Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/26/1998CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMEJ A G E N • A March 26, 1998 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City ot Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on March 26, 1998 at 7:30 P.M., 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Denied A. Case Nn- KA-28-4: An application by Gary Bryan for a 5 rear yard setback variance to the 15 rear yard setback requirement to build a new 6 bay automotive repair shop and a nail salon located at 9205 W. 44th Avenue within the Commercial-One zone district. Denied B Clasp Nn, kLA-28-6: An application by Ben Schnell for a 5 side yard setback variance to the 5 side yard setback requirement to allow for an enclosed garage at 12180 W. 35th Avenue within the Residential-one A zone district. Withdrawn C, Case No. WA-28-2. An application by Deborah Utzinger for approval per of a 2.3 side yard setback variance to the required 5 side yard applicant setback requirement for property located at 3992 Lee Circle within the Residential-One zone district. Withdrawn D. Case Ko. WA-28-8; An application by Deborah Utzinger for approval per of a 2.3 side yard setback variance to the required 5 side yard applicant setback requirement for property located at 4002 Lee Circle within the Residential-one zone district. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes: February 26, 1998 B. Board of Adjustment voting rules A. a,, - - : An application by Gary Bryan for a 5 rear yard setback variance to the 15 rear yard setback requirement to build a new 6 bay automotive repair shop and a nail salon located at 9205 W. 44th Avenue within the Commercial-one zone district. An application by Ben Schnell for a 5 side yard setback variance to the 5 side III setback requirement to allow for an enclosed garage at 12180 W. 35th Avenue within the Residential-one A zone district. C. ase No. WA-28-2: An application by Deborah Utzinger for approval of a 2.3 side yard setback variance to the required 5 side yard setback requirement for property located at 3992 Lee Circle within the Residentone zone district. D. Caq,- Nn. WA-28-8-:- An application by Deborah Utzinger for approval of a 2.3 side yard setback variance to the required 5 side yard setback requirement for property located at 4002 Lee Circle within the Residential-One zone district. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes: February 26, 1998 B. Board of Adjustment voting rules CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE I DATE POSTED: March 12, 1•98 -JURISDICTION: The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting requirements have been met, therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. The applicant is requesting approval of a 5' rear yard setback variance to the 15' rear yard setback requirement to allow for the development of a six bay automotive repair shop and nail salon. If approved, the proposed structure will • located 10' from the northern property line. Nam Me PrOPCI coululcrCIM Ridge Future Land Use Map. Therefore, this use is permitted in the existing zone district and would be compatible with the existing land uses. III CRITERIA 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? Yes. If denied, the property may still yield a reasonable return in use, service and income as the property Ridge. Also, a smaller building may be constructed on this site that would comply with the rear yard setbacks. Board of Adjustment WA-98-4 2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances? No. Even though there is an 18' utility easement located about 14' from the eastern property line, the applicant may develop a 4,556 square foot building, as opposed to the 4,726 square foot proposed building, and still comply with the required 15' rear yard setback. 3. If the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? No. This property is located in a predominately commercial neighborhood and the applicant is proposing a similar commercial use that will • consistent with the existing land uses. 6. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon the desire to make money out of the property? Yes. The applicant may design a building that could comply with the rear yard setback requirements and still offer adequate leascable space. 7. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? Yes. Even though there is an existing sewer easement running within the property boundaries the hardship has been created by the applicant in that a building may be designed to comply with the existing setback requirements and still produce a useable structure. 8. Would the granting of the variations • detrimental to the publicwelfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located? will MOV110111100111 11 a a 6 a 0 9 11 . I - I I I lion I LOI III #III L41 Or'd a ALLITA V I # # I # # A A -4 Board of Adjustment WA-98-4 Approval of this request will not necessarily benefit the neighborhood because the property may be developed with or without the need of a variance. However, because the proposed use is for commercial h revenue and a reduction of blight. Staff concludes that the above criteria does not support approval of this request. Although it was found that this request would be compatible with the existing land use and zone district, staff believes a smaller building may be proposed that would comply with all district regulations. OPTION A: "I move that case no. WA-98-4, a request for a 5' rear yard setback variance to the 15' rear yard setback requirement for a property located at 9205 West 44 1h Avenue, be APPROVED for the following reasons: request will not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. There will be an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property. 3. The danger of fire will not be increased," OPTION B: "I move that case no. WA-98-4, a request for a 5'rear yard setback variance to the 15'rear yard setback requirement for a property located at 9205 West 44 0 'Avenue, be DENIED for the following reasons: t. A smaller building could be built to comply with the setback requirements."' Board of Adjustment WA-98-4 INA i OFFICIAL ZONJ NO MAP NHEAT RI DC-7E COLORADO MAP ADOPTED- Amit 15, 1994 Lost Revision: Sept artwr 16, 19% AREA REGUIPUNG5 SITE PLAN APPROVAL lOO-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN (APPP OXIMATE LOCATION) ZONE PISTFUCT BOUNDRY PARC-EL/L0T EOL)NDRY CESle+4ATES OWNERSHIP) WATER FEATURE DENOTES KA-TIPLE ADDRESSES VEPARnlefr OF FVMN$ *0 DEMOR4W - 235-25:2 L:\0RAWINGS\PLANNlNG\QS\NW22 N 3 Ste* y . uj EN VT I 0 CL V) '�AV Hit- IA4 Szt C] I 0 CL V) '�AV Hit- IA4 February 5, 1998 : Board of Adjustment City of eat Ridge ;.' , 7500 West 29th Avenue « eat Ridge, -CO 80033- ` dear Sirs: This firm is working with Wh eat Ridge Auto Service in planning a new six bay automotive repair shop and nail salo 9205 est'44th Avenue We wish to =' request a variance from the required rear setback. a _. We are planning a single story building, " eighteen feet high, to accommodate oversize" garage doors and storage over the office areas. « Planning Staff has informed us than the required rear setback' is fifteen feet 4 rather than ten because the building is,taller than twelve feet. ,,We believe the variance is justified because of the existing 'Sanitary Sewer that essentially bisects the property, athereby limiting our for building footprint. Please note that there is no adjacent residential property Your thoughtful consideration is appreciated. « Sincerely, # Y « Judy O'Brien ° Principal Y. « r . ,a x 5 r y t x a ,ae 'Q y W , n . v « i .n' „-• , - a ° * tv e+ a n •~ w , . y .. ' , e r ' ,e . Y 4651 S. 1Kighway" 73 .: Evergreen, Ci torad© 8t 4 9 ..�. -. ©3 =6 ?U 154f� a - .µ t. F . am MIOOIM�+� r� (7) Rear yard setback. Based upon Specific site, adjacent lan& use ' and adjacent pub- lic streets, one (1) or more of the following shall apply: @•• W RM RE " PT 1 ON NO. F0515 23.50 743 RECORDED IN JEFFERSON COUNTY COLORADO 1� 040 1 -042 12 /42!97 12:48:31 be tween IrW THIS DEED, Made this day of Noveni>er 21, 1997 J. F REDERICK ER A TO PARCE of the County of JEFFERSW and State of Cotorado, of the first part, and GARY LEE BRYAN i (SEAL (SEAL SLATE of CO ORADO County of ( (SEAL JEF FERSW > SS. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE TO: Board of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: March 26, 1998 DATE PREPARED: March 18, 1998 CASE NO. & NAME: WA- 98- 61Schnell CASE MANAGER: Sean McCartney ACTION REQUESTED: Request for approval of a S' setback variance to the 5' side yard setback requirement. LOCATION OF REQUEST: 12180 Nest 35" Avenue NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S) Ben Schnell 12180 West 35" Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S) Same APPROXIMATE AREA: 9,225 square feet PRESENT ZONING: Residential One A PRESENT LAND USE: Sin Family Residential SURROUNDING ZONING: ,, ., V: and S• Residential -One A SURROUNDING LAND USE: N., : W: and, S• Residential Single Family DATE PUBLISHED: March 6, 1998 DATE POSTED: March 12, 1998 DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: February 27, 1998 AGENCY CHECKLIST: { ) (XX) NOT REQUIRED RELATED CORRESPONDENCE: ( ) (XX) NONE ENTER INTO RECORD: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (XX) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIAL ( XX) ZONING ORDINANCE (XX) EXHIBITS ( ) SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS () OTHER JURISDICTION: The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting requirements have been met. Therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. MEMIUSHM This case was originally brought before the Board of Adjustment on December 12, 1996 for a similar request. The applicant, at that time, was requesting a 5side yard setback variance to allow for the construction of a carport. The Board made a motion for approval, but the motion failed with a vote of 4- 1 A copy of the minutes have been attached to this report. Now, the applicant is requesting approval • a 5side yard setback variance to the 5'side yard setback requirement for the construction of an enclosed garage addition. If the request is approved, the garage addition will be located on the western property line, approximately 10' from the neighbors adjacent garage to the west, Pursuant to Section 26-11 (F) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, an attached garage located in the Residential-One A zone district must retain a 5side yard setback from the side property line. This would • the same requirement for a carport or detached garage as well. been any objection to the request. If the variance is approved, staff requests that the garage addition match the design and materials of the existing residence, Also, no portion of the structure may extend over the western property line and the rain gutter •# •# must • designed to direct the flow of water away from the adjacent property to the west. 11 SITE PLAN MMI Attached to this report are placement alternatives submitted by tile applicant. As the site plans show, there are other areas on the property where a garage can be located to comply with the setback requirements. III CRITERIA 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? Yes. If denied, the property may continue to be used as a single-family residence, thereby allowing for a reasonable return in use, service, and income. No. The plight of the owner is due to a need for more enclosed parking. There aren't any other unique circumstances attributed to this case. 3. If the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? No. Although the garage in question will • located on the property line, there are other instances in the neighborhood which show setback encroachments for structures. Therefore, the essential character • the locality should not be effected. 4. Would the particular physical surrounding, shape, or topographical condition of the specific property involved result in a particular hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? No. Although the property has a gradual slope to the south, the majority • the property is relatively flat and rectangular in shape. Therefore, there isn't any topographical feature or irregular shape which would result in a particular hardship. 5. Would the conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based be applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification? Yes. Anyone may apply for the same type of variance request. However, because variances are reviewed on a case by case basis, the outcome may not be the same. 6. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon the desire to make money out of the property? No. The purpose of the variance is solely based on additional enclosed parking space. 7. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? Ippill EE= 8. Would the granting of the variation be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is locatedi 1 M - 9. Would the proposed variation impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood? Board of Adjustment Page 3 WA-98-6 ME= No. Even though the proposed structure, if approved, will • located on the western property line, there will still be a 10 separation between structure therefore allowing for an adequate supply • light and air between the structures. Also, because 10 is the required separation between structures listed in both the Wheat Ridge Code • Laws and the 1994 Uniform Building Code, the danger of fire should not increase. Approval of this request will not directly benefit the neighborhood monetarily, but it may provide aesthetic relief from outside parking and storage. Therefore, approval of this request may contribute to the neighborhood. Staff concludes that the above criteria does not support approval of this request. Even though approval of the garage should not impair the adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property and the danger of fire is not increased, staff does believe there are other alternatives to locate this garage on the property that will comply with all district regulations. Option A. "I move that case no. WA-98-6, a request for a 5' side yard setback variance to the 5' side yard setback requirement for a property zoned Residential-One A and located at 12180 West 35 Avenue, • APPROVED for the following reasons: I The proposed garage will allow for adequate separation between the adjacent structure to the west. 2. Approval of the request will not alter the essential character of the locality. With the following condition: 1. The garage must be designed so the style and material match the applicants existing house. 2. Rain gutter down-spouts must be direct to allow for rainwater to flow away from the property to the west." Option B: "I move that case no. WA-98-6, a request for a 5' side yard setback variance to the 5' side yard setback requirement for a property zoned Residential-One A and located at 12180 West 35' Avenue, • DENIED for the following' reasons: Board of Adjustment Page 4 WA-98-6 mma EM l us AG H 34TH AVe. A .F > .m t{ W $ AVE � h hT ar ate' mma EM l us l ,r L ..l .' I .T `L.f k✓ � :.: <; CITY LIMIT LIME MAP ADOPTED iron. 15,19q4 _ WATER FEATURE Las,fi Revisim September 16, 19% * DENOTES TIPLE ADDRESSES r.• s r r Imm r. 4 n .s F r"F AG H 34TH AVe. > .m W $ AVE � h hT ar l ,r L ..l .' I .T `L.f k✓ � :.: <; CITY LIMIT LIME MAP ADOPTED iron. 15,19q4 _ WATER FEATURE Las,fi Revisim September 16, 19% * DENOTES TIPLE ADDRESSES r.• s r r Imm r. 4 n .s F r"F L:\DRAWINGS\PLANNING\QS\NE ate' L:\DRAWINGS\PLANNING\QS\NE WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING: December 12, 1996 Page Motion was seconded • Board r... JUNKER. Motion carried 6-0. Resolution attached. E. Case No. WA-26-40: An application by Ben Schnell for approval • a 5' side yard setback variance to the 5' side yard setback requirement to allow the construction of a 9' x 22 carport The property is zoned Residential One-A and Chairman WALKER asked if there were any requirements for covered parking spaces in the code, and Mr. McCartney answered no. WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING: December 12, 1996 Page The applicant, Ben Schnell, 12180 W. 35th Avenue, was sworn in. Mr. Schnell was in agreement with the staff report. Board Member HOVLAND asked if he will be building with the existing roofline, and Mr. Schnell answered he would continue with the roof line, however it is 12 feet in height, and the carport will only be 8 feet, but they will have the same pitch. ase0wo-HAR • "I • ! 1LIpill'WELO • Board Member ABBOTT stated he will be voting no on this *ecause there are no unique hardships or circumstances. He feels the request runs counter to the intent • the setbacks which is to leave open space for visual aesthetics and for fire separation. Motion failed by a vote of 4-2, with Board Member ABBOTT and Chairman WALKER"voting no. Resolution attached. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING I A R Supp No. 18 1710 Minimum Maximum Minimum Minimum Front Minimum Minimum Maximum Building Lot Lot Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Height Coverage" Areal"' Widthw Setback Setback" Setback' —1.1 raid) In- A R Supp No. 18 1710 SCHNELL VARIANCE APPLICATION 12130 W. 35th Avenue Neighborhood Variants to Wheat Ridge City CodE-, 3470 Vivian Ct. Less than 5' sideyard setback- rear corner of Me garage sits on Lne Prooerty line with M to the adjacent garage. 2) 3520 Ward Rd. lebs than 5 Adeyard setback- caraort erectod 2-3' from toe wroterty line placing it within 8 of the adjacent garay- I 1 1 UO3 Vivian Ct Loss than 5 sidevard setbacK- carport erectad 1-2 from the arypern line with no nearby adjacent structure 03! Wrignt, St. 4` than 5 zideyard setback- caroort erected on ths property :j n 00 only 5 to we living area of the adjace5t home- I 17305 W. Mn P!, loss than 10' front setW4 frnm a public strayt- 2 ca7 garagt,I nonKc 15 f Y ym W. 34 Vn P! . 11:35 W. Moh 71. ,ass Mar & Adey;rd setback- 2 car garage eFacted Z-F from the liqe Macing it within 8' of thB living soace of the adjacent "GM I 7313 Wright St. Loos than 5' sideyard setback- 2 car ;arage erected 3-3 1/2' from tw p overt, line olacing it within 8' of the adjacent garage 3) IM3 W. 2111 Q. .00n than 30 front setback from a public street- this property woo recently granted a variance by the City of Wheat Ridge to add onto -n existing 2 car attached garage Mote: tnis list is illustrative bat by no means exhaustive of variant, prooerKes in the applicants immediate area) • m C►rent. �t7+R�'44� l s ♦ J ~r( J a » t 4a » I Z lAt> W. 3 5 *� AVC *� u L 3-q .% -- -.- __.... X M I -Y -A r __ x loll I r w I 2 1rtJ. 3 $ t G e fF cl ck e G r a W . �L. o u �- x RECEPTION NO. F034 16( 6.00 ( c,:( )01-001 743 RECORDED IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO 9/27196 7:41:22 99@ Q The City of GWheat ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS APPLICATION Department of Planning and Development GRidge West 9 Ave., Wheat Ridge, RELATED CORRESPONDENCE: (XX) NONE ENTER INTO RECORD: ( ) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (XX) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS JURISDICTION: The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting requirements have been met. Therefore, there is ,jurisdiction to hear this case. MENIMMMI The applicant is requesting approval • a 2.3 side yard setback variance to the 5' side yard setback requirement, on both properties, to allow for the existence of two existing single-family dwellings located in the Cambridge Patio Homes Development. After construction began, the Wheat Ridge Building Department noticed that the buildings were closer than the development plan allowed and issued a stop work order on the project. Since then', the applicant, who is in the process of purchasing the property, has requested approval of the variance to allow for the garage to encroach within the separation requirement. The applicant has stated that the wider garage is required for her elderly parents who are handicapped and need the larger space. M l�'llill III 1111111111111 1111 11111 111 lip I i I I I I I As previously stated, the properties in question are larger than average lots (approximately 7,100 square feet). The developer constructed their largest model home • the property (model D) and found that the property, which was platted with an odd shape, was too narrow for this size of structure. Along with the garage extensions, this lot is too narrow for such a large structure. �� I 4 1 ! # = I I I&IIIIIIIIM # MM= 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? Yes. If denied, this property may continue to be used as a single-family home and yield a reasonable return in use, service and income. 11111111 111111111111111111111iijil�illilI 1111'�11�11111111 riplill 11111111:111111pill No. The plight of the owner is due to a structure which is too large for the property. A smaller structure may have been proposed on this site and comply with the 10' minimum separation requirement. 3. If the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? 5. Would the conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based be applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification? Yes. Anyone may apply for the same type of variance request. However, because variances are reviewed on a case by case basis, the outcome may not be the same. 6. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon the desire to make money out of the property? No. The purpose of the request is to allow for the garage extensions to remain on these existing homes. The applicant would need to remove these garage extensions to allow for the structures to comply with the 10' minimum separation requirement. 7. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? Yes. The hardship has been created by the applicant and the owner who have interest in the property. 8. Would the granting of the variation be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located? 7#109M, - Board of Adjustment Page 3 WA-98-7 and 8 9. Would the proposed variation impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood? Yes. Approval of the request will increase the danger of fire as the two structures in question will • less than 6apart. The 1994 Uniform Building Code requires a minimum separation • 6' between structures before adequate fire rated material is required within the walls. According to the Chief Building Official, structures closer than 6' do not allow for safe and adequate fire protection. No. Approval of this request will not benefit or contribute to the neighborhood as distinguished from an individual benefit. However, according to the applicant, they are requesting approval of this request to allow their handicapped parents to get in and out of their vehicles. IV STAFF CONCLUSION existing garage extensions be removed prior to the completion of the unfinished structure. Option A: "I move that case no. WA-98-7 and WA-98-8, a request for a 2.3' side yard setback variance to the 5' side yard setback requirement for properties zoned Planned Residential Development and located at 3992 and 4002 Lee Circle, be APPROVED for the following reasons: qp I I With the following condition: I Rain gutter down-spouts must be direct to allow for rainwater to flow away from the adjacent property." Board of Adjustment Page 4 WA-98-7 and 8 m m END I- f DWARTMNT OF PLAMN6 AW OMOPM94T - 23,5-2852 It - I OW.- FSIlilft ljM -1. 1 -c - - 1 -- fA "CMM *At SOAL. 1*~ rat *~ ViTow"Im LLC APCWTWT *044W A*CR?tCM 143 VMM SLA). Wirt IM 7% **YUAN SIMT 00224 "NOM CO. •0203 awlAct wm KD*MT OAVV ootyw 932-44?0 "S-04" at *VSSML P. XPAMCW A. 74t-2253 4m tww *"..k %** *r a 'k POWER OF ATTORNEY (REAL ESTATE) 111 D My said attorney-in-fact is hereby authorized and empowered to KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS, that 1. of the County of State of 0/2 A bc) do make, constitute and appoint b6 go kA 14 j UTZ I'/V (Cyl, of the &ME= State of to act as M r 001♦• ffyy�ffue--Iff • I ly Vft A - r Ttic, 6�ry,,P� Ile wya IM state of ej)LO&A b0 — to wit: -jqqj wft-wr d A bpcctf, Wtftwr A *This Power of Attorney shall not be affected by disability of the principal. *This Power of Attorney shall become effective upon the disability of the principal, *This Power of Attorney shall automatically expire by its own terms upon completion of the limited purpose set forth abo-c. f 44 EXECUTED this — day of STATE OF —Q�d COUNTY OF —ZXzn)l�� My commission expires: -- Sx'� 11 4 f *Smkc according to fact. No..UR.Rev.6-91. PONVER OF StIORNEY (REAL VIMM) (DURABLE) Bradford Publishing, 1743WarerSl- 1-48 d 9 Rccrplion No, nwirder QUITCLAIM DEED '711 I&EI). kfade this 6 — ( fly of March ' 19 96 between SURREY ENTERPRJSES lJsC a Colorado 11miLecl I.Iabili.Ly company n(file Tonfily or Jeffersori Ami state or colof4do. Arnalot(s). and CAMBRIDGE VENTURES L. L. C. a Colorado limited liability Company whose,ictfat addf cis is 19101. E. PreriLice Avenue 1 0,15 1311glewood, CO 0011.1, ra o IC County of A rapa hoe And State or Colorado, grallice(s). STA't 13 Of COLORA DQ Comity Of r / I— Etta ft"CA i"Itinnit'll was ackn"Wic/so Iscrint Ire this 'k' f1v P vi y tiny or 0 r. It ki mdril lit I's 11 ltrtxplimi Nn. WAIIIIANTY DEED 111 IS DEED, Mmilc tk - il la is$ Mtof )-f 96 I it I we c n Supilry I. , 111MISE's a Colorado limit-ed liabili,Ly company Ottinl tit q e r f e r s o ii CAMBRimm. vr-:Nrum;:s a Colorado 111nitea winlitt lefint lid,frvill Is 8 1 () i r. PretiL Ptiglewood, C.0 off file Milk for 0tintalln. Ito nflfnf(s) "lilt . C . I Lab i. I i ty company ice Avenue, # 815 £30111 I fit (he Onliff A r p1 o e .halt of ('nIltvalln. printertit). Nl*l 1 Nt•: t;l'. 111 " It#' "it r"t solid Its Cost hIrt-stin" or fl anon Or eight hundred f if ley-f ive thousand and no/l()o ($855,000.00) 001A.ARS, flit (tvVilst Stott luffivlrncy *it willch 11 fletchy "tAninvIctIttcol, fill S pointed. Intiftlittictf. 4fild and Conveyed. amid try these presents (Isles tint". luttrialn, tell, clinity. stild clonfifin. 1111111 flit paulcorill. i t a liths "fill *Wilm rorever. all Ilse real limpetty. together Willi Ittspinietmetill. if ally, Situate. Iving "fill hellos Ito flit county for Jefferson « State of Colorado. flerctlitt(I as Asilows- I 22 Lhr�ough 37 and LoLs 79 Lbrougli 107 inclual tilock 1, CAMSlI1( _*F PAIM, County of Jefferson State Of Colorado Logetl with a " right ntid across life street showit of Cambridge P,-,3rl "fill itmilwn fl Ofett "fill limst,tt ftiji (vacant.- gromid) toltmon's 104rd-Itt of Ismicti tontill'tt: `1 (M I Ilyn will, till and 11fi l il t and appiliftn"Ittri theltut Ittlanxin In atlywile an d f eve"10" and rts fconal"Iltr end rotnstlstoltrs teat:, Isiourst and Iniffill flicletit. allot flit (fit tirlate, (11111. title. I *" titerifirld * Or life Itionflit(SI, thlitt In law or ttfulty, for. In "lilt to file "hove hafgalned tortinlits. with (fit fit 1, edhanterts slid oppurtit"a"cirli, 10 IIAVF AND 10 ll()I.I) lilt sail! pttjjjlt# #tt"vit 11"Ittainctl "I'll titsctibird Willi lilt a At'd " filteter. And flit joarsi role rfult little "Icts. tonto life Stanitt(t), its belts i r t a heirs and Personal repiest"Islives, dep covenant grant. limplin, and apee to and Willi flit it;R111ce(s). 1 1. litill and owsslittil. that at flit little of flit enstalinji and delivery jf 111cle presents. J L i S well shied (if lilt prefittles ofito"t C"I'vItYrd, I'm 9 flond, liste, rottlecl, fthinlute still Indefeasible cliall: Or lithetild"m lit low. Its rto: S1111111t. 011111 be s glinit fight, (till Pt)Wtf ##.(I Authority to giant, bargain. sell and convey the torne In aninjestr front form as ",it (list file fettle "it rite "int chat fitwon all rinotter #$"it "titer grants, bitiltal"ot, salts, liens. taxes. Smos"It"(1. and r Vaftit Vtrjtl easernetAs of record ner I eli;4 Ll to n"I 0 "4 1 i" t La es f 0? Lrl effec t a� Rec. N F00209 6 e For Vff1; A I I r , rdl o d maych le 1 recor r, g 9 1 notes 0 T ere% ct Ong n Eli PI! ry s ioF )e Ma , Pve millent- p 'o Rec. No. 1t) � �tqp 10500, 22-26 JIec. 110. p )110909, at r Cambr e clart in CO Pyok of at id dee , d s o: F st to secure R. Micfae . Eas er for 1 lit At"nion(s) shah anti -M WAIMAN V ANI ) Volit Jivj;" I)rll.Nl) flit above -Its I it"I licit Inconlits lot flit qtsltt ated morteelish: powlstron is( file lit"lifec(q►. s, 11cirst and assigns, "aftinill till "nit tvcty lictsolit tor fictinns 1swrillty clal"Ang the Whole Of any poll thtfe(ir, IN iV1 1 4 * S 11*�, slerd (Ali title little let rinill all c 7 50,000 alirl J. Galf:-11 alyl 11c1r!1I Alm 11o'JU for Developmen . 1, - C- f o r � R 1 3 1, - and K-G Of J."gress and egress over as TracL A on Lhe plaL SURRF:Y r-NIT-111'RISES 1,1,r i ..� �„ n< �� .� ,� i r. SS vi w W t7 . � tta v� �} u i .`"?. Y +� aid f 4 y W �•"4 fW �. tfi Otro t �� �1� �x.e +M ��o" ��o �.�� .. rt y� n i �`r s ♦ f ! t e• N 4 " i • � i ! a 3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda. There was no one signed up to speak. 4. PUBLIC HEARING Beard of Adjustment Page l 02/26/98 A. Casc N% WA-28-1 :_ (continued from January 22, 1998.) An application by Leonard and Glenna Kearns for approval of a five-foot side yard setback variance to the fifteen-foot side yard setback requirement for the purpose of constructing a two-car garage. The property is zoned Residential-One (R-1) and located at 2971 Teller Street. In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. McCartney *kifix.4 0 require a ten-foot setback rather than a five-foot setback. Mr. Kearns stated that it would create a financial hardship for him in terms of added construction costs and Public Service Company charges to attach the garage. He also cited a number of houses in his neighborhood where the garages have less thana fifteen-f•ot setback. Board Member ABBOTT asked the applicant to explain the reason for requesting a twenty-four foot wide garage when the code allows nineteen feet which is Board of Adjustment Page 2 02/26198 the following "s a •.. was stated. Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Board of Adjustment • ! t # WA-98-1 appeal .: t this Board from decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas, the property had been posted the required fifteen days by no protests registered and Whereas, the relief applied 1 # be granted without # impairing intent # purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. For the following reasons:. I . -There are other areas within the site which could accommodate the proposed structure. # • # # . .tt Board of Adjustment Page 3 02/26/98 are several garages in that block that are barely within a ten-foot setback, and he didn't feel the applicant should be penalized because the homes were built before today's zoning was applicable. IN-TivQ IMMIXAM the variance be granted for the reason that the approval would not alter the essential character of the locality, and that there is adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent properties on either side. The motion failed by a vote of 4-3, with Board Members ABBOTT, THIESSEN and WALKER voting NO. DISEOSITI-QN: A request for approval of a five-foot side yard setback variance to the fifteen-foot side yard setback requirement for the purpose of building a two-car detached garage was denied, based on Chapter 2, Article 3, Section 2-53 (d) of the City of Wheat Ridge Codes of Law which state that Board • Adjustment motions not carried are thereby deemed denied. B. !Casg N% WA -28-2. Alan White presented the case which is an interpretation of the zoning ordinance pertaining to psychological and social counseling clinics within the Restricted Commercial Zone District. This is a result of an interpretation by Mr. White as Zoning Administrator for the City concerning a use as a counseling clinic for addictive and violent behavior that is in existence at 4243 Harlan Street. Mr. White informed the Board that the property is within the City of Wheat Ridge; that all notification and posting requirements had been met for an interpretation; and that there was jurisdiction for the Board to hear this case. He entered into the record the case file, packet materials and exhibits. Board of Adjustment Page 4 02/26/98 Board Member E I ELMEY'ER expressed his interpretation of the code that residential Board of Adjustment Page 02/26/98 use in existence on March 11, 1997, should be allowed, but after that date was changed to a conditional use which would require hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Board Member ABBOTT asked if the question is centered around the type of rehabilitation facility it is, • if it is centered around whether the facility can have a residential component. Mr. Lipstein clarified that the applicant's clinic is strictly a non-residential facility and that there is • residential component to the clinic. Board Member ABBOTT asked Gerald Dahl if it were appropriate to ask for a continuance. Mr. Dahl outlined the following options for the Board: Chair Person MAURO swore in Greg Stieger, 4243 Harlan Street. Mr. Stieger stated that he had complied with all paperwork and fees, and that he has appeared before the Planning Commission who fully supported his facility as a special use and advised him that he could appeal to the Board • Adjustment for an interpretation of the code. He also mentioned that all of events have caused him to experience Board of Adjustment Page 6 02/26/98 specific to his business. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked what conditions the Planning Commission attached to the approval when he appeared before them in November of 1997. ff • MINN' for a special use permit. Following further discussion, Chair Person MAURO swore in Michelle Stieger, 4243 Harlan. Ms. Stieger stated that she is married to the applicant. She commented that this entire problem has been caused by one citizen who was concerned about the wording on the clinic's original sign. Board Member THIESSEN read the relevant section of the code which seemed to indicate that a non-residential clinic is a permitted use. Board of Adjustment Page 7 02/26/98 Related to Section 26-21 (b) (1), it is this Board's view that the language in question was included not to affect non-residential uses, but to provide for additional process for residential uses. Disposition: Board of Adjustment interpretation that a non-residential clinic and office for psychological, social, marital, development • similar counseling and treatment, incluR ing counseling and treatment for substance abuse and alcoholism, however, not including residential facilities or residential treatment is, therefore, a permitted principal use in the Restricted Commercial Zone District. C. Cam N-9. RA-28--1 An application by Barry Jumpe for approval of a two-foot side yard and two-foot rear yard setback variance. The property is zoned Residential Two (R- 2) and is located at 4201 Reed Street. Board of Adjustment Page 8 02/26/98 Board Member WALKER asked if the applicant planned to store gasoline or any gasoline powered equipment in the shed. Mr. Jumpe replied that he did not plan on doing so. There was discussion about the Uniform Building Code requirements as they relate to space required between structures. Chair Person MAURO swore in Rick Wassman, 7035 West 42nd Avenue. \ Board of Adjustment Page 9 / __-_-- ' Board Member ECHELMYER asked if storing telephones constituted operating a business out of his home. Mr. McCartney explained that all you need to operate a business out of your home is a business license and that a home business cannot occupy more than 25% of your residential space. Board Member THIESSEN commented that Mr. Jumpe might want to look at the possibility of using outside storage facilities. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and seconded by Board member WALKER, the following resolution was stated: MFITM. • • 011 1 1 1 MMEMMMMZM Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application, Case No. WA-98-3 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas, the property has been posted the required fifteen days by law and there were no protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for may not be granted without substantially impairing the intent and purpose • the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that Board of Adjustment, Application Case No. WA-98-3 is hereby denied. Type of Variance: Request for approval • a two -foot side yard and a ovo-foot rear yard setback variance for the purpose of building a detached storage structure. For the Following Reasons: • ! = i • Board of Adjustment Page 10 02/26/98 Ridge who would be permitted to apply for variances following this same logic for variance. 3. The hardship has been created by the applicant. 4. The granting of this variance can be detrimental in a substantial visual way to other properties in the neighborhood due to its effect related to the intent and purpose of the setback requirements. Motion carried by a vote of 7-0. Board of Adjustment Page 11 02/26/98 parking on property zoned Planned Commercial Development. The property is located at 3641 Wadsworth Boulevard. The case, which is a reconsideration of the TUP issued in 1996, was presented by Alan White. He stated that the property is within the City of Wheat Ridge and that all notification and posting requirements have been met. Therefore there is jurisdiction to hear this case. Board of Adjustment Page 12, 42/26198 �l \ Board of Adjustment Page 13 � -_---- / parks. Mr. Scheurer further stated that the applicant will meet with neighborhood representatives *f the Wheat Ridge Plaza Condominiums, the Valencia Condominiums and an apartment building on Yukon to advise them of the final plan and to address their concerns. Scheurer stated that if the opaque fence is not in compliance now, that the applicant will bring it into compliance. Council has had opportunity to review and approve a PCD or an amended outline development plan. Board Member ABBOTT expressed concern about his understanding that the parking lot is full of inventory vehicles and asked what had been done to make every effort to (�reclude off-site parking by employees and parking of inventory vehicles in the lot. Chair Person MAURO swore in Todd Maul, 7320 North Broadway, Denver, C* Board Member ABBOTT asked Mr. Maul to address the employee parking issue as well as inventory storage on the lot, noting that in 1996 the stated temporary use permit was to allow vehicle storage and employee parking. He asked Mr. Maul to clarify the meaning of vehicle storage. Mr. Maul stated that they ceased parking inventory vehicles on this lot when he was made aware that this -was not part of the agreement. He advised that street parking for employees ceased immediately upon completion of the lot, commenting that the employees prefer to park in the lot rather than on the street. He further stated that there - toredoiti�ieLoA--at, serviceortobe In response to Board Member HOWARD, Mr. Maul replied that they plan to h everything in place by June 1, 1998, for a PCD submission to the City and, in th meantime, they need to bridge the gap with a TUP. Board of Adjustment Page 14 02/26/98 Board Member THIESSEN expressed concern about past non-compliance by the applicant, and stated that she finds it hard to believe that this employee parking lot is not going to be an extension of the sales lot. Mr. Scheurer addressed the matter of the "for-sale" signs on the cars, and advised the Board that the applicant would investigate the issue and bring the lot into compliance if a problem is found. \ Board of Adjustment Page 15 / -_--'- / Whereas, the Board of Adjustment Application Case No. TUP-97-8 is an appeal to this Board to reconsider their decision; and Whereas, the property had been posted the required fifteen days by law and there were • protests registered against it; and or trial 6,77 gran i and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge, and Whereas, the Board finds that based upon all evidence presented and based upon the Board's conclusions relative to the five specific questions to justify the Temporary Use Permit, the evidence an d facts in this case do support the granting of this request. Now, therefore be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. TUP-97-8 be and hereby is approved. Type of Variance: Temporary Use Permit to allow vehicle storage and employee parking in a PCD. 3. Conditions for gated access to limit use of Yukon Court to emergency exit only has occurred. 4. All other conditions, other than drainage, erosion control, lighting and screening, Board of Adjustment Page 16 02/26/98 5. A performance bond will • placed with the City of Wheat Ridge to cover 125 of all improvement and construction costs related to the Temporary Use Permii 6. The City staff has stated that theyconsider the applicant and the City will resolve drainage erosion control and lighting conditions with due diligence and are actively working toward agreement both within the City and within the Municipal Court with the following conditions: z) This Temporary Use Permit shall expire in six months or when City Council makes its findings as to a PCD, whichever occurs sooner. b) Screening and fencing as described in the original resolution shall bo completed by March 15, 1998. C) No vehicles being held as inventory shall be parked on the part of the lot described in the Temporary Use Permit; however, parking for employees and service will be allowed. d) No advertising signage shall occur within this lot including signage directly upon vehicles. If such signage occurs, each sign shall be considered a separate fineable violation as a non-permitted activity. The motion carried 6- 1, Board Member THIESSEN voting no. Disposition: Temporary Use Permit to allow vehicle storage and employee parking in a PCD Zone to expire in six months or when City Council makes its findings as to a PCD, whichever occurs sooner. 5. OLD BUSINESS It was moved by Board Member JUNKER and seconded by Board Member WALKER • approve the minutes of the January 22, 1998, Board • Adjustment meeting as presented. Board of Adjustment Page 17 02/26/98 16MIS1 # K questions rainer ff que nons MUM 111CITISCIVC, u ff • Tne puoitc ana a I , - • .--- that this causes distractions for the public and makes it difficult for all of the Board members to hear the comments. LINDA MAURO, Chairperson Board of Adjustment Board of Adjustment Page 18 02/26/98 IL A AT LAW TO: Mayor Gretchen Cerveny City Council Members City of Wheat Ridge a ••: I ��!! 11�1111 111111111111 1 1 ��� 11MENEENE 7*V*U I have had the opportunity to review Code Section 2-53(d). As you know, that section contains the voting chart for Council, Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment actions. In general, the chart requires a "super majority" for approval of a variance. This section was amended in 1996 to add language that all other actions shall be taken by majority vote. . ( i Ft ) 3 WHEREAS, Section 2.53(d) of the, Wheat Ridge Code of Laws govern voting rul for the Board of Adjustment; and I WHEREAS, Section 2.53(d) does not refer the voting rules for decision by the Board of Adjustment • requests for interpretations • the zoning and other codes under Section 26-60)(4). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: I Members Present Votes Need to Approve 8 6 7 6 6 5 5 4 All other actions shall be taken by majority vote of the members present. ag9ALQ-n--2. Safetv Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declar that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power • the City of Whe Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that th Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection 1 1 GLIX530271277599 Of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. 5-e-gJ:tqD-3, 5evgrabtv: CQnflictina Qrdinancgg Rgoealed. If any section, subsection or clause of this ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining sections, subsections and clauses shall not be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. 5-q-qJ:tQ—n-4., Effggtive Date. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after final publication, as provided by Section 5.11 of the Charter. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to on this day of 1998, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration • final passage set for , 1998, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED,on second and final reading by a vote *f — to , this day of -1 1998. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of ' 1999 W.- APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY GERALD E. DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY First Publication: Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcri Effective Date: I G 1- %5302712 77599, 01