Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/28/2006 ORIGINAL Or , , r ,..-,.. , ~ ~... . , , /1 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting September 28, 2006 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chair BELL at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Commission Members Present: Tom Abbott Janet Bell Bob Blair Paul Drda Paul Hovland Bob Howard Larry Linker Davis Reinhart Staff Members Present: Travis Crane, Planner II Aun Lazzeri, Recording Secretary 3. PUBLIC FORUM No one wished to address the Board at this time 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. WA-06-14: An application filed by Mark Shively for approval of an 18-foot side yard setback variance from the 30-foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in a 12-foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential-Two and located at 6675 West 44th Place. 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 staffreport and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval for reasons outlined in the staff report. In response to a question from Board Member DRDA, Travis Crane explained that the variance, if granted, would be specific to the greenhouse structure only. Those individuals wishing to speak regarding this case stood at this time and were sworn in by Chair BELL. Board of Adjustment September 28, 2006 - 1 - Barbara Shively 9653 Meade Ct., Westminster Ms. Shively was appearing on behalf of the applicant, her brother Mark, who is unable to speak for himself due to effects of a stroke. She stated that her brother would like to have a greenhouse on his property. The greenhouse would be wheelchair accessible and built of lumber with translucent sides. The sides could easily be removed, if necessary, for access to any easements on the property. Board Member REINHART asked why the greenhouse could not be built 10-14 feet straight east of the proposed location resulting in a smaller variance. Travis Crane explained that the existing garage would hinder the eastern side ofthe greenhouse. Ms. Shively stated that building the greenhouse 10-14 feet further east would prevent any sunlight to the greenhouse until about 11 :00 a.m. due to shadows from the garage. Board Member REINHART commented that the greenhouse would be closer to the street than the house directly behind it on Pierce. Travis Crane explained that the house does not meet the 30- foot setback requirement and there is a house on the comer to the north that has the same setback as the proposed greenhouse. Board Member HOVLAND commented that perhaps the greenhouse could be pushed further to the east because neighboring trees would seem to block more sun than the garage. Ms. Shively stated that Mark's calculation for the proposed location was based on his previous experience with a greenhouse. There were no other members ofthe public who wished to address the case. Chair BELL closed the public testimony portion of the meeting. Board Member REINHART expressed concern about the structure being only 12 feet away from the street. He was in favor of having the greenhouse setback match the setback for the house. Board Member HOVLAND commented that while he would like to see less of a variance, he would not want the request to be denied. Board Member DRDA favored a variance in the range of 10-12 feet rather than 18 feet. Board Member HOWARD stated that he would vote in favor of the variance because the greenhouse would be an asset to the well established neighborhood and the placement would not present a hindrance. Board Member ABBOTT stated that he would vote in favor ofthe variance because a large portion of the greenhouse would be translucent and set back far Board of Adjustment September 28, 2006 - 2- enough that it would not be obtrusive to the neighborhood. He also expressed his trust of the applicant's experience with greenhouses and his judgment that this location is the only one that would work. He could fmd no rationale to move the location of the greenhouse further east. Board Member BLAIR stated that he would vote in favor ofthe variance because he felt it would fit in with the neighborhood. Further, several neighbors indicated they were in favor of the variance. Board Member BELL asked about setbacks for other houses in the neighborhood. Travis Crane replied that not all of the primary structures in the neighborhood have 30-foot setbacks. Board Member BELL stated that she would vote for the variance because it is not too far off from the setbacks down the street and the neighbors support the variance. Further, the applicant is experienced with greenhouses and has determined this to be the only practical location. 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-06-14 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 Case No. W A-06-14 be, and hereby is approved. For the following reasons: 1. There would seem to be no other practical options to place a functional greenhouse in a conforming location on the property. Existing structures and large trees obstruct the supply of direct sunlight to most areas on the property. 2. The proposed greenhouse will not be out of character with the neighborhood. Within the immediate neighborhood there are several existing structures which do not meet the minimum required side yard setback. Specifically, some structures do not meet the minimum 30-foot setback when adjacent to right-of-way. Board of Adjustment September 28, 2006 - 3 - 3. Related to criteria number six, this structure is being requested as an accommodation for a person with disabilities per the applicant's letter that read in part: "Gardening is an important part of Mark's life and the greenhouse will enable him to continue his pursuits in his current condition. It is important for Mark's physical and psychological well- being. " 4. The structure sits far to the rear of the lot and, at eight feet tall as defined by the ordinance, will not be obtrusive to the neighborhood as to the intent ofthe ordinance. 5. A petition in favor was submitted by five adjacent neighbors. 6. Upon review of the request, staff concludes that the criteria are supportive of the request and recommends approval of request. With the following conditions: 1. The greenhouse shall be constructed of materials as described by the applicant as a minimum. 2. The structure shall not be used as a non-greenhouse structure. 3. The structure must be constructed as handicapped accessible. The motion passed 6-2 with Board Members DRDA and REINHART voting no. B. Case No. W A-06-1S: An application filed by Richard Moreno for approval of a 9-foot side yard setback variance from the 15-foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 6- foot side yard setback AND a request for approval of a 514 square foot variance to the 1000 square foot maximum resulting in a 1,800 square foot barn on property zoned Residential One and located at 6671 West 26th Avenue. Chair BELL announced that Case No. WA-06-15 would not be heard at this time. Travis Crane explained that a publication error had occurred and therefore this case would be heard at the October 26, 2006 meeting. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair BELL closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. 6. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Request for rehearing of Case No. W A-06-12 which was denied by the Board of Adjustment on August 24, 2006. Board of Adjustment September 28, 2006 -4- Gary DiGiorgio 9461 West 63rd Place, Arvada Mr. DiGiorgio requested reconsideration of his application to grant a duplex in R- 3 zoning. He stated that he had new documentation to support the request based on rationale that since the original hearing he has become better informed and realized that he did not have ample opportunity to work with staff regarding his request. He also stated that he had resolved the parking situation. Due to his absence when the case was originally heard, Board Member REINHART stated that he would abstain from voting because he did not feel well enough informed on the case. It was moved by Board Member BLAIR moved and seconded by Board Member LINKER to grant a rehearing for Case No. W A-06-12. The motion failed 5 to 2 with Board Members HOVLAND and DRDA voting no and Board Member REINHART abstaining. (A super-majority of 6 affirmative votes was required for approval.) B. Approval of Minutes - August 24, 2006 It was moved by Board Member DRDA to approve the minutes of August 24, 2006. There were no corrections and therefore the minutes stood approved as presented. 8. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Board Member BLAIR and seconded by Board Member HOWARD to adjourn the meeting at 8:03 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. ~~r~~ a et Bell, cIlair Board of Adjustment September 28, 2006 - 5 -