Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/28/1996 W H E A T R I D G E B OAR D O F A D J U S T M E N T MlivurnS OF MEETING March 28, 1996 1. CALL T8E MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairman WALKER at 7:35 P.M. on March 28, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Echelmeyer Robert Howard Susan Junker Edwin Rossillon Robert Walker MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Tom Abbott Paul Hovland Meredith Reckert, Planner Mary Lou Chapla, Secretary PIIBLIC SEARING The following is the official set of Board of Adjustment minutes for the Public Hearing of March 28, 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 RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • MINUTES OF MEETING: March 28, 1996 Page 2 2. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA Motion was made Board Member HOWARD, seconded by Board Member JUNKER, to approve the order of the agenda as printed. Motion carried. 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. Vase No_ WA-96-6: An application by James Meadows for approval of a 4' side yard setback variance to the required 5' side yard setback for a detached garage on property zoned Residential-Two and located at 6540 W. 32nd Avenue. Meredith Reckert presented the staff report. All pertinent documents were entered into record, which Chairman WALKER accepted. Ms. Reckert also entered into record three photos • (per the applicant) of the property in question. Photos were labeled Exhibit 'A'. Board Member ECHELMEYER corrected the staff report saying there is a window on the west end of the garage that faces the property. He could not see what the problem is with the Cottonwood trees, as they are all out front, and Ms. Reckert said she would rather let the applicant speak on that. Board Member HOWARD asked if it has been determined as to whether that concrete slab is built to code to support a two-car garage on that site, and Ms. Reckert answered to her knowledge that has not been asked of the building department, but she believes they would not issue a permit until they had some certification stating such. Chairman WALKER asked if the new garage is going to be adjacent to the existing garage, Ms. Reckert answered she believes it will be offset. Board Member ROSSILLON said since the applicant wants to build this garage one foot from the property line, would that be the wall or the overhang. Ms. Reckert answered technically, an encroachment of 30 inches is allowed with the eave, but the Board could place a condition on the approval because of the drainage concern. Staff allows an eave overhang of 30 inches into a setback line and even with a variance, the setback is measured to the foundation wall. WHEAT RIDGE 80ARD OF ADJIISTMENT Ma.aruaES OF MEETING: March 28, 1996 Page 3 She said there could be an encroachment of the eave line unless the board makes a condition that not occur. Board Member ROSSILLON said with a 30" overhang, the eave line would then stick 18" into Mr. Jones' neighbor's yard and that cannot be done. No further questions were asked of staff at-this time. The applicant, Jill Meadows, owner of the. property, was sworn in. She introduced her stepfather, Ray Marcouillier, who is the contractor and would present the case. Ray Marcouillier was sworn in. He said the purpose of using the existing foundation is limiting the cost of having to tear it out and redo it. On the west side there are utility guide wires, telephone box and cable, etc, which would all have to be moved if they put a driveway there. At the rear of the yard is a Cottonwood tree that would have to come down and that would be an additional expense because it is in the center where the garage would be located; so basically there are problems on either side of the house. Addressing the overhang on the eaves question-- they plan to use a simple rakeboard on the siding and there would not be any eaves. It would basically be a gabled roof with just a flat freeze board about 3/4 of an inch past the foundation. They plan to use the underground drainage because at the middle of the house the lot slopes away and they want to run piping in so it will drain to the center of their yard, plus both gutters will drain toward the center of this property. Their survey shows the existing foundation is inside the property line. Mr. Marcouillier said there are three homes in the area that have similar setbacks with less than 5' from the property lines and two are attached garages. They have plans of using Tibbets Engineering to determine its suitability to meet the codes of Wheat Ridge. The foundation has an 8" wall and was dug down 3 feet past the frost line. Chairman WALKER asked what size would the garage be, and Mr. Marcouillier replied 20' wide and 22' deep. That size of garage would support two vehicles. Board Member ECHELMEYER questioned the tree difficulty on the present slab and Mr. Marcouillier answered there is no tree problem. WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT MIND'TES OF MEETING: March 28, 1996 Page 4 Board Member ECHELMEYER asked how far would it be to the peak of this roof, and Mr. Marcouillier answered roughly 13 feet. Mr. Marcouillier said they talked with the neighbors on the south and there does not seem to be any objections mainly because these particular neighbors have a utility shed in their site anyway. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked if the applicant has ever considered a carport with a shallow roof that slopes to the east, and Mr. Marcouillier answered no because the neighbors did not object to these plans. Board Member HOWARD wanted to know the width of the driveway, and Mr. Marcouillier said it is 15' from the side of the house to the property line and the outside edge of the slab is approximately 4.6 inches. The driveway will be 6 inches in. Board Member HOWARD asked how close will the garage be to the house, and Mr. Marcouillier answered it will be about 8' • back from the house. Board Member ECHELMEYER said if the applicant was to put the structure with the required 5' setback it looked to him that there is room for 3 cars on a diagonal, and Mr. Marcouillier said the purpose-is to try and .use the existing slab and foundation as it would be a hardship and expense to rip it out and replace it. Ms. Meadows added the third vehicle was only there to unload new vinyl tile, and normally they do not park 3 cars there because it is hard to get the second car out. Board Member ROSSILLON asked if there is side, and Mr. Marcouillier answered they that goes back about 4 feet. He stepped would be the same as the foundation. He talk to the engineering firm to discuss walls together. a wall on the west have a partial wall it down so the slab said he needs to iow they tie the two Board Member ROSSILLON asked staff if they knew what an engineering firm requires for a foundation for a garage such as this, and Ms. Reckert said she could not answer that, however staff does require that the certification be stamped by a licensed engineer. Chairman WALKER said as a point of order, if there are any problems with this foundation, it would be with the process as they applied for the permit and has nothing to do with WSEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Mi~v~~aS OF MEETING: March 28, 1996 Page 5 what this committee approves. It would not conceivably create the situation where they'd have to have their footer go out over the property line to support this thing, and Ms. Reckert agreed. No further questions were asked. Motion was made by Board Member ROSSILLON, that Case No. WA- 96-6, an application by James Meadows, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. The Board finds that based upon all evidence presented and based upon the Board's conclusions relative to the nine specific questions to justify the variance, the evidence and facts in this case do support the granting of this request. 2. There is unfavorable topography of the lot which precludes the viable alternative. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant will have a qualified engineer certify that the foundation is adequate. 2. The drainage cannot flow to the adjacent property. Motion seconded by Board Member JUNKER. Motion carried 4-1 with Board Member ECHELMEYER voting no. Resolution attached. B. Case No. WA-96-7: An application by Anthony Kelly for approval of a 9' side yard setback variance to the required 15' side yard setback to allow a 12' x 18' shed on property zoned Residential-One and located at 2981 Teller Street. Meredith Reckert presented the staff report. All pertinent documents were entered into record, which Chairman WALKER accepted. Board Member ROSSILLON wanted to know what trees are causing a problem, and Ms. Reckert replied she believes they are referring to the two pine trees on the property. No further questions were asked of staff. The applicant, Roseanna Kelly, 2981 Teller Street, was sworn in. Ms. Kelly said her husband came to the City and asked and was given the wrong zoning regulations. He was given the Residential-Two regulations and the excavating that he • did was well within those regs. WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT MiavuiaS OF MEETING: March 28, 1996 Page 6 If they were to move the shed in 15' they would have to remove the smaller pine tree. They wanted to keep the shed off the yard as much as possible because they really like having the wide open yard and sacrificed by buying a smaller dwelling because they love the larger yard. Board Member ECHELMEYER stated in looking at the site he did not see any impact on the trees even if_they moved the shed out, and Ms. Kelley replied it definitely does, but you probably would have to see it from the yard because it is hard to tell from the angle on the picture. Board Member ECHELMEYER said he does think the proposed shed is in the nicest spot it can be because it would be shielded by the trees on the east and the fence and unit to the west of it. Board Member ROSSILLON questioned why couldn't the 12' x 18' shed be turned 90 degrees making the shed 18' x 12' and staying within the setback. Ms. Reckert commented that when Mr. Kelley applied they had talked about that, but it would create a worse problem with the tree. Board Member ROSSILLON said he feels there may be an alternative. Ms. Reckert said it would have been helpful if the trees were • shown on the plan. Tt was noted there were no complaints received. No further questions were asked. Motion was made by Board Member ROSSILLON that Case No. WA- 96-7, an application by Anthony Kelly, be DENIED for the following reasons: 1. The Board finds that based upon all evidence presented and based upon the Board's conclusions relative to the nine specific questions to justify the variance, the evidence and facts in this case do not support the granting of this request. 2. There appears to be an alternative location. Motion seconded by Board Member HOWARD. Motion for denial carried 4-1 with Board Member ECHELMEYER voting no. Resolution attached. C. Case No. WA-96-8; An application by Wayne and Alice Hinkle for the approval of a 10' rear yard setback variance to the 30' required rear yard setback for property zoned Residential-Two and located at 3420 Garland Street. Meredith Reckert presented the staff report. All pertinent documents were entered into record, which Chairman WALKER accepted. NHEAT RIDGE 8OARD OF ADJUSTMENT . MiavviES OF MEETING: March 28, 1996 Page 7 Board Member ECHELMEYER questioned what is the brick structure to the north, and Ms. Reckert replied she believes it is owned by Public Service but she does not know what it is used for. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked how long has the structure been there, and Ms. Reckert said she does not know for sure, but quite awhile. Chairman WALKER added he thinks it is a pump house. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked if that structure would still have to meet residential setbacks, and Ms. Reckert answered yes, staff would consider that an accessory structure which would still have to meet the 30' setback if it were to be built today. Board Member ECHELMEYER said it seems along Garrison Street if they dropped the code that the applicants would be the whole west side of the street and saying there was a specific 15' setba~ 1992 in the area. to him when going back 30 feet and fit the exception along Ms. Reckert agreed ~k variance granted in • No further questions were asked of staff. The applicant, Wayne Scott Hinkle, 3420 Garland Street,was sworn in. Mr. Hinkle said out of 16 properties in the area, there are 9 garages that are 16' back, 2 garages that are on- the property line, 2 garages that are 5' back, 1 garage is about 12' back, one 12 1/2', and one 14' back, so basically no body is within the code as it is now. What he wants to do is have the front of his garage even with everyone else. The applicants liked the big lot and had this planned out and they talked to Sean McCartney about building the garage but never got into the setbacks because they naturally assumed they could do what everybody did. Also, if they went 30' back they would be in the root system of one of their trees. Mr. Hinkle said they would like to save as much yard as possible as they do have a dog and a little girl. No questions were asked of the applicant. Motion was made by Board Member ROSSILLON, that Case No. WA- 96-8, an application by Wayne Hinkle, is APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. The Board finds that based upon all evidence presented • and based upon the Board's conclusions relative to the WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • MINUTES OF MEETING: March 28, 1996 Page 8 nine specific questions to justify the variance, the evidence and facts in this case do support the granting of this request. 2. The owner has a unique circumstance as this is a double frontage lot. 3. There are several lots with similar setbacks. Motion was seconded by Board Member ECHELMEYER. Motion carried 5-0. Resolution attached. D. ease No. WA-96-9: An application by Abe and Debra Jones for approval of a 22' variance to the 30' side yard setback next to the street on property zoned Residential-Two and located at 8521 W. 32nd Avenue. Meredith Reckert presented the staff report. All pertinent documents were entered into record, which Chairman WALKER accepted. Ms. Reckert noted there were 3 letters of objection that were handed out to each member. Board Member ECHELMEYER said on the back of the existing garage there is a large flat roofed addition that extends . almost to the neighbor's fence, and asked how long has that addition been on, and Ms. Reckert answered she does not know but the applicant can probably answer that. The drawing that was submitted shows an existing 5' rear setback which is assumed it is to the edge of the back of the garage. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked if there was any kind of variance given for the existing shed, and Ms. Reckert said no there was not, and according to what they have submitted it was there since 1971. Today that would be non-conforming relative to the code unless the variance were granted. Board Member ROSSILLON said the existing shed is quite a bit smaller than what is being proposed, and Ms. Reckert replied yes, the previous shed was 8' x 14' and they are proposing a 14' x 20' shed. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked if there were any of the people present that wrote the letters of protest, and Ms. Reckert said she does not know. No further questions were asked of staff. The applicant, Abe Jones, 8521 W. 32nd Avenue, was sworn in. Mr. Jones said their shed was destroyed this fall. with the snow storm and the proposed shed would be approximately in • the same spot. WSEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MuvuaaS OF MEETING: March 28, 1996 Pa3e 9 He would like to have the shed 14` x 28'. There would be 8' walls with a 4/12 pitch, gabled roof. The highest point will be the same height as the gutters are on the side of the existing garage. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked if the shed would have to be butted up against the garage, and Mr. Jones answered no, they can be within 1 lj2 foot from the garage. That would allow him to get in between and clean up the leaves and branches. Mr. Jones said the siding will match the one on the house now. Ms. Reckert noted to have that small separation, it would require the windows to be boarded up. Mr. Jones said the windows have been boarded up on the inside since the 70's. Board Member ECHELMEYER questioned if the 4 1/2' roof peak would be higher than the existing garage, and Mr. Jones said he has figured it to be only a 2' peak. Board Member ECHELMEYER said the drawing shows the distance of the top of the garage door to the top of the peak is equal to lJ2 the height of the total garage. Mr. Jones said he figured out a 4/12 pitch would approximately be 24" in height. The • drawing was done on computer and they were not sure if it was to scale. Board Member ECHELMEYER said regardless, what the applicant has submitted is what would be approved as the size of the garage. Ms. Reckert added a maximum height condition could be put on this for approval. Mr. Jones said his plans are to have 8' walls with a 2' Beak. The measurement of the garage right now from the ground to the eaves is about 9'11", so it will be 4 or 5 inches higher than the existing eaves of the garage right now. No further questions were asked of the applicant. Chairman WALKER asked if an owner were to rebuild that present structure where the roof was crushed in from the snow, would they need a permit and have to go through this same process. Ms. Reckert said the existing shed is non- conforming because of the non-conforming setback and i.f the applicant repaired it in place he would not have to do anything, however, i£ he would tear it down and rebuild it in the same place, he would. Board Member ROSSILLON asked what is the size limit for an • ancillary building, and Ms. Reckert said the maximum for a shed is 400 square feet which they are almost at that now. WHEAT RIDGE 8OARD OF ADJUSTMENT • M.aav~aaS OF MEETING: March 28, 1996 Page 10 Board Member ECHELMEYER commented there is a big difference if an applicant has a shed 100 feet off the main street and in the backyard with nice evergreens around it and only off maybe 5' from the code than a place that is sitting out like this house right off of a large intersection and moving into an area of attractive homes where people keep their properties up. There is no evidence here that this will help that neighborhood in any way. Board Member ECHELMEYER feels the neighborhoods in Wheat Ridge will continue being tore down until some of these existing ordinances are enforced. The neighbors that complained about this property say the problems have been there for a long time. If the applicant cannot correct the problems now, what will he do if he just keeps expanding off of a residential street. Motion was made by Board Member ROSSILLON that Case No. WA- 96-9, an application by Abe and Debra Jones, be DENIED for the following reasons: • 1. The Board finds that based upon all evidence presented and based upon the Board's conclusions relative to the nine specific questions to justify the variance, the evidence and facts in this case do not support the granting of this request. 2. The variance will be detrimental to the neighborhood. Motion was seconded by Board Member JUNRER. Motion carried 5-0. Resolution attached. 4. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Board Member ECHELMEYER talked on the gradual break down of residential areas. Discussion followed. B. Discussion on motions. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes: February 22, 1996 Motion was made to approve the minutes of February 22, 1996 and carried 5-0. 7. ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by Board Member ROSSILLON, and seconded by Board Member HOWARD, that the meeting be adjourned. Meeting adjourned 9:20 p.m. Mari o Chapla, Sec etary • B O A R D O F A D J U S T M E N T PUBLIC FORUM ROSTER - March 28, 1996 - THIS IS THE TIME FOR ANYONE TO SPEAK ON ANY SUBJECT NOT APPEARING UNDER ITEM 3 OF THE PUBLIC HEARING SECTION OF THE AGENDA. Name and Address Please Print , __. ...~. •