Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/27/2003 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting March 27, 2003 ORIGINAL (The regular meeting was preceded by a dinner and training session at 6:00 p.m. in the second floor conference room of the municipal building.) 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair DRDA at 7:38 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Tom Abbott Bob Blair Paul Drda Bill Echelmeyer Paul Hovland Bob Howard Ellen Rollins Larry Schulz Staff Present: Meredith Reckert, Sr. Planner Travis Crane, Planner Mike Pesicka, Planning Technician Ann Lazzeri, Secretary The following is the official set of Board of Adjustment minutes for the Public Hearing of March 27,2003. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Community Development Department ofthe City of Wheat Ridge. 3. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one signed up to speak. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. W A-03-04: An application filed by Vance and Diane Kolesar for approval of a 3.5 foot rear yard setback variance from the 5 foot rear yard setback requirement resulting in a 1.5 foot rear yard setback for property zoned Residential-One A and located at 11626 West 37th Place. The case was presented by Mike Pesicka. 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 ofthe application for reasons outlined in the staff report. Board of Adjustment 03/27/03 Page 1 In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Mr. Pesicka explained that the original shed was erected before Wheat Ridge ordinances were in effect and could therefore have remained in perpetuity. However, since the applicant is replacing the shed, setback requirements must be met for the new structure. Vance Kolesar 11626 West 37th Place Mr. Kolesar, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He submitted a set of photographs for review by the Board. In addition, he submitted a letter signed by Vance and Diane Kolesar explaining their need for a variance. Attached to this letter was a petition containing signatures of six neighbors who indicated their support for the variance. He stated that he had applied for a permit based upon incorrect information given to him by an acquaintance who told him there was no need for permit since the shed was under 120 square feet. Due to the configuration of his yard, he stated there was no other feasible location for the shed and, further, there are many other sheds in his neighborhood that are built very close to the property line. Mike Kashefska 3723 Simms Street Mr. Kashefska, a neighbor of the applicant, was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He spoke in favor of the application. Board Member ECHELMEYER stated that there are nine other homes in Mr. Kolesar's neighborhood that have sheds built very close to the property line. In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. Pesicka explained that a locate permit is required for structures under 120 square feet in size. There is no charge for this type of permit. Board Member HOVLAND stated that he believed the applicant had demonstrated a hardship and there would be no detrimental effect on the neighbors if the application were granted. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT 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-03-04 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; Board of Adjustment 03/27/03 Page 2 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- 03-04 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. Type of Variance: A 3.5 foot rear yard setback variance from the 5 foot rear yard setback requirement resulting in a 1.5 foot rear yard setback for property zoned Residential-One A and located at 11626 West 37th Place. For the following reasons: 1. The lot in question is a corner lot without significant depth. This setback requirement renders approximately 5,610 square feet of the property as unusable. The applicant has stated and shown to the Board significant areas of landscaping and hardscaping that would have to be removed or altered if the shed were to be placed elsewhere on the property. 2. Granting the request will not alter the essential character of the locality. 3. The request will not impair the adequate supply of light and air to neighbors. 4. Granting the request will not increase congestion in public streets, nor increase the danger of fire. 5. A previous shed had existed in this location. 6. A petition was submitted by the applicant signed by six neighbors in approval of this variance. 7. The shed directly abuts a 6-foot solid wood fence. Board Member ROLLINS offered a friendly amendment to add a condition that would allow the variance to be in effect only for this property owner and not be allowed to transfer with the property in attempt to rectify the setback problem in the future. Board Member SCHULZ commented that it is unlikely the dimensions of the house or location of the fence would change in the future and, further, these types of sheds are common to the neighborhood. Board Member ABBOTT declined the friendly amendment and expressed concern that a new property owner would be required to come in for a variance on an existing shed. The motion carried 8-0. Chair DRDA advised the applicant that his request for variance had been approved. Board of Adjustment 03/27/03 Page 3 B. Case No. W A-03-06: An application filed by Chris Whiteman for approval of a variance to the fence height standard in the minimum front yard setback for property zoned Agricultural-One and located at 4745 Parfet Street. The case was presented by Mike Pesicka. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the staffreport and digital presentation. Staffrecommended denial of the application for reasons outlined in the staff report. Chris Whiteman 4745 Parfet Mr. Whiteman, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He submitted copies of a letter from a neighbor, Karin Heine, 4650 Parfet, supporting the application. He also submitted a petition signed by neighbors who were in favor of the application provided improvements are made to the fence. He stated that he plans to make improvements to the fence if his application is approved. He stated the existing 6-foot chain link fence affords more security to his property and safety in preventing children from coming onto his property. He stated it is easier for children to get over a 4-foot fence than a 6-foot fence. He stated that he had a contract with PCL Construction which allowed the fence to be built for storage of equipment on his property during a time of highway improvements. However, the contract did not address disposition of the fence once the equipment was removed. In answer to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. Whiteman stated that he boards and raises horses in addition to growing hay on the property. The six-foot fence has prevented theft of hay stored on the property. Chair DRDA asked if there were others present who wished to address this matter. There was no response. Board Member ECHELMEYER stated that he would prefer to see the fence remain ifthe applicant will make appropriate improvements. The fence would be beneficial to the agricultural use ofthe property. Board Member ABBOTT commented that he would prefer the applicant come back with a plan to install a new 6- foot fence rather than allowing a temporary construction fence which is not in good condition to remain. The fence could remain as long as zoning did not change. He stated that he would not object to existing materials being used to construct the new fence. Board Member ABBOTT asked if there were any problems with sight triangles in relation to the fence or the gates. Mr. Pesicka replied that it was determined there was no safety issue with sight triangles. Board of Adjustment 03/27/03 Page 4 In response to a question from Board Member ECHELMEYER, the applicant explained that he uses the gates as access for semi's to deliver hay to his property. Board Member HOWARD asked the applicant if he had considered moving the fence back thirty feet from the front right-of-way in which case a variance would not be necessary. Mr. Whiteman replied that he had considered it, but moving the fence would result in thirty feet of unusable property. In response to a question from Board Member SCHULZ, Mr. Whiteman stated that he would agree to redo the fence according to city regulations, resetting the poles and placing pipe on the top of the chain link fence. Upon a motion by Board Member SCHULZ 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-03-06 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; 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. W A- 03-06 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. Type of Variance: A variance to the fence height standard in the minimum front yard setback for property zoned Agricultural-One and located at 4745 Parfet Street. For the following reasons: 1. Due to the intense agricultural use ofthe property, the demonstrated need for security, the 6-foot fence is justified and does not present a hazard or detriment to the city for reasons of safety or appearance, provided the fence is in good appearance. Board Member ABBOTT offered a friendly amendment to add conditions as follow: 1. The current fence must be removed and reconstructed as is necessary to place construction of fence in complete compliance with city building code Board of Adjustment 03/27/03 Page 5 requirements. 2. This variance will run with the current zoning and with the current improved width of Parfet Street. This amendment was accepted by Board Members SCHULZ and BLAIR. Board Member HOVLAND offered a friendly amendment to add another condition as follows: 3. The fence and gates must be in compliance with sight distance triangles. This amendment was accepted by Board Members SCHULZ and BLAIR. Board Member HOWARD stated he would vote against the motion because no hardship had been demonstrated. The applicant could build a 6-foot fence with a 30-foot setback without need for a variance. Chair DRDA reminded those present that a super majority vote of six affirmative votes was required for passage of the motion. The motion failed 5-3 with Board Members DRDA, HOWARD and ROLLINS voting no. Chair DRDA advised the applicant that his request was denied. C. Case No. WA-03-07: An application filed by A-I Pattern for approval of an increase of non-living landscaping, not to exceed 50%, as described in Section 26- 502 (Landscape Requirements) for property zoned Industrial and located at 4860 Van Gordon 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. Staff recommended approval of the application for reasons outlined in the staff report. Meredith Reckert informed the Board that the City of Wheat Ridge as well as several other Colorado municipalities is currently reviewing landscaping regulations in light of the drought and also in a long-term effort to conserve water. Consideration is being given to doubling the allowed amount of non-living landscaping. Steven Aberle 4860 Van Gordon Street Mr. Aberle, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He stated that his request is based upon futuristic, realistic landscaping to cut back on irrigated surfaces. His Page 6 Board of Adjustment 03/27/03 company does work for the Denver Water Board and DWB directors have indicated they will be asking cities to cut back on irrigated surfaces by fifty percent over the next five years. He explained that vegetation will eventually cover eighty or ninety percent of the rock used in the hardscaping. This vegetation is, for the most part, native to the area, requires little water and grows to a height of only two to three feet. In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. Aberle stated that the islands in the parking lot would be filled with junipers, mulch and wildflowers. Board Member ROLLINS commended the applicant for taking this proactive step in water conservation. 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-03-07 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; 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. W A- 03-07 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. Type of Variance: An increase of non-living landscaped area in an industrial zone to 36 percent of the landscaped area for property located at 4860 Van Gordon Street. For the following reasons: 1. Approval of the request would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The hardship is a byproduct of the drought. 3. The applicant is attempting to reduce the need for extensive outdoor watering. 4. Approval of this request would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the neighborhood. 5. Staff recommends approval. Page 7 Board of Adjustment 03/27/03 Board Member ABBOTT offered a friendly amendment to add the following reasons: 6. Approval of the request would contribute to the benefit of the neighborhood, the city and its citizens. 7. Plant materials have been chosen and located in a plan that is more efficiently irrigated than conventional designs. 8. Additional trees and bushes are being installed above current code requirements. The amendment was accepted by Board Members BLAIR and HOWARD. The motion passed 8-0. Chair DRDA advised the applicant his request had been approved. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair DRDA closed the public hearing. 6. OLD BUSINESS . Board Member ABBOTT requested that the city attorney prepare an explanation of abstentions in the voting process for Board of Adjustment cases. . The Board also expressed a desire to spend more time with the city attorney in a question/answer session in the near future. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member HOVLAND to approve the minutes of February 27,2003 as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 8. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member ROLLINS to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. ~:0// DRDA, Chair Board of Adjustment ~ ;r~~- Ann Lazzeri, Secretary Board of Adjustment Board of Adjustment 03/27103 Page 8