HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-95-36rneCiryor ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS APPLICATION
Wheat
~Rid~re Department of Planning and Development
6 7500 West 29th Ave., Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Phone (303) 237-6944
Applicant ~'~ ~3 ,UjIrD ~% Address , ~ / Phone ~k3~1 2~°e
Owner ' ~rr~l /Ill~hiv~~/ra dT,/ Addr~e~ss ~f/~J/y~+r~~n~ ~7 Phone --~/7D
Location of request 'y/d ~ 1~'9N~A+~ ~1"•
Type of action requested (check on_e or more of the actions listed below
which pertain to your request.)
^ Change of zone or zone. conditions ~ Variance/Waiver
Site development plan approval Nonconforming use change
Special use permit ^ Flood plain special exception
Conditional use permit - Interpretation of code.:
Temporary use/building permit Zone line modification
Minor subdivision Public Improvement Exception
Subdivision Street vacation
e Preliminary Miscellaneous plat
Final Solid waste landfill/
[]** See attached procedural guide mineral extraction-permit
for specific requirements. - ^ Other ,~..//
Detail/~d~escription of,r ues/t~ _~ Q~~oLcJ ~'~ t~~ec Pti fdr-'~
List-all persons and companies who hold an interest in the described read
property,--as_Awner,. mortgagee, essee, optionee, _etc,
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing this application, I
am acting with the knowledge and-consent of_those-persons listed above,
without whose consent the requested-actior, cannot lawfully be accomplished.
Applicants other than owners mus submit power- -attorney from the owner
which approved-of this action his beha
~,_,~ l
Signature-of Applicant
Y~S~ ~~p~ibed ..and sworn to is d y f 19 ~~
~' ft ~~
'~ }~: Notary Public ~/~
.' / ,r~
~~ : ;SEAL 41 p ~tl~-
r'
~ar ~ My commission expires ~~' ~~ ~~
p,1t~'~Ree~s l+°`t?' ~J Receipt No. (; 'f l~ tease ~vo.
~.
t
BORROWERS NAME I•`.USHNIROFF
a
7L8.~-~; i II, GF U I
Zct7 co
i3
~1,
N ~
. w
r ty"ti,oo_ ~ 1--
„ >, tt ~ ~
v ~ : ,~_ "~ NI ~x ~.
'~ ~'- - ~2 Imo., ~p,~
rJ ~ iY `.min, '~ ~ o ~ 4 ~-
,r r.. m t^ r -~ I ~~ Z
a r
N v 3'1
~ s,,.z r-cans '~ x~'
I , ar+tio m y „ o
~~
I>
~ r
0 i .., t.~ -+-
.. ~_~ .~.r.C-C ~ ~ Ol
v,
,.~,~ ,n ~Sw„`
ae J ,
j 'n I ~ ~
N~ fa r /
G9 vv ~ - ~_
_-_. .. - 30. o I
.. ~~3,0o as/ ~ ~uUo
o I Ylf~~~~~a~-
~~ // ~r ; I s~aial se/a
--~--
Un file basis of my knowledge, information and F~elief,
I hereby certify that this improvement location certificate was prepared for
that it ie not a Land Survey
Plat or Improl~'eP4D~6~ I~~Q,~id that it is not to be relied upon for the establishment of
fence, building, or other future improvement lines. I further certify that the i:nprovementa on the
above described parcel on this date, except utility connections a entirelywithin the boundaries
of the parcel, except as shown, that there are no encroa ~ the described premises by
improvements on any adjoining premises, except a~~ ~ ' at there is no apparent
evidence or sign of any easement crossing cr bards arcel, except as noted.
"NOTICE: AceordinQ_to Colorado law you must commence a;al actin on any defect in this
survey within three years after you first diacovcr sac JJ~~~~99~~ffwen m .any action based upon
It is hereby certified that the above described any defec in Ss la~i uZ¢5 c ed more than ten years
£roa the he cenif~
iS.-.er ~- E. whom hereon."
property located within a 100 yea ' ~ j,
flood hued boundary in accordance with the ~~~!
current HUD Federal Administration Flood ._,.iti
Huard Boundary Maps Dated /9 r~_*. _, ... , ... _ RObfrt E. ~
R.E. PORT & ASSOCIATES, INC.
LAND SURVEYING ATTN: DICk;
.r_ri•7`~lard Road Sufte 160
K^ Arvada, C0 80002
(303)420-4788
IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE
DATE (;i!i'I.Si~E~1.LQ.-JOBt 4C7-i,Ri~
MORTGAGE CO. THE Mf1RT~AGE r,RnIIF•
CARPENTER
ADDRESS 41111 HARLAN STREET
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
(PER CLIENT)
SEE Al"TACHED LEGAL DESCF;IP'?lOM1I
.3
RECEPTION NO. 90'~D8961'8 "'
~xui>31r "F ~~
3
r ~'
^ ~ ~~~
g5(15T!(1L - 42~
fZe557D~rILC \~
.~ Z51
i~tp l?7=STEi> 6~ PWvacY ~2.1c~
i r ~
Si ..-
Gtl~5T ~/ST"dtf~,fb1E Z ~ N
~~~~\\\\\\'I st(~U7" DISt". TRI6tdGtz - QS ~UIRFI~ 13`f cavE o1= LA"vSh
ZtvNr bisr. 7YCte.~tvt.C - /act~pro.Prl-'~ At-t~lbml~-Ir(iT-a~"tC_~NG.~
' S1G^µr txsr. ~r2uuvc l~ -~ dt~pu~NsS l~fiild~S'f
MEMORANDUM
~cHietT aiga~
A roved Date
TO: Meredith Reckert, Planner II
FROM: Steve Nguyen, Traffic Engineer
DATE: November 21, 1995
SUBJECT: Fence Permit at 4107 Hazlan Street. (NW corner of 41st Avenue & Harlan Street)
Public Works Department has been informed by you that the above address has applied fora fence
permit. Currently, the trees and landscaping on the Hazlan Street frontage of this property is creating a
sight distance problem. The Department has to install a right turn restriction sign at the intersection
because of this problem. The Public Works Department has approached PWAC to remove the signal
since it was not warranted. PWAC approved the removal of the signal if the sight distance at the
northwest corner is improved. So faz, we were not able to do so.
With the above diswssion in mind, the Department feels that it is important that the City enforce the sight
triangle (25 feet on 41st Avenue and 55 feet on Hazlan per City Code) with this fence permit.
Please see me if you have any questions regarding this memo.
cc: John Oss
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the
Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on December 14, 1995, at 7:30
p.m., at 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. All
interested citizens ax e. invited to speak at the public hearing or
submit written comments. The following petitions shall be heard:
1. Case No. WA-93-34: An application by Stephen Gruda for the
approval of a 3' sideyard setback variance to the 5'
sideyard setback requirement to allow a 15' x 44' carport --
for property zoned Residential-One A and located at 4050
Chase Street.
2. Case No. WA-95-36: An application by Harry Kushniroff for
approval of a variance to allow a 6' high fence in the
frontyard and. in the sight distance triangle for property
zoned Commercial-One and located at 4101 Harlan Street.
Mary o apla, Secre ary
Wanda Sang, City Clerk
To be published: November 30, 1995
Jefferson Sentinel. _
7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE
P.o. eox 638 - __ - The City of
WHEAT RIDGE. CO 80034-0636 (303) 234-5900-heat
City Admin. Fax # 234-5924 Police Dept. Fax # 235.2949 '~ld(]re
PUBLIC HEARING POSTING REQUIREMENTS
Applicants are required to post a NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING before all Board
of Adjustment, Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Signs will be
provided by the Department of Planning and Development.
One sign must be posted per street frontage. In addition, the following
requirements must be met:
^ The sign must be located within the property boundaries.
^ The sign must be securely mounted on a flat surface.
^ The sign must be elevated a minimum of thirty (30) inches from ground.
^ The sign must be visible from the street without obstruction.
^ The sign must be legible and posted for fifteen (1~ continuous days prior
to and including the day of public hearing.
It is the applicant's responsibility to certify that these requirements have been
met and to submit a completed Posting Certification Form at the public hearing.
c:~wp60\fi I es`posti ng.frm
Ci K.n J~al Pnp„~
.,
~':C WES- _sTi-i 4VENi:= _ _
_ ^. Eox 233 - The C;ty of
:.-1EAT P. CGE. Cv^ 30C3=-J33S -303) 23.-5~~~ cheat
:y Aom~^ =ax a 23C-5E2- - Police Deot. Fax r ?35-ZS=4 - ~Ri dge
POSTING CERTIFICATION
CASE NO.
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY COUNCIL - BOARD OF. ADJUSTMENT (Circle One)
HEARING DATE: ~oZ~ /''~~ 9_
,(~ ~~ // --~
1 /i~rrrL1 y' //UShy.+~rp~
~ (n a ,mL e) '
residing at "°~~~ ~ /vc) ~ la °~ S' ~ ~~~ ~ ~i~~~
(a d d r e s s)
as the applicant for Case No. (,~ jS' ~~.~ ' °J~o hereby certify
that I have posted the Notice of Public Hearing at
/Ol ~YG?r~Ga~ Sf.
(1 o c a t i o g)
on this 3O'`~ day of /~yUen, ,~j ~ r 19 gS and do
hereby certify that said sign has been posted and remained in place
for fifteen (15) days prior to and including the scheduled day of
public hearing of-this case. The sign was posted in the position
shown on the map below. n
Signature:
NOTE: This form must be submitted at the public h~'ax~,ng~~thi~ case
and will be placed in the applicant's case file at the
Department of Planning and Development.
M A P
<pc>postingcert
rev. 05-19-99
ca ,.
~x~ietr p~~~
MEMORANDUM
Approved Date
Qt-t~tlbM~r"`
TO: Meredith Reckert, Planner II
FROM: Steve Nguyen, Traffic Engineer G~
DATE: December 12, 1995
SITBJECT: Fence Permit at 4107 Hazlan Street. (NW corner of 41st Avenue & Hazlan Street)
This is a follow up memo regarding the above referenced subject. Per the home owner's request, I have
met with him and Bill Cassel of Pazks and Recreation to work out a compromise plan. The home owner's
concern is that if the City enforces the 25 ft x 55 ft sight triangle, then there will be a large number of
trees that will have to be eliminated. It will also reduce his useable lawn azea. He wants to work out a
plan where he and the City can save as many trees as possible, while at the same time, improve the
intersection sight distance. The Public Works Department has used the intersection sight distance criteria
to evaluate an alternative. Base on the field findings, there aze two lazge trees inside the sight triangle.
However, they are out of the sight line (please see the attached sketch). The home owner is requesting
the City to accept the 20 ft x 42 ft triangle instead of the required 25 ft x 55 ft triangle. With this 20 ft
x 42 ft triangle, the required intersection sight line can still be maintained with exception that all the trees
and bushes (excluding the two lazge trees mentioned above) inside this triangle be removed. The owner
has agree to this. Thus, this satisfies the Public Works Department's concerns. For the long term
maintenance, the home owner agrees to maintain the sight triangle to keep it free from weeds and tree
branches which wind block the sight distance, per City Code. Bill has offered the assistance of the
Forestry Division to help remove the trees~in sight triangle area.
Please see me if you wish to discuss this matter in detail.
cc: John Oss
t
7500 West 29th Avenue -Wheat Ridge, Colorado
Telephone 303/ 237-6944
The City of
Wheat
Ridge
This is to inform you that Case No. WA-95-36 which is a request for an approval of a 6'
privacy fence in the front yard and sight distance triangle for a property located at 4101
Harlan Street will be heard by the Wheat_Ridge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT in the Council
Chambers of the Municipal Complex, 7500 West 29th Avenue at 7:30 o.m., on Thursday.
December 14th, 1995.
All owners and/or their legal counsel of the parcel under consideration must be present at
this hearing before the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to attend this Public Nearing
and/or submit written comments.
It shall be the applicant's responsibility to notify any other persons whose presence is
desired at this meeting.
If you have any questions or desires to review any plans, please contact the Planning
Division. Thank You.
PLANNING DIVISION
"The Carnation City "
#Y~~Yi~~• a '{{~~
~I!~!~ N i a
c
. , ~
!
~ D
4RA
p
1 INS yl~ VJ
~~~ I'I _s~
~+ P~\~,• ~
~
~'•
C~
~ ~`
. n
n_ __ _ _
ssaaadvNa
~
~ > ~ :
r
.+ }' ~
I
i
i,J l 3dOl3AN3 d0 dOJ
~
~ ~
~
I
`- ~ c
~' LI °¢ C)i
~ • 4r
~
~ ~' oa
~
~y~ ~ :~ ~ l x
~~ ~
L: ~ ~
~
,
~~ ~ I
I y
c
1O-
o
v
m
~ v
~ N
6
~,
..n o
~ M U
Q3 Fa~
a. D
m o api I
y~Qt
I
a°~ o ~
w~~°mi ~ ~
J ~
m
~_
~ f-'
o
m
O
Z ~
w O
O
= U
m
N
~ ~
w
3~
°o x
~ ~
¢~
a of
a - ~ ~
~F euS
~> ~ LL o~
~ ~ ~
Q~ ~ ~
ca z
ao :.I
w
~o LL
~ 0 ~~t~
4
r'
s
w
Q~ °
~ ~~ f
1
o ga ~ '
o z R~
~
~
6} w.r
O ~~Y~
z '- w
~ w ~ F
W
h ~
h9L `COh 2'C6 d
05
iv
iJNVllIOdWi
J
~ '
I
~ ~
W ~
LL
H ~
~ i
W ~
v '
O ~
tL
F- i
a
w '
U
~ ~
~~
c„ i
~.
~g
i
i
o ~
i
m° ~
c~ i
(r ~
i
a
i
i
I
% I
/ I
_..' _. ..
..
R
4
ft
(]
7J
W
O
O
$e
e~l~
my
a
~m
L__-_ --. .., ___ - _..
r,
m
n
m
1
m
O
rn
1
r -n
m
v
a
r
11
w
0
O
P 912 401 783
.L*
a `~S
p[i ~
F+s
• # r'7
13 ~~t
iT _
~~ ~73
3
N JJ D
T C
n a i'
m ti
~ ~gog ~.
r ayF
O 0 NV
m ~~ I
* ~i
T p 11
o a ~g
z
N a ~ 1S+
a va
ti ern
P 912 401 785
"~~+' +~
R ~ N
t$s >wG
Ci
m a
~ ~~
~ ~
y ~
R
w
Lx
~~~II
~_ n gz ~
~ ~~ n A
$ a of
m o~
m
n m ~i
o
c ~a
N Z
n
y OD
m am-i _n annz
~~~
~
~ ~ h'
a
^~om
m ~m .i _a
_~ ~ D~.Em^ ~~~..
~ a~32i°'
=
~".{A~ t
! o mp°.
u3+w
m
3 ~
i
D
D {~ eMe11
~ Y K!{ in
n
!°m
a 9N,p ann
O
.. N ~ Q . ~4f O ~A~ ~
o
N
A
D N ~ ~
F_~3 mwo
N Y" i ?C _ o
N < ,
-
.
m ~
~
~ ~. ~3
s+~ ?
_~. `
E m
'
fJR m m
53 a, ..
m 2
~ R
6 M _a
-
°
W
~ o
M =QO w
~y
L7 R m ° ' o
4F~ 3
W 33~ o
w ~,x
~
{ In
t >
F
t ;~
0
~3~ m
~n
n~~
o
-w
-- ~
mJ
CJ
3
~ o
o
m
~~
1
m
c
z
~ I
IMPORTANT! PLACE STICKER A7 70P OF ENVELOPE TO
' THE RIGHT OF RETURN ADDRESS.
P 912 4~1 786
l ~
1I`
4
W
o
0
m
n
m
m
0
f7
m
R7
rn
v
a_
r
U1
'r m
z
O
& ~ '-'£ m m m
~~z
T H
~
' °
xr
G O
~ m
~ of
~ o
t+ M =d
w o v
~ n
p,
ry ~ o m
as~~ o
y
oY
a A m m o
CA f4
~~yy
' ~ ~
1 +9
i ~
m m
N i ~
D 9
()
~ !t ~~ -
9 ~m
~a CN
~
~
r K4
o m
f
IMPORTANT. PLACE STICKER A7 TOP OF ENVELOPE 70
I_~`~_-~_ THE RIGHT OF RETURN ADDRESS.
-~~ ~ G...e...
~~ Q>
... ~ N a 3~~a ac~n
~
1 .
. _-0T co ~ ~ 9rv~m
3o3
Js ~. >
w >
N
1
~ a ~ a
- 31~ ~mA
~ W C ~C> C ~T (~
^~yr~ O. i _ ANN
- - ~ [~i N N 4 . ~~o GNy
..__. __
D
D
~ M ~ a _.
aN. O' ~ Q
.
'Q _
o TD S m
~~ ~ A
' $
R
~ ~+~
A f
as a
I
R F
^
w^
'
-~.°~. o co^
,N_
lf
LL
._ :~~ ~ n r ~ ~ d s:
tp d
~ N
IB ,
g
Y7 CVO ~
_ ~
W ~n
°4
~ 3
~
- p
m~n
__ ~
DmF
$
~ryH
- F
ta3~ ~
- - ads ~
a a _
'~ D
- -_ W ~ .p .p 3 a
.-
o D
Z a m 'O
~ iv f
N _. ti m ..D n
~
-
.
m ~a ~~` ~ ~ `~ ~
as£
~ .
g
.
"
~ Q~ ~, o S
~„~ ~
_ - T. Q .~
'
m a °'
~ o~a~~
m a ~ y 'm
, m
N v
._. _. _-
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
T0: Board of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING: January 25, 1996 DATB PREPARED: November 17,1995
CASE NO. & NAME: WA-95-36/Kushniroff CASE MANAGER: Sean McCartney
ACTION REQUESTED: An application for the approval of a 6' privacy fence in the
frontyard and sight distance triangle.
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 4101 Harlan Street,
NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S) Harry Kushniroff
4101 Harlan Street
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033
NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S) Same
APPROXIMATE AREA: 22,950 square feet
PRESENT ZONING: Commercial-One
PRESENT LAND USE: Single-family residential.
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: W: and.S~: Commercial-One; E: Residential-Three
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N, W, and S: Mixed residential; E: Commercial
DATE PUBLISHED: November 30, 1995
DATE POSTED: January 25, 1996
DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: November 30, 1995
ENTER INTO RECORD:
( ) COMPREHENSIVE ,PLAN (XX) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS
(XX ) 20NING 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. _.
Board•of_~djustment Staff.Report _ ,__ Page 2
Case_No. WA-95-36 __
I. REQUEST
The applicant is•requesting approval of a 6' privacy-fence to be placed within
the front .yard setback and the sight distance triangle.. The purpose of the
privacy fence is to lessen the_street,noise created by nearby West 41st Avenue
and Harlan. Street, a collector size road. Currently, there are, both ,.an
existing 6' privacy fence. and street trees which extends along Harlan Street.,
The street trees-are located__al'ong the entire stretch of Harlan Street within
the sight distance triangle, and the 6' privacy fence"is located 55' from. the
corner of Harlan,Street and. West-41st Avenue, outside of the sight-distance
triangle. _ .
If-the variance is approved, the 6' privacy fence will extend to within 25'
from the corner of Harlan Street and West 41st Avenue; cut diagbnall"y southwest
to within 25'of the corner_on,the south property line; then proceed along west _
41st Avenue to attach to the existing 6' privacy fence located along the.-
internal_driveway. ,
Section 26-31 (C)(7) of-the Wheat Ridge Zoning Ordinance states "for all uses,
on corner lots, no..obstruction to view between 42 inches-and 84 inches...shall
be permitted within the triangle measured from the point of"the intersection __
of the lines abutting streets a distance of 25 feet. on local streets _and 55'
on collector and arterial streets." ~ __ _
According to the Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Master Plan .(Exhibit A), Harlan
Street is designated as a collector street, and~Taest 41st Avenue is designated
as a local street. Therefore, `any vertical development within the sight
distance triangle (signs, landscaping, fences, etc.)_may not exceed 42° in
height.- In addition, Section 26-30 (I)(1) states "no fence, divisional wall
or hedge above the height of 48 inches shall be permitted within a minimum .-
required front yard..,." -
II. -REFERRAL ~ ~ -
Staff .has referred this- case to the Public Works Department. for an
interpretation to the sight distance_t_riangle created by the intersection, of
Harlan Street and West 41st Avenue. As shown on Exhibit B, our traffic-
engineer.found.-that any development within the 55' by 25' sight distance
triangle would: further create visual-impacts-which currently -exist with
presence of the existing street trees. ,
Then, upon a field -visit to the sight, the--traffic engineer amended his -
previous memo (exhibit C) to state that he -felt that a sight triangle of_ 20'
along-West 41st Avenue and 42' along Harlan Street would, prgvide-_a-Safe
alternative to the variance request. (as long as the applicant agrees to~remove
all trees and shrubs that are currently within the sight distance triangle). _
II L. CRITERIA _
Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria to evaluate an
application for an adjustment:-- _ _ _ _
1. Can. the property in question .yield a reasonable return in use;,_service f
or income if permitted to be_used only under the conditions allowed by
Board of Adjustment Staff:EZeport
Case No. WA-95-36
page _3
regulation for the di txict in which it is-.located?
Yes. The existing single-family residential use will remain-in use_if the
variance is not approved. Construction of the 6' high fence would make the
property more "livable° as it would provide a visual and_audial buffer.
2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circu~tstances?
No, as there are many residential properties in Wheat Ridge that front upon
collector streets.
3. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of
the locality?
No. The neighborhood has both a residential and commercial mix.
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 ofcthe regulations. were„carried out?
No. Although, because the property ie located on a collector street, the sight
triangle is larger than the sight triangle for a typical residential property.
5. Would the conditions-upon which, the petition for a variation is based be
applicable, generally, to the other property within. the same zoning
classification?
Yes. Anyone may apply for the same type of variance, but the conditions may
differ.
6. is-the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon a desire to make
money out of. the property?
No. The purpose of this variance is to provide additional privacy from ,nearby
Harlan Street. __
7. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship--.been created. by any person
presently having an interest in the property?
No. There are no other persons interested in this property.
8. 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?
Yes. Any vertical development 42° or higher within the sight distance triangle
could pose as a traffic hinderance, thus escalating the chance for traffic
related accidents.
Board of Adjustment Staff Report
Case No. WA-95-36
Page 4
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. The approval of this variance may endanger public safety for both
pedestrians and motorists. _ __ _ _____
IV.~ STAFF CONCLUSIONS
Staff concludes that the criteria does_not support approval of this request and
approval of this variance may endanger public safety since-their will be visual,-
obstructions within the sight distance triangle. If variance is approved,
staff has_the.follocaing recommendation:
1. Instead of the requested 25' X 25' sight. distance 'triangle, the traffic
engineer has requested a safe alternative of 20'(on West 41st.Avenue) by
42' (on Harlan Street).
wa~ ~
yloi
i-Fa2..A~.~
5"+2Ct"r'i'
oFFIGI,hL
7_.Oi~! SIG M~i~
Wt-i~~T RIDGF
coLO~,~Do
MAP ripO~~=D:.i~~e ~~, i994
_csc 9evi~,on: Decemhe~ ">? i994
-ZONE Di57Q'G- 30!,'NDR7
---- ?ARGE'_/~0- 30l,SJR7
(DES~G\ATS OY~iNc~n5hIP1
+ DENO'r5 `~IU_?iP_ .iDDRE55E5
~W ~~-
b
xA~ ~~
~nx.~c a= P:nuwvs .pro rva.o--rr~T - z3s-:as:
y: ~ w < i ~ 4~ '~ ; p d
Y T Y S 3
0.A GL NMOYc
CGL' SiN
MK M11~ O
ttSl. .EMU
UJLL W1W
CCGG tpl`W -- -
CCM1L AYYB
WC9-S MTW
coro srnrn -- -
rMLe aM ~ t
wcr rnaaa - E
cow awen
waa swami - L
miv sun
ww-as nrem f
ccw .wo ,
aoc ®+ - U
wv -uwrnw - ~
wu ua*a. - - -- ~
mcc .me. ('
mn aa«.
oxc m.s~. -
»x wx waa.c.« '_I
oou urn-: - - ~ IJ
~.w~ .mm.. - [ n ~
~. ~ - ~~
oaw wo-a --
ociv sHao+ - ~ t
oan .v. +a -
~o - Li
-~z~, -~-
~,- ~~
~- W~
wcv u-ae
IXNi L3LA ~ T ,
xea Lsuva - 3 Li
~. ~.
~~-.=~~,o -tUJ
~, ~- pC
~., a.,,~. _ ~
~. ~_ ~~
~~, _ ~ ,
m~ ~ro~
,~„
~~o. ~~ -
~, ~
~, ~~
~, ~. -
~, ~,~ -
~~ ~. _~
~,-<.,~
~, ~.,
~-
~. ~e - r~
a«„ ~ -
oor„ ~ -
~«: ,yo. -
~,~-.~~
oa,, .z,a.K -
~; ~: -
~,, ... -
~~-, -
~, ,~ -
~~ ~~ _
ooa., rvvw,.
~. ~ m».
~,~, -
~, ~ -
-is anm+
,'" ? ii
~~~
',
ss
'I
(=X11
SHEET ~
°F wHe9r PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
~ Po PROJECT FILE ~_
m ENGINEERING DIVISION LOCATION
P.O. BOX 638 FEATURE
°ocoRna° 1~/HEAT RIDGE, CO. 80034 DESIGNED eY SATE
Z
~~
~ J ~
n 1
~
~ `" >
> p
~ t>!
J
U' Z ~ a9
a
1 ~. ~~~
.. N
'3nb 1S 6~ 'M ~ ® ~-
~'
W
U
Z
W w
L~ J
~ I-
~ Q
U
z ~
Q
~
~ o
M
~ w v~`'i
{- a
~ ~
O
Z = Z C7 ~
J
2 ~
J
Q
d'
O'
W
K
~r ~ ~D,oooo
3o3~om
~m~ff
®~~co
..
vr°n .°~'
c°'a's~
o. c ° n, m
rt t0
a"0'- y O
~.¢ N S~.
~ ;,. ~ o ~o
a ?~ -~
aymvl
~°. ~. o ~ a
~<~coc
"M< y dlD
x
~. fA y ~~7' n
~ y S-Y (yD
,o S ° _- n
°-_.~
_~
~Q.rt~ N
... m ,~-
s ~ F
W3o~T
~o~~=
o y d :+;
rrte C S y
0 ~ 017 ~
3 a-- a
-~ m
o -- o n.
'" to ~
rt rt C
s~
LDO nn
y 3 d-
~n
~s ~
T
y Q
a
7
3m
'*
3°
-«
3?
m
0
~a
V 2
.~
~-
m
s
..
O
!A
C
a
0
fl
r
0
n
P_
H
z
r
. -s o
~; n
P
H
cf~
1 ~
m
~o
N
N
~ o ~f
~~
D ,n{. N
O ~
ti~ 1
~~
s~a~ ~ i
v
s
f ~
a~
'~
~ I.
3
~Q.~.-.-._J
Locnl Street
Collector or
Arterlnl Street
cn --j 7a-
I
Collector or
Arterlnl Street
cn
_'~~ - . J
(l~I n
'-~ O
_~ ~
D ~
z=
~ D
~~
~ ~
C (~1
rn
z
V
'~SC4lf2,IT~ ~1~rt
C WHEAT RIDGE, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF,,,MEETING: Jaauary 30, 1996 Page 2
2. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
Motion was made by Board Member HOWARD, seconded by Board
Member HOVLAND, that the agenda be approved as printed.
Motion carried 7-0.
3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any
subject not appearing on the agenda.)
No one came forward to speak.
4. PUBLIC HEARING
A. ~~"~e°No -SPA=9=5=3~c An application. by Harry Kushniroff for
approval of a variance to allow a 6' high fence in_the front_ _
yard and in the sight distance triangle for property zoned
Commercial-One and located at 4101 Harlan Street.
Board Member HOWARD motioned for this Board to designate
Harlan Street.. as the front of this property in question.
Motion was seconded by Board Member HOVLAND.
Glen Gidley, Director o£ Planning and Development, spoke
~~ saying he would question that motion because the Board of
Adjustment has no authority as it relates to this particular
matter. It is an administrative matter and there is no
appeal relative to this issue. The Board of Adjustment is
an appeal authority and no one has made an appeal to this
Board for the purpose in determining what the front of this
property is.
Board Member HOWARD asked who was it that made the decision
that the frontage of this property is W. 41st Avenue, and
Mr. Gidley replied he would. be happy to discuss this at the
end of__the meeting under Old or New_Business. It has no
relevance to the matter of the. variance that is before you.
This variance should be able to stand either for or be
rejected on its own without regard to where the frontage of
the property is.
Board Member ABBOTT questioned the statement that it has no
relevance, because he feels it would change that 50 feet
from Harlan to W. 41st. Mr. Gidley replied it has no
relevance to the 55 and 25 .feet, because Harlan is
designated as a collector street and 4].st is designated as
a local street, and those designations would not :change.
Board Member ABBOTT stated the 55 feet would not transfer
over to W. 41st simply because it is the wrong kind of
~ street; so the maximum on a local street is 25 and 25.
~' WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT gage 3
MINIITES OF NESTING: Jaauary 30, 1996
Board Member ABBOTT stated in this case, the most that could
be transferred to W.41st is the 25 feet because_it is a
local street, and Mr. Gidley said that is correct.
Board Member ECHELMEYER said in the staff report it said an
administrator could: make this change, but he checked with
the postmaster, and city deliveries provided under USPS
Policies and Procedures, the characteristics of the area to
be served and the method needed to provide adequate service
requests or petitions to establish change or extended
delivery service must be made to the local postmaster.
Changes of a hardship nature are only authorized with a
delivery point which then they may consider if service, by
existing methods pose an extreme physical hardship on the
customer. The postmaster went on to say this property is
shown as a Harlan Street address historically, and there can
be no change in the post office judgement which is also tied
in with the national index of properties, whereby legal
papers can be served, and he said there would not be any
change to this property because there is no severe hardship
in moving the address to W. 41st Avenue.
Mr. Gidley said as he .indicated before, he will be happy to
discuss this matter in full detail at the end of the
meeting; it has no relevance t'o the matter before you.
Board Member HOWARD said the applicant filled aut a form and
signed it stating what he is applying for; and he applied
for a variance to allow a 6 foot fence in the front yard.
What has to be determined here is what is the front yard.
The location of the request is for 4101 Harlan Street, it
was not addressed on W. 41st Avenue, it was addressed on
Harlan. Everything that the Board has in front of them
refers to the fact that this frontage is on Harlan Street.
Mr. Gidley said it makes no difference to you where the.
frontage is relative to the request that is before you,
because a 6 foot fence in no instance is allowed in a sight
distance triangle. Whether it is a front, side, or back
yard--6 foot fences within the sight triangle are simply not
allowed. And that is the matter before you; are you going
to allow a 6 foot fence-within the sight distance triangle.
There. is a portion of the fence on both Harlan Street and W.
41st Avenue frontages that are outside of the sight distance
triangle.. The portion of the Harlan Street frontage that is
already built to 6 feet high, that matter is not before you,
the Board has no jurisdiction as it relates to that matter.
The portion that he is asking for is to continue that fence
westward along W. 41st Avenue, which he now considers his
front yard.
WHEAT RIDG$ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF MEETING: Jaauary 30, 1996 Palle 4
Board Member HOWARD asked who gave the applicant the
authority to construct a 6 foot fence on_Harlan Street, Mr.
Gidley said he would answer that matter at_the end of the
meeting, again it has absolutely no relevance to the matter
that is before you,
Board Member ABBOTT asked what is the significance in moving
the front yard to W. 41st, and felt that just maybe it would
clear up the importance of why they have the front yard
designated as such. He asked if there anything that would
get this case moving along, and Mr. Gidley said that's the
point, it means nothing to the Board. He said the question
is, does the Board want to allow a 6 foot fence in a sight
triangle, or allow a 6 foot fence either.in a side yard or a
front yard (which is in excess of 48 inches) to the extent
that it encroaches into an area that normally a 6 foot fence
would not be allowed.
Board Member ABBOTT'S concern was more with the city
engineer's conclusions that this would not. apply to any
collector or local street in..town. Staff-puts conditions
and reasons on their reports,- and there were none of that-
really conveyed to us in the memo, what the reasons and why
it would not apply to any other collector or local street in
town.
Mr. Gidley reminded Chairman JUNKER of-the
table and said if the motion is successful
to answer any questions. He encouraged the
understand that the matter of encroachment
distance triangle is not relevant to which
property is facing.
motion on the.
he would proceed.
a Board to try and
into the sight
direction the
Chairman JIINKER asked-to-have the motion stated again and_
Board Member HOWARD said the motion was for the Board of
Adjustment .to designate Harlan Street as a frontage on this
property. Mr. Gidley stated again,-the Board has no
authority to do that designation, absolutely NO authority.
Board Member HOWARD said there are two issues here, one for
the 6 foot fence placed within the front yard setback and
one fence in the sight distance triangle. .Mr. Gidley
replied that staff has described very clearly in the prior
presentation of where the front setback is, and that would
be the south side of-the property that is the front setback,
and that is the matter that has been brought to you. It was
described verbally as well as graphics at your last meeting.
Board Member ABBOTT asked Mr. Gidley if he agreed there were
two issues, and suggested they make separate motions. Mr.
Gidley agreed.
WHEAT RIDG$ BOARD OF ADJIISTMEN'P
~y MINIITES OF MEETING: Jaauary 30, 1996 Page 5
Board Member HOWARD stated he is not going to, withdraw his --
motion.
Board Member ECHELMEYER wanted to know why Meredith Reckert
refers to this on the permit as 4107 Harlan Street. He
asked 'how many different addresses are you people giving
this property'. He asked further if the planning staff
comes out with a recommendation for 4107 which was passed on
from the engineer, why is staff calling the frontage on W.
41st Street.
Mr. Gidley read to the Board from the. Code of ..Laws the
definition of lot line front. The applicant has indicated
his entrance, the only entrance to the property is from W.
41st Ave. There is a secondary access onto Harlan Street -
that is only used as an emergency access and it is gated_
Mr. Gidley continued saying this is a decision that comes
back from the subdivision of the property. This is a
multiple unit property all under single ownership. At the
time of the subdivision, the Public Works department
suggested that the primary access be from W. 41st rather
than. Harlan Street because W. 41st is a collector street.
The preference from Public Works and from a traffic --
management standpoint is to direct the traffic onto 41st
rather than Harlan Street. We can re-address the property--
-the post office is-the secondary-and the City is the
authority that addresses pursuant to the...Subdivision
Regulations of the City of Wheat Ridge. The applicant has "
indicated he would accept a re-address to the 41st Avenue.
As it relates to-those issues, the definition of lot line
front clearly applies to this situation, that is why we
consider the south .lot line the front lot line for this lot.
Board Member ECHELMEYER said-there is no way 'to enter the
building from W. 41st Avenue except going through a window_,_
because there is no doorway or porch. There is a street-
light on the corner. _The gate is not locked, and anyone can.
walk in that gate.
Board Member ABBOTT said. he would-vo-te against this motion -
from Board Member HOWARD_as he feels the Board can vote on
the merits of the two issues, no matter what the address is.
It would not .affect the criteria they use to decide whether
they felt the fence height and location is appropriate.
Board. Member ECHELMEYER stated that last year .the Board
heard many cases that had 6 feet fences which were viable on
a side yard, but not on a-front yard._
l
WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJQSTMENT
MINIITES O1~'MEETING: January 30, 1996
Page 6
Board Member ABBOTT said the Board turned down those front
yard fence requests because it was based, on their opinion
that it went against the_intent of the ordinance or they-
found them objectionable for the general appearance of the
neighborhood. They were unrelated to which way the door was
pointed, and based on facts .other than their address.
Board Member Hovland said he remembers .the one case on Tabor
Street where the front door of the house-was not on the
street address side. If they are using the front door as a.
criteria, it did not work in that case because the house
faced the side, but the front yard faced Tabor Street.. It
is confusing because they_seem to have conflicting
definitions, however, this one is unique as it is a corner-
lot.
Board Member HOWARD re-read the motion. Motion failed 5-2
with Board Members HOWARD and ROSSILLON voting yes.
Sean McCartney presented the staff report. All pertinent
documents were entered into record, which Chairman JUNKER
accepted.
Board Member ECHELMEYER said he does not understand because
the present zoning is Commercial-One but the use is
residential. He wanted to know what are the four units in
the back, and Mr. McCartney replied they are residential.
The units are rentals and that is allowed in Residential-
One, Residential-Two, and Residential-Three.
Board Member HOWARD asked if .the area that is 22,950 square
feet includes both Lots 1 and 2, and Mr. McCartney replied
no, it would be Lot 2 that is 22,950.
Board Member HOWARD asked if there is anything on Lot 1
and/or is anyone living on Lot 1, Mr. McCartney answered
yes, the 5 smaller residences on Lot 1 are rentals.
Board Member HOWARD wanted to know if .there was a permit
issued to allow a 6' fence on Lot 1 and if so does anyone
know when the fence was put up, and Mr. McCartney answered
yes, there was a permit obtained but he does now when the
fence was put up.
Steve Nguyen, City Engineer, was sworn in. Mr. Nguyen said
the first memo in response to the fence permit was in
reference to a signal at the intersection. Right now we
have a restricted right turn due to the heavy vegetation at
the corner and with this fence permit, we had an opportunity
WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
~~ MINUTES OF MEETING: Jaauary 30, 1996 Page 7
to include the sight distance, and if that's improved we may
be able to remove the restriction sign. The first memo
pretty much followed the City code, 25 x 55 sight triangle,
the second memo I said something a little bit different, it
varies from the 25 x 55 and I understand the Board is
confused as to what I was trying to go after. Mr, Nguyen
continued saying according-to our current code, the sight
triangle is 25' x 55° and anything that is inside that
triangle should not exceed 42 inches in height. The north
leg of Harlan, north of 44th Avenue about 350 feet, there is
approximately 10 feet drop. With the current code, no more
than 42 inches would still be a problem in terms of sighting
for the fact. that the average driver height in a automobile
now is 3 1/2 feet, which is 42 inches verses this code
allowed, so he approached another angle. Another concern ----
for Mr. Nguyen is the two large trees that he is against
cutting down, and the 42 inches would still be a problem
because the street is not level, it slopes down hill to the
north. He met with.the owner and told him at the sight line
between-the two cars at 30 mph he needed 350 feet to see
clearly between 2 cars, that 350 feet would give a reaction
time to see the car and make a maneuver. Assuming if the
owner agrees to clean out everything inside the triangle to
ground level it would work. However, the-Board has to
decide because the only thing in the code now is the 25' x
55' sight triangle distance. Even then, the 42" does not
work at this time for some cases. Ideally it would work
perfect at 25° x 55' if everything is cleared out. The
Board has to decide whether to stick to the code or_do
something different. The only problem is he has nothing to
back him up with the alternative solution.
Board Member ABBOTT said if this street would have risen to
the north, then an engineering argument could be made that
they see the oncoming traffic sooner. He feels this would
improve an existing situation and would allow staff to take
down the 'no right turn'-sign. Mr. Nguyen stated the point
to this is if he can improve this corner .and be able to see
a car at a certain distance, then .staff will have to be
satisfied with that distance, and then they will be able to
remove the sign. With that safe distance you can make a
right or left turn onto the main street without being
overtaken by the oncoming cars. The 42 inches would be
better-than what .they have now because of the site specific
condition out there.
Board Member ROSSILLON asked if the Board could force
someone to take their. shrubbery out, and Mr. Gidley replied
from a Code Enforcement standpoint they can require that any
obstruction to view above 42 inches in that sight distance
WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJQSTMENT
MINIITES OF MEETING: Jaauary 30, 1996 Page 8
triangle must be removed, with the exception of the tree
(trunk) and that can be trimmed from the bottom. If the .
variance is granted, one of the conditions could be the
removal of the existing plant materials that are blocking
the view. _
No further questions were_asked of staff at this time.
The applicant, Harry Kushniroff, 4101 Harlan Street was
sworn in. He is trying ,to get privacy from Harlan Street
with the traffic and noise, and privacy from 41st Avenue and
the rental house across the street. That house is not
maintained .and several times .the police have been called on
various things, including drugs. Constantly they have to
have the weeds cut down, and junk and furnishings are always
outside. This is a concern to Mr. Kushniroff because he __
would like to shelter.. himself and his children from this
residence.
Mr. Kushniroff said the reason for the sight triangle
variance request of 25' x 25' is in .order to .extend his
fence on Harlan Street-and not lose a good chunk of his
front yard. There. was a permit taken out on Harlan Street,
and also a permit for the_small section that was added onto
it. He met and talked to the engineer and agreed if we go
to the 42' x 20', then he would take all the vegetation out
except for the two main trees-and they would be cleared out
at the bottom. He-does understand the concern with the
traffic problem, but has lived there 10 yrs and has never
seen or had any problem with turning right.
Board Member ECHELMEYER asked. the applicant if he petitioned
for a designation of his property to change-from a Harlan
Street-address to a W. 41st Avenue address, and Mr.
Kushniroff-said he subdivided in:order to finance 4101
Harlan Street with a_FHA loan. He asked if he could
subdivide and.the Planning Commission approved it with
conditions, and one of them was to take traffic off. of
Harlan Street-and put it on W.-41st and he had to_put a gate
up on Harlan Street.
Board Member ECHELMEYER asked then if he closed up the
driveway on Harlan Street to the north, and Mr. Kushniroff
said yes, and that's where the gates are_ They originally
wanted to partially fence across, but the fire department
said there must be gates.
Board Member ECHELMEYER wanted to know if he received mail
deliveries to the rear, and Mr. Kushniroff said actually
t
WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT
MINIITES OF MSSTINGa Jaauary 30, 1996 Pa4e 9
they come in on W. 41st Avenue. No deliveries are made off
of Harlan Street and they haven'.t for ten years.
Board Member HOWARD asked the applicant how many feet is the
drive off of W. 41st and Mr. Kushniroff said about 150 feet.
The gate is east of the road and everything enters and goes
out the same way.
Board Member HOWARD wanted to know how far back does the
house set from. Harlan Street, and Mr. Kushniroff replied
either 51 or .57 feet, it is hard to read- They consider
41st Avenue as the front yard.
No further questions were asked.
Courtney Chesnic, 4070 Marshall Street, was sworn in. Ms.
Chesnic is against the request because it will set a bad
precedence for the. neighborhood. There are number of homes
that are obliged to go by the law. That is a beautiful old
house and having it walled-in will certainly not enhance the
property. The applicant already has a part of the fence
that is dilapidated. The neighborhood is nice and she would
like to see this request denied.
Chairman JUNKER asked if the city received any communication
regarding this request, and Mr. McCartney replied no.
Board Member HOVLAND asked if the gate on Harlan Street
will remain, and Mr. Gidley said staff has suggested that as
a condition to subdivision.. Public Works issues access
permits, and he believed one of the conditions was that the
curb cut be closed. They negotiated the fence rather than
in lieu of the total closure, so he-believes the gate has to
stay there. -
Board Member HOVLAND asked if'the driveway was part of the
City public right-of-way and Mr. Gidley replied no, it is an
easement to allow access for the other 5- homes.
Board Member HOVLAND .said without this variance the
applicant could .run a 6 foot fence-along Harlan to 30' from-
41st Avenue and drop down in height to 42', and Mr. Gidley.
said no, it would be 55' from 41st Avenue. Mr. Gidley
agreed, and added 42' within the corner-area and 48' for the
balance of-the property.
Board Member ECHELMEYER said the Board has been consistently
against 6 foot fences further in to the street than 30 feet,
so how are we going to-do that here, and Mr. Gidley said
that is why staff has suggested that the variance is denied.
WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJQSTMENT
MINIITES OF MEETING: January 30, 1996 Page 10
Board Member ECHELMEYER asked if both issues will be ruled
on ,together or separate, and Board Member ABBOTT said he_
does have two motions prepared.
Motion was made by Board Member ABBOTT, that Case No. WA-95-
36(a), an application by Aarry Kushnirof£, be DENIED for the
following reasons
1. There is no significant uniqueness to this lot as to-
other collector and local intersections in the City.
2. Any vertical development 42 inches or higher within the
sight triangle could pose as a traffic hindrance and --
thus escalating the chance. for a traffic related
accident.
3. No engineering or other scientific evidence was offered
as to the effectiveness of the additional 24 inches to _
.the fence height as a sound barrier.. .
4. Construction further of a 6 foot fence structure on this
property would appear to be .detrimental to the. general
appearance of the neighborhood and therefore, counter to_ _
a primary rationale for restrictive zoning ordinances.
Motion was seconded by Board Member ECHELMEYER. Motion
carried 7-0. Resolution attached.
Motion was made by Board Member ABBOTT, that Case No. WA-95-
36(b), an application by Harry Kushniroff, be DENIED for-the _
following reasons:
1. Although the. City traffic engineer evaluated the
dimensions of the required sight triangle and determined
them to be 20'_ x 42' as an 'improved condition', he also
stated .that as Harlan Street falls to the north, even
the 42 inch legal height would not be equivalent to the
optimal safe sight distance.. Therefore by adding an
additional 24 inches could only cause additional
compromise ta_the ideal- safe sight. distance. It is felt
by the Board that this compromise to enable the existing
no right turn sign on W. 41st is not.. sufficient argument
to warrant approval of. a variance.
Motion was seconded by Board Member WALKER. Motion carried
7-0. Resolution attached.
(' ~ !. CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION
i, Mary Lou Chapla, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Board of
Adjustment, do hereby certify that the following Resolution was
duly adopted in the City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson,
State of Colorado, on the 30th day of January ,_1996.
CASE NO: ;=9~-36W( a )
APPLICANT'S NAME: Harry Kushniroff
LOCATION: 4101 Harlan Street
'Upon motion by Board Member ABBOTT , seconded by Board Member
ECHELMEYER the following Resolution was stated..
WHEREAS, the applicant was denied permission by an Administrative
officer; and
WHEREAS, Board of Adjustment Application, Case No. WA-95-36(a)
is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an Administrative
officer;-and
WHEREASg the property has been posted the required 15 days by law
and there WERE NO protests registered against it; and
WHEREAS, the relief applied for MAY NOT 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-95-36(a) , be and hereby is DENIED.
TYPE OF VARIANCE: To allow a 6' fence in the front yard
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. There is no significant uniqueness to this lot as to
other collector and local intersections in the City.
2. Any vertical development 42 inches or higher within the
sight triangle could pose as a traffic hindrance and
thus escalating the chance for a traffic related
accident.
3. No engineering or other scientific evidence was offered
as to the effectiveness of the additional 24 inches to
the fence height as a sound barrier.
4. Construction further of a 6 foot fence structure on this
property would appear to be detrimental to the general
appearance of the neighborhood and therefore, counter to
a primary rationale for restrictive zoning ordinances.
Case No.~FFh-95-36(a)
Page 2.
VOTE: YES: Abbott, Echelmeyer, Hovland, Howard, Dunker, Walker
and Rossillon
NO: No
DISPOSITION: VARIANCE DENIED BY A VOTE OF 7-0.
DATED this 30th day"~(lJ~o~"f, January, 1996.
SUSAN JUNKER Chairman
Board of Adjustment
Mary L u hapla, Sec etary
Board o djustment