Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/22/2003 OR \G\NAl CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting May 22, 2003 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair DRDA at 7:30 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 Paul Hovland Bob Howard Larry Schulz Members Absent: Bill Echelmeyer Ellen Rollins Staff Present: Meredith Reckert, Sr. Planner Mary Austin, Planner Travis Crane, Planner Ann Lazzeri, Secretary The following is the official set of Board of Adjustment minutes for the Public Hearing of May 22, 2003. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Community Development Department of the City of Wheat Ridge. 3. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one signed up to speak. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. W A-03-10: An application filed by David and Marilyn Roll for approval of a 5-foot side yard setback variance from the 5-foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 0- foot side yard setback AND a I-foot side yard setback from the 5- foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 4- foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 4676 Upham Street. Prior to presentation of the case, Board Member HOWARD informed the board that the applicants were his sister and brother-in-law and that he had not discussed the case with them. He stated that he had no fmancial interest in the application. There was a Board of Adjustment OS/22/03 Page 1 consensus ofthe Board that there was no conflict of interest and Board Member HOWARD could hear the case. The case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She entered all pertinent documents into the record which were accepted by Chair DRDA. She advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case and reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval ofthe application for reasons outlined in the staff report. David Roll 4676 Upham Mr. Roll, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He stated that he would like to replace his existing deteriorating storage shed which requires a variance for its location. Chair DRDA asked if there were any individuals present who wished to address this case. There was no response. 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-03-10 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 ofthe regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A- 03-10 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. Type of Variance: A 5-foot side yard setback variance from the 5-foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a O-foot side yard setback and a I-foot side yard setback variance from the 5-foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 4-foot side yard setback for the purpose of locating a storage shed on property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 4676 Upham Street. For the following reasons: 1. Granting ofthe request would not alter the essential character ofthe locality. 2. The majority of the Board fmds that a hardship occurs related to the intent Board of Adjustment OS/22/03 Page 2 of the ordinance in that the lot is substandard to lot size and lot width requirements of the R-2 zone district. 3. The applicant is limited in alternative placements due to existing structural improvements and mature landscaping. 4. The request will not impair adequate supply of light and air to neighboring properties. 5. Granting of the request will not increase congestion in the public streets nor increase fire danger to adjacent properties. 6. Letters in favor of the proposed variance have been submitted by neighbors immediately adjacent. 7. Although no precedent, in the legal sense of the word, has been established, according to the city's land use atlas there have been other side yard setback variances granted in the vicinity over the years. 8. The requested side yard setback of the storage structure will be an improvement from the existing 2-foot setback of the existing storage structure. The motion passed 6-0 with Board Members ECHELMEYER and ROLLINS absent. Chair DRDA advised the applicant that his request had been approved. B. Case No. W A-03-11: An application filed by Starbucks for approval of a partial waiver of Section 26-501 (Parking Requirements) for property zoned Commercial-One (C-l) and located at 3795 Kipling Street. The case was presented by Travis Crane. He entered all pertinent documents into the record which were accepted by Chair DRDA. He advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case and reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval of the application for reasons outlined in the staff report. One letter of objection from Elaine Gendron, 10005 West 34th Avenue, was received and copies were included in the Board's packet material. He submitted copies of an e-mail (dated May 21, 2003) sent to the Community Development Department from Ken Dahlin, 10045 West 34th Avenue indicating support of the application. This e-mail was reviewed by the Board and made a part of the official record. He stated the owner of the Family Thrift Store to the south of the applicant's location verbally indicated to staff that he was opposed to the application. In reply to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Mr. Crane stated that the handicapped access aisle could not be counted toward the total number of parking spaces. Ann Quinn A.W. Dunn & Company Ms. Quinn, architect for the applicant, was sworn in by Chair DRDA. She stated that Board of Adjustment Page 3 OS/22/03 every time she visited the site, there were cars parked around the subject property. She suggested that perhaps the objections from the property owner to the south came from the fact that the property owner would lose free parking on the subject site if the application were to be approved. She submitted photographs, taken over several days, which were reviewed by the Board and made a part of the official record. In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Ms. Quinn stated it would be impossible to decrease the usable square feet in the building. Starbucks will be leasing this building and will sublet a portion ofthe building. Board Member ABBOTT pointed out that less parking would be required under this scenario than if Starbucks was utilizing the entire building for the coffee shop. Board Member HOWARD asked ifthere were plans for outside seating. Ms. Quinn stated there is only room for two or three tables set on either side of the entrance of the building. In response to a question from Board Member SCHULZ, Ms. Quinn stated that the amount of parking spaces involved in this application has been successful in other locations. Pat Petro 24069 West Shooting Star Drive, Golden Mr. Petro was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He stated that he owns the Family Thrift Store building and the entire parking lot south of the subject property. He stated that he didn't want to enter into a joint parking agreement with Starbucks because he would be responsible for maintenance, property tax, etc. on the parking area. Further, he didn't want to enter into a ten-year parking agreement. Although Starbuck's has indicated they would provide signage advising their customers not to park on his property, he objected to the fact that he would still be responsible for enforcement. Don Peterson 9945 West 34th Drive Mr. Peterson was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He lives four blocks from the subject property. He spoke in favor of the application that involves a plan to improve landscaping on an unsightly corner. He also commented that the improved landscaping plan has eliminated possible parking spaces. Board Member ABBOTT asked if compact car spaces could be utilized. Mr. Crane explained that parking spaces cannot be classified as "compact only" unless there are at least thirty spaces involved. He also explained that the architect has worked with staff on several parking scenarios. The design presented in the application is the best design to get the most parking spaces on the site. Board of Adjustment OS/22/03 Page 4 Board Member HOWARD asked if a drive-through window was planned for this facility. Mr. Crane replied that a drive-through window would involve a special use process and no such window is planned for this location. Board Member ABBOTT inquired about peak-time use for Starbucks. Ms. Quinn stated that 70% of business is done before 11 :00 a.m. and the store will open at 6:00 a.m. It is estimated that the majority ofthe beauty salon's business will occur during after-work hours between 5:00 and 8:00 p.m. Cary Plemmons Regional Director, Starbucks Mr. Plemmons was sworn in by Chair DRDA. In response to a question from Mr. Petro regarding the length of parking time for Starbuck's customer, Mr. Plemmons stated that the average customer is inside the store for about fifteen minutes. It is rare that a customer will stay in the store for an hour or more. Board Member HOVLAND asked what projections are for peak use times. Mr. Plemmons stated that 400-500 transactions (not customers) typically occur during the day. In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. Plemmons stated the store would close at 8:00 p.m. A total of fifteen employees would be hired with two to four employees working at one time and off-site parking would be utilized for the employees. Mr. Plemmons stated that Starbucks likes this particular corner and looks forward to creating new jobs in Wheat Ridge as well as improving the appearance of the corner. They want to be a good neighbor and would like to continue discussions about a joint parking agreement. Board Member ABBOTT commented that while Starbucks would be a great traffic generator for the area, the parking situation does not seem to present a real hardship to justify a variance. Ann Quinn returned to the podium. She stated that Starbucks has been unsuccessful in obtaining a joint parking agreement and, therefore, the only alternative is to obtain a variance or eliminate this corner as a location for Starbucks. Upon a motion by Board Member SCHULZ 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-03-11 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Board of Adjustment OS/22/03 Page 5 Whereas, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law; and in recognition that there were 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. WA- 03-11 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. Type of Variance: A partial waiver of Section 26-501 (Parking Requirements) for property zoned Commercial-One (C-l) and located at 3795 Kipling Street. For the following reasons: 1. This request can result in a significant contribution or benefit to the community. Starbucks has proposed beautifying an otherwise ugly corner. 2. Starbucks has knowledge of parking requirements and seems satisfied they can operate within the constraints of this variance with or without agreements from other landowners. In reply to questions from Board Member ABBOTT, Mr. Crane explained that a variance could be granted to the applicant and not apply to any future lessees or landowners. Further, if traffic hazards, etc. should result from granting of the variance, the city has authority to correct those conditions. Board Member BLAIR offered a friendly amendment to add a condition that the variance apply only to the applicant for this specific use. The amendment was accepted by Board Members SCHULZ and HOVLAND. The motion passed 5-1 with Board Member DRDA voting no and Board Members ECHELMEYER and ROLLINS absent. Chair DRDA advised the applicant the request for variance was approved. C. Case No. W A-03-12: An application filed by John Offersen for approval of (A) a 2-foot variance to the 4-foot maximum fence height in the front yard resulting in a 6-foot fence AND (B) approval of a 2-foot variance to the 6-foot maximum fence height in the side yard resulting in an 8-foot fence for property zoned Residential- Two (R-2) and located at 4375 Garrison Street. The case was presented by Mary Austin. She entered all pertinent documents into the record which were accepted by Chair DRDA. She advised the Board there was Page 6 Board of Adjustment OS/22/03 jurisdiction to hear the case and reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended denial of the application for reasons outlined in the staffreport. Board Member ABBOTT asked about sight triangle issues. Ms. Austin explained that sight triangle requirements do not apply to single and two-family dwellings. The commercial property to the north does not have a driveway in close proximity to the fence. John Offerson 4375 Garrison Street Mr. Offerson, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He stated that he believed the fence would be of benefit to the surrounding community. Otherwise, he would not have received the support of his neighbors via the submitted petition. The fence would serve as a sound barrier from 44th A venue, a barrier to trash blowing into yards as well as a barrier to people trespassing from 44th Avenue to Clear Creek. In answer to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Mr. Offerson explained that he believed an 8- foot fence would serve as a sound barrier more efficiently than would a 6- foot fence. Don Peterson 9945 West 34th Drive Mr. Peterson spoke in favor of the fence height variance because it would be beneficial to the surrounding neighbors. It would also help create a break between commercial and residential uses. Board Member HOVLAND stated that he did not believe the circumstances legally justified a variance in this case. Board Member DRDA commented that he believed there was a hardship in that the residential property is located next to a commercial property. Board Member ABBOTT stated that he did not believe an additional two feet would be significant in the fence serving as a sound barrier. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT 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-03-12(A) is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Page 7 Board of Adjustment OS/22/03 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 NOT be granted 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-03-12(A) hereby is DENIED. Type of Variance: A 2-foot variance to the 4-foot maximum fence height in the front yard resulting in a 6-foot fence along the north property line only for property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 4375 Garrison Street. For the following reasons: 1. There appears to be no particular or unique hardship involving the condition or location of the property since many properties throughout the City are located in close proximity to major roads and commercial uses. 2. Without the variance, the property will continue to yield a reasonable return in use as a single-family residence. 3. The variance could potentially alter the character of the locality since there are no other fences in the area that exceed current code requirements. 4. The variance would not appear to provide significant benefit to the Community. 5. Testimony by applicant was not persuasive as to the benefits accrued by the two-foot variance related to sound barrier effectiveness, blowing trash and trespassing barrier. The motion passed 5-1 with Board Member DRDA voting no and Board Members ECHELMEYER and ROLLINS absent. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT 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-03-12(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; Whereas, the relief applied for MAY NOT be granted substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Page 8 Board of Adjustment OS/22/03 Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Case No. W A-03-12(B) hereby is DENIED. Type of Variance: A 2-foot variance to the 6-foot maximum fence height in the side yard resulting in an 8-foot fence along the north property line only for property zoned Residential-Two (R-2) and located at 4375 Garrison Street. For the following reasons: 1. There appears to be no particular or unique hardship involving the condition or location of the property since many properties throughout the City are located in close proximity to major roads and commercial uses. 2. Without the variance, the property will continue to yield a reasonable return in use as a single-family residence. 3. The variance could potentially alter the character of the locality since there are no other fences in the area that exceed current code requirements. 4. The variance would not appear to provide significant benefit to the Community. 5. Testimony by applicant was not persuasive as to the benefits accrued by the two-foot variance related to sound barrier effectiveness, blowing trash and trespassing barrier. The motion passed 6-0 with Board Members ECHELMEYER and ROLLINS absent. Chair DRDA advised the applicant his requests for variance had been denied. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair DRDA closed the public hearing. 6. OLD BUSINESS Abstention from Votin2 - Meredith Reckert reviewed the memo dated May 14, 2003, from Gerald Dahl regarding voting and abstention in Board of Adjustment meetings. Non-operative vehicle ordinance - Meredith Reckert advised the Board that the non- operative vehicle ordinance will be heard on first reading during the first Council meeting in June. 7. NEW BUSINESS Approval of Minutes - It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member SCHULZ to approve the minutes of April 24, 2003 as presented. Board of Adjustment OS/22/03 Page 9 The motion passed unanimously. 8. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member HO;2'~ to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. . ~^ --;:/ //7')0, ?"?",P ~-<:". c"~ _ /1 ~ /l.. /1> / P..QJ:L-DRDA:, air Ann Lazzeri, Secretary,) Board of Adjustment Board of Adjustment Board of Adjustment OS/22/03 Page 10