Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/23/2006 ORIGINAL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting March 23, 2006 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Blair at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers ofthe Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Tom Abbott Janet Bell Bob Blair Paul Drda Paul Hovland Bob Howard Larry Linker Members Absent: Davis Reinhart Staff Present: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Jeff flirt, Planning Technician Tim Paranto, Public Works Director & Floodplain Coordinator Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary Meredith Reckert introduced Larry Linker as a new member of the Board. The following is the official set of Board of Adjustment minutes for the public hearing of March 23, 2006. 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 to address the Board at this time. All those present who wished to speak regarding cases presented during the public hearing were sworn in by Chair Bell. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No WF-06-02: An application filed by Patrick and Laura Koentges for approval of a Class II Floodplain Exception Permit to allow Board of Adjustment 03-23-06 - 1 - construction of a single famil y home on property zoned Residential One and located at approximately 3430 Simms Street. Planning Staff recommended continuance of this case because insufficient information had been submitted to make an official recommendation for the request. It was moved by Board Member BLAIR and seconded by Board Member DRDA to continue Case No. WF-06-02 indefinitely. The motion passed 7-0. B. Case No. WF-06-01: An application filed by Donna and Fred Gimeno for approval of a Class II Floodplain Exception Permit to allow construction of a single family home on property zoned Residential One and located at approximately 3575 Quail Street. This case was presented by Jeff flirt. 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 request for reasons outlined in the staff report. Board Member ABBOTT asked why this request had not been referred to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. Tim Paranto explained that the Lena Gulch floodplain has been modified since the 1975 study which was used in the evaluation of this case. Those modifications have altered the elevations. In this case, the applicant hired an engineer to establish the best scenario for the floodway. The city is in the process of entering into a contract with Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) to study Lena Gulch inside Wheat Ridge to establish a new Lena Gulch Floodplain study. This study should be completed within a year. He further explained the UDFCD has no authority or regulatory powers with this case. The city can send plans to them for review, but in this case it was not necessary because of staff expertise and a good report from the applicant's engineer. The applicant's engineer has taken on the liability of establishing the floodplain and floodway elevations for this property. City staff has also analyzed the case to make sure this property would be protected from any flood damage. In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. Paranto stated that about 90% of the property is designated as in the floodplain under the present study, but he anticipates about 50% of the property would fall outside the floodplain once the new study is completed. Board of Adjustment 03-23-06 - 2 - Henry Hollander 6600 Allison Street, Arvada Mr. Hollander, engineer for the applicant, stated that he had nothing to add to the staff's presentation. He stated that the proposed house would have a basement that would be below the floodplain. He asked for clarification that this basement could be built if it is flood-proofed. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Paranto stated that as long as the basement is constructed so that no water could enter the house in event of a flood it could be built below the floodplain elevation. Donna Gimeno 1623 Ogden Street, Denver Ms. Gimeno, the applicant, explained how the house would be situated on the lot. There were no other individuals present who wished to address this case. Board Member ABBOTT asked for an explanation of "flood-proofing." Mr. Paranto explained that, for a basement to be allowed, the applicant would have to guarantee that everything would stay dry in case of flood. Openings for emergency access and light would have to be above the floodplain elevation. He also stated that flood-proofing is addressed in the existing code. 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. WF-06-01 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. WF -06-01 be, and hereby is, approved. Type of Variance: A Class II Floodplain Exception Permit to allow construction of a single family home on property zoned Residential One. - 3 - Board of Adjustment 03-23-06 For the following reasons: 1. Approval of the request should not have a detrimental effect on the 100-year floodplain as per testimony by the city's director of public works. 2. The requirements of the floodplain ordinance have been met. 3. The floodplain administrator has reviewed and approved the engineer's study. With the following conditions: 1. The proposed structure must be consistent with the development standards of Section 26-806(F). 2. The proposed structure must maintain a lowest floor elevation that is at least one foot above the base flood elevation of 5,410 feet above sea level. The basement, if any portion is below the flood elevation, must be ''flood-proofed'' to the standards of the city as stated in Section 26- 808 of the city code. 3. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, an elevation certificate shall be prepared and certified by the engineer of record and filed with the city. 4. Staff recommended approval of the application. In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Jeff flirt stated that if the floodplain exception were to be granted, the applicant would qualify for floodplain insurance. The motion passed 7-0. C. Case No. W A-06-03: An application filed by the Seniors Resource Center for approval of a 13-foot front yard setback variance from the 30- foot front yard setback requirement and an II-foot rear yard setback variance from the 20-foot rear yard setback requirement for property zoned Residential One and located at 3227 Chase Street. This case was presented by Jeff flirt. 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. Palmer Pekarek 3227 Chase Street Mr. Pekarek is Vice President of Public Affairs for the Seniors Resource Center (SRC). He stated that Jefferson County gave the property at 3227 Chase Street to Board of Adjustment 03-23-06 -4- the Center and the SRC has also purchased the property to the north of the center. They are planning to expand the existing facility to meet the growing demand for services provided by SRC and necessitated by the growing number of older citizens in Wheat Ridge. William Brummett 535 E. Mexico A venue, Denver Mr. Brummett is the architect for the proposed expansion. He presented architectural drawings of the proposed expansion. The first floor would be utilized for adult day care programs. The basement would be used for administrative space plus therapeutic spaces. The second floor would be used for respite and short term assisted living for eighteen people. One reason for the variance request is that the property lines "jog" from one property to the next. The alley would be improved (paved and widened) to accommodate fire truck access. The parking lot has been designed to reduce traffic through the neighborhood. If required to accommodate the large setbacks presently required, four respite rooms would have to be eliminated. This would also eliminate income the facility needs to operate. Linda Johnston 6280 West 74th Avenue, Arvada Ms. Johnston is Program Manager for Adult Day and Respite Services at the Seniors Resource Center. She stated that the day care program is open from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with the majority of users there between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. Board Member ABBOTT commented that when the original building which once housed a school was built, the setbacks were much closer to the street than they would be today and it seemed logical to see this type of building shifted closer to the street. Mr. Brummett agreed that buildings constructed during that time were built closer to the street. However, there has been a trend to new urbanism since 1995 and buildings are once again moving closer to the street. He also noted that where the street curves there would actually be a 28-foot setback. Board member ABBOTT commented that it appears only 20% of the building is encroaching into the setback. Mr. Brummett agreed. Meredith Reckert commented that using the northern portion of the property for parking would ensure that traffic would not flow into existing residential areas. Board member HOVLAND commented that the addition blends very well with the original architecture. - 5 - Board of Adjustment 03-23-06 Board member DRDA expressed concern that while current standards call for buildings to be closer to the street in commercial areas, the setbacks are to be larger as they go back into residential area. He asked if a five-foot reduction in the variance would work. Mr. Brummett replied that the plan has been worked and reworked and any reduction in the variance would not allow complete wheelchair accessibility. There were no other individuals present who wished to address this case. Chair BELL closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Board Member HOWARD expressed concern that nothing has been shown that would indicate a hardship in this case. He wondered if the building could be extended north instead of east and west thereby eliminating the need for a variance. Meredith Reckert stated that expansion of the building to the north would eliminate much needed parking. In terms of hardship, Meredith Reckert suggested that the Board consider the criteria that addresses accommodation of people with disabilities. Board Member BELL commented that the setback on the curve of the street is 28 feet and does have the visual appearance of a setback. Board member DRDA also expressed concern about a lack of hardship in this case. Board member HOVLAND acknowledged the need for extra space for accommodation of wheelchairs and believed that constituted a hardship. He agreed that the 28-foot setback on the curve does not present a visual impact. Board Member BELL commented that a hardship exists in regard to state standards for providing handicapped accessible units. In order for SRC to function as respite care, the variance is necessary. There was a consensus of the Board to allow the Chair to reopen the public testimony of the meeting in order to hear from the applicant. Mr. Pekarek returned to the podium. He stated that SRC has over 65 full and part-time employees at the center and they are trying to be good neighbors by restricting parking to their parking lot and the firehouse. A larger facility will require more parking spaces. Parking is also needed for buses that carry clients to the center. Board of Adjustment 03-23-06 - 6- Mr. Brummett commented that the east/west 20-foot lane is needed for fire access. Chair BELL closed public testimony. 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-06-03 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-06-03 be, and hereby is, approved. For the following reasons: 1. The Seniors' Resource Center provides an important community service. In order to meet increasing demand for this service, a substantial expansion of the existing facility is necessary which is problematic given current development standards for tbe front and rear yard setbacks. 2. The existing facility encroaches into the required 30-foot front yard setback by 8 feet. 3. The elevation and site plan submitted indicate that the applicant will match the appearance of the existing facility with the addition. 4. Granting the variance would allow for increased accommodation of persons with disabilities. S. There are hardships in that architectural and use constraints including on-site parking and fire department access disallow shifting the size and shape of use areas within the structure. Also the irregular property lines create irregular setbacks. 6. The property line at the rear of the addition jogs. Eleven feet is the maximum variance that will occur along this rear property line. - 7- Board of Adjustment 03-23-06 7. The city supports the front setback variance, in part, to allow for the occupancy to not increase traffic in the adjacent residential alley. 8. From an aesthetic perspective regarding the front setbacks, buildings from the 1920's suchas the original school building routinely and expectedly sat closer to the street than current setback requirements. Tberefore, the addition will appear architecturally correct. The motion passed 6-1 with Board Member DRDA voting no. S. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair BELL closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. 6. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Board. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - February 23, 2006 Since there were no copies of the minutes in the packet, the minutes of February 23,2006 will be considered at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting. B. Board of Adjustment Bylaws Work Session At the direction from the Board, planning staff made changes to the bylaws. Meredith Reckert reviewed these changes as contained in the Board's packet. Board Member ABBOTT suggested removing the words "or tabled" from paragraph 3 under Article V. Board Member DRDA suggested removing the words "by an attorney or" in paragraph 3 under Article II. Board Member BELL suggested including a definition of "designated agent" in paragraph 3 under Article II. There was a consensus of the Board to forward the amended bylaws, including the above suggestions, on to City Council for ratification. Chair BELL asked Board members to submit names of people who could serve as alternates to the Board of Adjustment as soon as possible. Board of Adjustment 03-23-06 - 8 - 8. ADJO~NT It was moved by Board Member BLAIR and seconded by Board Member ABBOTT to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. ~",...I-~ J#t Bell, Chair a~ V . AnnLazzeri,R~~ - 9- Board of Adjustment 03-23-06