated that the proposed garage height would require a ten foot setback under the current development standards. In response to questions from Boazd Member HOWARD, Mr. Hirt stated that there are no other detached garages in the immediate vicinity of the subject property and that the size of the proposed gazage would be within the city's lot coverage requirements. In residential zone districts there is a prohibition for accessory buildings oveY 120 square feet to be metal. They must be sided or constructed of brick materials. Jeffrey Battershill 3811 Wright Court Mr. Battershill, the applicant, was swom in by Chair DRDA. He has owned this property for ten yeazs and stated that prior to the zone code amendments in 2003, of which he was unaware, he could have built his gazage without a need for a variance. He submitted eleven photographs of houses within five blocks of his property that have detached garages. These photos were made a part of the official record. He stated that locating the garage in another area of his property would necessitate the removal of mature shade trees. He stated he checked with the city in eazly 2003 to make sure he could build the garage with a 5-foot setback. When he was advised that this would be possible, he had the underground power lines moved away from the azea where he planned to build the garage. It was later in 2003 that the setback requirements were changed. He plans to use the garage to accommodate his classic car collection. In response to a question from Boazd Member HOWARD, Mr. Battershill stated the garage would be frame construction with siding and that, if he could match the obsolete brick on his house, he would trim the garage walls with brick. Boazd of Adjustment - 5 - 03-24-OS In reply to questions from Board Member BLAIR, Mr. Battershill stated that he could accommodate six or seven cars in the garage. Presently, he has two cars in storage, and others are parked on his property. Chair DRDA invited public comment. Ralph Santangelo 3801 Wright Court Mr. Santangelo was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He spoke in opposition to the application. He has lived in the subject neighborhood for 35 yeazs. He expressed concern that his property values would be reduced if the application is approved and he stated that he would pursue litigation for lowered property values if necessary. He submitted three photographs into the record which depicted the cars presently parked on the applicanYs property. He also submitted copies of the neighborhood covenants into the record. The covenants state that all buildings must be brick or brick veneer. He expressed concem that the applicant could use his garage as a workshop, a rental or a commercial building and still pazk his cars outside. He believed the gazage would be in violation of R-IA zoning. Boazd Member HOWARD commented that the applicant may legally build a detached garage on his property. The only authority the Board has is whether or not a variance may be allowed. In response to a request for clazification from Board Member BELL, Ms. Reckert stated that the city has no jurisdiction over neighborhood covenants. Mike Lewis 3812 Wright Court Mr. Lewis was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He lives across the street from the applicant and spoke in favor of the application because it would improve the appearance of the neighborhood by providing a place for the applicant to store his cars and pursue the hobby that he loves. Moving the garage to another location would necessitate the removal of a maple tree and also make a more difficult entrance into the garage. He stated that if anything decreases property values in the neighborhood, it is the close proximity to I-70, the greenbelt which produces mosquitoes, and the shopping center across 38`h Avenue from the neighborhood. He did not believe the applicant's gazage would decrease his property values at ail. Charles Powell 3832 Wright Court Mr. Powell was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He spoke in opposition to the application. He has lived at this address for 36 years and the neighborhood association has worked in the past to keep the neighborhood in compliance with the covenants. In response to a Board of Adjustment - 6 ' 03-24-OS question from Board Member BLAIR, Mr. Powell stated that he was appearing as an individual property owner and not as a representative of the homeowner's association. JoAnn Garin 12537 West 38`h Drive Ms. Gazin was sworn in by Chair DRDA. She stated she was opposed to the application. John Santangelo 3551 S. Youngfield, Littleton Mr. Santangelo was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He is the son of Ralph Santangelo. He spoke.in opposition to the application. He expressed concern that the vehicles would still be sitting out in front of the home while the garage is used for a workshop. • Jeff Santangelo 765 S. Oneida Street, Denver Mr. Santangelo was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He is also a son of Ralph Santangelo. He spoke in opposition to the application. He stated that the applicant has already removed mature trees. Randy Woods 3821 Wright Court Mr. Woods was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He stated that he was undecided about the application and that the situation seemed to concern the applicant and Ralph Santangelo. John Croy 12673 West 38`h Drive Mr. Croy was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He spoke in opposition to the application. He stated that he lived directly behind the applicant and he did not want to look at a 15-foot garage from his back yazd. He expressed concern that the gazage would decrease his property values. He suggested the applicant move to a neighborhood where he would be welcome to build such a garage. Ruth Gonzales 12668 West 38`h Drive Ms. Gonzales was swom in by Chair DRDA. She spoke in opposition to the application. She expressed concern that the gazage would decrease her property value. She also expressed concern about noise and paint fumes if the applicant restores cars in the garage. In response to a question from Board Member BELL, Ms. Reckert stated that noise problems would fall under jurisdiction of the city's code enforcement or police department. In response to a question from Boazd Member HOWARD, Ms. Reckert stated that city regulations allow cazs to be parked in the front setback as long as they aze on a hazd surface and are licensed and operable. Board Member HOWARD commented that a 10 Boazd of Adjustment - 7 - 03-24-OS foot setback would allow cars to be parked in the setback. This would not be possible with a 5 foot setback. Boazd Member HOVLAND commented that a hardship must be established in order to grant a variance. Board Member HOWARD commented that the detached garages in photos submitted by the applicant were not in the immediate neighborhood. Mr. Battershill replied that one of the detached garages is 300 feet from his property and is built on the property line. JoAnn Garin returned to the podium and commented that when their subdivision was built, the area had not yet been made a part of the city of Wheat Ridge. Ralph Santangelo returned to the podium. He stated that he was unawaze of the garage that is built on the property line but, if it exists, it is illegal and the city should make sure that the property owner does not continue to use it. Board Member BELL asked if building code requirements would address noise and painting problems. Ms. Reckert stated that painting of cars is not allowed in residential neighborhoods. Jeff Battershill replied that he would not be painting cars in his gazage. He also commented that while the covenants require all structures to be built of brick or brick veneer, there are several frame detached structures in the neighborhood and the most expensive house in the neighborhood is framed with brick trim. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member HOVLAND the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-05-03 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law, and in recognition that there were protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for may not be granted without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA- 05-03 be, and hereby is, denied. Type of Variance: A 5 foot side yard setback variance from the 10 foot side yard setback requirement for detached garages over 8 feet in height on property zoned Residential-One A(R-lA) and located at 3811 Wright Court. Boazd of Adjustment - g ' 03-24-OS For the following reasons: 1. The property may still receive a reasonable return in use. The property may still be used as a single family residence without the need for the variance. 2. There are no unique conditions related to shape or topography that render any portion of the property in question unbuildable. The property in question is rectangular in shape and flat. The property is larger than the minimum lot size and width for the R-lA zone district. 3. The request would not result in a substantial beneSt or contribution to the neighborhood distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant. 4. The request would not result in the reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. 5. The structure, as described by the applicant, would appear to be excessive in height exacerbating an aesthetic perception to neighbors. The motion passed 6-0 with Board Member BYBEE abstaining due to a conflict in interest in this case. Chair DRDA advised the applicant that his request for variance was denied. (The meeting was recessed at 10:05 p.m. and reconvened at 10:15 pm.) C. Case No. WA-05-04: An application filed by John C. Bandimere, Jr. for approval of a 2 foot vaziance to the 6 foot maximum fence height standard pursuant to Section 26-603 resulting in an 8 foot fence on property zoned Residential-One B (R-113) and located at 3655 Chase Street. This case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval of the application for reasons outlined in the staff report. John Bandimere, Jr. 3655 Chase Street Mr. Bandimere, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He stated that interlocking steel posts would be used in construction of the fence. In response to an eazlier question from the Boazd, he explained that his property line is located right in the middle of the existing retaining wall. He stated that he had previously contacted the property owner who lives in Utah and offered to pay half the cost of removal of the crooked retaining wall and construction of a new straight wall. He could have then built a fence on top of the retaining wall without the need for variance. The property owner did not respond to his offer. He stated that, while he does not like fences, conditions at the adjacent rental property necessitate a fence and the fence will be built just inside the retaining wall. Several neighbors were present eazlier in the evening to speak in favor of the application Boazd of Adjustrnent - 9 - 03-24-OS but, due to the lateness of the hour, Mr. Bandimere told them it was not necessary for them to stay. Chaix DRDA invited public comment. Jerry DiTullio 3250 Newland Street Mr. DiTullio was swom in by Chair DRDA. He spoke in favor of the application. Chair DRDA mentioned for the record thaf the sign-up sheet for this case contained six signatures, all of which indicated support of the application. Board Member HOVLAND commented that this case represented a classic example of justification for a variance. In response to a question from Boazd Member HOWARD, Mr. Bandimere stated that the fence will stairstep down to four feet in the front setback. There was discussion regarding the length oFthe variance. The application is for 94 feet while 110 feet would be allowed taking the front yard setback into consideration. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member HOWARD, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the appiicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-05-04 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 wit6out detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA- 05-04 be, and hereby is, approved. Type of Variance: A 2 foot variance to the 6 foot maximum fence height standard pursuant to Section 26-603 resulting in an 8 foot fence on property zoned Residential-One B(R-1B) and located at 3655 Chase Street. For the following reasons: Board of Adjustment - 10 - 03-24-05 1. There is an approximately 2 foot grade change along a retaining wall between the property in question and the property to the south, the property to the south existing approximately 2 feet above the applicant's property. The manner in which the height of the fence is measured pursuant to the Code of Laws (from finished grade 5 feet inside the property which it belongs) makes it problematic to have a true 6 foot privacy fence for the property owners on this portion of the lot. 2. The request will have a minimal effect on the essential character of the locality. An 8 foot fence at the proposed location will be less impactive than normal given the significant grade change between the two properties. 3. Six citizens offered to speak in approval of this variance. With the following conditions: 1. The fence height variance is approved for 110 feet along the south property line as specified by the applicant in Exhibit 1 and as modified by the Board. Construction of a fence within the minimum required front yard must adhere to applicable height standards including the method in which the fence height is measured. 2. The fence may stairstep down to 4 feet prior to the front yard setback requirement. The motion passed 7-0. Chair DRDA advised the applicant his request for variance was approved. D. Case No. WA-05-06: An application filed by the Wheat Ridge Housing Authority for approval of a 5 foot side and 5 foot rear yard setback variance from the 10 foot side and 10 foot reaz yazd setback requirement for detached gazages over 8 feet in height on property zoned Residential-Three (R-3) and located at 4501 Everett Street. This case was presented by Jeff Hirt. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Boazd there was jurisdiction to heaz the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval of the application for reasons outlined in the staff report. Boazd Member HOWARD expressed concem that Jerry DiTullio, a member of City Council, was presenting this case. Mr. Hirt stated that Mr. DiTullio was presenting the case as Chair of the Wheat Ridge Housing Authority and staff had concluded there was no conflict in this regazd. Boazd Member HOVLAND asked if the utility easement would be affectedby the variance. Ms. Reckert explained that the easements are 5 feet wide and that is what the setback would be. Board of Adjustment - 11 - 03-24-OS Jerry DiTullio 3250 Newland Street Mr. DiTullio was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He clazified that he was appearing strictly as Chair of the Housing Authority and not as a member of City Council. In discussions with the Community Development Department he learned that four garages could be built on this property without a variance. Since this is an 8-plex, the Housing Authority would like to build 6 gazages to get more cars off the street and promote sale of the units. It is planned to build storage units and patios for the units. Board Member BELL expressed concem about the lack of a play area for children. Mr. DiTuliio replied that there is a park across the street where children can play. Boazd Member HOVLAND expressed concern about homeowners using the garages for storage rather than parking cars. Mr. DiTullio stated that once the units aze sold, a homeowners association would address these types of matters. In response to a question from Boazd Member HOWARD, Mr. DiTullio stated the garages would be constructed with vinyl siding. Doug Knop 1260 Corona, Denver Mr. Knop is one of the Housing Authority's technical advisors with the Jefferson County Housing Authority. He stated there was no other suitable configuration for the gazages. Six garages would allow for more offstreet parking and make the units more desirable. If the number were reduced to five garages it would only eliminate one setback problem. Space is needed for tumaround radius and to provide courtyard space. Larry Nelson 8534 West Swarthmore Place, Littleton Mr. Nelson was swom in by Chair DRDA. He is with Cornerstone Realty, broker for the Housing Authority. He stated that this is the third Housing Authority project and he has found that gazages and private spaces are very important to buyers. In previous projects, the units with gazages weie the first to sell. Seven of the units will have private courlyazds if six garages are allowed and there would also be adequate turnazound for vehicles. Boazd Member ABBOTT commented that there are many private homeowners who have similar situations when wanting to build a gazage and there doesn't seem to be a hazdship issue here other than mazketability. Mr. DiTullio replied that the variance would adjust to an azea that is poorly planned and zoned and each Boazd of Adjustment case is considered on its own merits and does not set precedence. This is a unique situation in the azea. The objective of the Housing Authority is to improve the azea and provide affordable housing. Boazd of Adjustment - 12 - 03-24-OS Meredith Reckert commented that staff believes there are unique circumstances because half of the lot is taken up with front setbacks. Board Member BELL commented that the need for affordable housing in Wheat Ridge is overwhelming and garages are desirable amenities. Boazd Member HOVLAND agreed that providing affordable housing and improving the neighborhood are worthy goals, but it is important to adhere to all the variance criteria. Boazd Member DRDA stated that he was having difficulty in finding a hardship in this case. Meredith Reckert commented that a unique circumstance is also presented by an attempt to improve a nonconforming property. Board Member BYBEE expressed concern that a 10 foot setback may be more conducive to collecting junk. Board Member BELL commented that she believed a hardship exists because of the lot configuration and the great need for affordable housing. This is the kind of situation that needs to be addressed when revising the Comprehensive Plan. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member BYBEE the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer;.and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-05-06 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas, the property has been posted the tifteen days required by law, and in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for 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 resobed that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA- 05-06 be, and hereby is, approved. Type of Variance: A 5 foot side and 5 foot rear yard setback variance from the 10 foot side yard and 10 foot rear yard setback requirement for detached garages over 8 feet in height on property zoned Residential-Three (R-3) and located at 4501 Everett Street. Boazd of Adjustment - 1~ - 03-24-OS For the following reasons: 1. The applicant has very limited options for placement of a garage to accommodate an 8-unit multi-family structure without the need for a variance or variances. 2. Approval of the variance would hopefully provide an incentive to make improvements to a dilapidated property and perhaps be influenrial to adjacent properties to do or request the same. 3. The intent of the property being owned by the Wheat Ridge Housing Authority is to provide a public service therefore resulting in a benefit to the community. 4. The adjacent property to the north is also zoned multi-family. 5. The corner lot placement of this apartment building places the building with a significant double front yard setback therefore limiting available space in the rear. 6. The 10 foot required setbacks do not seem to provide a definable benefit to this neighborhood as compared to a less dense locarion. With the following conditions: 1. If it is determined that any portion of this structure is within t6e 100-year floodplain, a Ciass I floodplain exception will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. The structure shall not have an exterior with visible metal materials. Chair DRDA reminded everyone present that a super majority vote of 6 affirmative votes was necessary to approve the application. The motion failed 5-2 with Board members DRDA and HOWARD voting no. Chair DRDA advised the appiicant the request for variance was denied. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Boazd. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - January 27, 2005 Board of Adjustment - 14 - 03-24-OS It was moved by Board Member BELL and seconded by Board Member HOWARD to approve the minutes of January 27, 2005 as presented. The motion passed unanimously. B. Voting Change Staff is proposing that the voting rules for variances and other matters ruled on by the Board be modified from a super majority vote to a simply majority vote. City Council will be discussing this issue at a future study session. There was a consensus of the Board to recommend leaving the voting rules as they aze. 8. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member ABBOTT to adjourn the meeting at 12:00 a.m. The motion passed unanimously. Paul Drda, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Secretary Boazd of Adjustrnent 03-24-OS - IS-