The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/26/2003V'F' I ff EX I — K0 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA June 26, 2003 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on June 26, 2003, at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. pffimnn�� 3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) A. Case No. WA-03-14: An application filed by William Hinkley for approval of a partial waiver of Section 26-501 (Parking Requirements) AND a partial waiver of Section 26-502 (Landscape Requirements) AND an increase to maximum lot coverage for property zoned Commercial-One (C- 1) and located at 4892 Marshall Street, IMME3393M 050* � � NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT (S): B & B Heating 4892 Marshall Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER (S): same APPDXIMATE AREA: 11,060 square feet (25 Acres) PRESENT ZONING: Commercial-One (C-1) 1 SURROUNDING ZONING: NS & E- Commercial-One W: Commercial-One, Agriculture One SURROUNDING LAND USE: N, S & E: Office/Warehouse W- Event Center JURISDICTION: The 7*ror ertpp is within the Citp • Wheat Ridpe, gi met, therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. I. REQUEST The property in question is located at 4896 Marshall Street, and is currently a heating and air conditioning shop facility. The property is zoned Commercial-One (Exhibit 1, Zoning Map). The applicant and owner, B & B Heating and Air Conditioning, is requesting three separate variances with this application (Exhibit 2, Deed). Request "A" is a request for approval of a partial waiver to the landscaping requirements. Request "B" is a request for an increase to the maximum allowable lot coverage. Request "C" is a request for approval of a partial waiver to the parking standards. 11. SITE PLAN wnen tne ouncung is aajacent to puonc ngra-M-way. Me Mv piwi MUM VIF prT7,71*77111 awan I • • set back 15 feet from Lamar Street. The lot is 11,060 square feet in size. Twenty percent • 11,060 square feet is 2,212 square feet. The applicant would be required to install 2,212 square feet of landscaped area. The applicant is proposing to install 734 square feet of landscaped area. The applicant is required to plant street trees on each street frontage. Section 26-502 (3)(a) of the 141 feet of street frontage. The property is bounded on two sides by public right-of-way, The Marshall Street frontage is approximately 73.5 feet. The applicant would be responsible to plant 3 street trees on the Marshall Street frontage. The Lamar Street frontage is 60 feet. The applicant would be responsible for street two trees on the Lamar frontage. In addition to required street trees ' the Code of Laws specifies that one tree and five shrubs be planted for every 1,000 square feet • required landscaped area. Based on lot size, the applicant would be required to install 2,212 square feet of landscaping. This would mean the applicant would be required to plant an additional 3 trees and I I shrubs to satisfy the Code requirement. The applicant has indicated that it is possible to locate "'a few" trees on the property, Because of the location of the rovosed could be met. The applicant has also indicated that some shrubs and flowers can be located in the existing planting bed in the northwest comer of the building. It would be extremely difficult to locate many more trees and/or shrubs on the property, due to the lack of proposed landscaped BN!Lest C Request "C" is a request to decrease the required count of parking spaces for the lot. There is an existing parking area on the west side of the building adjacent to the Marshall Street frontage, however, the parking spaces are not clearly marked, and the parking pattern is very randomized. Board of Adjustment 3 A -03 -1 /B & B Heating The existing parking area does not meet the current parking standards, as required by the Code of Laws. Ill. VARIANCE CRITERIA Since Request "A"' and Request "B" are interrelated, they will • discussed together in response to the following criteria. Where possible, all three requests will be combined to respond to the wam I i 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? return in use. The property is currently utilized as a heating and air conditioning office and shop, and this use may continue, regardless of the outcome of these variance requests. 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? If the variance were granted, the character of the locality would not be altered. Most of the surrounding properties have less than the required twenty percent landscaping coverage. This could be due to the fact that the buildings were constructed Board of Adjustment 4 WA-03-131B & B Heating under a previous code that required a minimum ten percent landscape coverage. This requirement was increased to twenty percent as part of the 2001 Code rewrite. Reguest C: This request could alter the character • the locality. The parking is severely deficienOn the building's current state; adding more building square footage will only compound an existing parking problem. 3. Does the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved result in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? Request A and B: The lot does not have a unique shape. It does have frontage on both Marshall and Lamar Street. The lot is relatively flat. Rtq!Lest C- An existing parking area on the Marshall Street frontage is situated in a precarious location, however, opportunities for additional parking could be accomplished on the Lamar Street frontage. Currently, the Lamar Street frontage is used as a large outdoor storage area, a use that is not allowed in this zone district. !1MUTER11. RO R1 1 1 1 19 1 9 1 g Board of Adjustment 5 WA-03-13/B & B Heating RNRest C: The request could impact the surrounding neighborhood. The parking deficiency would create a displacement of parking spaces on surrounding properties, or force customers and staff to park in and along the right-of-way. 6. If criteria I 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? RLquest A, B & C: The requests would not result in a contribution or benefit to the and would merehr be a convenience for the ip-mncrty owners. The reques! would not result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Each variance will require a separate motion. Rei • Upon review of the above request, staff concludes that the above criteria are not supportive of the variance request, Staff has found that there are not unique circumstances attributed to the request that would warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL for the following reasons: 1. A person having interest in the property has created the hardship. 2. The expansion of the building could be decreased to accommodate other landscaping opportunities. 3. There are no unique circumstances relative to the shape or topography of the property- Board of Adjustment 6 WA-03-131 B & B Heating Board of Adjustment 7 WA-0 3-1 & B Heating = a a] k 6, .IA 0 11 11 ® �� *� ' ■ > , 0 41 44 �' 41 rt 0 4) 0 uj tu T LU LU I -A- �z Ct iL IL 0 0 0 0 w 0 IE i � J�l W It-, 1 2-�Q OR • • 4Al4>5 A%MA*, tHONII PA5HEP EX15TING OUILPINC, AbW t 4"2 MAR5HALL 1 -hTRMI, I 5TORY epr-k 7 1H AI:VITIO 4 K MEZZ-44N4E -004T L APIWt VIMH To L�OT ?i 23 t VrORY Mrk LOT 20 ��7 f @1 i��f i V 5ULPR To sOUTH LOT lb II i TOTAL PROPERTY 11,060 '50/F7' EX15TINC,, Wi PING 4400 501P:r NEA APPITION: FIR '5 FLOO�' , 3(.00 50/FT MEZZ-AMNE. . 2400 �O/FT PPIOP05E-I:l 1 - 734 150/FT IM ROOF eE sc,/LE ` 114 = �Ol | | 2 H I=~""°"" =====""=oo°uuv CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting May 22, 2003 Prior to presentation of the case, Board Member HOWARD board stated applicants were his sister and brother-in-law and that he had not discussed the case with them. He that he had no financial interest in the application. Board of Adjustment Page l 05 /2.2/03 ; V HOWARD could hear the case. David Roll 4676 Upham Mr. Roll, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He stated that he would like to replace his existing deteriorating storage shed which requires a variance for its location. There was no response. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member BLAIR, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-03-10 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and # jL "1 010 1 Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA- 03-10 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. #o # I # iml MOWN i 77' C - * Ua I L SetCK Val'aHM lJrrUM I K MA =WFITICtit IFUSITEM 11 9; side yard setback for the purpose of locating a storage shed on property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 4676 Upham Street. For the following reasons: 1. Granting of the request would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The majority of the Board finds that a hardship occurs related to the intent Board of Adjustment Page 2 05/22/03 : TT IT71 absent. • EMEMM•� B. Case No. WA-03-1 application filed by Starbucks for approval of a partial waiver of Section 26-501 (Parking Requirements) for property zoned Commercial-One (C-1) and located at 3795 Kipling Street. In reply to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Mr. Crane stated that the ' handicapped access aisle could not be counted toward the total number of parking spaces. Ann Quinn A.W. Dunn & Company Ms. Quinn, architect for the applicant, was sworn in by Chair DRDA. She stated that Board of Adjustment Page 3 05/22/03 every time she visited the site, there were cars parked around the subject property. She suggesteN that perhaps the objections from the property owner to the south came from the fact that the property owner would lose free parking on the subject site if the application were to be approved. She submitted photographs, taken over several days, which were reviewed by the Board and made a part of the official record. In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Ms. Quinn stated it would be impossible to decrease the usable square feet in the building. Starbucks will be leasing this building and will sublet a portion of the building. Board Member ABBOTT pointed out that less parking would be required under this scenario than if Starbucks was utilizing the entire building for the coffee shop. building. In response to a question from Board Member SCHULZ, Ms. Quinn stated that the amount of parking spaces involved in this application has been successful in other locations. 101- l im , Board Member ABBOTT asked if compact car spaces could be utilized. Mr. Crane explained that parking spaces cannot be classified as "compact only" unless there are at least thirty spaces involved. He also explained that the architect has worked with staff on several parking scenarios. The design presented in the application is the best design to get the most parking spaces on the site. Board of Adjustment Page 4 05/22/03 Mr. Crane replied that a drive-through window would involve a special use process and no such window is planned for this location. Board Member ABBOTT inquired about peak-time use for Starbucks. Ms. Quinn stated that 70% of business is done before 11:00 a.m. and the store will open at 6:00 a.m. It is estimated that the majority of the beauty salon's business will occur during after-work hours between 5:00 and 8:00 p.m. Board Member HOVLAND asked what projections are for peak use times, Mr. - mill QTcaung um yvwb III WfIcut ruatgc as WC11 as 1111PI - 4 , villy, Inc appCdIallyt; (JI tric cot They want to be a good neighbor and would like to continue discussions about a joint parking agreement. Board Member ABBOTT commented that while Starbucks would be a great traffic generator for the area, the parking situation does not seem to present a real hardship to justify a variance. Ann Quinn returned to the podium. She stated that Starbucks, has been unsuccessful in obtaining a joint parking agreement and, therefore, the only alternative is to obtain a variance or eliminate this comer as a location for Starbucks. Upon a motion by Board Member SCHULZ and second by Board Member HOVLAND, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-03-11 is an appeal to this 1_4oard from the decision of an administrative officer; and M Board of Adjustment Page 5 05/22/03 For the following reasons: 1. This request can result in a significant contribution or benefit to the community. Starbucks has proposed beautifying an otherwise ugly corner. 2. Starbucks has knowledge of parking requirements and seems satisfied they can operate within the constraints of this variance with or without agreements from other landowners. in reply to questions from Board Member ABBOTT, Mr. Crane explained that a variance could be granted to the applicant and not apply to any future lessees or landowners. Further, if traffic hazards, etc. should result from granting of the variance, the city has authority to correct those conditions. Board ITiemge variance apply only to the applicant for this specific use. The amendment was accepted by Board Members SCHULZ and HOVLAND. The motion passed 5-1 with Board Member DRDA voting no and Board Members ECHELMEYER and ROLLINS absent. C. Case No. WA-03-12-. An application filed by John Offersen for approval of (A) a 2-foot variance to the 4-foot maximum fence height in the front yard resulting in a 6-foot fence AND (B) approval of a 2-foot variance to the 6-foot maximum fence height in the side yard resulting in an 8-foot fence for property zoned Residential- Two (R-2) and located at 4375 Garrison Street. The case was presented by Mary Austin. She entered all pertinent documents into t record which were accepted by Chair DRDA. She advised the Board thei I Board of Adjustment Page 6 05/22/03 jurisdiction to bear the case and reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended denial of the application for reasons outlined in the staff report. Board Member ABBOTT asked about sight triangle issues. Ms. Austin explained that sight triangle requirements do not apply to single and two-family dwellings. The commercial property to the north does not have a driveway in close proximity to the fence. John Offerson 4375 Garrison Street Mr. Offerson, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He stated that he believed the fence would be of benefit to the surrounding community. Otherwise, he would not have received the support of his neighbors via the submitted petition. The fence would serve as a sound barrier from 44 '7,.WNW!"D1W a barrier to people trespassing from 44' Avenue to Clear Creek. - In answer to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, MT. Offerson explained that he believed an 8-foot fence would sery foot fence. Board of Adjustment Page 7 05/22/03 The motion passed 5-1 with Board Member DRDA voting no and Board Membe.'" ECHELMEYER and ROLLINS absent. I Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member HOWARD, the following resolution was stated: gz[111��qqiqiii In 11 �� IIII Ir I Imp v III I 111 11 Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-03-12(B) is an appeal to this Board fr1 m the decision of an administrative officer; and Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Case No. WA-03-12(B) hereby is DENIED. Type of Variance.- A 2-foot variance to the 6-foot maximum fence height in the si yard resulting in an 8-foot fence along the north property line only for property zoned Residential-Two r located at 4375 Garrison Street. i The motion passed 6-0 with Board Members ECHELMEYER and ROLLINI absent. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair DR DA closed the public hearing. vC� +Dt"111411CO "IrIll VC 11carit 10711 Urst rVXt'114 "1'L'JX111A; Enc lubt %_UwL'M1;L"nVVA_VLg Iffit'vidul -- W_ — in June. 0 f 11 1 * # # * # 1103� Board of Page 9 05/22/03 Board of Adjustment Page IO 05/22/03