Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/13/2006 ORIGINAL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting December 13,2006 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chair BELL at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers ofthe Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Board Members Present: Tom Abbott Janet Bell Bob Blair Paul Hovland Bob Howard Larry Linker Board Members Absent: Paul Drda Davis Reinhart Staff Members Present: Meredith Reckert, Sr. Planner Travis Crane, Planner II Adam Tietz, Planner I Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary 3. PUBLIC FORUM Randall Sampson Mr. Sampson is a senior assistant city attorney for the City of Arvada as well as a graduate student at the University of Colorado at Denver. He has been attending Board of Adjustment meetings in the metropolitan area over the past nine months as a part of his work on a masters degree. His thesis concerns boards of adjustment. He asked if any members of the Board would be willing to be interviewed as a part of his project. Tom Abbott and Bob Blair volunteered to be interviewed. Chair BELL requested a copy ofMr. Sampson's thesis when it is completed. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS Prior to presentation of cases, all individuals who wished to testifY during the hearings stood and were sworn in by Chair Bell. Board of Adjustment December 13, 2006 - 1 - A. Case No. W A-06-16 (continued from October 26, 2006): An application filed by Jason Timmes for approval ofa I5-foot I-inch front yard setback variance from the 30-foot front yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in a I4-foot II-inch front yard setback for property zoned Residential-Two and located at 4675 Lamar Street. The case was presented by Travis Crane. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. He entered Exhibit 6 into the record which was a letter of support from Andy Cameron at 4675 Lamar Street. Staff recommended approval of the request for reasons outlined in the staff report. Jason Timmes Mr. Timmes, the applicant, stated his purpose in requesting the variance is to enlarge his house in order to remain there to raise his family in Wheat Ridge. He commented that he has recently joined Wheat Ridge 2020. Regarding the third bay of the garage, he stated there is an additional I-foot 8-1/2 inches difference from a flush design. In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. Timmes explained that he wanted the extra foot and 8 inches in order to make the structure more aesthetically pleasing. He is also trying to preserve as much of his back yard as possible since his house is located on a comer with 30-foot setbacks from two streets. He stated that he hasn't decided whether he will remove the tree in the front yard. Rhonda Champion Ms. Champion referred to a comment made at the previous hearing on this matter that the variance would fit with the goals of Wheat Ridge 2020. She commented that the vast majority of homes in this area are one-story, two-bedroom, one-bath homes. If others decide to alter their homes as the applicant wishes to do, it will significantly change the character of the neighborhood. She believed the variance was for a side yard setback, not a front yard setback. She was concerned that inconsistent setbacks would interfere with delivery of mail, hinder police efforts to patrol the neighborhood, and could affect Xcel Energy's easement. She believed the applicants could achieve all oftheir goals without a variance. She asked the Board not to approve the variance in order to accommodate a design. There were no other individuals present who wished to address the case, therefore Chair BELL closed public testimony on this case. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member BLAIR the following resolution was stated: Board of Adjustment December 13, 2006 - 2 - Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A-06-16 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law, and in recognition that there was one protest 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 Case No. WA-06-16 be and hereby is approved. For the following reasons: 1. The request will not negatively change the character of the locality. Many adjacent properties have main or secondary buildings which do not meet the required 30-foot setback when adjacent to right-of-way. 2. While the hardship can be perceived as being self-imposed, the presence of right-of-way on two property frontages severely impacts design alternatives for an addition to the existing structure on a corner lot. 3. The request would not be detrimental to the public welfare. The request would not impair the adequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties. 4. No height variance is being requested therefore minimizing the possible bulk plane appearance. S. Petitions in favor were submitted by eight adjacent neighbors and staff recommended approval. 6. By turning the garage on its vertical axis, it allows minimal side setback encroachment while maintaining functionality of the structure and driveway parking and provides an interesting design element. 7. Improvements are in concert with concepts outlined in the Neighborhood Revitalization Study. The motion carried 6-0. B. Case No. W A-06-17: An application filed by Robert Christensen for approval of a 13,650 square foot variance to the one-acre minimum to allow expansion of a cattery on property zoned Agricultural-Two and located at 4300 Wright Street. Board of Adjustment December 13, 2006 - 3 - Chair BELL announced that this case had been withdrawn. Meredith Reckert reported that the applicant needs a multiple-request approval that will include the variance and require a hearing before city council. She informed members ofthe public that this will involve a neighborhood meeting at some time in the future. C. Case No. W A-06-18: An application filed by Sherri Leggett and Julie Peters for approval of a fence height variance to allow a fence which is 7 feet 9 inches tall at its highest point for property zoned Residential-One and located at 14 Twilight Drive. The case was presented by Travis Crane. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staffrecommended approval for reasons outlined in the staff report. One letter of obj ection was received from a nearby neighbor. Board Member LINKER referred to the applicants' letter that stated they were not advised they could not build a fence of this height. Travis Crane stated that a permit was granted for a 6-foot fence. The detail of the fence did not show any extension nor did it show a cantilever design. It was after construction, that the height of the fence was brought to staffs attention through a citizen complaint. Sherri Leggett Julie Peters Ms. Leggett stated that because the fence company received a permit from the city, they believed the fence was legal. It wasn't until after the fence was installed that the city called and said it was not consistent with city code. She stated that much research went into finding an attractive fence that would meet their needs of keeping their cats inside the yard and keeping foxes and coyotes from entering the yard. She stated that cats have the ability to jump a 6- foot fence unless there is some type of barrier at the top ofthe fence. She stated that she and Ms. Peters also take care of foster cats, but these cats are not allowed outside the house. Board member ABBOTT asked how much of the fence was over 6 feet. Ms. Leggett explained that the fence was 7 feet on the west side and a portion of the fence on the east side is 7 feet 9 inches. Board Member ABBOTT questioned the need for a fence ofthis height and suggested that a 5 foot fence with a barrier would work as well. Ms. Leggett stated that cats could easily jump a 5 or 6 foot tall fence. Chair BELL commented that the fence is nicely done with a very open appearance as opposed to a solid fence. She drove by the property of the person who wrote a letter of obj ection and could not see that the fence was visible from that person's property. Board of Adjustment December 13, 2006 -4- Board Member BLAIR agreed that the open fence was more attractive than a solid fence. Board Member HOVLAND commented that the fence is very open and maintains the integrity of the area. Board Member HOWARD agreed that the fence was attractive, fits well into the neighborhood, and is probably the best kind of fence to accommodate the applicants' situation. Dan Brennan Mr. Brennan lives directly across the street from the applicant. While he agreed that the fence was open, he obj ected to the angled extension on the fence that gives the appearance of a compound or detention area. He stated that he was the citizen who made a phone call to the city to find out whether or not the fence met code. He apologized to the applicant and stated that he didn't intend for the matter to end up before the Board of Adjustment. However he thought there would be other creative ways to meet their needs. Alex Tanner Mr. Tanner's property borders the east side of the subject property. He spoke in support of the applicant's fence. He appreciated the fact that the fence is open and not a solid fence and he understands the need for it. He stated that he has known Ms. Leggett and Ms. Peters for 21 years and they have been excellent neighbors. Board Member ABBOTT commented that he had difficulty finding a hardship. He asked if the applicants had spoken with their neighbors regarding the fence. Ms. Leggett stated that two adjacent neighbors (to the east and west across the street) indicated their support ofthe fence. In response to a question from Chair BELL, Ms. Leggett explained that volunteering to shelter foster cats was not a function ofliving in the house. The fence functions to keep foxes and coyotes out and also serves as a security fence. There were no other individuals present who wished to address the case, therefore Chair BELL closed public testimony on this case. Upon a motion by Board Member BLAIR and second by Board Member HOWARD the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A-06-18 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Board of Adjustment December 13, 2006 - 5 - Whereas the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law, and in recognition that there were two protests registered against it and support from neighbors was also forthcoming; 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 Case No. W A-06-18 be, and hereby is approved. For the following reasons: 1. The style of fence is physically less imposing than a solid fence, thereby decreasing impact to the surrounding area by maintaining an open appearance. 2. The applicants' desire to keep cats within their yard and keep wildlife out should be enhanced by this fence with its angled extension. 3. The request should not have negative impact on the neighborhood nor change the character of the existing neighborhood. 4. The fence is located in the back yard and obscured by mature trees so that most of the fence is barely visible from the street. 5. Staff recommended approval. Motion passed 5-1 with Board Member ABBOTT voting no. (The meeting was recessed from 8:25 to 8:36 p.m.) D. Case No. W A-06-19: An application filed by Mansour Fotovat for Gas Plus for approval of (A) a sign height variance of 7 feet and (B) sign setback variances for up to 5 feet to allow a freestanding sign on property zoned Commercial-One and located at 6595 West 44th Avenue. The case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval for reasons, and with conditions, as outlined in the staff report. Board Member ABBOTT asked if the City Council sign committee decisions had any impact on this case. Meredith Reckert replied that those decisions would not have any impact. She further explained that a variance would override any future city council decisions regarding signs. In response to questions from Board Member HOWARD, Meredith Reckert stated that staff did not believe there was a sight triangle issue at Newland and Board of Adjustment December 13, 2006 - 6 - 44th She further stated that the hardship is partly economic but the fact that the sign code was changed without requiring an amortization period for non- conforming signs is also a hardship. Board Member LINKER commented that prospective buyers should research these types of sign situations before purchasing a property. Mansour Fotovat Mr. Fotovat, the applicant, stated he was requesting the variance because his sign is not visible from the street and it has been difficult to compete with Diamond Shamrock across the street. He stated he has spent a lot of money to improve the property but needs the variance to provide more sign visibility for his business. He entered photographs of the sign situation into the record. In response to a question from Board Member LINKER, Mr. Fotovat stated that the sign is not visible from either the east or west and therefore needs to be moved closer to 44th Avenue. There are also trees on another property to the east that block the existing sign. He further stated that he would be owner/operator of the business. Board Member HOWARD asked about the vacant portion of the building. Mr. Fotovat explained that this portion of the building would either be used for expansion ofthe convenience store or rented out to another business. Board Member HOWARD advised the applicant that any tenants of that portion ofthe building would not be allowed to have their own freestanding sign for their business. There were no other individuals present who wished to address the case, therefore Chair BELL closed public testimony on this case. Upon a motion by Board Member HOVLAND and second by Board Member BLAIR the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A-06-19(A) is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law, and in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Board of Adjustment December 13, 2006 - 7 - Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Case No. W A-06- 19(A) be, and hereby is approved. For the following reasons: 1. There are unique circumstances based on other signs in the area which have nonconforming sign heights. 2. The City of Wheat Ridge may have created a hardship when the permitted sign height was modified and no amortization of nonconforming signs was required. 3. There will be no negative impact on the character of the area as there are several other nonconforming signs in the area. 4. The variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties or improvements in the neighborhood. 5. The sign height variance would not impact the adequate supply of air and light to adjacent properties, would not increase the chance of fire or endanger the public welfare. With the following conditions: 1. The sign be permitted up to 120 square feet in size. 2. Only one freestanding sign shall be allowed on the property and the other sign pole with blank sign face on the eastern property line be removed. 3. The sign be designed with an engineered foundation and be built to withstand a 110 mph, 3-second wind gust. Board Member HOWARD offered the following friendly amendment: That the variance be amended to read: "A sign height variance of 7 feet with an overall height of 22 feet." The amendment was accepted by Board Members HOVLAND and BLAIR. The motion passed 6-0. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member HOVLAND, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A-06-19(B) is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law, and in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; and Board of Adjustment December 13, 2006 - 8 - 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 Case No. W A-06- 19(B) be, and hereby is, approved. For the following reasons: 1. There are unique circumstances based on other signs in the area which have nonconforming setbacks. The hardship is created at the current location by severe shielding of visibility caused by older signage on adjacent properties. 2. There will be no negative impact on the character ofthe area. 3. The variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties or improvements in the neighborhood. 4. The sign setback variance will not impact the adequate supply ofIight and air to adjacent properties, will not increase the chance of fire or endanger the public welfare. 5. The variance was recommended for approval by staff. With the following condition: 1. No sight triangle obstruction will be created. The motion passed 5-1 with LINKER voting no. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair BELL closed the public hearing. 6. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member BLAIR to approve the minutes of October 26, 2006 as presented. The motion passed unanimously. B. Chair BELL discussed the invitation for Board Members to participate in the Citizens Planning Academy. Board Member ABBOTT explained that the Academy is being sponsored by Wheat Ridge 2020. C. Meredith Reckert informed the Board that Adam Tietz has recently been hired as a Planner 1. Board of Adjustment December 13, 2006 - 9- D. Board Member ABBOTT discussed the sign task force and stated the he would like to see design standards addressed in the sign code. 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:46 p.m. J~~ /) y:; . U~~~ Ann Lazzeri, Recording ecretary Board of Adjustment December 13, 2006 - 10 - PUBLIC HEARING ROSTER CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT December 13, 2006 Please sign this roster if you wish to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda. (Public comment may be limited to three minutes) Name Address