Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/27/2000 ORIGINAL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting September 27, 2000 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chair HOWARD at 7:30 p.m. on September 27, 2000 in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Tom Abbott Michelle Brown Bill Echelmeyer Linda Mauro Bob Howard Jerry Montoya Kent Young Members Absent: Paul Hovland Staff Present: Alan White, Planning Director Mary Austin, Planner Ann Lazzeri, Secretary The following is the official set of Board of Adjustment minutes for the Public Hearing of September 27, 2000. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Department of Planning and Development of the City of Wheat Ridge. 3. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one signed up to speak. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. W A-OO-OS - Application by Ralph Walker for Airtouch Cellular for approval of a 5-foot height variance to the 50-foot maximum height allowance in a Planned Commercial Development zone district located at 4056 Y oungfield Street prescribed by Section 5.10.1(e) of the City Charter. This case is being processed in conjunction with Case No. WZ-00-03 to allow a freestanding CMRS tower at the property referenced above within the Y oungfield Plaza Planned Commercial Development. Alan White informed Board members that this case had been withdrawn. Board of Adjustment 09/27/00 Page 1 B. Case No. WA-00-07 - Application by Walter Kelleigh for approval ofa 10-foot side yard setback variance from the required IS-foot side yard setback for the purpose of constructing a detached garage on property located at 6680 West 28th Avenue and zoned Residential-One (R-l). The case was presented by Mary Austin. She reviewed the staff report and presented slides and overheads of the subject property. All pertinent documents were entered into the record and Ms. Austin stated there was jurisdiction for the Board to hear the case. Staff recommended approval of the application for reasons outlined in the staff report. In response to a question from BoardMember BROWN, Mary Austin stated there would. be ten feet between the proposed garage and the structure on the adjacent property. Walter Kelleigh 6680 West 28th Avenue Mr. Kelleigh, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair HOWARD. He stated that the proposed garage would enhance his property as well as the entire neighborhood. At present, his house is about the only one in the neighborhood without a garage. Board Member BROWN inquired about the reasons for building a detached garage versus building an attached garage. Mr. Kelleigh explained that an attached garage would not result in much difference in setback from the property line. It would also necessitate removal of a 20-inch diameter tree as well as prevent a straight entrance into the garage. The driveway entrance to the garage would have to be placed at an angle. Board Member ABBOTT inquired about the applicant's plan for the design and exterior materials for the proposed garage. Mr. Kelleigh stated that he plans to have the front of the garage faced with brick to match his house. Board Member ECHELMEYER stated that he would vote in favor of the application because he believed it would enhance the quality of the neighborhood. Board Member MONTOYA stated that he would vote in favor ofthe application because it would allow a large tree to be saved. Chair HOWARD asked ifthere were any others present who wished to address this matter. There was no response. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member ECHELMEYER, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Page 2 Board of Adjustment 09/27/00 Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A-00-07 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas, the property has been posted the required fifteen days 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 substal/tially 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- 00-07 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. Type of Variance: Ten-foot side yard setback variance from the IS-foot side yard setback requirement in an R-l zone district for the purpose of constructing a two- car detached garage on property located at 6680 West 28th Avenue. For the following reasons: 1. The proposed structure would encroach upon 10 feet of the required IS-foot side yard setback. There are other encroachments of a similar nature in the neighborhood. Adjacent properties to the east and west have insufficient side yard setbacks as well due to the nonconforming lot sizes. The adjacent property to the west has a single family home with a S-foot setback from the side property line. Maximum building coverage for a single family home in an R-l zoning district is 25% of the overall lot area. With the proposed garage, the overall lot coverage would be approximately 19%, or 1,838 square feet. Therefore, it would appear that the variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood. 2. The site is nonconforming R-l property. It is 2,935 square feet short ofthe required 12,500 square feet for a single family home. The lot has several mature trees in the rear of the lot. There currently is no garage on this property and there appears to be no other viable location for one. 3. The proposed detached garage structure should not impair the adequate light and air to adjacent properties because it will not result in a setback which is less than the S-foot setback for the neighboring structure to the west. Due to other similar encroachments in the neighborhood, it should not impair property values. The requested variance does not involve additional housing units and therefore will not increase traffic. 4. Granting of the variance should result in a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood. Board of Adjustment 09/27/00 Page 3 S. Staff recommended approval of the variance. 6. It appears to not be practical to attach the proposed garage to the existing structure due to the varying alignment of the west wall of the existing dwelling causing a driveway alignment problem. With the following condition: 1. The outside facing ofthe garage structure shall be brick on the West 28th Avenue side. The motion passed 7-0 with Board Member HOVLAND absent. Chair HOWARD advised the applicant that his request for a variance was approved. C. Case No. W A-00-08 - Application by Robert Alldredge for approval of a 20-foot side yard setback variance to the required 30-foot side yard setback for the purpose of constructing an attached garage on property located at 3890 Lamar Street and zoned Residential-One (R-l). The case was presented by Mary Austin. She reviewed the staff report and presented slides and overheads ofthe subject property. All pertinent documents were entered into the record and Ms. Austin stated there was jurisdiction for the Board to hear the case. Staff recommended approval of the application for reasons outlined in the staff report. In response to a question from Board Member ECHELMEYER, Ms. Austin stated there would be eleven feet between the applicant's property line and the church parking lot. A five-foot setback is required. Robert Alldredge 2890 Lamar Mr. Alldredge, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair HOWARD. He stated that he applied for a variance about a year ago with an intent to build a two-car garage behind and north of the existing house to provide a straight driveway from Lamar into the garage. The dimensions at that time were 24 feet wide and 26 feet deep. When this variance was granted, the dimensions were turned around to 26 feet wide and 24 feet deep. However, he didn't realize that would cause part of the overhead garage door to be located behind the existing structure necessitating a jog in the driveway. He further discovered the fence line on 29th Avenue is 18 inches into the roadway which would cause the garage to be moved 18 inches further to the south. He stated that the proposed garage would be built to match the house with the same roof pitch and matching siding. He also noted that, due to the slope of the lot, the garage would be four feet below the roadway causing the garage to be four feet less than the maximum height limitation Board of Adjustment 09/27/00 Page 4 required by the city. There are several blue spruce trees which will provide a noise and sight buffer. Chair HOWARD asked ifthere were others present who wished to address this matter. There was no response. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT 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-00-08 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas, the property has been posted the required fifteen days 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 ofthe regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A- 00-08 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. Type of Variance: Twenty-foot side yard setback variance from the 30-foot side yard setback requirement when a side yard abuts a public street in an R-l zone, thus reducing the setback to 10 feet for the purpose of constructing a detached two- car garage on property located at 3890 Lamar Street and zoned Residential-One (R-l). For the following reasons: 1. There are unique circumstances because the applicant will be replacing two nonconforming structures with one nonconforming structure which is architecturally compatible. 2. It would not be detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the area. 3. It would not impair the adequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties. 4. There will be visual buffering with a fence, trees and a grade change for the properties most impacted as the structure will sit approximately four feet below the 29th Avenue roadway. Board of Adjustment 09/27/00 Page 5 S. Granting of the variance results in a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood. 6. The property immediately abutting the eastern setback for the proposed garage is a parking lot. 7. It appears to not be practical to attach the proposed garage due to the alignment of the outside walls on the east side of the existing dwelling causing a driveway-garage door alignment problem. 8. There appears to be no practical alternative location for a garage on this site. 9. Staff recommended approval. With the following conditions: 1. The existing nonconforming shed shall be removed. 2. The garage structure shall be architecturally compatible both as to design and materials with the existing dwelling. Board Member ECHELMEYER stated that he would vote in favor of the motion because he believed the proposed garage would enhance the neighborhood. The motion passed 7-0 with Board Member HOVLAND absent. Chair HOWARD advised the applicant that his request for a variance was approved. D. Case No. W A-00-09 - Application by Sandra Thompson for approval of a 27% landscape variance to the landscape area requirement of 80% living material, reducing the living material to 53% of the total landscaped area. Said property is located at 9461 West 37th Place and is zoned Residential-Two. (R-2). The applicant did not meet the posting requirement for the property. Therefore, staff recommended continuance ofthis application to the next Board of Adjustment meeting. Board Member BROWN moved and Board Member YOUNG seconded that Case No. W A-00-09 be continued to the October 26, 2000 Board of Adjustment meeting. The motion passed 7-0 with Board Member HOVLAND absent. E. Case No. WA-00-I0 - Application by Monica Cordell for approval ofa 7-foot front yard setback variance to the 30-foot front yard setback requirement for the purpose of constructing an attached garage on property located at 4150 Carr Street and zoned Residential-Two (Option A). As an alternative to the front yard Page 6 Board of Adjustment 09/27/00 setback variance, the applicant requests approval of a 4 y:, foot side yard setback variance to the IS-foot combined side yard setback requirement for the same property (Option B) . The case was presented by Mary Austin. She reviewed the staff report and presented slides and overheads of the subject property. All pertinent documents were entered into the record and Ms. Austin stated there was jurisdiction for the Board to hear the case. The applicant prefers the front yard setback variance (Option A). Staff recommended denial of both alternatives of the application for reasons outlined in the staff report. Board Member ECHELMEYER stated that he walked through the neighborhood and observed several properties which were four feet or less from the five-foot requirement so the request would not be out of line with properties on the east side of the street. However, this was not the case for the west side ofthe street. Mary Austin explained that there is a different zone district with larger lot requirements across the street on the west. Further, staff research did not reveal that any variances were ever granted for properties on the east side of the street. Board Member YOUNG asked if there were other two-story structures on the block. Mary Austin replied that there is a structure at the end ofthe block that could be considered two-story. Board Member MONTOYA expressed concern about carbon monoxide problems with building a bedroom over a garage. Mr. White explained that such construction is allowed by the building code if certain requirements are met. Monica Cordell 4150 Carr Street Ms. Cordell, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair HOWARD. She explained that the house in question is under joint ownership with her husband. In response to the carbon monoxide concern earlier expressed by Board Member MONTOYA, she stated she was more concerned with an existing nonconforming bedroom in the basement where there is backdraft from the furnace. This is one ofthe reasons she wants to build a second story, so there would no longer be bedrooms in the basement. She stated that they preferred Option A. She stated that their architect is also a neighbor who lives across the street and therefore has a vested interest in maintaining the character of the neighborhood. The purpose ofthe application is to improve the interior living space as well as improve the exterior of the structure. Constructing a garage in the back ofthe property could jeopardize a large tree in the back yard. She stated that the house was originally purchased with the intent to remodel and stay within the city of Wheat Ridge rather than buying a larger house in another city. She felt the proposed addition would enhance the character of the neighborhood. She expressed their desire to keep the back yard as large as possible to provide a safe play area for their four children, two of which have special needs. In conclusion, she stated that 110 notices were send to surrounding neighbors Board of Adjustment 09/27/00 Page 7 regarding their request and no objections were received other than the only letter of objection to the side setback from the neighbor who lives to the south ofthem. She stated that they had actually encouraged this neighbor to write the letter of objection to Option B. In response to a question from Board Member ECHELMEYER, the applicant stated that plans for seven bedrooms are simply to accommodate their present family. However, the architect has drawn plans ranging from four to seven bedrooms and a fmal determination has not been made regarding the most suitable floor plan. Board Member MONTOY Areferred to the applicant's earlier statement that she and Mr. Cordell had encouraged the neighbor to the south to write a letter of objection regarding Option B. Ms. Cordell explained that they realize the side yard setback would be a detriment to the neighbor to the south of them and it was also the less desirable of the two options for her and her husband as well. Chair HOWARD invited those who signed the public hearing roster to appear before the Board at this time. Susan FitzwilIiam 4125 Carr Street Ms. Fitzwilliam, architect for the applicant, was sworn in by Chair HOWARD. She stated that the setback variance would apply only to the garage. Anything built over the garage would be within the required setbacks. Regarding the mass of the house, there are many architectural elements that can be employed to make the house appear less massive. In response to a question from Board Member ECHELMEYER, Ms. Fitzwilliam stated that she believed Option A would fit in with the existing neighborhood very well. Chris Leatherwood 4185 Carr Street Mr. Leatherwood was sworn in by Chair HOWARD. Mr. Leatherwood lives across the street from the applicant and addressed the concerns about the essential character of the neighborhood. Mr. Leatherwood stated that the subject neighborhood is very mixed with structures ranging from old farmhouses to brick ranches and bungalows. He stated that any improvement to the subject house would be an improvement to the neighborhood. and voiced his strong support of the application. In response to a question from Board Member MONTOYA, Mr. Leatherwood stated that he had reviewed the plans for the project. He stated that he was in favor of the option which has a smaller second story. He also understood that a second story addition could be built on this house without other approval if it met setback requirements. Therefore, he did not feel that the second story was an issue in this case. Page 8 Board of Adjustment 09/27/00 Gary Theriaque 4200 Carr Street Mr. Theriaque was sworn in by Chair HOWARD. He stated his support of the project. He was granted a side yard variance for his property and there are four two-story houses existing on the street. He would not be in favor of placing the garage in the backyard due to the fact that the applicant has four young children and there is a traffic problem on the street. Mike Cordell 4150 Carr Street Mr. Cordell, the co-applicant, was sworn in by chair HOWARD. He wanted to address Board Member MONTOYA's concern about the letter of objection from the neighbor directly behind him. At this point, Board Member MONTOYA read the letter of objection into the record as follows: Letter from John Muhs and Julie Trader to the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Division. Case No. WA-00-I0. Mary Austin, we live next door to 4150 Carr Street and just in case we can't make the 9-27-00 hearing because of our work schedule, this is our opinion. My wife and 1 believe that the alternative of the front yard setback variance, a 4 % foot side yard setback variance to the 15 foot combined side yard setback, is NOT ACCEPTABLE! We strongly oppose a change to the 15 foot setback (side yard). It would place the garage too close to our house. We bought our house in this area because the houses do have the same space between the houses. This variance change on the space will place the houses too close to each other. We love Wheat Ridgefor the openness in the area. Thank you for having a hearing concerning the case. Sincerely, John Muhs and Julie Trader. Board Member MONTOYA stated that this strong objection from a neighbor would be reason for him to vote against the side yard variance. He asked Mr. Cordell if this neighbor had opportunity to review the plans. Mr. Cordell replied that this neighbor had indeed reviewed the plans. In response to a question from Board Member MAURO, Alan White explained that a variance would not be necessary to build a second story on the existing house as long as it met the 35- foot height requirement and the required setbacks. Therefore, the issue at question is not the mass of the structure, but whether or not encroachment into the setbacks would alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Board Member ABBOTT expressed concern that the plans were not more specific as to number of bedrooms, etc. Page 9 Board of Adjustment 09/27/00 In conclusion, Mr. Cordell stated that the motive for the application is to add onto their present home which would allow them to stay in the City of Wheat Ridge where the school system accommodates the education of their special needs children. In response to a question from Board Member BROWN, Alan White stated that Option A would meet lot coverage requirements. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member YOUNG, 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-00-I0 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas, the property has been posted the required fifteen days by law, and in recognition that there was one protest registered against Option B and there were speakers in favor of Options A and B; and Whereas, the relief applied for may not be granted 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- 00-10 be, and hereby is, DENIED. Type of Variance: Option A: Request for 7-foot front yard setback variance from the 30-foot front yard requirement in an R-2 zone reducing the setback to 23 feet for the purpose of constructing an attached garage and a second story addition. Oution B: An alternative to Option A, a request for a 4 VI foot side yard setback variance from the IS-foot combined side yard setback requirement in an R-2 zone reducing the combined side yard setback to 10 VI feet for the same purpose of constructing an attached garage with a second story addition. For the following reasons: 1. There are no unique circumstances attributed to this property. At approximately 10,462 square feet, the parcel exceeds the minimum lot requirements for a single family house in the R-2 zone district. The property has a lot width of 75 feet which meets the minimum lot width for a single family home in the R-2 zone. There is nothing unusual about the position of the home on the lot. Board of Adjustment 09/27/00 Page 10 2. Regarding Option A, there are currently no documented or equally significant encroachments into front yard setbacks in the immediately adjacent R-2 neighborhood. 3. Regarding Option B, the requested side yard setback variance could be potentially detrimental to other properties; namely, the adjoining property to the south. The decreased amount of separation between the structures would have the greatest amount of impact on the adjacent single family home on the south side and a written objection to Option B was registered by the property owner. 4. The expansion of the attached garage with a second story would result in an individual benefit to the property owner and would not appear to necessarily produce a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood due to the mass and setback requirement of the design submitted for review by this Board. Board Member MAURO stated that she was undecided at this point because a lot of time was spent discussing the second story issue when it only applies to Option B. When Option A is considered, the application does not appear to be so overwhelming. Board Member BROWN expressed the same sentiments. Board Member ABBOTT stated that Option A, while allowing a second story, allows encroachment into the front instead of the side. He stated that he would be more inclined to approve a one-story encroachment rather than a two-story encroachment. Board Member MAURO referred to the statement by the architect that, while the first story would encroach into the front yard setback, the second story would not. Board Member YOUNG stated that, disregarding the second story issue, he believed there are other options available to the applicant in addition to those presented at this meeting. Board Member ABBOTT expressed concern that while the applicants have every right to build a second story, they would be increasing the visual mass and which runs contrary to the intent of the setback requirements ofthe city. Board Member BROWN inquired about a set of plans shown by the applicant which wasn't in the Board's packet. She requested that the applicant be allowed to submit those plans for the Board's review. Board Members ABBOTT and YOUNG withdrew their motion to allow for further discussion. Page 11 Board of Adjustment 09/27/00 (Chair HOWARD declared a recess at 10:05 p.m. to allow Board members to review the sketches. The meeting was reconvened at 10:15 p.m.) Board Member ECHELMEYER suggested that if the applicant would build a one-car garage there would be no need for a variance. He did not believe a hardship had been demonstrated by the applicants. Board Member BROWN stated that she thought the drawings might provide a solution; however, the applicant indicated they did not want those options. Ms. Cordell stated they wanted the room over the garage to accommodate their large family. She felt that a one-car garage would be out of character with the neighborhood. Board Member MONTOYA commented that if this application were to be denied the Cordell's would still have the option of bringing a new application before the Board at a later date. Ms. Cordell responded that they had already incurred a great expense, a large portion of which was attributed to the cost of sending out 110 certified letters and they would be hesitant to spend more money at this time when the outcome would still be uncertain. Alan White read from the Board of Adjustment bylaws which requires that a rehearing involves the submission of new evidence. A new floor plan, for example, would be considered new evidence. The applicant could then come back to the next Board meeting to request a reconsideration. Upon a motion by Board Member MAURO and second by Board Member BROWN, 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-00-I0 (A) is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas, the property has been posted the required fifteen days by law, and in recognition that there was one protest registered against Option B but no protests were registered against Option A; Whereas, the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the public welfare or without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Option A of Board of Adjustment Application Case No. WA-00-I0 (A) be, and hereby is, APPROVED. Page 12 Board of Adjustment 09/27/00 Type of Variance: Request for a 7-foot front yard setback variance to the 30-foot front yard setback requirement in an R-2 zone for the purpose of constructing an attached garage. For the following reasons: 1. The property wiII remain a single family dwelling and it wiII enhance the neighborhood by aesthetically improving the street appeal. 2. The tree in the back yard is a mature tree and must be protected. With the following conditions: 1. The garage must only be a one-story garage in the encroachment area. 2. The variance would apply to the width of the garage only. 3. The garage dimensions would be based upon floor plans contained in the Board's packet. The motion failed 2-5 with Board Members ABBOTT, BROWN, ECHELMEYER, HOWARD and YOUNG voting no. Chair HOWARD advised the applicants that the request for variance was denied. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member MAURO, 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-00-I0 (B) is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas, the property has been posted the required fifteen days by law, and in recognition that there was one protest registered against Option B but no protests were registered against Option A; 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 governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Option B of Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A-00-I0 (B) be, and hereby is, DENIED. Page 13 Board of Adjustment 09/27/00 Type of Variance: Request for a 4 VI foot side yard setback variance from the combined side yard setback requirement in an R-2 zone, reducing the combined side yard setback to 10 VI feet for the purpose of constructing an attached garage with a two-story addition. For the following reasons: 1. An objection was registered to Option B by the property owner immediately to the south. 2. The plight of the owner is not due to unique or unusual circumstances. 3. The proposed side yard setback would likely impair adequate light and air to the adjoining property to the south as argued by the neighbor to the south. The motion passed 7-0 with Board Member HOVLAND absent. Chair HOWARD advised the applicants that their request for variance was denied. S. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair HOWARD declared the public hearing closed. 6. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Board. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Auuroval of Minutes - It was moved by Board Member ECHELMEYER and seconded by Board Member MAURO to approve the minutes ofthe August 24, 2000 meeting as presented. The motion passed 7-0 with Board Member HOVLAND absent. 8. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Board Member MONTOYA and seconded by Board Member BROWN to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 p.m. Q~I20 ~1-u~JL BOB HOWARD, Chairman Board of Adjustment //1. .>v ' / ,. (. /A'/<fJ/~;rJ11~ Ann Lazzeri, Secret . , Board of Adjustment Page 14 Board of Adjustment 09/27/00