Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/25/2005CITY OF,WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADNSTMENT AGENDA August 25, 2005 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on August 25, 2005, at 7:30 p.m., in the City Councii Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. WA-05-15: An application filed by the Glenn E. Overholt Family Partnership for approval of a 5 foot side and 5 foot reaz yard setback vaziance from the 10 foot side yazd and 10 foot reaz yazd setback requirement for detached garages over 8 feet in height for property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 3860 Allison Street. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - July 28, 2005 8. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT . C~LORA9~.'.. TO: Boazd of Adjushnent CASE MANAGER: 7eff Hirt CASE NO. & NAME: WA-05-1510verholt DATE OF MEETING: August 25, 2005 ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 5 foot side and 5 foot rear yazd setback variance from the 10 foot side yard and 10 foot reaz yazd setback requirement for detached garages over 8 feet in height for property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 3860 Allison Street. LOCA1'ION OF REQiTEST: 3860 Allison Street APPLICANT (S): Glenn Overholt OWNER (S): Glen Overholt Family Parmerslup APPROXIIVIATE AREA: 9,048 squaze feet (.21 acres) PRESENT ZOIVING: Residential-Two (R-2) ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIAI,S (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map Subject Parcel m LU I:1J LLISCjN L`rlRCLE 10~ t,7 (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION Boazd of Adjustment - 1 Case WA•05-15/0verholt Jurisdiction All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. I. CASE ANALYSIS The property in question is located at 3860 Allison Street. The property has Residenrial-Two (R-2) zoning The applicant, Genn Overholt, is requesting tkris variance as the property owner (Exhibit 1, I,etter of Request). The request is for approval of a 5 foot side and 5 foot reaz yazd setback variances from the 10 foot side yazd and 10 foot reaz yazd setback requirements for detached gazages over 8 feet in height. Detached gazages over 8 feet in height are subject to 10 foot side and reaz yazd setback requirements on R-2 zoned property. It should be noted that in 2003, the setback requirement wluch is applicable 1o tlus variance was changed. Prior to the current regulation, adopted by City CouncIl in 2003, the setback requirement was 5 feet in the R-2 zone district for decached gazages, regazdless of height. Therefore the proposed gazage would have been allowed under the previous setback requirements. The applicanUproperty owner proposes to construct a detached gazage to be 960 squaze feet in size (40' X 24' )(Exhibit 2, Site Plan/Hnprovement Locarion Certificate). The proposed structure will be located 5 feet from the north property line (side yazd setback) adjacent to a single family dwelling and 5 feet from the east property line (reaz yard setback) adjacent to a medical office complex. The cunent requirement for both reaz and side yazd setbacks aze 10 feet for this structure; therefore a variance is required to allow for the detached gazage in ttus locauon. Access into the proposed gazage will be from Allison Sueet, with a driveway to the south of the existing house leading into the backyazd to the gazage. The entrance to the gazage will be on the south side of the gazage as proposed. There is 12 feet of width between the house and the south property line (see Exhibit 2, Site Plan). This is considered adequate width to allow for vehiculaz access. Per Sec. 26-501 (D)(4) the minimum width for a curb cut in residential zone districts is 10 feet. There appeazs to be alternatives for placement of the detached gazage, however, the "buildable" aze of the lot given setback requirements for a detached gazage is fairly limited (Exhibit 3, BuIldable Area of Lot) Given the sepazation between the proposed gazage and the existing house, and the south property line it may be relocated further to south and the west, and meet applicable setback requirements and be funcrional: Turning movements for a passenger vehicle were analyzed and moving the gazage 5 feet to the south would still allow adequate tiuniug radii to enter the gazage. There appeazs to be at least two detached gazages in the immediate vicinity that aze less than 10 feet from either side or rear property lines (Exhibit 4, Aerial Vicinity Map). A site inspection revealed that both appeazed to have been in place for a long period of time, and no records of their construcuon were found in the building permit files. Staff has not found any comparable variance cases in the vicinity of this request. Analysis and calculations have been done regazding all other development standazds with this request, such as lot coverage requirements and size requirements for detached gazages. All other development standazds have been met with tlus request. II. SITE PLAN The property is approximately 9,048 squaze feet in size, or .21 acres. The property measures 78 feet wide with a depth of 116 feet. I Boazd of Adjustment 2 Case WA-OS•15/Ovaholt . - The azea surrounding the property consists piiuuarily of single family residences. To the north, west and south aze single family dwellings, and R-2 zoned property. To the east, immediately adjacent to this property and the location of the proposed gazage is a medical office complex; this property is zoned Planned Commercial Development (PCD). II. VARIANCE CRITERIA Staff has the following comments regazding the criteria used to evaluate a variance request: 1. Can the property in ques6on 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 wltich it is located? If the request is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable retum in use. The property may still be used as a single-family residence without the need for any variances. 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? The request may have a slight effect on the essential chazacter of the locality. There aze at least two detached gazages in the immediate vicinity that do not appeaz to meet current setback requirements. The proposed gazage, however, appeazs to be significanfly lazger than other detached gazages in the immediate vicinity. It is important to note that the gazage as proposed would have been allowed prior to the adoption of the applicable setback requirement in 2003. 3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topograplucal condition of the specific property involved result in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience iF the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? There aze no unique conditions related to shape or topography that render any portion of the property in question unbuildable. The property in quesflon is squaze in shape and flat. 4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? The applicant has created his own hazdship by requesting a gazage in tkus location. There appeaz to be alternarives for placement of the gazage within setback requirements. 5. Would the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in wluch 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 dimiuishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood? Approval of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfaze or injurious to other properry in the uea. There may be a slight decrease in the supply of light and air to the properties to the north, south and east given that approval of the variance would result in a structure 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. Properry values of the property in question and adjacent properties should not 6e affected by this request. 6. If criteria 1 through 5 are found, then, would the granting of the variance result in a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood or the community, as distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant, or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation l of a person with disabilities? Board of Adjushnent . Case WA-05-15/Overholt - The request will not result in a substantial benefit or contribuuon to the neighborhood or communiry distinguished fxom an individual benefit on the part of the applicant. Approval of the request may result in less vehicles puked in the driveway or the street however. The request would not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. IIL STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMIVENDATIONS Upon review of the above request, stafF concludes that the above criteria aze not supportive of the variance request. Staff has found that there are not unique circumstances attdbuted to these requests that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL for the following reasons: 1. If the request is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable retum in use. The property may still be used as a single-family residence without the need for any variances. 2. There are no unique conditions related to shape or topography that render any portion of the property in question unbuildable. 3. The applicant has created his own hazdslup by requesting a gazage in tlus location. 4. The request will not resuk in a substantial benefit or contribution to the neighborhood or community distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant. BoazdofAdjustment 4 Case WA-05-15/0verholt . GLENN E. OYERHOLT 3860 ALLISON STREET WHEATRIDGE, COLORADO 80033 (303) 908-9745 To: City of Wheatridge Boazd of Adjustments Re: Application for Variance Property Address: 3860 Allison Street Wheatridge, CO 80033 I am applying for a variance on the ten foot setback required by city zoning codes in regards to building a detached garage on the above referenced property. Rather than ten feet from the property line, I am requesting a variance to build five feet from the property line: The current plan calls for a twenty-four foot by forty foot detached gazage built along the eastem boundary of the property. I understand that the setback provisions in the city's zoning codes were revised after my purchase of the house increasing the setback to ten feet. By reducing the setback to five feet, I hope to masimize the remaining useable space in the backyard as well as conforming to the previous five foot setback which is prevalent in the neighborhood. The eastern boundary, where the garage would be built if approved, faces the parking lot of an office complex. I have owned the property since 1989. By building a gazage, I intend to improve both the usability and resale value of the property, as it currently has only a one caz attached garage. The garage will be built with brick veneer to match the existing house. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, vQ Glenn E. Overhok General Partner The Glenn E. Overholt Family Partnership EXHIBIT 1 RAJK W CDATE LEN 07120/20GLEN OVERHOLT JoBW 05-690 L A N D S U R V E Y I N G ADDRESS 3860 ALLISON STREET 5460 WARD ROAD • SUITE 160 ' NAME GLEN OVER[iOLT ' ARVADA,COLORADO 80002 (303) 420-4788 IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE LEGALDESCRIPTION Irm cuerm Attn: GLEN FLoT 6, ECl1$RT, . COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORAAO ' L J N Scale: 1"--20' Existing 8.2x 12.0 - - ° a d w 0 ~ Y ~ ~ ~ q O h ~ O W ~ M ~aYYav~.. v...... LOTS On the basis of my knowledge, information and beilef GLEN OVERHOLT certify that this or Improvement Survey Plat, and that it is no o be relied upon for the improvement lines. I further certify that the improvements on the ab connections, are entirely within the boundari s of the parcel, except s described premises by improvements on any dJoining premises, exce as i the certiNcaNon shown hereon." ~ e blishment of fence, buile described parcel on this sign of any easement crossing or burdening ny part of said parcel, cept 'NOTICE: According to Colorado law you must mence eny legal acN n based Rrst dlscover such defect' In -no event, may any actlon b ed upOn any delec !n this si hown, that there are no en ndicated, and that there•' o as noted. WS survey within three more than ten years i 7. preparedfor Survey Plat other future xcept utility i upon the e 'dence or aRer }rou e date o! EXHIBIT 2 EXHIBIT 3 A EXHIBI,, 4 0 100 200 Feet 7 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADNSTMENT Minutes of Meeting July 28, 2005 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Drda at 730 pm. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29`h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Tom Abbott Bob Blair Paul Drda Bob Howazd Paul Hovland Betty 7o Page Iviembers Absent: Janet Bell Daniel Bybee Staff Present: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Trauis Crane, Planner Jeff Hirt, Planning Technician Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary The following is the official set of Boazd of Adjustment minutes for the public hearing of July 28, 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. 3. PUBLIC FORUM ` No one indicated a desire to speak at tlus time. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA-05-13: An application filed by Republic Gazages for approval of a variance from the 10 foot side yazd setback requirement for an accessory structure resulting in a 5 foot side yaid setback for property zoned Residential Two and located at 3810 Cody Street. This case was presented by Travis Crane. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended denial of the application for reasons outlined in the staff report. Board of Adjushnent - 1 - 07-28-OS In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Travis Crane stated that there would have been no need for a variance before the code was changed in October, 2003. In response to a question from Boazd Member BLAIR, Trauis Crane stated that he had not been notified of any opposition to the application. In response to a question from Board Member DRDA, Travis Crane explained that his calculations showed that the huning radius in the driveway would be sufficient if the garage were built with a 10 foot setback. Victoria Nosal 3810 Cody Ms. Nosal, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair DRDA. She stated that a11 of her neighbors were supportive of the variance. The applicant further stated that building the garage to match the house would be an improvement to the neighborhood. The vaziance would aiso provide a more negotiable entrance to the garage. She had the house on the real estate mazket for awhile and many comments were received that the gazage was too small. In response to a question from Boazd Member HOVLAND, Ms. Nosal stated that, once the new garage is completed, they plan to remove the gazage door from the existing structure and replace it with french doors or something similaz. The space would probably be used for her husband's woodworking hobby. Jerry Krizek Republic Garages 2532 S. Broadway, Denver Mr. Krizek was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He stated there would be no retaining wall on the south properiy line. The garage floor would be approximately six inches higher than the existing driveway and sloped to provide for drainage. He stated that many houses in the neighborhood have detached gazages with 5 foot setbacks which were built before the code change. He commented that the code change which requires an additional5 foot setback for buildings over 8 feet doesn't take gazages into consideration because a garage wall has to be at least 10 feet high to accommodate the door. He provided copies of a layout showing the proposed gazage with a 10 foot setback and with a 5 foot setback and stated that a 10 foot setback would provide difficult entry/exit from the gazage. In response to a question from Boazd Member ABBOTT, Mr. Krizek stated that the proposed garage would be normal width. Boazd of Adjustment - Z - 07-28-05 Victoria Nosal returned to the podium to confirm that the garage will match the house in brick, shingles and roof lines. Mr. Krizek explained that the front of the gazage would be faced with brick with a 2 foot wrap-azound on each side: Gene Pastor 3815 Carr Street Mr. Carr was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He lives directly east of the applicant and spoke in favor of the application. All of the other neighbors have indicated to him that they are also in favor. Victoria Nosal returned to the podium and entered a letter into the record fhat contained signatures of the surrounding neighbors indicating their support of the proposed gazage and variance. Board Member HOVLAND commented that the variance would not change the character of the neighborhood because this area was developed with 5 foot setbacks. Further, the grade change to the south being higher would minimize the height impact of the gazage. Board Member BLAIR commented that he thought it would be inappropriate to impose a recent ordinance on this property owner when the surrounding properties were developed under a previous.ordinance. Board Member DRDA commented that the counter-argument would be that the present ordinance is in line with the new vision for Wheat Ridge. Boazd Member BLAIR responded that he would agree with imposing the new ordinance on new development. Chair DRDA advised those present that a super majority of five affirmative votes was required to approve the application. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member BLAIR, the following resolurion was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-05-13 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 Boazd of Adjustment - 3 - 07-28-OS the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-05-13 be, and hereby is, approved. Type of Variance: A variance from the 10 foot side yard setback requirement for an accessory structure resulting in a 5 foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential Two. For the following reasons: 1. This request would not seem to alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The footprint of the existing house realistically precludes a code complying location for the proposed garage. 3. The lot shown to the south is higher in elevation, therefore the perceived height of the new garage would appear lower from the property to the south and would remain within the concepts of the 2003 ordinance. 4. Neighbors most affected to the east and the south submitted that they were in favor of the structure and the variance. 5. This property improvement, as designed and submitted by the applicant, would seem to reach to the intent of neighborhood revitalization. With the following conditions: 1. The building materials will be matched brick on the front of the structure with generally matching rooflines and shingles. 2. The existing garage door will be removed and not used as a garage. Boazd Member HOWARD questioned the condition restricting the use of the present garage. Board Member ABBOTT explained that he believed this condition would provide for a more aesthetically pleasing structure and therefore in line with the new neighborhood revitalization strategy. Boazd Member PAGE questioned whether removing the gazage door and replacing it with a non-gazage would door would affect the property assessment. Meredith Reckert stated that she was not sure that Jefferson County would assess it any differently. Boazd Member HOVLAND expressed concern about a condition restricting the use of the present gazage. Boazd of Adjustment - 4 - 07-28-OS : In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Mr. Krizek stated that ' the gazage door on the new gazage would be a raised panel steel door with windows in the top row. He also stated that removal of the present gazage door , would cause the space to be considered inhabited space which would increase the assessment value of the building. Board Members ABBOTT and BLAIR agreed to remove the second condition. The motion as amended by Board Members ABBOTT and BLAIR passed 5- 1 with Board Member DRDA voting no. Chair DRDA advised the applicant that the request for variance was granted. B. Case No. WA-05-14: An application filed by James Pryor for approval of a variance from the required 30 foot front yazd setback resulting in a 21 foot front yard setback for property zoned Residential-One C and located at 5725 West 37h Avenue. 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 deniai of the application for reasons ouflined in the staff report. Mr. Hirt explained that the house could not be placed any fiirther to the north because of a 10-foot utility and drainage easement. Edward Kaufman 13490 Lafayette Ct., Thomton Mr. Kaufinan was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He is the developer of the property as well as a lot owner. He was representing James Pryor who is a parfner in the LLC who owns the development. The property, when developed, will have five single family ranch style houses; however, under city code, only four driveways aze allowed from the private drive. The driveway for the fifth house must enter from 37th Avenue requiring a 30 foot setback from the street to the gazage. This would not allow for a gazage adequate for storage and handicapped accessibility. The houses will not have basements. A 3 foot administrative variance was granted; however, another 6 feet is needed to construct the desired 24' x 26' garage. The houses aze pre-manufactured and cannot be changed at ttris tnne. He did not realize at the time the houses were ordered that a fifth driveway could not be built off the private drive. The gazages will be built after the houses aze in place. Meredith Reckert commented that the 10-fooYeasement on the north could be researched to fmd out whether or not 5 feet could be vacated thereby reducing the amount of variance required by the applicant. Mr. Kau&nan stated that he could not afford to wait until the Board meets in another month to find the outcome of the easement issue and pay Board of Adjushnent - 5 - 07-28-05 the $5000/month in interest payments so he requested that a decision be made by the Boazd tonight. Upon a motion by Board Member HOVLAND and second by Board Member ABBOTT the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-05-14 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law, and in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA- 05-14 be, and hereby is, approved. Type of Variance: A 9 foot variance from the required 30 foot front yard setback resulting in a 21 foot front yard setback for property zoned Residential-One C. For the following reasons: 1. The character of the neighborhood would not change substantially as it is a relatively dense area with small setbacks. 2. The garage, as required for access to 37tn Avenue, creates a unique situation in that the depth does not fit without necessitating a variance. With access into the cul-de-sac or lane, this would not have been an issue. Board Member BLAIR stated that he would support the motion for the reasons stated, especially since there would have been no problem if access for the fifth house would have been allowed from the private lane. Board Member ABBOTT stated that the azea has many substandazd situations and the proposed subdivision would be an improvement to the neighborhood. Further, the setback would have no distinguishable detriment to the neighborhood. The motion failed by a vote of 4-2 with Board Members HOWARD and DRDA voting no. Chair DRDA advised the applicant his request for variance had been denied. Boazd of Adjustment - 6 - 07-28-OS 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair DRDA closed the public heazing portion of the meeting. 6. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Board. NEW BUSINESS A. New amendments relatine to parkine re¢ulations - Meredith Reckert advised that copies of the new pazking regulations would be provided to Boazd members at the next meeting. B. NeiQhborhood Revitalization Strate¢v - Meredith Reckert advised the Boazd that City Council approved the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy. A. Approval of minutes - Mav 26, 2005 It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member ABBOTT to approve the minutes of May 26, 2005 as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 8. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Board Member BLAIR and seconded by Board Member HOWARD to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Paul Drda, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary Board of Adjushnent 07-28-OS -7- 0 BZ Development LLC Real Estate Development - Marketing E[lward J. Kaufman 13490 Lafayette Conrt 3't+omton, Colorado 80241 By Letter and FAX August 1flth, 2005 3fl3 255-9307 Faa . 303 255-9397 bzdev an,vahoo.com Ref. Riiey's Roost and Board of Adjustment City of Wheat Ridge Aian White, Director of Community Development 7500 29h Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Dear Alan, This past month 1 went before the Board of Adjustment, 80A, to request ofi review of the decision determined by Planning and Zoning denying my appiication for a variance of six feei to allow for construction of a garage that would allow for a vehide of standard size, and with luck, a vehicle that . accommodates handicapped drivers. When the vote was taken, 1 was denied any consideration. That being said, ! wanted to make you aware tha# the Planning and Zoning Department, P and Z, from #he front desk to Meredith Reckert, have been extremely helpful in every phase of my devetopmenL They have given appropriate advice and guidance every step of the entitlement process and brought me back on track when 1 steered off course. When rendered a deasion, even though one may not agree, they have justification and altemative sotutions. They are short on personnel and long on commitment. A brief history: I applied for and received an administrafive variance of three feet With a 30 #oot set back from the southem boundary and a three foo# administrative variance, 1 still found myself six feet short. 1 made application for a review with the BOA and had a hearing the 28'" of Juiy. ARer receiving a majority of votes, #our for and two agains#,1 was denied the additional six feet. I called your office for Garification of what I considered an unusuai vote count fiaving a majority of votes.and still not be considered tfie recipient of an affirmative vote. At your suggestion, I write a Istter to your office stating my concerns. As a comparative background for your review, I want to relate the only otMer case on the agenda that evening. An individual wanted to build a two-car garage on their property, which already had a one car attached garage. They desired to build an additional two-car garage in their back yard. The two issues were, did the neighbors object and did it meet code requirements. The neighbors did not object, but the set backs were not to code as I understood the testimony. They needed the addi#+onal garage, as the husband was taking up woodworking as a hobby and needed the space in their current garage. The two car garage woufd be five feet from the adiacent aropertv lines. There were no speaal needs to accommodate, just a hobby. After an hour and one hal#, the BOA approved the denial that was issued by P and Z unanimousty. It was my turn to present my case. Like the first applicant, i too was denied by P and Z in their initial recommenda6on to the BOA. I needed a six foot variance to make a garage practipi in size as the current situation did not. After posting the required public notification, there was not one objection. I explained that the variance would ailow for handicapped vehicls parking as well as allow for an individual to walk around a car of normal size, while it was parked in the garage. The 30' setback on a southern boundary was a serious obstacle, as in this particular case, it required an access of a 37', as 1 could not have an access of my priva#e drive because per code, one cannot have more tMan four accesses of a private drive, 1 have five homes on a cul-de-sac. As t understand, there cannot be parking on the Qrivate cut-de-sac for the reasons of fire and safety. The Ciiy ofi Wheat Ridge altowed a Finai Piat to be approved, knowing the existing codes would inhibit parking with these small building envelops. I cannot park on the stree# nor can I park in the garage. I felt tha# this amounted #o a serious impediment to the development. My homes were built with extra wide interior doors to accommodate wheei chair bound individuals with garages designed io allow access for special needs. 1 have built three and wi11 be construding five more housing units in the City of Wheat Ridge. These homes were designed to be owner occupied and not rentals. Having corisiructed or in the process of building 1.5MM dollars worth of homes, using local labor when appropriate, 1 fieel my reques# was unfairly denied. Not one person would be negatively impacted by granfiing me six extra feet for a suitabte garage. Afier pleading my case, 1 was told that the BOA wanted to take this under advisement and render their decision next month. 1 told the Board #hat it that the facts were verv clear. My request did not affect my neighbors, there were no objections, i# took cars off the street for parking, tliere would be a twenty foot set back instead of Thirty. I am surrounded on three sides by over 50+ rental un'ds. I have brought improvements to the property and tax revenue the City of 1Nheat Ridge. The BOA said they would vote immediately if I so desired. 1 requested a vo#e. I thought I had won when the votes were counted. There were four in fiavor of granting the variance and finro against. 1 iost. 1 felt 1 was in Wonderland where up was down and down was up. A majority vote meant that if one had the majority, as 1 did, I won. No so in Wheat Ridge. While I was in the building on the night of the 2e, 1 noticed a placard on an easel #hat stated the following, (I am paraphrasing) Wheat Ridge has more ren#als than home owners. Wheai Ridge has a dedining population. Wheat Ridge has a rising crime rate. This placard, as I fater infortned, were some of the negafives that the City was facing as determined by a consultant hired by the City. Going into meeting 1 felt the BOA was responsible for the placard. 1 now know it wasn't, but fiacts surrounding state o# Wheat Ridge as determined by cansul#ants. When my partner and I targeted Wheat Ridge to build in, we were aware of the above. We found a receptive P and Z departrnent eager to assist. We buiit safe ; and attract+ve uni#s and built homes where a vacant lot stood fior years. We are doing the same on our project on Eaton. The BOA has the power of arbitrary deasion making. i left tha# meeting #eeling that I now know why developers are reluctant to make commitments to buiiding with hundreds of thousands of dollars at stake and why they cannot even win their case when a simple vote of four members were #or the amendment and two against. You expiained the "Super Majority Vote System° in Wheat Ridge. In thir#y years of deveiopment I have never heard of this Orweitian mentaliiy af vote tabulation. Apparently, it was put forth as a great idea and it.was put into piace. You may want to rethink this voGng system. 1 currently have another infill lot identified and was prepared to go under contract. Between the fees required to build in Whea# l?idge and mentality of #he BOA, we are reconsidering if we want to get caught up in a system that is incomprehensible. Aiter listening to the comments and questions of the BOA, it my opinion tha# they are out of touch with the reality. They seem to be unaware of the current economic status of the City as wetl as the other items printed on the placard in the lobby. The BOA Mave shown they are not concerned with the needs of developers who make serious investments in this community. Whea# Ftidge needs quatity homes built and a place for new residents that add to the tax base. We want to continue buitding, but the SOA, in their collsctive wisdom have found a way to impede development. If you can share this letter with #he individuals listed in my "CC", I would be greatly appreaative. Sincerely. war CC: Mayor Gre#chen Cenieny Planning and Zoning Director, Meredith Reckert Councilpersons: Jerry DitulGo, Karen Berry