Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/30/1996 W H E A T R I D G E B O A R.D O F A D J U S T M E N T MINUTES OF MEETING Jaauary 30, 1996 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order- t, by Chairman JUNKER at 7:33 P.M. on January 30, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Thomas Abbott' Bill Echelmeyer Paul Hovland Robert Howard Susan Junker Edwin Rossillon Robert Walker None Glen Gidley, Director of Planning and Development Sean McCartney, Planner Mary Lou Chapla, Secretary PUBLIC HEARING The following is the official set of Board of Adjustment minutes for the Public Hearing of January 30, 1996. 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. • WHEAT RIDGB HOARD OF ADJIISTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING: January 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. Case Noe wA-95-36: 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 _f or 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 of 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. Tt is an administrative matter and there is no appeal relative to this issue. The Soard 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 41st 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 Mii~ur~S OF MEETING: Jaauary 30, 1996 Page 3 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 to-the matter before you. Board Member HOWARD said the applicant filled out 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 b 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 distahce 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 RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Msiv~iES OF MEETING: Jaauary 30, 1996 Page 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 youa 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_-thy understand that the matter of encroachment distance triangle is not relevant to-which property is facing. motion on the he would proceed Board-to try and into the sight direction the. Chairman JUNKER 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 iii 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: S48EAT RIDGE HOARD OF ADJ4TSTMENT MFNUTES OF MEET3NG: 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. i3e 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 th_e 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 6V. 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 vote 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.- WHEAT RIDGE 8OARD OF ADJUSTMENT . MINIITES OF MEETING: Jaauary 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 cornef° 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 JUNECER accepted. Board Member ECHELMEYER said he does not undo the present zoning is Commercial-One but_the residential. He wanted to know what are the the back, and-Mr. McCartney replied they are The units are rentals and that is allowed in One, Residential-Two, and Residential-Three. =_rstand because use is four units in residential. Residential- 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 HOWP.RD 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 WSEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • MYNUTES 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 mith.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 dowr_ 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 ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING: January 30, 1996 Papa 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-iri 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 WHBAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT • MINUTES OF MEETING; Jaauary 30, 1996 Page 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 o~ W. 41st and Mr. Kushniroff said about 150 feet. The gate i_s 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 i-f-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 oonditions 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 applicant could run a 6 foot fence along Harlan 41st Avenue and drop down iri height to 42', and said no, it would be 55' from 41st Avenue. Mr. agreed, and added 42' within-the corner area any balance of the property. the to 30' from Mr. Gidley Gidley 3 48' for the 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 RaDGE soAxD of ADJUSTMENT • MINUTES ®F 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 Harry Kushniroff, 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 o£ 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 to 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. • • WHEAT RIDGB BOARD OF ADJIISTMSNT MINATES OF MEETIIdGa January 30, 1996 Page 11 B. Case No_ WA-96-1; An application by Rick Evans for approval of a7' side yard setback variance to the required 5° side yard setback on property zoned Residential-One and located at. 16 Hillside Drive. Sean McCartney presented the staff report. All pertinent documents were entered into record, which Chairman JUNRER accepted. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked if the ground between the proposed garage and tYie gate is flat or dowr}sloped, and Mr. McCartney replied it .gradually slopes throughout the whole. property. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked if the applicant plans on putting his boat onto the existing garage driveway, or put it right of the big spruce .,tree, and Mr. McCartney replied that might be better answered by the applicant. _ _ • Board Member ABBOTT wanted to know if there is a basement to this house, and_Mr. McCartney replied not that he knows of. No further questions were asked of staff. __ The applicant, Rick Evans, 16 Hillside Drive, was sworn in. Mr. Evans needs the variance so he can build a garage. Board Member ABBOTT asked if there.. is a basement, and Mr. Evans answered no, it is just a crawlspace used for storage. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked if he was planning to direct the driveway parallel down to the existing driveway, and Mr. Evans said yes. There is a large very nice pine tree and the applicant is donating it to the City to be re-planted in _ one of the parks if this is approved. Board Member ABBOTT questioned the gravel driveway extension, and asked if he would have to pour concrete,~and Mr. McCartney said the building code reads that staff requests a 2S foot concrete driveway from the front of the_ property from the street., No further questions were asked and no inquiries were received regarding this rez~uest. Motion was made by Board Member ABBOTT that Case No.-WA-96- 1, an application by Rick Evans, be DENIED for the following reasons: • ViHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MYNUTES OF MEETING: Jaauary 30, 1996 Page 12 1. A viable code complying location on this property would appear to be achievable. 2. Arguments by the applicant as to drainage from paved surfaces was not persuasive as engineering Solutions are achievable. 3. No below grade habitable space would be in danger by runoff from the paved surfaces. Motion was seconded by Board Member ROSSILLON.-- Motion - carried 7-0. Resolution attached. C. Cade No_ WA-96-2: An application by T. Casey and Sharon Gahan for approval of a 10` front yard setback variance to :- the required 30' front yard setback on property zoned Residential-One and located at 41 Eillside Drive. Sean McCartney presented the staff report.- All pertinent documents were entered into record, which Chairman JUNKER accepted. No questions were asked of staff at this time. • The applicant, T. Casey Gahan, 41 Hillside Drive, was sworn in. Mr. Gahan said the reasons for the request is there .is a large 40 year old tree-in the back that they do not want to Cut down, and if_they did end up building in the back the neighbors to the north would be blocked of any sunlight they have to the porch. Mr. Gahan read a letter from his neighbor saying they have no objections to his request. Board Member HOVLAND wanted to know what is that area that is in the back, and Mr. Gahan replied the living room and dining room: The covered patio is more to the south. They are wanting to expand their bath and bedroom. Board Member ABBOTT stated that the applicant has a good view of the mountains from the rear of his house, and wondered wondered since a lot of people would just enclose the patio and get their space that way, why does the applicant feel that wasn't achievable. Mr. Gahan answered the kitchen is right off of that and enclosing the patio. would only give us about approx 7' x 8' addition. Board Member HOWARD asked where are the bedrooms located in relationship to the area that you want to enlarge, and Mr. Gahan said one bedroom and the bathroom are in that group, the rest are elsewhere. TAHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • MINUTES OF MEETING: January 30, 1996 Page 13 Board Member HOWARD wanted to know how far the neighbors house is from the property line and would the tree in the front have to be removed, and Mr. Gahan answered the house is- about 12 feet maybe, and yes, the tree in the front would have to be removed. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked if their 15 foot extend out- to the tree in the front of the house, and Mrs. Gahan replied yes. He asked if the house to. the south of the applicant was added onto or is that the way it was built, and Mr. Gahan answered he does not know. Board Member HOWARD asked the applicant if he had given any thought to putting the addition on the north side, and Mr. Gahan replied-another tree would have to be removed. Board Member ABBOTT stated his concern is with the rest of the neighborhood and an addition like this would change the general look of-the neighborhood for nothing other than a convenience. Mr. McCartney said he drove-the neighborhood and their were not recent additions on the block. He also checked the case file and there were. no cases that extend • any further that this house and what currently exists. From what Mr. McCartney could tell there is good distances on those front property lines. Mr. Gahan said there is one. house. on Skyline that has had a recent addition put on and it protrudes further than any other house. Board Member HOVLAND said between the architect of the house and the slope of the property, it seems to be the most sensible place for an addition, however he is concerned about changing the setbacks. It is a very nice neighborhood and all the houses look to have the same setbacks. Mr. Gahan commented that he would of thought if it was a glaring obstruction that one of the neighbors would .have come to complain. It was noted that no other complaints were received. Staff brought in an aerial photo of the area in question. Chairman JUNKER called for a five minute recess to discuss the photo. The meeting was reconvened at 9:22.p.m. Mr. McCartney said the garage to the south ha_s_ been measured and the setback is 47 feet. No further questions were asked. WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING: January 30, 1996 Page 1~ Motion was made by Board Member ABBOTT, that Case No. WA-96- 2, an application by T. Casey and Sharon Gahan, be DENIED the following reasons: 1.. The surrounding dwellings in the neighborhood reside within the 30' front yard setbacks, The room addition to-the front of the property would appear to alter the essential quality of the neighborhood. 2. The hardship would appear to be for convenience only and not for a substantial hardship. The house currently has 5 bedrooms and 2 1/2 baths.- 3. There would appear to be no reason why the logic used to grant this variance would not apply to_any similar property therefore, create an argument for variance - request with no more hardship demonstrated than convenience. Motion was seconded by Board Member HOWARD. Motion for denial carried 5-2, with Board Members HOVLAND and ECHELMEYER voting no. D. Case No. WA-95-33: An application by Holly DeRisio for a 2' side.-yard setback variance to the required 5' side-yard setback on property zoned Residential-Two and located at 4321 Dover Street. Sean McCartney presented the staff report. All pertinent documents were entered into record, which Chairman JUNKER accepted. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked if he-measured the 7.feet- distance from the east edge to where the fence would be, and he said no, that information was given to him. Board Member HOVLAND asked staff how this was brought to attention, and Mr. McCartney it was a code complaint. The applicant, Holly DeRisio, 4321 Dover Street, was sworn in. Ms. DeRisio said she believes there was a mistake when measuring the east side of the shed from the property line, it is not 7 feet; it is 5° 7". Ms. DeRisio said she did go around and talked to some of her neighbors and not one complained about this request. She added. since the property slopes down in the back, it is-hard to-even see the shed. . WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINIITES OF MEETING: January 30, 1996 Page 15 Ms. DeRisio said the reason the shed is setting at an angle is because it then stays with the angle of-the house. If they set the shed straight it would interfere with their sprinkler system and because of the tree it would also look. funny. . Ms. DeRisio added also. a barbecue pit used to set-in the exact same place and has since been torn down, so that seemed like the logical place to set the shed. They did not get a building permit because they did not think that small of a project needed one. Board Member HOVLAND asked if the tree in the slides is-. close to the shed and Ms. DeRisio said no, the tree really doesn't, but if they moved the shed out it. would create a narrow space. They are putting the shed where-it, is is because it was the best place and they wanted to keep it in line with the house. The shed will be painted to match the brick on the house. Board Member HOVLAND asked what the floor and foundation is built on, and Ms. DeRisio answered it is built on 4° x 4°s._ that are two feet apart,- and 2 layers bf 1/2 inch, and 1 layer of 5/8 inch particle board. Board Member WALKER asked if the applicant said the sprinkler heads are in the way, and Ms. DeRisio said yes, and they would have to dig the sprinkler pipes up and route them different.` ` Board Member WALKER asked what if you were to move the shed making both corners the same distance from the property line, and Ms. DeRisio said they would still have to move some sprinkler heads and re-level the center of the shed. Board Member ABBOTT commented he feels-they should orbit their decision around the hardship. Ms. DeRisio said if they had to she guessed they could jack the entire thing up and then. re-level the whole area, and move the sprinkler heads. Ms. DeRisio said to answer the fence question, they did not bow it out, that is the way it was when they bought the property. No further questions were asked. • Motion was made by Board Member ABBOTT, that Case No. WA-95- 33, an application by Holly DeRisio, be APPROVED for the following reasons: • WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING: January 30, 1996 Page 16 1. Due to the orientation of the shed in relationship to the property line, only one corner of the structure = encroaches upon the 5 foot required setback. 2. Moving the shed southwest or rotating it would be difficult due to its floor framing and necessity of re-leveling the ground. 3. Moving the shed southwest or rotating it would require the reinstallation of sprinkler heads. 4. The complaint against the shed was anonymous, and there have been no written or verbal complaints registered against the variance by immediate neighbors. Motion was seconded by Board Member ROSSILLON. Motion carried 6-1 with Board Member HOWARD voting no. Resolution attached. - - - 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Election of Officers: Robert Walker; Chairman William Echelmeyer, Vice Chairman 7. NEW BUSYNESS A. Discussions of the following: 1. Case No. TUP-95-8/PERROTTI _ 2. Changing address/process. - 3. Case No, WA-95-3-6/KUSHNIROFF. -- 4. Study Session 5. Pot-bellied pig/ordinance.-- 6. Case No. TUP-95-7/DOLPHEIDE - 7. After the fact applications/Recommendation to add a double fee to the building permit when applicable... 8. Billboards/amortization B. Approval of Minutes:. Motion was made by Board Member HOWARD, seconded by Board Member HOVLAND, that the minutes of December 14, 1995, be approved as printed. Motion carried. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by Board Member WALKER, seconded by Board Member ROSSILLON, that the meeting be adjourned. Meeting adjourned at 10:36 p.m. Mary`Loapla, Secret ry~