Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/23/2003 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting October 23, 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 Larry Schulz Staff Present: Meredith Reckert, Senior 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 October 23, 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 AUl!:ust 28. 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-l) and located at 4892 Marshall Street. This case was presented by Travis Crane. He advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended denial of all three portions of this request for reasons outlined in the staff report. Board of Adjustment 10/23/03 Page I In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Travis Crane explained that the street trees on Marshall for the property adjacent to the applicant were installed by the owner and not required by the city. The property owner did not realize he was planting those trees in the right-of-way. In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Travis confirmed that Marshall Street is a state highway with a right-of-way of approximately 50 feet. Lamar Street is a public street with right-of-way of only 20 feet. The existing front setback is approximately thirty feet. Most buildings in this area were built before the city was incorporated. In response to a question from Chair DRDA, Travis stated that the proposed site plan is short by one parking space. He further explained that staff s concern with the application is that, while UBC allows indoor parking as the application requests, it could present problems if the property changes hands in the future and the new owner didn't plan to use indoor parking. The new owner would then have a parking deficiency for the property. Board Member SCHULZ asked ifthe indoor parking would be open to the public. Travis Crane replied that the applicant stated the business does not have much customer traffic and the indoor parking would be used solely for employees and company vehicles. William Hinkley 30001 S. Jamaica Ct., Aurora Mr. Hinkley was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He noted that during the four months the property has been posted, only one objection had been received and that objection was withdrawn. He stated that his client wishes to erect a building to cover that material presently stored outside. It is planned to increase landscaping from 54 square feet to 858 square feet, or 7% of the site. Code requires 20%. He stated that he believed Lamar Street was vacated in 1954. B&B Heating has agreed to enter into joint landscaping with the business to the north which would greatly improve the area. He stated it was his understanding that the owner of the lot on the east side of Lamar has verbally agreed to allow B&B to use 10-12 parking spaces in that lot. The neighbor to the south has also offered 2 parking spaces to B&B. He believed the requirement for 19 parking spaces is excessive since the business only utilizes about 3-4 parking spaces in front rather than the 9 that are required by the city. He disagreed with the staff report that stated the property could still receive a reasonable return in use if the application were to be denied. Board Member ABBOTT expressed concern that, the present business could be sold and a future use may have more customer business requiring more parking spaces, especially if indoor parking is not used. Mr. Hinkley explained the addition would not only provide for indoor parking, but for storage of materials indoors. The proposed mezzanine area would be used for storage. Board of Adjustment 10/23103 Page 2 Chris Lajol 14397 Austin Ct., Broomfield Mr. Lajol, with B&B Plumbing, was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He stated B&B employees do not work out of this location. Accounting and sheet metal fabrication take place at this location which involves 4-5 employees. Employees are presently allowed to drive company vans home at night for safety reasons. If the application is approved, these vehicles could be parked inside. The proposed addition would increase the value of the property as well as increase the amount of landscaping. He stated they would be happy to plant trees in the right-of-way if allowed. Board Member SCHULZ asked if it were a viable situation to park on the property across the street on Lamar. Mr. Lajol stated the property owners had no problem with B&B using part of this parking. Mr. Lajol expressed concern that the entire area is substandard and it is almost impossible to adhere to present day standards. For the record, Travis Crane stated that the property owner for the property across the street on Lamar called him and stated she would not be agreeable for B&B to use any of her parking. In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT regarding the vacation of Lamar Street, Travis stated that while the applicant supplied a deed from 1953-54 from Jefferson County that appeared to show vacation of that roadway, his investigation revealed that it is a fully dedicated city street even though it is substandard in width. Board Member ABBOTT commented that Lamar functions more like an alley than a street and questioned the benefit oflandscaping on Lamar. He suggested that the proposed landscaping on Lamar could be used as a parking space and street trees placed on Marshall. Travis Crane commented that the city could not require street trees to be planted in the state right of way on Marshall. Chair DRDA asked if there were others who wished to address this matter. There was no response. Board Member ECHELMEYER stated he could not vote against this application because it is an odd arrangement and 19 parking spaces for this type of business is unrealistic. Lamar Street is a disaster and this is a situation where the code cannot reasonably apply. Board Member DRDA commented that there have been improvements in the area including Clear Creek path and the antique store across the street, and he would like to see improvements continue in the area. Board of Adjustment 10/23/03 Page 3 Board Member HOVLAND asked if this would be a case where the variance could be designated to this owner only. Travis replied that this would not be feasible in this case. Once the addition is built, the impact is there and increases parking requirements. Future owners would have to utilize the interior parking. 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-03-13(C) 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. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A- 00-13(C) be, and hereby is, approved. Type of Variance: A partial waiver to Section 26-501 (Parking Requirements) For the following reasons: 1. The building is currently very deficient in parking spaces for public and private parking. The Uniform Building Code allowed "inside parking" would improve the current situation significantly. With the following condition: 1. That the variance allows for a full size parking space to occur in lieu of the landscaping indicated by the cross-hatching on the site plan in the northeast corner of the building along Lamar which would bring the application into compliance with the ordinance. The motion passed unanimously. Board of Adjustment 10/23/03 Page 4 Upon a motion by Board Member SCHULZ 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-03-13(A&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 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- 03-13 (A&B) be, and hereby is, approved. Type of Variance: (A) A partial waiver of Section 26-502 (Landscape Requirements) and (B) an increase to maximum lot coverage for property zoned Commercial-One (C-l). For the following reasons: 1. In regard to part (A), it is noted that the land being built on is not appropriate at this time for landscaping due to current use and prevailing conditions of the neighborhood. The applicant has indicated a willingness to significantly increase landscaping at the site in connection with this proposal. 2. In regard to part (B), this addition will exceed the normal lot coverage but will also significantly improve the appearance of the area by eliminating outdoor storage and increasing the level of security of the property pertaining to this business. 3. In addition to these reasons, it is noted again that no protests have been registered by any land owners in the area and it is an unusual area due to the existing street configuration. Board Member BLAIR offered the following friendly amendment: Add a fourth reason which states "Most of the surrounding properties have less than the required 20% landscaping coverage because they were constructed under a previous code and therefore this does not alter the essential character of the locality in any respect." The amendment was accepted by Board Members SCHULZ and HOWARD. Page 5 Board of Adjustment 10/23/03 Board Member ABBOTT offered the following friendly amendments: Under part (A) regarding landscaping, add the following reason: "Lamar Street is used, in fact, as an alley rather than a street. Therefore, landscaping it would appear impractical and of no benefit to the neighborhood." The amendment was accepted by Board Members SCHULZ and HOWARD. Under part (B) regarding lot coverage, add the following reason: "Currently occurring noncomplying outside storage will become complying inside storage and therefore benefit the neighborhood." The amendment was accepted by Board Members SCHULZ and HOWARD. Board Member HOVLAND offered the following friendly amendment: Add a condition that the size of the addition is not to exceed the size presented at the hearing; and that landscaping occur as discussed at the hearing. The amendment was accepted by Board Members SCHULZ and HOWARD. Board Member ABBOTT commented that he would still like to accept the applicant's offer to place two street trees in the Marshall Street right-of-way which is a barren desolate stretch of highway and, even though it is state right-of-way, it would be a betterment to the neighborhood as well as the business. He offered this as a friendly amendment. Chair DRDA expressed concern that this would mandate something outside the city's jurisdiction. Travis Crane strongly advised against asking the applicant to plant street trees in the right-of-way even though the applicant is aware that the state could, at some time, require the trees to be removed. This would, in effect, be asking the applicant to place trees on someone else's property. It could also be a hinderance to parking in front of the building. Board Member ABBOTT withdrew his amendment. The motion passed 6-1 with Board Member DRDA voting no. Chair DRDA advised the applicant that his request was approved. (Chair DRDA declared a brief recess at 9:05 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:12 p.m.) B. Case No. W A-03-19: An application filed by Stan and Sharon Hergenreter for approval ofa 21-foot side yard setback variance from the 30-foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in a 9-foot side yard setback AND a IS-foot rear yard setback variance from the 30-foot rear yard Board of Adjustment 10/23/03 Page 6 setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in a IS-foot rear yard setback for property zoned Residential One and located at 2835 Newland Court. This case was presented by Travis Crane. He advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval of this request for reasons outlined in the staff report. An additional reason that this request would not alter the character of the locality (not included in the staff report) is that a variance was granted for property directly to the west across Otis Court and a couple of houses to the south. Board Member ABBOTT asked if the existing shed complies with the code. Travis stated that it doesn't appear to be in compliance; however, it was probably erected at a time when the city had no permit requirements for sheds 120 square feet, or less, in size. Location permits are now required for sheds this size. In response to a question from Board Member DRDA regarding hardship, Travis explained that staff believes it is not a self-imposed hardship because the property presents the atypical situation of having three street frontages each of which would require a 30- foot setback. Board Member HOVLAND asked for further explanation about the IS-foot request. Travis explained that the case was originally published as a IS-foot setback variance from the rear property line and, since that time, more accurate measurements revealed the proposed garage would be 16 feet on the west side and does not affect the sight distance triangle. In response to a question from Board Member HOVLAND, Travis Crane stated that the existing fence is in the sight distance triangle. Stan Hergenreter 2835 Newland Court Mr. Hergenreter was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He invited questions and stated he had nothing to add to the staff report other than that when the fence was installed over thirty years ago they were not aware of the sight triangle issue. Board Member ECHELMEYER asked if the fence would remain if the variance is granted. Mr. Hergenreter stated the fence would go up to the east side of the proposed garage. In response to questions from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. Hergenreter stated that the existing shed would be removed, the asphalt would be removed and a concrete driveway installed. He also stated that the proposed garage could not be moved farther south onto the property because it would overlap the house and be very close to a window. Travis Page 7 Board of Adjustment 10/23/03 Crane explained that windows on the house within 36 inches of the garage would have to be closed up according to the Uniform Building Code. There were no other individuals signed up to speak. Upon a motion by Board Member BLAIR and second by Board Member ECHELMEYER, 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-03-19 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. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A- 03-19 be, and hereby is, approved. Type of Variance: A 21-foot side yard setback variance from the 30-foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in a 9-foot side yard setback AND a IS-foot rear yard setback variance from the 30-foot rear yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in a IS-foot rear yard setback. For the following reasons: 1. There are a number of unique circumstances which create a hardship in the placement of the proposed detached garage: a triple lot frontage, location of the right-of-way, and a number of large mature trees. All of these would make it extremely difficult to build the detached garage and meet all required setbacks in the building code. 2. Granting the variance would not be detrimental to public welfare or injurious to the surrounding area. 3. Staff recommended approval. Board Member ABBOTT offered the following friendly amendments: (1) Currently, existing windows on the existing structure impair the ability to shift the garage to the south. (2) If approved, this variance would result in the removal of an 8xl2-foot shed currently existing in a nonconforming location. (3) The current dwelling has Board of Adjustment 10/23/03 Page 8 no garage. A garage has become a societal benefit to any single-family dwelling and therefore construction of a garage at this location could be considered an improvement to the general neighborhood and property values. (4) A petition in favor of this variance was submitted by eight neighbors. Board Members BLAIR and ECHELMEYER accepted amendments 1,2 and 4, but did not accept amendment 3. Board Member ABBOTT withdrew amendment 3. Board Member HOWARD asked what construction materials are planned for the proposed garage.. The applicant stated the garage would match the house with brick on front and siding on the remainder of the structure. Board Member ABBOTT offered a friendly amendment to add a condition that the garage be constructed of brick on the front and siding on the balance of the structure. This amendment was accepted by Board Members BLAIR and ECHELMEYER. The motion passed 7-0. Chair DRDA advised the applicants that their request for variance was approved. C. Case No. W A-03-20: An application filed by Jack and Paulette Cooper for approval of a 7-foot side yard setback variance from the 30-foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in a 23-foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential-One and located at 3890 Hoyt Street. This case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She entered all pertinent documents into the record and reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval of this request for reasons outlined in the staff report. Jack and Paulette Cooper 3890 Hoyt Street Jack and Paulette Cooper were sworn in by Chair DRDA. In response to an earlier question from Board Member DRDA regarding the placement oftheir remodeling project, Mrs. Cooper explained that the addition could not be extended into the southern portion of the yard due to the presence of a bathroom window, a vent from a high efficiency furnace and the electrical box for the house. In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. Cooper explained that the existing breezeway between the house and garage would be enclosed in order to enlarge the kitchen. The front portion, which would extend 7 feet from the existing house, would also have an entrance into the house. Mrs. Cooper provided a layout of the proposed addition for the Board's review. The layout was entered into the record and made a part of the official record. Page 9 Board of Adjustment 10/23/03 Board Member ABBOTT asked what necessitated the 7-foot addition. Mrs. Cooper replied that it would serve as an entrance into the house and provide more light into the house which is presently very dark. It would also take advantage of the view to the west as well as provide additional functional space in the kitchen. Board Member DRDA questioned the hardship issue because it seems the kitchen could be enlarged without the extra 7 feet. 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-03-20 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. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA- 03-20 be, and hereby is, approved. Type of Variance: A 7-foot side yard setback variance from the 30-foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in a 23-foot side yard setback in R-l zoning. For the following reasons: 1. There would appear no other viable location for the addition without substantial redesign of the interior of the home. Shifting the structure to the south would entail conflict with existing main electrical service, bathroom furnace vent, existing windows and a large existing evergreen tree. 2. Roughly 42% ofthe lot is encumbered with required setbacks adjacent to public rights-of-way as it is a corner lot. 3. The bumped out 7' x 17.5' portion of the addition is intended to provide practical access from the driveway into the house, provide for desired circulation within the kitchen addition floor plan and to allow additional window space. Page 10 Board of Adjustment 10/23/03 With the following conditions: 1. The addition encroaching into the setback shall be limited to dimensions shown on the site plan, 7 feet x 17.5 feet. 2. The addition shall be constructed of materials that are in character with the existing structure. The motion passed 6-1 with Board Member DRDA voting no. Chair DRDA advised the applicants that their request for variance was approved. D. Case No. TUP-03-02: An application filed by Trugreen Landcare for approval of a one-year Temporary Structure Permit to allow three office trailers on property zoned Commercial-Two and located at 8935 West 44th Avenue. This case was presented by Mike Pesicka. He advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. He noted that on Monday of this week, a photograph of the site revealed another temporary trailer had been placed on the site without city approval. He explained that the code states that only one temporary structure application can be applied for per site per year. However, the community development director has authority to review additional applications and determine if they are substantially different for the same site. In this case, the community development director determined it was a substantially different application and allowed them to apply. Staff recommended approval of this request for reasons outlined in the staff report. Board Member HOWARD asked if this request is based on all three trailers that are presently on the property. Mike Pesicka replied that the community development director determined that, since it is a new application, it does apply to all three trailers. Board Member HOWARD believed there should be two separate applications: one for the existing trailer and one for the two additional trailers. Board Member ECHELMEYER stated that it was his understanding a temporary use permit could not be continued after a year. Mike explained that this application was not a request for continuance but was a completely new application. In response to a question from Board Member SCHULZ, Mike stated that the purpose of the application has not changed. Mike Mueller 16935 West 48th Place, Golden Mr. Mueller, with Lee Kunz Development, was sworn in by Chair DRDA. He explained the reason for the trailers is that Landcare, presently located in Arvada, and Trugreen are two divisions ofthe same company. Landcare plans to move onto the subject premises Board of Adjustment 10/23/03 Page 11 by the end of the month. He stated he was not aware they were going to move the additional trailer onto the property. The reason for doing so was to install utility and phone lines into the trailer to have it ready when their employees move in at the end of the month. He further explained that they will move one ofthe three trailers inside a building which leaves two. If a lease is negotiated for the large building, the remaining two trailers will also be moved inside. Trugreen will stay in the original building and it is planned to develop office space for Landcare in a second building. He stated that Trugreen intends to install new fencing and landscaping around the property in addition to the improvements they have already made by cleaning up the property. Board Member DRDA asked what action has been taken since the TUP was issued a year ago. Mr. Mueller stated the sale of Landcare's building in Arvada has necessitated the addition of office space on the subject property. He estimated six months to complete the new office space for Landcare. For clarification, Mr. Mueller stated the application has now changed to request two temporary trailers on the site rather than three. Board Member HOWARD expressed concern that this doesn't change the fact that an additional trailer was recently placed on the property. Mr. Mueller stated that he would be happy to move one of the trailers off the property and bring in another one. Board Member DRDA asked if the construction estimates contained in his letter were reasonable. Mr. Mueller replied that they are not because he didn't realize there would be additional time involved in getting a temporary use permit. He felt that six months was a reasonable time frame and plans to begin construction around December I. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Mueller stated that he has construction plans ready to bring into the city once an approval of the TUP has been given and it is known what building Trugreen wants. Ifthe TUP is approved, he could put pressure on the corporate office by telling them they have a time limit to meet. Board Member SCHULZ asked how many Landcare employees would be relocating to this area. Mr. Mueller stated that he would assume there would be ten people in the office with some employees doing work off-site for a total of approximately 40-50 employees. In response to a question from a Board member regarding the lease, Mr. Mueller stated his company has a lease with Ttugreen and Landcare that runs through December 31, 2003. If this request is not granted, Landcare has the option of moving out at that time. However, his company is working on a 5-year lease with a 5-year extension and he is trying to encourage them to lease the entire premises. He further stated it is planned to build office space in one of the two existing buildings and the trailers would be moved inside one of the buildings. Board of Adjustment 10/23103 Page ] 2 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. TUP-03-02 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. TUP- 03-02 be, and hereby is, approved. Type of Temporary Use Permit: A one-year Temporary Structure Permit to allow three office trailers on property zoned Commercial Two and located at 8935 West 44th Avenue For the following reason: 1. Trugreen, Landcare and the building owner have been negotiating, apparently in good faith, toward bringing additional personnel and business into Wheat Ridge. It appears there is a good chance they will be leasing a sizeable building for an indefinite period of time. With the following condition: 1. The temporary trailers may not be renewed for the same purpose. If possible, the trailers should be moved indoors. Board Member SCHULZ stated that he believed this would benefit the city. He also commented that complex situations such as this are beyond the control of one individual. The motion failed by a vote of 5-2 with Board Members HOWARD and ECHELMEYER voting no. Because a super-majority vote of 6 affirmative votes was required for approval, the motion failed. Chair DRDA advised the applicant his request for a temporary use permit had been denied. Board of Adjustment 10/23/03 Page 13 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair DRDA closed the public hearing. 6. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Board. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Mike Pesicka - Meredith Reckert informed the Board that this would be Mike's final Board of Adjustment meeting. He has accepted a position with El Paso County. Board members wished Mike well in his new endeavor. B. Minutes of AUl!:ust 28. 2003 - It was moved by Board Member HOVLAND and seconded by Board Member ABBOTT to approve the minutes of August 28,2003 as presented. The motion passed unanimously. C. Set Next Meetinl!: Date (December 3 or December 10) - Because the November Board meeting falls on Thanksgiving and the December Board meeting falls on Christmas, staff requested the Board to make a decision to change the regular meeting schedule for November and December. It was moved by Board Member BLAIR and seconded by Board Member ABBOTT to set the next Board of Adjustment meeting for Wednesday, December 3, 2003. The motion passed unanimously. D. Board Member Schulz - Mr. Schulz stated he plans to soon be serving on City Council and expressed to the Board members how much he enjoyed working with them. He also commented that he was impressed with the amount of knowledge represented on the Board. 8. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member ECHELMEYER to adjourn the meeting at 10:55 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. I?/ 2~ ~RDA, Chair Board of Adjustment tL~ Ann Lazzeri, Secretary Board of Adjustment Board of Adjustment 10/23/03 Page ]4