HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/22/2004901 V • DIN
YNIEM
AGENDA
MUM=
Aotice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board
of Adjustment on July 22, 2004, at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the
Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29 1h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on
the agenda.)
A. Case No. WA-04-05: An application filed by Jefferson County Housing
Authority for approval of a waiver of Section 26-502.E. I (landscaping buffering
for parking lots), specifically, the requirement of a six-foot-high view-obscuring
fence on property zoned Commercial-One (C- 1) and located at 7490 W, 45th
Avenue.
B. Case No. WA-04-06: An application filed by Joe Stout for approval of a 23 1/2
foot side yard setback variance from the 30 foot side yard setback requirement
when adjacent to a public street resulting in a 6 1/2 foot side yard setback for
property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 6400 W. 46th Avenue.
[' D] 113 #.-1113 10 im
MENUMMUMM
Board of Adjustment 2
WA-04-05/Jefferson County
I. REQUEST
The applicant (owner) is requesting a waiver of Section 26-502 (E)(1), specifically, the
requirement for a six-foot fence between a parking area on a commercial property and a
property zoned as residential. (Exhibit 1, Letter of Request).
"enever a parking lot boundary adjoins property zoned for low- or medium
density residential use ., a landscape buffer ofsix (6) feetfrom said lot boundary f
shall be required. Within the six-foot landscape buffer, a six-foot high view-
obscuringfence, decorative wall or landscaped hedge with a natural height ofsix
(6) feet shall be provided
A six-foot landscaped buffer with live plantings is proposed along the eastern property
line; however, a six-foot high view-•bscuring fence is not. The property directly to the
east is zoned Residential Two (R-2), and is currently the Apel-Bacher Park. The site plan
shows a parking lot to be constructed on the eastern property line.
Board of Adjustment
III lip I I I g� I III I I � III I � I 11111 111 MOM � 111�� I � I I I � 1 11 1 11 1 11 � I 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?
If the request is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable return in use. The
property may be developed under the Commercial One development standards and
guidelines.
2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality?
If the request were granted, the character of the locality would not be altered. Given' the
proximity of the park directly to the east, a fence in this location would create undesirable
visual impacts and give the appearance that the park is enclosed on the western side. The
existing mature landscaping in the park will create a soft buffer from the parking lot.
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?
The lot does not have a unique shape. It is a rectangular shaped lot, and is relatively flat.
There is no minimum lot size in the C-1 zone district, provided that all other development
standards can be met.
4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an
interest in the property?
Tom
adjacent to a residentially zoned property.
The request would not be detrimental to the public welfare. The adequate supply of light
and air would not be compromised as a result of the request. The request would not
increase congestion in the streets, nor increase the danger of fire. The request would most
likely not have an effect on property values in the neighborhood.
Beard of Adjustment 4
WA- 04- 051Jefferson County
City of rx Ri d ge
75 00 `` Ave
x «r i/
f. + I.q f - f t k f f .. t �f •. a t.+ a mrl
.:t FewMein g xccWve f
Jeffe County Hms f
am
EXnlwlT I
FA M !•.
4Q 6!s q� tr!M thr9 aflar!lYmaf Gw+A.
2l dit **Wb ft@ D!wiYM lctle lylhm, t
igrr la b b MplM! wM.F'lPa9l�Y neltlP aM/ W be0t Soto �aedAp
?I. Al Waxnp bwx M�xMlNr3'Q!1'�Mlh+MtlWwlad x,MY+aXlh rrledi>!w9l
flat.
w+w
a �.wexs sa^.r a+
s ar rwssu
Y 9wi/VMM11Pi.W a :�4h0OOJPf R'fi
IW'lXLLi lN6NIIM,
W. A�wa.Xro
f XYwO!'
(4 . m v"
SKVTF .' ,
.rar
FXtR,I N.Yt yYr.
XrNIFMIIPb
w • ♦!
■
Architects,PC
�ww.�.wxa. a...sen.e rw
♦mrwa.br+�.+w a.sw. �r �..a ewroe
ew. MN1♦o..'♦}w tic�nsaMnai tw?lwrw
a aw wr.Xa. XY+ wm+Yrc!r�
WIN
altssw aYnow
errrw,vw X,.eernw.wc.Xre . n
XIM&wI�NN.nr
w..ww,.
LAN DSCAPE PLAN
MR !Y
w+w
a �.wexs sa^.r a+
s ar rwssu
Y 9wi/VMM11Pi.W a :�4h0OOJPf R'fi
IW'lXLLi lN6NIIM,
W. A�wa.Xro
f XYwO!'
(4 . m v"
SKVTF .' ,
.rar
FXtR,I N.Yt yYr.
XrNIFMIIPb
w • ♦!
■
Architects,PC
�ww.�.wxa. a...sen.e rw
♦mrwa.br+�.+w a.sw. �r �..a ewroe
ew. MN1♦o..'♦}w tic�nsaMnai tw?lwrw
a aw wr.Xa. XY+ wm+Yrc!r�
ID
BRITINA
altssw aYnow
errrw,vw X,.eernw.wc.Xre . n
XIM&wI�NN.nr
w..ww,.
LAN DSCAPE PLAN
MR !Y
PA PWV"k*
To ftw�
• #
•
.f °...
*wa* ♦�4
wnuXSr.r w�- w+u♦.r.ar�ww.X..�.w.rwr.
� ,r �
t
am Mm FOR CHAMGM
-19 07
w+w
a �.wexs sa^.r a+
s ar rwssu
Y 9wi/VMM11Pi.W a :�4h0OOJPf R'fi
IW'lXLLi lN6NIIM,
W. A�wa.Xro
f XYwO!'
(4 . m v"
SKVTF .' ,
.rar
FXtR,I N.Yt yYr.
XrNIFMIIPb
w • ♦!
■
Architects,PC
�ww.�.wxa. a...sen.e rw
♦mrwa.br+�.+w a.sw. �r �..a ewroe
ew. MN1♦o..'♦}w tic�nsaMnai tw?lwrw
a aw wr.Xa. XY+ wm+Yrc!r�
ID
BRITINA
altssw aYnow
errrw,vw X,.eernw.wc.Xre . n
XIM&wI�NN.nr
w..ww,.
LAN DSCAPE PLAN
MR !Y
EXHIBIT 3
0
0
4.0 eao 3 3
:x
lU
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
DIVISION STAFF REPORT
Board of Adjustment CASE MANAGER: Jeff Hirt
CASE NO. & NAME.
WA-04-06/Stout DATE OF MEETING: July 22, 2004
ACTION REQUESTED:
Approval of a 23 1/2 foot side yard setback variance from the 30 foot side yard
setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting area 6'✓`a foot Side
yard setback for property zoned Residential- Two (R -2).
LOCATION OF QUEST:
6400 West 46 Avenue
APPLICANT (S):
Joe Stout
OWNER (S):
Joe Stout
APPROXIMATE AREA:
9,675 square feet (222 acres)
PRESENT ZONING:
Residential -Two (R -2)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Single Family Detached Residential and Existing Two Family Confo n,g
Structures and Lots (Not to exceed 6 du's per acre)
ENTER INTO CORD:
(X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
(X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION
s •M P I
Board of Adjustmat
Case WA-04-06/Stout
46TH AVENUE
I
Jurisdiction
All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case.
The property in question is located at 6400 West 46 Avenue. The property has Residential-Two (R-2) zoning.
30 foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in a 6 1 /2 foot side yard setback.
(Exhibit 1, Letter
• Request).
Constructing the garage behind (to the south of) the existing house and having access off • Lamar Street would
allow for the detached garage to meet the 30 foot side yard setback requirement. However, the applicant
expressed the desire to add on to the house on this portion of the lot in the future, and having a garage there
would restrict his ability to do that. Also, one large tree would need to be removed to accommodate a garage in
the rear portion of the lot. A large portion of the open space of the backyard would also be eliminated.
All other development standards have been met with this request. Per the Code of Laws, the height of the
proposed garage cannot exceed 15 feet, and it cannot • larger than 1,000 square feet (Exhibit 3, Garage
Specifications).
H. SMPLAN
The property is approximately 9,675 square feet, or .222 acres. The property measures 75 feet wide with a
depth of 129 feet (Exhibit 4, Improvement Location Certificate).
The applicant is proposing to construct a driveway that is 48 feet in length from 4e Avenue. There is an
existing driveway to the west of the proposed driveway. Per the Code of Laws, one access point per property
alliowad, ijin:: 16rcTf Z'
Board of Adjustmat 2
Cast WA44-0"tout
The area surrounding the property consists • single family homes on all sides. All adjacent properties have
garages, either detached or attached • the homes, with the majority of them being detached garages. A few
adjacent properties (including the property in question) have detached garages that encroach into the 30 foot
side yard setback. One property at this intersection, 6385 W. 46 Ave., was approved for a 26 foot vaniance
resulting in a 4 foot setback for a detached garage. This variance was granted in 1982.
Staff has the following comments regarding 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 which it is located?
If the request is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable return 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?
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 were
inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out?
'AM C71ftt7f�frV= I FS-M-Mird - 'J&Mft 1 J; propeny in,
question unbuildable. The property in question is rectangular in shape and flat. It is, however, a comer
lot. All structures • a comer lot must adhere to 30 foot setbacks • each side abutting a public street.
4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the
property?
The applicant has created his own hardship by requesting a garage in this location. There may be other
alternatives for placement of the garage.
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 would not be a decrease in the supply of light and air to adjacent properties, as the
property in question is on a comer lot, and the proposed detached garage will abut a public street. The
request would not substantially increase the congestion in public streets, increase the danger of fire or
endanger the public safety. Property values should not be impacted as a result of this request.
Board of Adjustment 3
Cast WA-04-06/Stout
With the following condition:
1. All site distance triangle violations shall he eliminated prior to construction of the driveway and
detached garage.
Board of Adjustment 4
Can A-04- "/Stout
I ai -l b - C
Variance:
Joe and Kara Stout
6400 W. 46"' Ave
Wheatridge, CO 80033
Planning Commission or city council sball base it's decision on.
• TO S S U, ff ITX • T F (m
in-line with neighboring lots.
z
40 N
W t
<
• 0
cr •
o
4
•
o
4
o >
ot
z 1 1 0 <
0
It
0
Cr
4 c
- 14 Alt
m
R5
F
TI
o
a
0
0
Z
*
0
114
1
�4
u
w
0;
VU
w
<
N,
6
z
N
u
0
0
N,
w
0:
> 0
(.7
w
04
1
<
to
3:
0
w
0
w
i-
<
w
0
m
a
o
o
u
<
0
z
40 N
W t
<
• 0
cr •
o
4
•
o
4
o >
ot
z 1 1 0 <
0
It
0
Cr
4 c
- 14 Alt
m
R5
V - L /- 5 0'; � al, b 7
4-
TI
V - L /- 5 0'; � al, b 7
4-
rt
�4
}
n�i �i NmP ��i
a glD�liiau pV•
P
M
�
l
tM } 4
Q .
8
t
AM
i
94
0
z
2
t.- H
L 01 e4
lu
w
> •:
�14
w
z u
0 U.
W 0
0
0
W OD 0
> Ln 0
0
<
cr 0
0 cc
0 J 'I
cr 0 to
N t7 ri
0
o >
z >
0
a:
a.
- —j
M
1
2 ?2
OD
al
w
w
C>
o
C4
o
0
6
W
3:
0
w
0
0
0
ct
0
•
1
<
94
0
z
2
t.- H
L 01 e4
lu
w
> •:
�14
w
z u
0 U.
W 0
0
0
W OD 0
> Ln 0
0
<
cr 0
0 cc
0 J 'I
cr 0 to
N t7 ri
0
o >
z >
0
a:
a.
- —j
I
L�
a
2 ?2
I
L�
a
OM: Steve Nguyen, Engineering Manager
�< u3sum
R +
+ o m
The case was presented by Jeff Hirt. He advised the Board there was jurisdiction
to hear the case. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and reviewed
the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended denial of the
application for reasons outlined in the staff report.
Board of Adjustment
06/24/04
In response to a question from Chair BLAIR, Mr. Hirt explained that staff
recommended denial in this case based on the conclusion that the application
presented a self-imposed hardship. The lot could be utilized for a single-family
dwelling without a variance.
In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Ms. Reckert explained
that setbacks would remain the same for either a single or two-family dwelling.
,boara 7777767n
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hirt replied that the application would represent ten
dwelling units per acre and the Comprehensive Plan calls for four.
Keith Gantenbein
$106 Drew Hill Rd., Golden
Mr. Gantenbein, was sworn in by Chair BLAIR. Mr. Gantenbein plans to
purchase and develop the subject property. He submitted a copy of the plans for
the two-family dwelling proposed in the application for the Board's review. He
stated the reasons for requesting the variance. Firstof all, the location of the lot is
not suitable for a single-family dwelling. There is commercial and multi-family
building in the immediate area. Secondly, the option of going through the
subdivision plat process would not be feasible in terms of time and money.
Board Member HOVLAND asked for clarification regarding the correct lot size.
Ms. Reckert stated that the correct lot size is 8,794 square feet.
Board Member BELL inquired about the circumstances involved to cause Otis
Street to be curved in this location. Ms. Reckert stated that this was done some
time during the 1940's or 1950's before the city was incorporated and it is not
known what reasoning was used at that time. A survey was requested because of
the skewed size of the lot.
something other than what is shown ' in the plans submitted during the meeting.
He referred to a previous Board of Adjustment case where the Board's
recommendations were not followed.
Mr. Gantenbein stated that, should the variance be approved, he would agree to a
Board of Adjustment -2-
06/24/04
response In i a question from Board i •` ► Ms. Reck
stated that the subject not
Board i t i ustment Application Case N! appeal
to this Board r r decision t r r r F
Board of Adjustment -3-
06/ 4/44
Whereas, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law, and
in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; and
Whereas, the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the
public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of
the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge.
Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case
No. WA-04-03 be, and hereby is, denied.
Type of variance.- A 206 square foot variance from the 9,000 square foot
minimum lot area requirement to allow a two-family dwelling unit on
Street.
For the following reason:
1. The property will continue to have a viable use.
Board Member ABBOTT offered the following friendly amendment to the
reasons for denial:
2. There is a means to acquire the additional 206 square feet because
there is a common owner of the subject lot and the lot to the north.
The amendment was accepted by Board Member BELL.
Board Member MOLNAR stated that he would not accept the amendment
present a problem for future property owners.
Board Member DRDA then seconded the motion and a vote was taken. T
motion for denial passed
5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
Chair BLAIR closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.
6. OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to come before the Boarl,
• Board Member ABBOTT asked the staff to research Board Member
ECRELMEYER's comments about 3694 Chase Street be believed the
Board's recommendations were not complied with.
----------
Board of Adjustment - 4 -
06/24/04
• Ill 11 in is Ilia
Board.
Aggroval of Minutes — It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and
seconded by Board Member ABBOTT to approve the minutes of May 20,
2004 as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was
zdjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Robert Blair, CHAIR Ann Lazzeri, Secretary
Board of Adjustment -5-
06/24/04