Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/25/2006 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting May 25, 2006 ORIGINAL 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair BELL at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Tom Abbott Janet Bell Bob Blair Paul Hovland Bob Howard Larry Linker Davis Reinhart Members Absent: Paul Drda Staff Present: Travis Crane, Planner JeffHirt, Planning Tech Tim Paranto, Public Works Director Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary The following is the official set of Board of Adjustment minutes for the public hearing of May 25, 2006. A set ofthese minutes is retained both in the office ofthe City Clerk and in the Community Development Department of the City of Wheat Ridge. 3. PUBLIC FORUM There were no individuals present who wished to address the Board at this time. 4. PUBLIC HEARING Board Member REINHART moved and Board Member BLAIR seconded to revise the order of the agenda to hear Case No. TUP-06-01 as the first item. The motion passed unanimously. A. Case No. TUP-06-01: An application filed by Medved Autoplex for approval of a one-year Temporary Structure Permit to allow an office trailer on property zoned Commercial One and located at 11001 West 1-70 Frontage Road North 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 Board of Adjustment 05-25-06 - I - reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval for reasons, and with conditions, as outlined in the staff report. Those individuals wishing to address this case were sworn in by Chair BELL. Scott Albertson 1667 Cole Blvd, #100, Goldeu Mr. Albertson, attorney for the applicant, was sworn in by Chair BELL. In response to questions from the Board, he confirmed that there would be no loss of net parking spaces as a result of the temporary use permit. Hummer Corporation is requiring Medved to construct a new building for the Hummer dealership. The new building would be constructed in the location of the present temporary building. It was not necessary to obtain a temporary use permit for the existing temporary building because the area was zoned for such a building. He stated that the temporary building would not exacerbate parking issues along Parfet Street. He commented that parking along Parfet has decreased due to additional on-site parking as well as a decrease in the amount of inventory and number of employees. He stated that the applicant is in agreement with conditions suggested in the staffreport. In response to a question from Board Member REINHART, Mr. Albertson stated that a one-year temporary permit would be sufficient time for construction of the new building. In response to question from Board Member ABBOTT, Travis Crane stated that he did not believe the temporary use would exacerbate parking on Parfet Street. Enforcement of parking issues on Parfet Street would be handled on a complaint basis. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and secoud 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-06-01 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas the property has been posted the ten 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 detrimeut to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the inteut and purpose of the regulations goveruiug the City of Wheat Ridge. Board of Adjustment 05-25-06 - 2- Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Case No. TUP-06-01 be, and hereby is approved. 1. There should be no impact on the amount of light and air in the ueighborhood. 2. There should be no resultaut air, water or uoise pollution in excess of what is already occurriug. 3. There will be no impact ou utilities, parks or schools. 4. There will be uo anticipated iucrease in automobile traffic in the area. For the following reasons: With the followiug couditions: 1. Written permission shall be obtained from Xcel Euergy to allow eucroachment into their easemeut prior to issuauce of a buildiug permit for the structure. 2. The temporary building shall be allowed for oue year startiug from the date of occupaucy of the structure iu the new location. 3. Current landscaping displaced by these improvements shall be accommodated elsewhere on the site in a location that is visible by the general public and as approved by staff. 4. No additional parking shall be allowed on Parfet Street and, as per testimony from staff, this shall be enforced on a complaint basis. The motion passed 7-0. B. Case No. WF-06-02 (continued from April 27, 2006): An application filed by Patrick and Laura Koentges for approval of a Class II Floodplain Exception Permit to allow construction of a single faruily home on property zoned Residential One and located at approximately 3430 Simms Street. Board Member ABBOTT disclosed that he is an acquaintance of the applicant and that he has no fmancial interest in this case. The case was presented by Jeff Hirt.He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He also entered a memorandum from the city's floodplain administrator dated May 24, 2006 into the record. Staff originally recommended denial of the application for reasons outlined in the staff report. However, staff agrees with the floodplain administrator's recommendation contained in the May 24th memo (received after the staff report was prepared) that the application should be approved with one condition. Board of Adjustment 05-25-06 - 3 - Tim Paranto, Director of Public Works and Floodplain Administrator, stated that he recommended approval of the application with the condition that the applicant provide evidence of the right to enter the adjacent property to perform the required grading. Board members reviewed the memo at this time. Those individuals wishing to address this case were sworn in by Chair BELL. Patrick Koentges 3391 Oak Street Mr. Koentges, the applicant, assured the Board that he would not build a structure in an area that could incur future flood problems. In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Tim Paranto stated that the revised grading plan would remove any fill from the floodway so the volume would remain constant without raising the floodplain elevation. The grading plan requires 25-30 feet of grading north ofthe subject property toward Lena Gulch to ensure the adequate flow of water. Mr. Paranto stated that he would withhold approval of the application until such time as the applicant shows he has permission to access that property. The proposed structure will not have a basement and all livable space will be well above the 100-year floodplain. The applicant also plans to build a retaining wall in order to provide further protection. Board Member BELL asked about runoff problems during construction. Mr. Paranto explained that, if this application is approved, the applicant will submit a grading plan and erosion control plan to be approved by the city before a building permit will be issued. There were no other individuals who wished to speak at this time. Therefore, Chair BELL closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. 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-06-02 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas the property has been posted the ten days required by law, and in recognition that there were no protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for may be granted withont detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations goveruing the City of Wheat Ridge. Board of Adjustment 05-25-06 - 4- Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Case No. WF-06-02 be, and hereby is approved. For the following reasons: 1. The variance has been approved by the director of public works who is the city's floodplain administrator, and the project has been recommended for approval by staff. With the following conditions: 1. All the floors of the structure, including mechanical systems, must be placed at a minimum of one foot or more above the 100-year flood level as per city ordinance. 2. No impairment ofthe floodway shall occur. Structures and site grade shall be built at a level as submitted by the applicant to the city, including the retaining wall. 3. Off-site grading of the site to the north must be approved by the city prior to issuance of a building permit. The motion passed 7-0. (Chair Bell declared a brief recess at 8:00 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:06 p.m.) C. Case No. W A-06-06: An application filed ,by Holly Hall and Stephauie McNamara for approval of (A) a 3.5 foot side yard setback variance from the 15-foot side yard setback requirement resulting in an 11.5 foot side yard setback; (B) a 10- foot rear yard setback variance from the 15- foot rear yard setback requirement resulting in a 5- foot rear yard setback; and (C) a 136 square foot variance to maximum lot coverage for property zoned Residential One (R-I) and located at 3880 Everett Street. Board Member HOYLAND disclosed that he is associated with the applicant through membership in the same homeowners association and that he has no fmancial interest in the case. 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. He advised that two additional letters of objection had been received by staff. These were entered into the record and reviewed by the Board. Staff recommended approval of all three variance requests for reasons outlined in the staff report. Board of Adjustment 05-25-06 - 5 - In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Travis Crane stated that he did not feel the hardship was self-imposed given limited lot coverage requirements in this zone district, larger setbacks and grade changes. Board Member HOWARD asked if there was any comment regarding the shed during the building permit process for the applicant. Travis Crane responded that it was not considered because the plans showed the shed would be demolished. Since then the applicant decided to keep the shed. Those individuals wishing to address this case were sworn in by Chair BELL. Holly Hall 3880 Everett Drive Ms. Hall, the applicant, stated that she didn't intend to violate zoning ordinances. She made an assumption, based on adjacent properties, to keep the shed five feet from the lot line. Due to setback limits, she had to change the design of her garage to a smaller one which eliminated storage space. Therefore, she decided to keep the storage shed. She entered into the record five documents depicting the site plan and photos of her back yard and the shed. Improvements were made to the grading of her back yard which preclude placement of the shed in the graded area. Paint and roofing on the shed were improved to match the house. She stated there are mature trees on the north and east sides ofthe shed. There will be a 6' fence on the south. Her neighbor, Elizabeth Grant believes her property value would be decreased by the location of the shed; however, her property values have stayed the same in 2005 and 2006 according to county assessor's records. In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Ms. Hall stated the shed was 12-feet by 12-feet in size and 9-112 feet on the high end and 9 feet on the lower end. It is 2 feet higher than the fence on the low end and 2-112 feet higher than the fence on the high end. Bill Whitfield 4015 Everett Street Mr. Whitfield lives across the street from the applicant. He spoke in support of the variance because he believed it would be an improvement to the neighborhood. He is involved with Wheat Ridge 2020 and stated that the applicant's renovation of her house is a shining example ofthe type ofrenewal that Wheat Ridge is trying to foster. He believed the applicant's renovation to her property has added value to other properties in the neighborhood. The shed represents 25.9% lot coverage which is only .9% over city requirements. Elizabeth Grant 3881 Estes Ms. Grant lives directly behind the applicant and spoke in opposition to the variance request. The shed is next to her property line and is very visible and Board of Adjustment 05-25-06 - 6 - presents an obstruction to her property that will reduce her property values. She suggested that there were three other locations for the shed on the applicant's property affect her property. She did not agree with the city's staffreport because the applicant was aware of the setback requirements before she started to build. The applicant also promised to remove the shed and then changed her mind. The location ofthe shed violates the R-l zoning regulations. She stated that she had been informed by the city that the applicant would be required to comply with setback regulations. She stated that the reason the applicant is asking for a variance is that she made her house too large. She commented that many older sheds are encroaching in the neighborhood and it's time to stop these situations from occurring and further degrading the neighborhood. Board Member HOWARD asked where the property line existed. Ms. Grant stated that she believed it was midway between the two fences Catherine Grant 3881 Estes Ms. Grant is the daughter of Elizabeth Grant. She spoke in opposition to the application. She stated that there are no mature trees involved to screen the shed but scrub trees that are going to be removed. The shed will shade the area where her mother wanted to plant a garden. Jay Peck 825 Carmel Drive Mr. Peck stated that realtors and appraisers have indicated the shed would amount to a $5,600 economic loss in property value to the applicant. . Holly Hall returned to podium to state that an ILC exists which shows that the chain link fence is on the property line. Board Member ABBOTT commented that the staff could have made an administrative variance for lot coverage. Travis Crane agreed and explained that the application is before the Board because ofthe other two variance requests. He commented that when city council modified setback requirements for accessory structures in 2003, the R-l zone district was the only district which remained unchanged. There were no other individuals who wished to address the case. Upon a motion by Board Member HOYLAND and second by Board Member BLAIR, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Board of Adjustment 05-25-06 - 7 - Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A-06-06 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas the property has been posted the ten days required by law, and in recognition that there were protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the public welfare aud without substantially impairiug the intent and purpose of the regulations goveruing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Case No. W A-06- 06(A) be, aud hereby is approved. For the following reasons: 1. The 136 square foot increase to maximum lot coverage is fairly insignificant given a lot size of 15,000 square feet. 2. The lot is oversized at 15,000 square feet and the impact ofthe increase to lot coverage will not have an impact on the surrounding neighborhood. There are several lots within the neighborhood which meet or exceed the 25% maximum lot coverage in the R-l zone district. The 136 foot increase is less than 1 % increase in total lot coverage making it less than 26%. 3. The shed has been appropriately designed to match the character of the main structure and, as such, will give the property a cohesive feel. 4. The request will not affect the adequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties. Board Member REIHNART stated that he would support the motion because lot coverage is not the issue that would impact the adjacent property. Board Member ABBOTT stated he would not support the motion because he believed the property could still yield a return in use without the need for a shed or related variances; the variance would not result in a benefit or contribution to the general neighborhood; and letters in opposition were submitted by three immediately adjacent neighbors. He believed the hardship was self-imposed by the applicant due to recent construction and landscape improvements. Since the shed is 12-foot by 12-foot by 9-feet in height a smaller shed could be built and still be within the ordinance. Board Member HOYLAND commented that if the variance is granted, there is still the option to move the shed elsewhere on the property. Further, the request only exceeds lot coverage requirements, which are the most restrictive in the city, by less than 1 % Board of Adjustment 05-25-06 - 8- Board Member HOWARD offered a friendly amendment that if the motion is denied, the shed is to be removed within thirty days. The amendment was not accepted by Board Members HOYLAND and BLAIR. Motion failed 4-3 with Board Members ABBOTT, HOWARD and LINKER voting no. 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-06-06 (B) and (C) is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas the property has been posted the ten days required by law, and in recognition that there were protests registered against it; and Whereas, the relief applied for may not be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations goveruing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Case No. W A-06-06 (A) and (B) be, and hereby is denied. For the following reasons: The square footage lot coverage variance was denied. The motion passed 7-0. 6. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair BELL closed the public hearing. 7. OLD BUSINESS . Chair BELL announced that new bylaws for the Board of Adjustment have been approved by City Council. . Travis Crane announced that Rob Osborn has been appointed as executive director of Wheat Ridge 2020. . Chair BELL commented that, since the new bylaws have been approved, members could now begin encouraging citizens to serve as alternates on the Board. 8. NEW BUSINESS Board of Adjustment 05-25-06 - 9- A. Approval of Minutes - April 27, 2006 It was moved by Board Member BLAIR and seconded by Board Member ABBOTT to approve the minutes of April 27, 2006 as presented. The motion passed unanimously. B. Other Matters . Chair BELL suggested that it is time to schedule an orientation session for the Board with Jerry Dahl. . Chair BELL expressed appreciation to members for remembering to make any disclosures they may have regarding cases scheduled before the Board. . Chair BELL distributed copies of a Denver Post newspaper article concerning a project by the city of North glenn to update two older homes in the city to demonstrate to residents what can be done to improve their older, smaller homes. She commented that this coincides with the goals of Wheat Ridge 2020. Board Member ABBOTT commented that Wheat Ridge 2020 plans to provide similar help for homeowners who wish to update their homes. He commented that some of the current setback regulations inhibit homeowners who want to increase the sizes of their garages, for example. Board Member HOYLAND commented that he believed a project similar to the one in Northglenn would be a good idea for Wheat Ridge. Travis Crane stated that the city has recently hired a new planner who will be working on the comprehensive plan and sub-area plans. Staff and the consultant are also in process of re-examining the entire zoning code. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. -, ~ ~/ - Ann Lazzeri v Recording Secretary ~~ Gallet Bell, Chao Board of Adjustment Board of Adjustment 05-25-06 - 10 -