Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/24/2003 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting July 24, 2003 ORiGINAL 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 Bill Echelmeyer Paul Hovland Bob Howard Don Peterson Larry Schulz Staff Present: Mary Austin, Planner Mike Pesicka, Planning Tech Ann Lazzeri, Secretary The following is the official set of Board of Adjustment minutes for the Public Hearing of July 24,2003. 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 No one indicated a desire to speak at this time. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. W A-03-13 (continued from June 26. 2003): An application filed by William Hinkley for approval of a partial waiver of Section 26-501 (Parking Requirements) AND a partial waiver of Section 26-502 (Landscape Requirements) AND an increase to maximum lot coverage for property zoned Commercial-One (C-1) and located at 4892 Marshall Street. Mike Pesicka stated that the applicant requested a continuance of this case in order to make revisions to site layout. . It was moved by Board Member BLAIR and seconded by Board Member PETERSON to continue Case No. W A-03-13 to the meeting of August 28, 2003. The motion passed 8-0. Page 1 Board of Adjustment 07/24/03 B. Case No. W A-03-15: An application filed by Mark and Julie Bymaster for approval of a 5-foot side yard setback variance from the 10-foot side yard setback requirement for a two-story structure on property zoned Residential-One C (R- 1 C) and located at 3295 Fenton Street. This 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 jurisdiction to hear the case and reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval of the case for reasons outlined in the staff report. Ms. Austin entered into the record a Jetter received the morning of the Board's meeting from Sharon Maez, 3285 Fenton, whose property abuts the applicant's property to the north. The letter indicated support for the application. In response to a question from Board Member HOVLAND, Ms. Austin explained that the applicant could "pop the top" on the existing structure without a variance. However, the foundation of the existing structure would not support a second story. The staff report stated that "if the proposed addition were to conform to required setbacks, the additional living space would be located ten feet from the property line and the attached garage located on the five-foot setback line. This would create an undesirable staggered wall effect." The R-IC zone district is the only district that requires a 5-foot minimum setback for the first story and an additional 5 feet for each story. In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Ms. Austin explained that because the applicants are located to the north oftheir neighbors, there would be less impact to light and shadow on the neighbors. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked how this situation came to staffs attention. Ms. Austin explained that it came to light during the building permit review process. In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Ms. Austin explained that the staggered wall effect produced by an additional 5- foot setback for the second story would be an undesirable situation for the applicant rather than the city. Jim Nienaber Evergreen, CO Mr. Nienaber, architect for the applicant, was sworn in by Chair DRDA. Regarding the turning radius into the garage from the alley, he stated that an 18-foot wide garage door is planned to give more swing radius into the garage. Board Member ABBOTT expressed concern about the aesthetic compatibility of the addition in that the existing house is brick and the addition will be covered with siding. Mr. Nienaber explained that the existing house and the addition will be painted the same Board of Adjustment 07/24/03 Page 2 painted the same color. He further explained that siding was planned in order to meet budget constraints. Architectural details on the addition, such as windows, are planned to match the existing house. Chair DRDA asked if there were those present who wished to address this matter. The following individuals responded: Patricia Wyland Ladwick 5825 West 33'd Ms. Ladwick was sworn in by Chair DRDA. She spoke in favor of her neighbor's application and stated that the planned addition is in keeping with the unique flavor of the neighborhood. Mark Bymaster 3295 Fenton Street Mark Bymaster, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He stated their desire was to provide additional living space that would maintain the character of the house. Many options were investigated and the proposed addition proved to be the most satisfactory. Julie Bymaster 3295 Fenton Street Julie Bymaster, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair DRDA. She pointed out that the proposed siding would be in character with new homes recently built on 33'd Avenue. Barry McBride 5801 West 33'd Avenue Mr. McBride was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He lives directly north across the street from the applicant. He spoke in favor of the application which would be in keeping with the diverse nature of the neighborhood. He felt the addition would be an enhancement to the neighborhood. It also maximizes the landscaping that faces his house. It is also consistent with other homes in the neighborhood that have "pop-tops" with five-foot setbacks. He believed a ten-foot setback for the second story would create a "hodgepodge" effect in the neighborhood. There were no others present who wished to address this matter. Board Member DRDA expressed concern that there is a self-imposed hardship because there are other ways to create additional space without a variance. Board Member PETERSON commented that R-l C is the only zone district that requires an additional setback for each story. Board Member HOVLAND indicated that he was in favor of the application and commented that a pop-top would have a greater impact on the house to the south than the Board of Adjustment 07/24/03 Page 3 proposed application. He also commented that he was very familiar with this neighborhood and appreciated its diverse architectural nature. He also pointed out that the corner lot presents setback limitations. Board Member BLAIR favored the application. He commented that if the view were taken that the ordinance must be followed as stated, there would be no need for the Board of Adjustment. He felt it was the Board's function to decide whether the application was out of character and harmful to the community or whether it was an enhancement to the community. Board Member ABBOTT commented that, whiJe there are more "cut and dried" hardships, he agreed with Board Member BLAIR. Board Member PETERSON stated that, while he believed there were other alternatives available to the applicant, he would vote to approve the application because the neighbors were in favor of the application. Board Member SCHULZ stated that he believed the proposed addition was a wise and attractive way to add square footage to the house and is in keeping with other houses in the neighborhood. He commented that increasing the height of the house would look awkward. 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-03-15 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 regnlations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A- 03-15 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. Type of Variance: A 5-foot side yard setback variance from the 10-foot side yard setback requirement for a two-story structure on property zoned Residential-One C (R-1C) and located at 3295 Fenton Street. Board of Adjustment 07/24/03 Page 4 For the following reasons: 1. The two-story addition directly abuts closely only a few feet of the existing dwelling on the property immediately adjoining on the south. 2. The architect has made an effort to design an addition which is compatible aesthetically with the existing structure and is compatible with the existing neighborhood. 3. Structural considerations within the existing foundation prohibit the addition of a second story to the existing foundation. 4. The second story addition will be minimally visible from the street as it occurs primarily in the core of the structure. The proposed wood siding on the first floor would not be significantly visible from the street view. 5. Testimony was given by some adjacent neighbors in favor of the variance. 6. Staff recommended approval of the variance. The motion passed 7-1 with Board Member DRDA voting no. Chair DRDA advised the applicants that their request for variance was approved. C. Case No. W A-03-16: An application filed by ARC Wireless Solutions for approval of a variance to Section 26-709 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws (Sign Code) to allow an increase to the maximum sign area allowed for a freestanding sign on property zoned Planned Industrial Development (PlD) and located at 10601 West 1-70 Frontage Road North. This case was presented by Mike Pesicka. 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 denial of the case for reasons outlined in the staff report. In response to a question from Chair DRDA, Mr. Pesicka stated that if the variance were denied, the lower portion of the sign would have to be removed. In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. Pesicka stated that the present sign is 216 square feet and 173 square feet is allowed under the code. Board Member ABBOTT asked if the code would allow the subject sign to be raised to 50 feet in height. Mr. Pesicka explained that while the previous business was limited to having a sign 32.5 feet in height, the present business could legally raise the height of the sign to 50 feet. Board Member PETERSON commented that the applicant would have had no way of knowing the sign code had changed and that the existing sign was not in compliance. Board of Adjustment 07/24/03 Page 5 In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. Pesicka stated that no complaints regarding the existing sign have been received by the city. . Andy Anderson 1597 South Krameria, Denver Mr. Anderson, manager of administration for ARC Wireless Communications, was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He stated that his company signed a seven-year lease on the building. His company has been located in Wheat Ridge for eight years, just recently moving to the subject location in order to consolidate office, manufacturing and warehouse areas. His company manufactures antennas to support the wireless industry and has had very little retail sales. The company has recently acquired three additional companies, and this site will allow greater exposure for growth to expand into other areas. Therefore, the sign is important to the company. He also stated that his company is mainly interested in using the illuminated portion ofthe sign. The owner of the building assured Mr. Anderson that they were unaware of the sign code change. In answer to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Mr. Anderson stated that the building owner has given his company limited power of attorney regarding the sign. Board Member PETERSON inquired about retail sales. Mr. Anderson stated that a small amount of retail is done at the site and the company would like to do more in the future; however, there are no concrete plans for additional retail at this time. Board Member PETERSON suggested trimming portions of the sign panels to come into compliance with the code. There were no other individuals present who wished to address this matter. Board Member ECHELMEYER stated that he felt there was a hardship because the company signed a seven-year lease for a building that offered a prominent sign for a business they are trying to expand. Board Member BLAIR agreed with Board Member ECHELMEYER and commented that there are many signs along the 1-70 corridor. Board Member PETERSON stated he did not believe the situation presented a self- imposed hardship and would favor approval of the application without conditions. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member SCHULZ, 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-03-16 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Board of Adjustment 07/24/03 Page 6 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 MAYbe granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regnlations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A- 03-16 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. Type of Variance: A variance to Section 26-709 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws (Sign Code) to allow an increase in the maximum sign area allowed to 216 square feet for a freestanding sign on property zoned Planned Industrial Development (PID) and located at 10601 West 1-70 Frontage Road North. For the following reasons: 1. If the variance were granted, the essential character of the neighborhood would not likely be altered. The sign in question already exists, but the area the applicant is proposing to use would result in a total sign area of 216 feet. It is currently a blank face that the applicant is proposing for use in advertising. 2. The area surrounding the property is predominantly occupied by light industrial activities. Most of the surrounding businesses have signs of similar size and height. The previous tenant, Volant Ski's, used the entire sign as it exists today prior to their closing. 3. The request would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the area. The request would most likely not have a detrimental effect on property values in the neighborhood. 4. Arguably, a hardship has occurred due to lack of notice of code changes affecting the existing sign to the building's owner. With the following conditions: 1. The existing freestanding signage may not be extended above the existing height into the allowable 50-foot height. 2. The variance shall be applicable to the current applicant or their corporate successors only and shall not "run with the property." Board of Adjustment 07/24/03 Page 7 Board Member PETERSON moved to remove the two conditions from the motion. The motion died for lack of a second. A vote was taken on the Board Member ABBOTT's motion which passed 8-0. Chair DRDA advised the applicant that his request for variance was approved. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair DRDA closed the public hearing. 6. OLD BUSINESS Non-operative Vehicles - In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Pesicka stated that, in the future, all requests for additional non-operative vehicles above the number allowed by code will come before the Board. Each additional non-operative vehicle will require a separate application. 7. NEW BUSINESS It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member BLAIR to approve the minutes of June 26, 2003. The motion passed unanimously. 8. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member BLAIR to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m. ~;~ VAU ,Chair Board of Adjustment ~~ Ann Lazzeri, Secretary Board of Adjustment Board of Adjustment 07/24/03 Page 8