The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/22/2005CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA September 22, 2005 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on September 22, 2005, at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. WA-05-17: An application filed by Jerry Roach for approval of a partial waiver of Section 26-502 (Landscaping Requirements) for property zoned Restricted-Commercial (RC) and located at 7331 West 44th Avenue. B. Case No. WA-05-18: An application filed by the Michael Pusateri for approval of an 8 foot reaz yard setback variance from the 15 foot reaz yard setback requirement for a swimming pool on property zoned Residential-One (R-1) and located at 3201 Nelson Street. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - August 25; 2005 8. ADJOURNMENT A;oF W"EOTa,o . CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE ~~m PLANIVING DIVISION STAFF REPORT C~[ORP~~. TO: Board of Adjushnent CASE MANAGER: 7eff HirC CASE NO. & NAME: WA-05-17/Roach DATE OF MEETING: September 22, 2005 ACTION REQiJESTED: Approval of a partial waiver of section 26-502 (Landscaping Requirements) for property zoned Restricted Commercial (RC). LOCATION OF REQIJEST: 7331 VJest 44`bAvenue APPLICANT (S): Jerry Roach OWNER (S): Roach Investment Limited Partnership APPROXIMATE AREA: 12,080 (.28 acres) PRESENT ZOIVING: Restricted Commercial (RC) ENTERINTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION L.ocation Map Subject Parcel BoazdoYAdjustment 1 Case WA-05d7/Aoach .Jurisdiction All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to heaz this case. I. REQUEST The property in question is located at 7331 West 44`b Avenue. The property has Restricted Commercial (RC) zoning. The applicant, Jerry Roach, is requesting this variance as the property owner. The request is for approval of a partial waiver of secuon 26-502 (Landscaping Requirements) of the Code of Laws. The proposed changes on the property include an approximately 2,700 squaze foot addiuon to an existing commercial structure. With these proposed changes there aze required landscaping improvements in the Code of Laws. As a nonresidential use, such unprovements include: 1. 20 percent of the gross lot azea must be landscaped - Sec. 26-502 (D)(3)(c)(1) 2. 1 street tree for every 30 feet of lot street frontage - Sec. 26-502 (D)(3)(a) 3. A landscaped area 10 feet in width from the edge of right-of-way on 44`h Avenue - Sec. 26-502 (D)(3)(c)(2) 4. Parking lots adjacent to residentially zoned property must provide a landscape buffer 6 feet wide. Witrun ttris landscape buffer there must be either a 6 foot high view obscurmg fence, decorative wall or landscaped hedge that is 6 feet in height - 3ea 26-502 (E)(1) The site plan submitted is deficient from the requirements listed above in numbers 3 and 4 The property has frontage on 44t° Avenue, therefore the 10 foot landscape strip is required from the edge of right-of-way on 44`h Avenue referenced above in number 3. The property adjacent to the north also has Residential Two (R-2) zoning, and the applicant is proposing to have a parldng azea abutting the north property line. Therefore the 6 foot landscape buffer referenced above in number 4 is also a requirement This case was published as a request for a partial waiver of Section 26-502 of the Code of Laws. To be precise, the request is for approval of a waiver to the requirement for a landscaped azea measuring 10 feet from the edge of right-of-way for nonresidentially zoned properry abutfing 40' Avenue and a waiver to the requirement for a landscape buffer of 6 feet for a parking lot adjoining property zoned for low- or medium-density residential use. II. CASE ANALYSIS The subject property has a number of constraints to allow for a 2,700 squaze foot commercial addition on site. Most problematic related to the zoning and development code is with regards to pazking and landscaping requirements. The proposed addition is for the purposes of retail space. The number of pazking spaces required for retail in the Code of Laws is at a rate of 1 space per 200 squaze feet of floor azea. There is a provision in the code to exclude 10 percent of the floor azea for tlus requirement (for such azeas as utiliry rooms, hallways, restrooms, etc.). Although the addition is attached to an eacisting strvcture, it is on a freestanding pazcel at this time. Discussion on the setback implicauons is below. As a freestanding pazcel, parking rates aze deternuned on the subject pazcel alone in this instance. The number of required parking spaces, given the above mentioned 10 percent exclusion for a 2,700 square foot retail shvcture is 13, one of which being a handicapped accessible space. 13 spaces aze shown on the site plan with one handicapped space. ~ Boazd of Adjuslment 2 Case WA-05-17/Roach At least 5 of these parking spaces as shown do not conform to the city's dimensions for parking spaces. Pazallel parking spaces must have a width of 8 feet and a depth of 22 feet per the Code of Laws. There aze three such , parking spaces shown on the east side of the proposed addition that do not meet the 22 foot depth requirement. There are also two pazldng spaces in front of the proposed addiuon (south side of addition) which do not have adequate drive aisle width, at 8 feet for angled pazking. There is angled pazldng existing to the east, and essentially the proposed angled parking will match what is already on site. The existing parking at this locarion however is considered nonconfomung. The creauon of new nonconfornring angled parking spaces may not be allowed as shown. Although this is a request for a waiver to the landscaping requirements, the pazking layout and azea available for landscaping aze interrelated. There may be other alternatives for placement of parking spaces to provide the required number of spaces to be in compliance with requirements for drive aisle and size requirements, although it appeazs to be difficult to do so. The existing structure, and the proposed addition will encompass three different properties MEMEM. All aze currently under the same ownership. As noted above, the property in question is zoned Reshicted Commercial (RC). The properties to the west, however, aze zoned Commercial One (C-1). There aze implications with the aetback requirements if the applicant wishes to construct the addition with the current lot configuration. Currently there is a lot line going through the existing building, and with the new addition under the current lot configuration there will be another lot line going through the building. Sections 26-217 (RC development standards) and Section 26-218 (C-1 development standards) both allow a zero setback if the structure is constructed of masonry or nonflammable material and in accordance with the building code. Staff has understood the intent with this development to be to consolidate two or more lots in the futuxe to eliminate at least one of the lot lines going through the building. It has been noted that several of the parking spaces, as shown on the site plan submitted, do not meet the city's regulations. The intent of the landscape waiver, at least in part, is in order to allow for more room to construct the required number of parking spaces. Providing the required landscape buffer on the north property line, for example, would eluninate the 8 parldng spaces shown. Providing the 10 foot landscape buffer on 44th Avenue, for example, would eliminate the two parking spaces in front of the building. It would be more beneficial to consider the site as a whole, as it will funcrion as one structure with unimpeded vehiculaz and pedestrian access throughout the exterior of the building and the site. The pazcel for which the landscape waiver is being requested and the pazldng layout is being considered is currently freestanding, and must be considered as such. It would be more beneficial to do this analysis after the lot (or lots) have been consolidated and make a detemunafion then if there is a need for any waivers or variances, or if the applicant can meet all development standazds with the addition. For variances that aze denied, Sea 26-107 of the Code of Laws states that a new application for substantially the same development process may not be refiled for one yeaz after deniai. If this request is denied however; the applicant may proceed with either consolidating the lot or lots, or reconfiguring the site to meet (or more closely meet) applicable development standazds. This may result in another request for a variance or waiver. It is likely that request would not be considered substantially the same request. In other words, it is likely that if this request is denied and another request comes forwazd it may be reheard before the Boazd of Adjushnent at any meeting in the future. M. SITE PLAN The property is approximately 12,080 squaze feet, or .28 acres. The progerty measures 80 feet wide with a depth of 151 feet. The azea surrounding the property in question consists of commercial uses to the south and west, single family residential to the east and single and mulri-family residential to the north. Boazd of Adjustmeat 3 Case WA-05-17/Roach , Staff did not fiud any compazable variances in the immediate vicinity of this request. IV, VARIANCE CRITERIA Staff has the following comments regazding the criteria used to evaluate a variance request: 1. Can the property in question yieid a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regularion for the district in which it is located? If the request is denied, the properry may still receive a reasonable retum in use. There may be altemarives for the layout of the parking and landscaping to accommodate the proposed addition. It would be beneficial to consider the site in its entirety after the applicant consolidates the lot or lots. 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? The request will have a minimal effect on the essential character of the locality. The proposed changes aze consistent with what exists on the site. The eacisting conditions however aze nonconfomung under current regulations with regards to pazking and landscaping. 3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topograplucal condition of the specific property involved result in a panccular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? There are no unique conditions related to physical surrounding, shape or topography of the subject property that render any portion unbuildable, or make it impossible for the applicant to construct landscaping improvements. 4. Has the alleged difffculty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? The applicant has created his own hazdship by requesting a waiver to the landscape standards. When considering the site as a freestanding pazcel, however, it is very difficult for the applicant to be in compliance with applicable landscaping and pazking regulations without the need for a variance or waivers. 5. Would the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood? Approval of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfaze or injurious to other property in the area. There will not be a decrease in the supply of light and air to adjacent property. The request would not substantiaily increase the congestion in public streets, increase the danger of fue or endanger the public safety. Property values should not be impacted as a result of this request. 6. If criteria 1 througL 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 accommodarion of a person with disabilities? The request would not result in a substantial benefit or contdburion to the neighborhood distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant. Board of Adjuslment 4 Case WA-05-17/Roach The request would not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. V. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECONIMENDATIONS Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the above criteria aze not supportive of the variance request. Staff has found that there aze not unique circumstances attributed 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 return in use. 2. 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. 3. The site plan does not meet all applicable pazldng regulations in addition to landscaping regulations. The two are interrelated; therefore it is not in the best interests of the applicant to approve the landscaping waiver without addressing issues with the pazking layout. 4. Although the subject pazcel is freestanding, the site should be considered as a whole because it functions as such being one structure with unimpeded access throughout the site and shazed parking and pedestrian azeas. 5. It would be beneficial to consolidate the lot or lots and at that time address pazking and landscaping issues. If necessary, the applicant will have the ability to make another request for a variance or waiver without adhering to the 1 year stipulation in Section 26-107 of the Code of Laws while considering the overall functionality of the site. Boazd of Adjustment 5 Case WA-05•17/Roach . ~ n ~ I onzreurveruuro~ \ ~ AKEA 5~RY, ALLOlV4BLE WILDINb AREA (7ABLE 503 IFL) = AOLV 5F . AREA MODIFlGATIDN5 FOR FRONTA6E MGREASF = 1p11 S° ranu s nu.orm .1001 TOTPL SF PROP05ED = 9,939 -4r PARKM6 5/MMARY.• PARKIN6 RHd/lREO ~ = 13 SPAGfS . HANDILAP PARKIIdi REQUIRED = I PER 25 SPAGES PARKIN6 PROVlDID = IZ+ 1 HG = 13 SPAGfS '4ANp%AFE SUMMRY. , 6R055 LOT AREA OF NEN' RPOffRTY = 11107 5F . LAND5LAFF PROVIPEV+ZO% =13b0 5F i nvDmoµv_ urr REWRQ~E+rs. 10' 4ANDSGAPP PROVIDEO BEiWEEN PhRf:RK ANP PROPOVY 1Jlg iRffS PROVIDFD EVlRY BO' AT STREET PIR U7Y REqNREMB.T 60% MAXIHM 6LAZIA6 ON Mh'EUILDlN6 I - I 2 3 4 1 i ~rormww mcrox~ca~ma:~ IHib•8~11AA0SI'-0' . • AW1YfPOME45hElB1 0 0 ~ NEW I STORY RETAII 2700 5G' FT EXI5TING BUILDING TO REMAIN M~W f-T s~~ b}-~- ~ ~ ► . . h ~ I . . ~ I ro~iavr~ ~ ~ I O ~ ~ ~i v ~ 13 12 ~ EXHIBIT 1 I r--------- i i < ruoreercuia 1 a~mcur s~utxro ~ msreL:aetro~uw ~ ~ sffEww _ ° 10 .Ig _ j i ^ WEST 44TH AVENUE q LAHWA~~ I I; ~ \ EXHIBIT 2 ~ _ . . I " . : . . '.l'. , - - - - - - - ..w:-. ^ l.~ ~ • . J ~ a!~C.~ ' _ . ' . . ~ : . -'4t' :~e -t~- ~ i~. ` n ~j9. A C W M~ ~~M ' . _ . . ' . , Y , J 4'G r`-z ALi~. cr 0 o W ~ ~IIJ,,I ' • ~ ~G , ~ ~ _ aA aq ~ ti~w~~, M ro P o ~ p o ~ n cn ' ~ > ~ D ~P~OM~ O V ~ fn U) °Fp~.. ~ . ~ . ~ . m . . ~ ~ ~ C1 m m c ~ ~ m ~ w vti AJ -0 a . o m ~ 0 . 8 ~ 7 c,p,.-.'UF-~p IN~~~ _ .G• --tW 0~ n~ - . •a58 ~ .»~~'m~m < ~n y° _ r c~ D ~'o ~ W eo o m : om.+A ~ ~ a m ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ R t JI - d ce ~ 'c7 N' - ' : H tC fD Y ~ • ~ . ~ ' 0 m 0 :g = ~.o m m s~~~- ~ oH( P 0 c i, 1 R~~'~p x S 5~ ~ ~lb ~ :l 'q -7 ~ , y~ - ~,o• . ? • ~J . rT~' ~Y ~ ~ ~p . t ~ . r°~ v y m~ m g~ a 0~ ' { t 1 ~ .~:N c ~~A. m`~ • ! \ i~ < m ~vF:: ~ ~ • ~ ~ . . j,9~o> 2.p E 3, ~m0 Xbmp~ 0 F+i ~p O m C. , 1. . . . ~ ~ ~ . x ~p ' 'O p O O' ~ ~ x 7b o LLO ~ . . . ~.~r~~ ~ . <p G Q' O !G ~ \ . + m ~ y R l'~ ~ry (C ~ ~G z t y;a,! ~ m~ M e+ S ^n x F"~ ~ k . . ` , ' ~ ` ~ ; •f ' . ~ ~ r , ? ` . . ~.ev~ > _ s.- . o . _ . . . . . . ~ . . . _ . , s ~.i:''. ~ t~ ~ a H H a n x C7 d r cy n a r tj _1 r m L) D 0 m. Cl) . O a L 1• 0 Z m O > o 3 p p . > 9 z 0 m ~ ~ 1 . mv o * c m 0 o > ~ N m M y I _j O m . . ~p ~ z W w n . o W "n i r n w w mvr ~ . m U r~ m o i+ I a. o '-.,3 'D N O O ~ O w i x m o ~o m v cF,4 tY ! l.u n,. ~'i Y.• . - H b . y + .;'sy-'", .~:s ~ . ~ . ~ ~o w"E°TVa CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE ~ m PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT C~LORP~~ . TO: Boazd of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Jeff Hirt CASE NO. & NAME: VJA-05-18/Pusateri DATE OF MEETING: September 16, 2005 ACTION REQIJESTED: Approval of an 8 foot reaz yard setback variance from the 15 foot reaz yard setback requirement for a swimmiug pool on property zoned Residential One (R-1). LOCATION OF REQLTEST: 3201 Nelson Street APPLICANT (S): Michael Pusateri OWNER (S): Michael Pusateri APPROXIMATE AREA: 13,116 (30 acres) PRESENT ZOIVING: Residential One (R-1) ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE F1LE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map Subject Parcel L ~ ~ 32N4 < R-'1 i*i mi I 1 ` ~ c>i e? F~ f17: ~0 ~ 0 J. -,W ~ 0 ~ I - ~ Z ~ m M G1TY OF-LAXEV1lC3OD Board of Adjnstment . 1 Case WA-OSdB/Pusateri Jurisdiction All notificauon and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. I. REQUEST The property in question is located at 3201 Nelson Street. The property has Residential-One (A-1) zoning. The applicant, Michael Pusateri, is requesting this variance as the property owner. The request is for approval of an 8 foot reaz yard setback variance from the 15 foot reaz yard setback requirement for a swimmiug pool ~ . The swimming pool is proposed to be 576 squaze feet in size (16' X 36') . Swimmiug pools are considered structures and therefore subject to setback requirements. The setback requirement is applicable regardless of whether or not the swimuung pool is above ground or in ground. Staff has understood the request to be for an in ground pool. In the R-1 zone district, the reaz yard setback requirement is 15 feet, the side yard setback requuement is 5 feet, and the front yard setback from Nelson Street is 30 feet. As this is a corner lot, there is also a 30 foot setback requirement from 32°d Avenue. There do not appear to be options for alternauve placement for a swnnming pool of this size on this property without the need for a variance or variances. A letter in sup ort of the variance request has been received by a property owner in the vicinity of the request . This individual is also a representative for the Applewood Reserve Homeowner's Associarion for which the subject property is within. All other development standazds have been met with this request. II. SITE PLAN The property is approximately 13,116 square feet, or.30 acres. The property measures 86 feet wide with a depth of 140 feet " The azea surrounding the properry in question consists entirely of single fanuly residential.property. To the south across 32°d Avenue is the City of Lakewood. Staff did not find any compazable variances in the immediate vicinity of this request. IV, 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 wlrich 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 will have a minimal effect on the essential character of the locality. Staff has understood the request to be for an in ground pool. An above ground pool may however have an effect on the essential character of the localiry as none were observed in the vicinity of the subject property. Boazd of Adjushnent Case WA-05-18/Pusateri 3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topograplrical 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 regula6ons were carried out? There aze no unique condiuons related to physical surrounding, shape or topography of the subject property that render any portion unbuIldable. 4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? The applicant has created lus own hardship by requesting a swimming pool in this location. There are however, limited options for placement of a swimwiug pool of the size proposed without the need for a variance or variances. The property is also a comer lot, therefore more stringent setback requirements apply. 5. Would the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood? Approval of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area. There will not be a decrease in the supply of light and air to adjacent property if the swinuning pool is in ground as understood by staff. The request would not substanrially increase the congestion in public streets, increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. Property values within the neighborhood should not be unpacted as a result of 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 of a person with disabilities? ~ The request would not result in a substanual 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. V. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the above criteria aze supportive of the variance request. Staff has found that there are unique circumstances athibuted to these requests that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1. The request will have a minimal effect on the essential character of the locality. 2. There aze very limited options for placement of a swinuiung pool of the size proposed without the need for a variance or variances. The property is a comer lot, and thus subject to more sllringent setback requirements. 3. The intent of the classification of swimnung pools as structures subject to setback requirements is more applicable to above ground pools. The applicant is proposing an in ground pool. With the following conditions: 1. The pool shall be an in ground pool and may not be an above ground pool. Boud oF Adjnstment Cue WA-05-18/Pu.sateri O1.icTjael Vuoateri 3201-0eigon Otreet MbP27t RiDQE, 09 80033 (303) 232-3986 August 31, 2005 Va Hand Delivery Community Development Department 7500 West 29'h Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 RE: Letter of Request To Whom It May Concern: I am requesting a variance of the west easement of my property. The reason is to install a 16' wide by 36' long swimming pool. The pool will encroach into the easement 8' feet. The north and south easements will not be encroached. I do not feel the addition of the pool would be detrimental to the adjacent property or neighborhood. Also, I have the approval of the Homeowners' Association (See Attached). Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, l~// ~ / ~ /01 Michael Pusateri EXHIBIT 1 °UTURE F'Ri~ACY :g. -x I, Xi$7;N@ BRic,< e'vCE ~ ? - . Q ~ z+ ~ ;o =t . . ~ i ~ GRdJN9 GOVC-FZ e ; ! ~ • ~ ! • ~8 REEN~ \ 8 i I ~ ' ~ > \ , ~ . . . . _ .s _ i L4 D1ECfDU0u5?RLeE i:-I12" MIN G4LiPERJ NEySON DBCI6up{,!g *~E~S ~ I LANrJ.7CA1"~E F.L.GN . . EXHIBIT 2 , ~ \~j ~ o~ ~9L z~o ~91 ~~oJ JN~WU~M ` / ~ ~ August 30, 2005 To Whom It May Concern, As a resident of the Applewood Reserve community, and overseer of the ma.intenance of it's common areas, I write this Ietter in support of Zeke Pusateri's application to insta.ll a pool in his backyard. Mr. Pusatari has been gracious enough over the past three years to allow his water to be shared to irrigate the commons area o£ Applewood Reserve, the community in which he resides. In addition, he lends a hand when maintenance is required and he keeps his own residence in immaculate condition. Zeke Pusateri contributes a great deal to his community and I hope you will look favorably upon his application. Sincerely, Dewey Bridge 3271 Oak St. Wheat Ridge, CO. 80033 303-234-9585 EXHIBIT 3 BJI SURVEYING L4139 8661 E. AMHERST DR. #F Denver, Colorado 80231 750-6242 t. As= T`Ja / . - - - - la=2v• 44~ ~ ~ o~ 2 r C ~ r FLOOD ZONE C ~ c , ~ ~ Z3 8 3~..a..~....~y . j . Q Q + - GuHt ~aT\o_ ~ ~..o ~ I q I I . . ~ P N Ik 32U \ y I ~ ~ \ 6ro~./ , STUCCO ~ w/ wAi.~c. G~.1T y I ~o~ m % t~ ~ •O • . ~ I • ~ I J ~ J ( JULY 27, 1998 ~~at~ ~encL y~~ t(~O(/G LTPOG~ e eGSro ~ ;f does'nt dam q~ P A~ ~ 'DD' , a U` 3 10' 84.b5 t~1 ~~S o r1 S'a'~.~~T' ~ ~ M~ NT S'fREET ADDRESS: 3201 NELSON STREET, WHEAT RIDGE, CO. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 4, DISTINCTIVE ADDRESSES AT APPLEWOOD, COUNTY OF JEFFERS"ON, STATE OF COLORADO. LOCATION CERTIFICATE: ?REPARED FOR NATIVE SONS CONSTRUCTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE WAS PREPARED FOR THE ABOVE, THAT IT IS NOT AN IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT, AND THAT IT IS NOT TO BE RELIED ON FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF FENCE, BUILDING OR OTHER FUTURE IMPROVEMENT LINES. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL ON THIS DATE, JULY 27,1998, EXCEPT UTILITY CONNECTIONS, ARE ENTIRELY WITHIN THE BOUDARIES OF THE PARCEL, EXCEPT AS SHOWN, THAT THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS UPON THE DESCRIBED PREMISES BY IMPROVEMENTS ON ANY ADJOINING PREMISES, EXCEPT AS INDICATED, THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT EVIDENCE OR SIGN OF ANY EASEMENT CROSSING OR BURDENING ANY PART OF SAID PARCEL EXCEPT AS NOTED. I ALSO CERTIFY THAT THIS PARCEL IS NOT IN A 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN ACCORDING TO FEDERAL INSURANCE RATE MAP COMMUNITY PANEL N0. 085079 0005. DATE _~1!'`7-''r 10717 EXHIBIT 4 7 d e CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting August 25, 2005 1. 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 29`h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Tom Abbott Janet Bell Bob Blair Paul Drda Paul Hovland Members Absent: Daniel Bybee Betty Jo Page Staff Present: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Jeff Hirt, Planning Technician Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary The following is the official set of Board of Adjustment minutes for the public hearing of August 25, 2005. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Community Development Department oi the City of Wheat Ridge. 3. PUBLIC FORUM No one indicated a desire to speak at this time. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA-05-15: An application filed by the Glenn E. Overholt Family Partnership for approval of a 5 foot side yazd and 5 foot rear yazd setback vaziance from the 10 foot side yazd and 10 foot reaz yazd setback requirement for detached gazages over 8 feet in height for property zoned Residential-Two and located at 3860 Allison 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 denial of the request for reasons outlined in the staff report. Boazd of Adjustment - 1 - 08-25-OS In response to a question from Board Member HOVLAND, Mr. Hirt explained that an attached gazage could be built in alignment with the existing house which has a 6 foot setback on the north property line; however, a detached garage is required to have a 10-foot setback. Glenn Overholt 3860 Allison Street Mr. Overhoit, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He stated he plans to build a detached garage and plans to build it in conformance with the rest of the neighborhood. His house and the other houses in the existing neighborhood have 6 foot setbacks. He would like to build the gazage with a 6 foot setback which would be in alignment with his house and in conformance with other situations in the immediate neighborhood. In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Mr. Overholt stated that his house has a 5/12 pitch roof and his proposed gazage would have a 4/12 pitch roo£ The gazage would be 40 feet deep. He plans to pazk two classic cars in the garage. One of the classic cazs is parked on the street and has been the tazget of vandalism. Mr. Overholt stated that all of his neighbors have expressed their approval of both the garage and the variance. Board Member HOVLAND asked for clazification regazding the amount of variance requested. The application requested 5 foot vaziance while earlier testunony by Mr..Overholt indicated he desired a 4 foot vaziance to build the gazage with a 6 foot setback, Mr. Overholt stated that a 4 foot variance would be adequate for his purposes. Meredith Reckert commented that it would be permissible for the applicant to reduce the amount of variance he is requesting; however, an increase in a variance request would require additional public notice. Boazd Member BELL expressed concern about an easement located behind the home. Mr. Overholt explained that there is a 5 foot easement on his property which he assumed was for public utilities. Meredith Reckert agreed that it was probably a public utility easement. The city does not contact owners of easements unless there is an encroachment. The proposed variance would not encroach into the easement. Philip Ricardi 819 6`h Street, Golden Mr. Ricardi was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He was representing his parents, Eugene and Gloria Ricazdi, property owners to the north of the subject property who were unable to attend the meeting. Mr. and Mrs. Ricardi would be mosY affected by the proposed garage and they aze very much in favor of Mr. OverholYs plans. He pointed out that there is a commercial pazking lot directly to the east of Mr. OverholPs property which would facilitate access to the easement Boazd of Adjustment - 2 - 08-25-OS by utility companies. The proposed garage would still be under the maximum building coverage allowed for this lot. In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Mr. Overholt stated that he plans a frame structure with brick veneer. In response to another question from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. Overholt stated that he plans a gable roof for the structure. Board Member HOVLAND commented that a hip roof would have less impact in terms of mass than a gable roo£ Board Member HOVLAND stated that he was in favor of granting the variance because neighbors approve and it won't change the chazacter of the neighborhood. Mr. Overholt stated that he would change his request to a 4 foot variance from a 5 foot variance. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member HOWARD, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-05-15 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 substantialty 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-05-15 be, and hereby is, approved. Type of Variance: A 4 foot side yard and 4 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 for property zoned Residential-Two. For the following reasons: Related to the rear yard, there is commercial PCD zoning immediately abutting 3860 Allison to the east, therefore the variance would seem to cause no significant detrimental effect. Board of Adjustment - 3 - 08-25-OS 2. Other detached structures on street are at the older 5 foot setback. 3. The combined setback between 3860 Allison and the house to the north would appear to be approximately 18 feet. 4. The neighbor to the north testiTied in favor of both variances. With the following conditions: 1. The pitch of the garage roof shall not exceed 6/12 and shall be hip design,to match the house and minimize the mass. 2. Related to the side yard, the new structure may not be built closer to the property line than the existing house. 3. The exterior shall be brick veneer. The motion passed 6-0. Chair DRDA advised the applicant his request for variance was granted. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair DRDA closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. 6. OLD BUSINESS . There was discussion concerning a letter received from Edward J. Kaufman whose request for variance was denied at the July meeting. Board Member BLAIR commented that the letter pointed out a probiem that exists with the super majority vote requirement when a full Board is not present. He stated his belief that an applicant has the right to a vote of the full Boazd in light of the super majority requirement. Meredith Reckert stated that staff has added information about the super majority vote requirement to the packet which is given to applicants. The possibility of appointing alternates to serve in a Board member's absence was discussed. • Meredith Reckert informed the Board that Daniel Bybee is pianning to resign due to work conflicts. . The Boazd suggested a review of the bylaws especially in regazd to appointrnent of alternates and starting tnne of ineetings. . New setback requirements put in place in 2003 in relation to established neighborhoods was discussed. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - July 28, 2005 Board Member ABBOTT offered the following amendment to the minutes. Page 6, third paragraph from the bottom, should read: Boazd of Adjustment - 4 - 08-25-OS "Board Member ABBOTT stated that the subdivision has many substandard situations. Further, this setback would cause no distinguishable detriment to the neighborhood." It was moved by Board Member BLAIR and seconded by Board Member HOWARD to approve the minutes of July 28, 2006 as amended by Board Member ABBOTT. The motion passed unanimously with Board Member BELL abstaining. 8. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Board Member BLAIR and seconded by Board Member ABBOTT to adjoum the meeting at 9:00 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Paul Drda, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary Boazd of Adjustment - 5 - 08-25-OS