HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/22/1999MULM
ME=
3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not
appearing on the agenda.)
A. Case No. WA-99-19: An application by Forest and Barbara Daubenspeck for approval
of an I V front yard setback variance to the 3 0' front yard setback requirement to allow
an existing carport to remain at
♦• 30 W. 46 Avenue. Said property is zoned
A. Approval of Minutes: June 24, 1999
CABarbaraBOM990722ag.wpd
CASE NO. & NAME: WA-99-191 Daubenspeck CASE MANAGER: Sean McCartney
ACTION REQUESTED: Request for approval of an I F front yard setback variance to the 30' front
yard setback requirement.
H t t.
8630 West 46' Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
ME dr1U31F.9K-V1T1Tt1_ 6 1 0
M
PRESENT ZONING:
PRESENT LAND USE:
kilt
00
NELIDNar-1111 IcnatiolmilLit W
ro MM5 I
SUAAOUNDING LAND USE: N: Multi-family, �j: W:, and, E: Residential-One C
DATE POSTED: July 7, 1999
DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: July 2, 1999
Iffifilkifillill 1 11''111' 1 s1zlim
•
MEMO
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.
�_l
I. REQUEST
The applicant is requesting approval of an I F front yard setback variance • the 30' front yard setback
requirement to allow an existing carport
• remain on site. If the variance is approved, the carport
would remain 19'from the front property line.
I
1111 MMM=
11. SITE PLAN
The property in question is located on the south side of West 40 Avenue, between Dudley Street and
Dover Street. To the rear of the property is the Clear Creek Open Space.
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 the request is denied, the property could continue to be used as a single family residence
anE yield a reasonable return in service and income.
1p Ill ��II I I Ill III pj�il I �II I IgIIIIIIII�FIIII
3. If the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality?
Yes. Approval of this request would allow for one of the only carports E# located within t
required front yard setback. However, because of some existing varied setbacks throughout 11
11
X4 - ��
IIII SRI �II III
[to] 010,1mr, wo I I M.0 I
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. Any property owner in the City may apply for the same type of variance. However, each
request is reviewed on a case by case basis, thus the outcome maynot 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 additional covered parking for a house which
currently has only a single-car garage.
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 who has sole interest in the property.
8. Would the granting of the variations be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located?
No. Because the structure in question is an open carport, and is currently located 19' from the
front property line and at least 5' from the southern side property line, approval of this request
should not be detrivieitul to 6� 11111111 " i
fare
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 prope
values within the neighborhood?
0 1 mo M I RT rom
10. If it is found in criteria 8 and 9 above, that granting of the variation would not be
detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood, and it is
Board of Adjustment Page 3
WA-99-19/Daubenspeck
also found that public health and safety, public facilities and surrounding property values
would not be diminished or impaired, 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?
No. Approval of this request is neither a benefit for the community nor for the reasonable
accommodation of • handicapped person. This request is based solely upon individual benefit,
OPTIONA: "I move that Case No. WA-99-19, a request for approval of an I F front yard setback
variance to the 3 0' front yard setback requirement for a property zoned Residential-One C and locat
at 8630 West 46 Avenue, be APPROVED for the following reasons: I
I Approval of this request will allow for additional covered parking on a property which
does not provide much area for development alternatives.
2. Approval of this request should not impair the adequate supply of light and air to the
adjacent properties.
3. Approval of this request should not alter the essential character of the locality.
I The carport structure may never
• enclosed, without further review and approval by
Wheat Ridge Board • Adjustment."
OPTIONB: "I move that Case No. WA-99-19, a request for approval of an I Flront yard setback
variance to the 30' front yard setback requirement for a property zoned Residential-One C and located
at 8630 West 46 Avenue, be DENIED for the following reasons:
1. 1�
L:WcCartney\case ffles1WA-99-19MPD
Board of Adjustment Page 4
WA-99-19/Daubenspeck
I
7
u
+ ., 3''»' + n. :r, ", ✓. e.�. #r :,.,W ' =.;.a ^ x y, `;. 4, y k� a ��� ;11��•' z, %a 3 .»:r ,
r,
Y +�
h � «
� « :'. • �.e° ,, a "irk" r ^ •� , .. � a t j..
•
at s
.,„
e
x
1,
/r
M
r #
r »
♦
a
'.
e. .
«
,
w
m
♦.
,.
ter
at
ri
UN
. ( r A
4-1 at
kAN
, u� �,► vs
tl to
us
0 6 ma t & "• r �C i
!� r z
z
cc
fg
us 0
t = U <
I r
M
t-
� Gam} - e V .,.. � . � �'. , rZ.` O. .'�" �"""
ul
y :c ao
is p� t
r vs t y
Ali
An F-
Z a t
t e ra x0
z it
w
E-
0
0
FJM
W
*10 a
r-4 (1)
4-
0
i=A 0
CL
I
0 z
t-4
tq
o 4->
to
Q
G5 vx
4 1 ,
0
to
0
4y M
0 to
:3 t4
to LS
Ay 7J' etl
0
tv t'o 0
o
z
0
>1 rd 4 . 1
W W V)
■
Ga
a.
a
I
to
rJ)U,NTY OF
to co
0
0 — cl
::�STATE
> Z
S::
Oi
I*LED 0i
r-
0 0
-4: 4-
0 z
2i
0
� AN
ol
z cd
0 0
zz 0
w " W
0 E-4
c-
RECOIIA
- 1 72
0 (r,
0
le
16,3
v El 4'
. a 0
4 JAME S
P« MtHALLY
to
0 C:4
10 "
t
"
UNTY CLERK
4ND RECORDER
a
a
4�
J: (n
yw
o 0
d
o
-6
U
44
U 4
Z;
ry
4 0 ,
— 0 0
0
Ln
to
tr,
0
0
0
� 4 rZ4
2-
1 0
-0
CL,
.4c
a
r.:
12 z
0 ca
x,
P-4
ws
cm "o
to
04
bo C
to
0, C
* c a 04
CD
.0
0 to
94
itq o
bO
(D
0
— 0
0
>
ua
*0 o V)
4,>
co 0
0
u
0 I.,
Q t o
to E
C6 Q -cs
.0
0
0
0
r4
C 1 `.
'1
0
0
0 > 0
-0
0
0
= . t
W 0
0
—
0
z
—
o
V .0
E-
0
0
FJM
W
*10 a
r-4 (1)
4-
0
i=A 0
CL
I
0 z
t-4
tq
o 4->
to
Q
G5 vx
4 1 ,
0
to
0
4y M
0 to
:3 t4
to LS
Ay 7J' etl
0
tv t'o 0
o
z
0
>1 rd 4 . 1
W W V)
■
Ga
a.
a
I
\4
c.
to co
> Z
S::
C�
r-
0
-4: 4-
0 z
2i
0
z cd
zz 0
w " W
W
c-
CD
r.
0
0
9
to
4�
yw
d
U
44
0
Z;
bo
Ln
to
tr,
4 v
4.
0
\4
ca
CK
z
to co
> Z
0
V)
0 z
z cd
zz 0
w " W
ca
CK
z
"IN LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION
Planning and Development Department
7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Phone(303)235 -2846
city
I -
Location of request (address) L
Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request.)
tailed description of the
Proposed use:
Minutes of Meeting
June 24, 1999
Members Absent: Susan Junker
Linda Mauro
Staff Present: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner
Chris Cramer, Summer Intern, Planning Department
Ann Lazzeri, Secretary
1999. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Department
of Planning and Development of the City of Wheat Ridge.
0
11
61
0
Chair HOWARD announced that Case No. WA-99-16 (item 413 on the agenda) had been
withdrawn • the applicant.
(This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.)
There was no one signed up to speak.
lay
Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 1
06/24/99
width variance from the 75 foot minimum lot width requirement to allow the construction of
a duplex at 4470 Lee Street. Said property is zoned R-2A.
-mini
I X A L V CA- V ,
but just wanted her opposition to be a matter of record.
Meredith Reckert clarified the lot lines on the subject property at the request of BoaA9
Member ABBOTT. I
Ben Bandimere
13831 West 54th Avenue, Arvada
In response to a question from Board Member BRO", Mr. Bandimere presented a
elevation of proposed duplex.
Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 2
06/24/99
Mr. Bandimere stated that he has attempted to purchase a portion of the property to the north
to expand the lot area, but the owner is not interested in selling at this time. He felt that
construction of duplexes in this area would actually improve the neighborhood.
Irl 1=0 PaRvInUMD
1 1= 7 = expiamea 7naL uns ToTtit r5c Impossioic 677UTSE oc Tiv YougUr ous oWITURYTIpPI
the duplex.
Board Member ABBOTT commented that this piece of property appears to be an island in
the middle of mismatched zoning and asked if R-3 zoning would allow a duplex to built on
this lot. Ms. Reckert replied that a zoning change would make no difference as far as
density requirements are concerned. She also commented that there are also physical
limitations presented by the irrigation ditch on this piece of property.
Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by BROWN, the following
resolution was stated:
Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and
Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-99-15 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 three protests registered against it; and
IBM
Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-99-15
be, and hereby is, approved.
Type of Variance: A request for a 953 square-foot lot area and 15 foot lot width variance
for property located at 4470 Lee Street.
For the following reasons:
The property is located in an area surrounded by several apartinent structures and
adjacent to an existing church. The applicant will • required to comply with
existin setbacks establiihei for W ic 7(ge ii 4*
- i inecif Ji fn , jv;"f
2. Granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other properties or improvements in the neighborhood as approval of this variation
Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 3
06/24/99
will only permit a change in density. The granting of this request will result in
minimum density impact as it will enable the increase of only one additional family.
3. The ownership of the existing duplex on the adjacent lot has been short-ten-n whic'
points to the less than desirable location for long-term single family occupancy.
single family occupancy would exist completely surrounded by multi-family •
commercial. I
4. The subdivision of this parcel by City Council created one standard and one
substandard lot related to the allowable size for construction of two duplexes. As a
legal duplex ' has been constructed on lot 2 since the previous time the Board heard
this request and for the above stated reasons, it would now seem economically
unfeasible to build a single-family occupancy on this lot.
Board Member THIESSEN stated that she would vote against the motion because City
Council approved the subdivision for single family use on the subject lot and, therefore, a
substandard lot was not created. Although she understands the owner's dilemma, she does
not feel the criteria substantiate a unique situation requiring a variance.
Board Member ECHELMEYER stated that he would vote against the motion because he felt
a single family unit is be feasible for the lot.
motion.
The motion failed by a vote of 3 to 3 with Board Members THIESSEN., HOVLAND
ECHELMEYER voting no. 1
• Case No. WA-99-18: An application by Thomas Little for approval of a freestanding sign
variance to allow an additional freestanding sign. Said property is zoned C- I and located at
7605 West 44th Avenue.
The case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She reviewed the staff report, presented slides
and overhead, prcjections of the subject area. She answered the ten criteria used in
Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 4
06/24/99
Chair HOWARD noted that the site plans shows a monument sign which would constit]
another freestanding sign on the property. Ms. Reckert explained that, although this Sig
was shown on the plans, it was never erected.
Vern Vohaska
In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Vohaska stated that the sign would remain
exactly the same (a two-sided sign) as it was when it was on the roof • the old building.
The only difference is that it would now be placed on a freestanding pole because city codes
prohibit utilizing it as a roof sign.
Board Member HOVLAND asked if the City Council was indeed referring to both signs •
were they just interested in preserving the "Vern's" sign. Ms. Reckert replied that they were
especially interested in the "Vern's" sign. She stated that the inclusion of a monument sign
was an apparent oversight.
Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 5
06/24/99
Mr. Vohaska indicated that he has spent a great deal of money to relocate this sign and does
not prefer to go through any additional expense for planters, etc.
Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member HOVLAND
following resolution was stated:
Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-99-18 is an appeal to this Board
from the decision of an administrative officer; and
that there were no protests registered against it; and
Ertl •
I
be, and hereby is, approved.
Type of Variance: A request for approval of a freestanding sign variance to allow an
additional freestanding sign.
For the Following Reasons:
I Because the proposed sign will be located approximately 120 feet from West 44th
Avenue and there is at least 84 inches of clearance from the bottom of the sign and
the ark-ing lot surface, approval of this request should • nt be detrimental to the
p
public's welfare or injurious to other properties nor should it impair the adequate
supply of light and air nor increase the danger of fire to adjacent properties.
2. The proposed sign is actually the roof sign (the old classic martini glass sign) that
was previously located on the roof of the old Vern's Tavern. It can be argued that
there is community benefit in preserving historical commercial edifices as a link to a
community's past.
Board of, Adjustment Minutes Page 6
06/24/99
3. The alternative of a historical roof location is seen by the City's codes as a safety
hazard and as having detrimental effect upon the public view plane.
4, The owner, Mr. Vohaska. testified at the Board of Adjustment meeting that the issue
of inclusion of this existing "'Fern's" sign was discussed during City Council
meetings and his memory was that City Council expressed a desire to retain the
"Vern's" sign in the new building location.
With the following conditions:
MMI
• SRI 1 14,! M 191* I M'11 -
Meredith Reckert asked for clarification regarding the illumination • the sign. Board
Member ABBOTT replied that it is his intent that the northwest facing side of the sign
cannot be illuminated. Following further discussion, it was clarified by Ms. Reckert that the
sign can remain exactly as it is (with "Vern's" on both sides) but cannot be illuminated on
the back (or northwest facing) side of the sign.
Mr. Vohaska expressed concern about a requirement to build a planter around the sign.
Board Member ABBOTT explained to Mr. Vohaska that the Board was not requiring him to
install a planter at this time, but was only recommending that historical designation be
pursued by the City. Ms. Reckert commented that the only reason for staff s support of the
variance is that it involves the old sign.
11 111
There was no old business to discuss.
Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 7
06/24/99
MUM=
B. Joint Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Stud Meredith Reckert advised the
Board members that Planning Commission has expressed an interest in having a joint study
session with the Board of Adjustment to discuss their respective "scope of authorities."
C. Approval of Minutes of May 27,1999 - It was moved by Board Member HOVLAND and
seconded by Board Member BROWN to approve the minutes of the May 27, 1999 Board of
Adjustment meeting as presented, The motion passed by a vote of 6-0 with Board Members
JUNKER and THIESSEN absent.
It was moved by Board Member ECHELMEYER and seconded by Board Member
HOVLAND to adjourn the meeting at 925 p.m. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0 with
Board Members JUNKER and THIESSEN absent.
1111 1 N
BOB HOWARD, C h airman
Board of Adjustment
C\BatbaratBOA\ I ")mixw990624,wpd
Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 8
06/24/99