Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA-91-6The City o/ Wheat ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS APPLICATION _ ~RidcTe Department of Planning and Development 6 7500 West 29th Ave., Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Phone (303) 237-6944 Applicant J4ohn~~and Georgene Address 2615 Upham St: Phone 238-3911 Owner Same Address Location of_ request Side yard fence be Phone Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request.) ^ Change of zone or zone conditions Site development plan approval Special use permit Conditional use permit Temporary use/building permit Minor subdivision Subdivision Preliminary Final [] ** See attached procedural guide for specific requirements. Detailed Description of request Variance/Waiver Nonconforming use change Flood plain special exception Interpretation of code Zone line modification Public Improvement Exception Street vacation Miscellaneous plat Solid waste landfill/-- mineral extraction permit ^ Other See attached addendum List all persons and companies. who hold an interest in the described real property, as owner, mortgagee, lessee, optionee, etc. NAME ADDRESS PHONE John & Georgene Powers 2615 Upham St. Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 238-3911 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 must submit power-of-attorney from the owner which approved of this action behalf. Signature of Applica ~~ ' - ~ ~ / ~ ~ .~- J hn owe s eorgene P ers ~` Subscribed an savor to me this 21 day of A~.g,s' 19 21- _ SEAL na Received Receipt No. Case No. 1 My commission expires' 11/30/93- r RUSSELL J. SINDT ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW GOLDEN HILL OFFICE CENTRE (303)2379308 - - - -- -- --- - - -- 12600 W.COLFAX AVE..SUITE G46D LAKEWOOD. COLORADO 80215 August 21, 1991 C1Ty p~ WHEAT P.1^~~ Gregory D. Moberg, Planner I %; %i I;I,J~ 2 ~ i~~;i City of Wheat Ridge 1` ~~, s, P. O. Box 638 ~~°~',._ _ _.~'' 7500 W. 29th Ave. COMMUiJITY DEVELOPfa1ENT Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Re: Board of Adjustment Administrative Process Application - John and Georgene Powers 2615 Upham St. Dear Greg: Enclosed please find: 1. Administrative Process Application with addendum detailing the description of the request and exhibits, and 2. Filing fee in the amount of $50.00. It is my understanding that this matter will be scheduled for the Board of Adjustment meeting on Sept. 26 and I would appreciate a copy of the agenda for this meeting as well as a copy of the staff comments on the request sufficiently prior to the meeting. If there are any further requirements we need to fill prior to the Board of Adjustment hearing would you please so advise me. Thank you for your cooperation. Resne .fulls su/omitted. //~y14• usse ~~ Si'h t RJS/n Enclosures cc: John and Georgene Powers CITY OF .WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT T0: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Date Psepared: September 17, 1991 Date of Meeting: September 26, 1991 Case Manager: Greg Moberg Case No. & Name: WA-91-23/POWERS Action Requested: An interpretation of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws regarding the measuring of fence height and also an interpretation of the approval of Case No. WA-87-9 Location of Request: 7313 West 26th Avenue Name & Address of Applicant(s): John and Georgene Powers 2615 Upham Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Name & Address of Owner(s): Roger and Betty Baker 7313 West 26th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Present Zoning: Residential-Two Present Land Use: Single-family residence Surrounding Zoning: N, W & E: Residential-Two; S: Lakewood Surrounding Land Use: N, W & E: Single-family residences; ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date Published: September 12, 1991' Date to be Posted: September 12, 1991 Date Legal Notices Sent: September 4, 1991 Agency Check List ( ) Attached- (XX) Not Required Related Correspondence ( ) Attached - (XX) None ENTER INTO RECORD: ( ) Comprehensive Plan (XX) Case File & Packet Materials (XX) Zoning Ordinance (XX) Slides ( ) Subdivision Regulations (XX) Exhibits ( ) Other JURISDICTION: The property is within the City o£ Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting requirements have been met, therefore there is jurisdiction to hear this case. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT STAFF REPORT CASE NO. WA-91-23 I. REQUEST PAGE 2 The applicant is requesting two interpretations.- The first deals with the approval of Case No, wZ-87-9 and the second is for an interpretation of how fence height should be measured. It should be pointed out that the portion of this case dealing with the measuring of fence height is not site specific and requires to be looked at on a City wide basis. Therefore testimony and Board inquiry should be on a general nature and should not deal specifically with the fence in question. In addition because there are two requests contained within this case two motions are required. II. INTERPRETATION OF THE APPROVAL OF CASE NO. WA-87-9 Case no WA-87-9 was a request for a twenty-four foot variance to the thirty foot front yard setback requirement for a six foot fence. _The fence was to be located six (6) feet from the front property line along West 26th Avenue. The case was heard on April 23, 1987 and was approved. The fence was constructed and on July 16, 1990 the owner applied for a fence permit to allow the construction of a six (6) foot fence along the east property line. This fence would connect with the existing fence along West 26th Avenue. The building permit was approved based on the approval of Case No. WZ-87-9, wherein lies the appellant's contention. The appellant is arguing that approval of this case only allowed a six foot fence to be placed perpendicular to the south property line and setback six feet. He maintains that the approval did not extend to both the east and west property lines. Upon reviewing the minutes and resolution (see attached), there was no discussion concerning Mr. Powers aversion to a six foot fence along the side property lines. In addition no conditions were placed within the resolution excluding the side lot lines from the variance. It. is Staff's opinion that it is reasonable to assume that the variance also included the east and west property lines. Therefore it is Staff's recommendation that the Board find in favor with Staff's interpretation of the approval of Case No. WA-87-9 and allow the extension_of the fence along the property's east line. III. INTERPRETATION OF FENCE HEIGHT The applicant is also requesting that the Board interpret where and how fence height should be measured. Currently and historically staff has measured the height of a fence from the grade of the applicant's property. This has been done for numerous reasons. The first reason is that a fence may only be placed upon the property to which the permit is BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT STAFF REPORT CASE N0. WA-91-23 PAGE 3 applied for. The building permit applicant has no right to enter his neighbors property for any reason and subsequently can not measure the height from his neighbor's side of the fence. Part of the problem of dealing with fence height is the question of the change of elevation. Whenever a fence permit is applied for, where a property line elevation changes drastically from one side to the other, problems arise when measuring fence-height from either side. If the height is measured from the low side, the fence on the property on the high side is reduced by the height of the elevation change (see attached Figure A). _This ultimately does not allow the applicant a six foot .fence and may reduce the fence height to a point that no fence can be built. 1. The Wheat Ridge Code of Laws does not allow in any instance the measuring of-structures from adjacent properties. 2. The Wheat Ridge Code of Laws does not .recognize solar rights or easements. 3. The Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is only concerned with historic drainage when differentiating between natural elevation and an artificial change. 4. If property elevation were required to remain in a natural state no contoured changes could be made to a property, disallowing the property owner full use o£ his property. 5. There is a no-win situation when dealing with fences between properties with considerable elevation changes. if the fence is measured from the low side, the owner on the high side does not get full use of a six foot fence. If it is measured from the high side the property owner on the low side has the perception of a much higher fence. However Staff has found in the case of the property owner's on the low side, a higher fence is needed to screen out the higher property. This is the first instance where a property owner on the low side has complained. It is therefore Staff's recommendation that the Board find in favor with Staff's interpretation of how fence height should be measured. Figure t~ Measure from owners side of fence dill dirt Natural grade h' f=ence i~etaininq wall Property line figure ~ CITY OF IdHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MIPlUTES OF MEETING: April 23. 1987 Page 6 8. Case No. WA-87-9: An application by Roger and Betty Baker for a 24' variance to the required 30' front yard setback required for a 6' high fence in a Residential-Two zpne district. Said property is located at 7313 ;lest 26th Avenue. Chris Guss presented the Staff Report. All pertinent documents were entered into record, which Chairman SANG accepted. Board t9ember BLAIR asked t9r. Guss how did somebody 'inadvertently' tear out a fence and bushes, and Mr. Guss answered that the applicants were told by the City that the bushes and fence would not be taken out for the road project, then the contractor took them out anyway. 3oard Member WATSO[1 asked if the Bakers paid an application fee to the City for this request, and t9r. Guss stated yes they did. Public 1lorks Department was debating to refund the application fee and decided against it, and suggested to the applicants to r-e quest the refund from the Board. No further questions were asked of Staff. The applicant, Roger Baker, 7313 W. 46th Avenue, was sworn in. Mr. Baker stated that he did contact the City on July 22, concerning the construction on idest 26.th and at that time he was informed they would not need to remove the fence or the bushes. Then on September .2nd the construction was started and when he arrived home from work that night, there were no bushes and no fence. Mr. Baker added that he .talked to Bob Goebel and was told that the contractor's insurance would pay for the fence, and since the bushes had also been removed, they need a higher fence for more privacy. Mr. Baker requested his application fee be refunded. Board tlernber REYtdOLDS asked if the variance were approved, would there be a blind spot when coming out of the driveway, and for. Baker answered no, as there is quite a distance from the drive and the street, tor. Baker added they are currently pouring concrete from the garage to the sidewalk and around the circle drive. No further questions were asked of the applicant. Board t9ember JONES questioned what the City has to do with this, since it was the contractor that tore the fence and bushes out, and the contractor .and his insurance company should have to replace it, tor. Baker replied he believes that is the intention, but he needs the variance to put the fence within the 30 feet. Georgine Powers, 2615 Upham Street, was sworn in. 11s. Powers stated they live to the right of the Bakers and it was quiet and secluded with the.bushes there, and the fence would restore their privacy and block some of the noise. CITY OF 4JHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 11INUTES OF MEETING: April 23, 1987 =age 7 John Powers, 2615 Upham Street, was sworn in. Mr. Powers agreed with Mrs. Powers, and also stated the traffic and lights are very annoying on 26th Avenue, and he was in favor of the fence. Motion was made by Board Member BLAIR, that Case No. :dA-87-9, an application by Roger and Betty Baker, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. The Board Finds that based upon evidence presented and based upon the Board's conclusions relative to the nine specific questions to justify the granting of the __ variance, the evidence and facts in this case do support the granting of this request. 2. The applicant's difficulty was caused by the City. 3. A precedence has already been established. 4. There will be no change of character to the neighborhood. 5. Staff's recommendation for approval. WITIi THE FOLLOWIPlG CONDITSON: 1. The City reFund the application fee to the applicant. t4otion was seconded by Board 14ember WATSON. VOTE: YES: Blair, Krieger, Reynolds, Sang and Matson N0: done Motion carried 5-0. Resolution attached. C. Case P1o. WA-~7-10. An application by Jack ekrel of Wheat Ridge Industrf 1 Center fora Temporary 0 Permit for the purpose of erec ing an off premise sign., Said property is located at appro mately 5100 Ward Road_ Board t7ember '.lATSO said she would re:l~inquish her vote on this case to Board id tuber BRANDY. Board 14ember REYNOLDS id he woulll relinquish his vote on this case to Board Memb JONES.i Chris Guss presented the af~;'Report. All pertinent documents were entered into record, which Chairman SAiIu accepted. Board Member WATSON stag the'iBoard gave them a variance on January 24, 1985, soa,>:rhy are+they before the Board again, and Mr. Guss ans~rered tha the sign approved in 1985 was for one year, and after the o year the sign was taken down. Since then, Whk'at Ridge Indus rial Center has put two signs up but was a~roached by the S ate Highway Department because they dint have billboard p mits, so they are here to apply f the Temporary Use Pe it. Mr. Guss added this is the se nd request but for anoth r purpose. Mr. Guss com~,ented that Mr. Pickrel does have power of attorney. CERTIFICATION 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 23rd day of April 1987. CASE N0: WA-87-9 APPLICANT'S NAME: Roger and Betty Baker LOCATION: 7313 West 26th Avenue Upon motion by Board ;lember BLATR , seconded by Board Member WATSON the following Resolution was stated. WHEREAS, the applicant was denied permission by an Administrative Officer; and WHEREAS, Board of Adjustment Application, Case No. WA-87-9 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an Administrative Officer; and WHEREAS, 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 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-87-9 , be and hereby is APPROVED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: A 24' variance to the required 30' front yard setback required for a 6' high fence in a Residential-Two zone district. PURPOSE: To erect a 6 foot fence FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The Board finds that based upon evidence presented and based upon the Board's conclusions relative to the nine specific questions to justify the granting of the Variance, the evidence and facts in this case do support the granting of this Variance. 2. The applicant's difficulty was caused by the City. 3. Precedence has already been established. u. Recommendation for approval by Staff. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The City refund the application fee to the applicant. VOTE: YES: Blair, Krieger, Reynolds, Sang and [Jatson N0: None DATE this 23rd day of April , 1987._ _ ~//-`~ ~ NYC;` RY SAN Chairme Mary o hapla, Sec •etary ~o'ard of djustmen Board o djustment ADDENDUM TO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS APPLICATION INTERPRETATION OF CODE --JOHN AND GEORGENE POWERS, APPLICANTS Detailed description of request: Applicants John and Georgene Powers seek an interpretation of .the Wheat Ridge City Code regarding a"fence constructed at 7313 W. 26th Avenue by Roger Baker per Building Permit No. M90-14684. The fence erected by Mr. Baker is on the side property .line between 7313 W. 26th Ave. and the property owned by the applicants at 2615 Upham St. -The fence extends some 125 ft. along the entire easterly boundary of the applicants' property at 2615 Upham St. Mr. and Mrs. Powers object to the fence as follows: 1. According to the Building Permit No. M90-14684 the fence was approved by a 1988 variance granted Mr. Baker, Case No. WA-87- 9, a aopy of which is enclosed herewith. The fence built by Mr. Baker is not within the variance granted. At the time of the variance request Mr. Baker's bushes along his front property line facing W. 26th Ave. had been removed as a result of work on W. 26th Ave. Because of the loss of privacy Mr. Baker proposed to erect a 6 ft. Cedar fence along the front property line facing W. 26th Ave. and for-this purpose only the variance was granted. On the basis of this representation both Mr. and Mrs. Powers agreed to the variance and testified- in favor of it. The variance was not granted for any fence along the side property facing the Powers and the variance cannot be a basis for the building permit issuance for a 6 ft.-fence along the side property-_line .- Therefore, the side property boundary fence erected by Mr. Baker is limited to-the 48 inch height as provided by code. - __ 2. In addition, the side property line fence-that Mr. Baker has erected is 8 ft. in height and some 4 ft. higher than permitted- by code. T_.he 8 ft_. height of this fence creates a cavernous effect to Mr. and .Mrs. Powers' property and diminishes the openness, livability and .value o£ their property. 3. Photocopies of the fence in issue taken from the 2615 -- Upham Street property a=e enclosed, the originals of which will e submitted at the Board of Adjustment hearing. 4. The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Powers, respectfully request that the Board of Adjustment interpret the Wheat Ridge City Code _-and the variance as set forth above to require that the side property line fence in issue be limited to the 48 inches now permitted by the City Code. _- ^ - -__; ~! ._ ~..~~ - ..yam>'. . :. i .r ~-aa .~._~ ~~ ;~ s~ ~-~ _~~ ~r ` ~ - ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT - _ § 26-31 - lector streets such distance shall be fifty (50) feet. (d) In all residential districts, curb cuts for property access shall be not less than - twelve (12) -feet and not more than twenty-four (24) feet in width. Curb cuts in wmmercial and industrial districts shall not be more than thirty-five (35) feet in width when serving an indi- - vidual property and shall not in any instance be less than twelve (12) feet. A joint curb cut, one which serves more than one (1) property, may not exceed forty-five (45) feet in width. (e) In cases-where it is possible to provide G~ __ one (1) access-point which will serve adjacent properties or where adherence to these requirements would leave a parcel of property without vehicular ac- "- - cess, curb cut setback or spacing re- quirements may be reduced or enlarged so as to permit a single vehicular ac- cess point if approved by the public -_-works director. (i) The public works ~Iir^ntor_may approve a modification to or waiver to the ve- hicle access standards and require- ,; merits stated in this subsection (6), - based upon consideration of traffic char - acteristics, both on and off of the site, 15 ft. Sight _- - - ~-Triangles with the primary purpose ofpreserving - public safety. (7) Sightdistance triangle requirements. For all _ uses other than one- and two-family dwell- ings, no obstructions to view between forty-two (42) inches and eighty-four (84) inches in vertical height, including, but not limited to, fences and walls, hedges or other landscaping, berms, signs or other stru~- tures, or parked vehicles, shall be permitted within triangular areas measured fifteen _ (15) feet into the property from the right- of-way line and fifteen (15) feet either side ~-, of the curb cut or driveway. For all uses, on Z corner to no obstruction to view between thirty-six (36) -nches and eighty-four (84) me es as es above shall be permitted within the triangle measured from the point of intersection of the lot lines abutting the streets a distance of twenty-five (25) feet on -- local streets and fifty-five (55) on collector and arterial streets. The forty-two=inch to eighty-four-inch vertical distance for drive- ways shall be measured from the center of - the driveway or curb cut at the right-of--way line, and for street corners from top of curb, or if no cuib exists, from edge of pavement.. - The following drawixig illustrates the min- imum unobstructed sight triangles. - F - - ~ - - -~ m o ~ _ F ~ V1 O J sy f:. J W f,:':' o ~