Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/27/2005 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting January 27, 2005 ORIGINAL 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice 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 Janet Bell Paul Drda Paul Hovland Bob Howard Members Absent Bob Blair Staff Present: Meredith Reckert, Sr. Planner JeffHirt, Planning Technician Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary The following is the official set of Board of Adjustment minutes for the public hearing of January 27, 2005. 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-04-08: An application filed by Cheng Ku for approval of a variance of up to 55 feet from the required 15-foot build-to-line for special mixed use areas as established by the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual for property zoned Commercial-One and located at 5400 West 38th Avenue. 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 reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended denial of the variance for reasons outlined in the staff report. At the request of Board Member ABBOTT, JeffHirt reviewed the portion of the Streetscape Manual that applies to setbacks. One of the intents of the manual is to create a more pedestrian friendly, neotraditional design as well as provide compatibility with the surrounding area. Board of Adjustment 01-27-05 - I - In response to a question from Board Member BELL, JeffHirt stated that the applicant did not accept staff s suggestion for an alternate configuration as contained in Exhibit 5 of the staff report. Meredith Reckert explained that the applicant was concerned that parking in front ofthe building was necessary for the success of the business. Therefore, staff s suggestion as contained in Exhibit 5 included one row of angled parking to give the appearance of parking and would be more compatible with existing building lines in the area. More parking would be available at the rear of the building. Cheng Ku 2620 South Parker Road #280 Aurora, CO Mr. Ku, the applicant, was sworn in by Vice Chair DRDA. Mr. Ku stated that, in order for the proposed business to be successful, he felt it was necessary to have more than one row of parking in front to attract motorists. He did not believe this area along 38th Avenue is conducive to pedestrian traffic. Further, parking in the front would provide less impact on the residential properties than behind the buildings. In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. Ku stated that it is not known at this time what types of business are planned at this location other than one restaurant. Board Member BELL expressed concern about the turning radius available ifthere were two rows of parking in front. Ms. Reckert explained that was one of the reasons for staff s suggestion of one row of angled parking. Stacking of traffic from 3 8th Avenue waiting to enter the property was also a concern to staff. Mr. Ku stated that, if the area proves to be pedestrian friendly in the future, he was confident the owner would convert the parking in front to a gathering plaza. In response to Mr. Ku's concern about the impact of parking on the residential properties behind the buildings, Board Member HOVLAND commented that there would be a 65- 85 foot buffer between the parking lot and the residential properties to the south. In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. Ku stated that the existing house would not remain on the property. It would either be demolished or moved to another location. John Montoya 3755 Benton Mr. Montoya was sworn in by Vice Chair DRDA. His property is directly south of the subject property. He asked if a fence would be constructed between the properties. Board of Adjustment 01-27-05 -2- Mr. Ku replied that the owner is tentatively planning to construct a 2-3 unit townhouse on the southern portion of the property and all ofthe existing outbuildings and trash would be removed and, most likely, a fence would be built on the southern property line. Mr. Montoya stated he was not concerned about the parking situation and was in favor of the proposed development because it would improve the existing trashy situation on the property. Board Member HOWARD asked if residential development is allowed in C-I zoning. Mr. Hirt replied that a certain percentage of residential is allowed if certain conditions are met. Ms. Reckert explained that, in this case, multi-family construction in the rear of the property would require a zone change as well as a subdivision. Frank Bugino 3770 Benton Mr. Bugino was sworn in by Vice Chair DRDA. He was in favor of parking "in the front. He expressed concern about noise coming from a parking lot in the back. If parking is planned for the back of the property, he would like the city to construct a sound barrier fence along Benton Street. He also expressed concern about decreased property values if parking occurs in the back. In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Mr. Hirt explained that there is required buffering between business and residential properties adjacent to each other but there would be no requirement for buffering on the east side of the property along Benton Street. Ms. Reckert commented that there would be a requirement for parking lot light buffering. Suzanne Olson 3735 Benton Ms. Olson was sworn in by Vice Chair DRDA. Her main concern was related to increased traffic on Benton which is already used by many motorists as a detour from Sheridan Boulevard. She also commented that having all parking on the side and in the back seems to work well for the nearby LaF onda Restaurant. . Board Member HOVLAND commented that more parking in the back would be less likely to develop into an eyesore area than ifthere is only one row of parking. Board Member BELL expressed concern about the danger of the limited turning radius if more parking is allowed in front. The applicant declined an alternative which was offered to allow one row of angled parking in front and she was in favor of adhering to the Streetscape and Architectural guidelines. Board Member ABBOTT suggested a one-way turn for motorists turning left onto Benton toward 38th Avenue to prevent increased traffic on Benton. - 3 - Board of Adjustment 01-27-05 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-04-08 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 were no 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 governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A- 04-08 be and hereby is DENIED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: A variance of up to 55 feet from the required IS-foot build- to-line for special mixed use areas as established by the Streets cape and Architectural Design Manual for property zoned Commercial-One and located at 5400 West 38th Avenue. For the following reasons: 1. The applicant, acting on behalf of the owner, has created a self-imposed hardship by requesting a variance from the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual guidelines. 2. If the request is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable return in use. 3. The request would not result in a contribution or benefIt to the neighborhood as distinguished from an individual benefIt for the property owners. 4. The request is extreme in its variance and therefore as to the intent and goals of the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual. 5. The Board found the applicant's position that parking in front is required to bring customers into the business unconvincing. The motion passed 5-0. Vice Chair DRDA advised the applicant that his request for variance had been denied. (The meeting was recessed from 8:30 p.m. to 8:37 p.m.) B. Case No. W A-04-09: An application filed by Maureen and Jim Stigall for approval of a 10J foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yard Board of Adjustment 01-27-05 -4- setback requirement resulting in a 4.7 foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential One and located at 3240 Jellison Street. The 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 advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. Before reviewing the staff report and digital presentation, Ms. Reckert submitted the following documents into the record and provided copies for Board Members. . Letter from Paul Hargrave, 3224 Jellison Street, dated January 24, 2005 expressing opposition to the application. . Letter from the applicant, dated January 27,2005 outlining unique circumstances and hardship. Staff recommended denial of the variance for reasons outlined in the staff report. In response to a question from Board Member DRDA, Ms. Reckert stated that the application is for a carport rather than a garage. Board Member ABBOTT discussed staffs previous concerns that carports sometimes evolve into garages and such changes are very difficult for staff to monitor. Board Member BELL commented that the application stated the carport would prevent parking on the street and asked ifthere were any regulations which would prevent parking in the driveway. Ms. Reckert stated that it is permissible to park cars in the driveway. In response to a question from Board Member DRDA, Ms. Reckert stated that a driveway would be required for a carport. Maureen Stigall 3240 Jellison Street Ms. Stigall, the applicant, was sworn in by Vice Chair DRDA. Matt Daily Arrowhead Concrete & Asphalt Contractors Mr. Daily, contractor for the applicant, was sworn in by Vice Chair DRDA. Ms. Stigall stated that the carport was necessary to make it easier for her mother to directly access her living quarters in the lower level of the house. This would prevent her mother from having to enter from the driveway, street or garage and walk through the house to access the 14 stairs to the lower level. Mr. Daily stated that the carport would be adjacent to the house and constructed to match the existing house's architecture and materials. He welcomed input from neighbors as to suggested changes in the design. Board of Adjustment 01-27-05 - 5 - Board Member BELL expressed concern that the carport would be on the same level as the house and it would still be necessary to use stairs to gain access to the lower level entrance. Mr. Daily explained that he would install steps that would be less steep than the existing steps. For safety reasons, there would also be covering from the carport, over the stairs and up to the entrance of the house. Board Member ABBOTT suggested that the mother could enter the house from the garage and live on the upper level to avoid the use of stairs. Ms. Stigall stated that the reason she purchased the house is that it does have an R-I compliant mother-in-law living space downstairs which is more convenient for her mother. Board Member HOWARD expressed concern about blowing snow since the carport would be open on the north side where the stairs would be located. Mr. Daily replied that if this proves to be a problem, a wall could be built on the north side. Ms. Reckert commented that walls are not allowed on carports. Ms. Stigall and Mr. Daily stated they would be open to building a garage rather than a carport if that would be acceptable. Board Member BELL asked if the downstairs living arrangement with a kitchen was permissible in R-I zoning. Ms. Daily read into the record the following letter dated June 10, 2004 from Alan White, Community Development Director, to Ms. Stigall: This message is to summarize our telephone conversation. You described the "mother-in-law quarters" as a couple of rooms and a kitchenette located in the basement of the residence. There are stairs leading between the ground floor and the basement and there are no lockable doors between the two floors. Under these conditions, and as long as these conditions remain as described, the mother- in-law quarters are not considered a separate living unit. The residence is considered a one-family dwelling and is in compliance with zoning regulations. Kevin O'Toole 3248 Jellison Street Mr. O'Toole was sworn in by Vice Chair DRDA. He stated his opposition to the application based on the following reasons: there are no other carports in the cul-de-sac; two-driveways, whether for a carport or garage, is objectionable; carports diminish the quality of a neighborhood; and access to the downstairs quarters already exists through the house. His wife, Marcie, authorized him to voice her opposition also. - 6 - Board of Adjustment 01-27-05 Paul Hargrave 3224 Jellison Street Mr. Hargrave was sworn in by Vice Chair DRDA. He expressed his opposition for reasons stated in the letter earlier submitted to the Board: creation of another parking structure on the lot is not in keeping with the character of the subdivision; approval ofthe application could lead to future attempted legal use of the dwelling for multi-family purposes; covenants for the subdivision call for a single family dwelling not to exceed 2- 1/2 stories in height and a private garage; and the variance would set a precedent for the subdivision which could depreciate property values. He also stated that he was authorized to voice opposition on behalf of his wife. John Anthony 3244 Jellison Street Mr. Anthony was sworn in by Vice Chair DRDA. He expressed his opposition and was authorized to express his wife's opposition also. He lives next door to the west of the subject property. He presented a digital depiction of the proposed carport as described by the applicant. The digital presentation was made a part ofthe official record. His opposition was based on the following: a carport would be out of character for the neighborhood; an attached two-car garage already exists at the residence; the variance would set a precedent that could depreciate property values in the area. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member BELL 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-04-09 is an appeal to this Boardfrom 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 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 governing the City of Wheat Ridge. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A- 04-09 be, and hereby is, DENIED. TYPE OF VARIANCE: A 10.3 foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 4.7 foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential One. For the following reasons: -7- Board of Adjustment 01-27-05 1. The hardship has been created by a person having interest in the property. 2. Grantiug of the variance could potentially change or alter the character of the neighborhood. A majority of the properties in the neighborhood all meet or exceed the required fIfteen foot side yard setback requirement. 3. The Board agrees with one of the neighbor's statements that "current dwelling setbacks on all properties in the neighborhood are generous and contribute to the spacious and quasi-rural character of the neighborhood." 4. There are insufficient circumstances that would justify a setback variance. 5. There were letters and testimony received in objection to the proposed variance by immediate neighbors. 6. As a solution, the structure, or structures, as proposed as an accommodation for a disabled person seems impractical in inclement weather. The motion passed 5-0. Vice Chair DRDA advised the applicant that the request for variance was denied. (The meeting was recessed from 9:29 p.m. to 9:32 p.m.) C. Case No. W A-04-14: An application filed by Affordable Garages for approval of a 10 foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 5 foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential- One and located at 2971 Teller Street. This case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended denial of the variance for reasons outlined in the staff report. Leonard Kearns 2971 Teller Street Mr. Kearns, the property owner, was sworn in by Vice Chair DRDA. Ken Relyea 1250 S. Huron, Denver Mr. Relyea, contractor for the property owner, was sworn in by Vice Chair DRDA. Mr. Relyea stated there is no option to place the garage to the left side because it would require two driveways. It would also be difficult to build the garage behind the house because there is a covered patio that would separate the yard into pieces. It would also necessitate opening and closing a gate to the fenced yard in order to access the garage. Mr. Kearns stated the garage would not be usable for him if it were placed in the back. Board of Adjustment 01-27-05 - 8- Board Member ABBOTT suggested that an attached garage would eliminate the need for a variance. Mr. Relyea explained that an attached garage would be significantly more costly than a detached garage. Board Member BELL suggested building a double tiered, or tandem garage, to eliminate the need for a variance. Mr. Relyea explained that would be too tight and cumbersome for the vehicles. Mr. Kearns has a % ton pickup that needs extra room to open the doors. A 16- foot door is not adequate for vehicles this size. That is why the applicant wants to build a 3-car garage rather than a 2-car garage. Board Member BELL stated that she has difficulty approving a variance when there is room in the back to build without a variance. Mr. Kearns stated that building in the back would reduce the size of his yard. Board Member BELL also expressed concern about fire protection when side yard setbacks are reduced. Mr. Relyea asked if the Board would consider a smaller variance. Board Member DRDA stated that he could not find a hardship in this case. The applicant could build a 24-foot double car, double deep garage. Board Member HOVLAND agreed that he did not believe a hardship has been established. Upon a motion by Board Member BELL and second by Board Member ABBOTT, 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-04-14 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 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- 04-14 be, and hereby is, DENIED. - 9 - Board of Adjustment 01-27-05 TYPE OF VARIANCE: A 10 foot side yard setback variance from the 15 foot side yard setback requirement resulting in a 5 foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential-One. For the following reasons: 1. The hardship has been created by a person having an interest in the property. 2. Granting of the variance, while it would not potentially change or alter the character of the neighborhood, does encroach a considerable distance into the required setback. 3. There are alternatives available including reducing the size of the garage from a three-car to a two-car garage requiring a lesser variance or building a garage meeting setback requirements in the rear yard. The motion passed 5-0. Vice Chair DRDA advised the applicant that his request for variance was denied. D. Case No. W A-04-17: An application filed by Republic Garages for approval of a 12 foot side yard setback variance from the 30 foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in an 18 foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential Two and located at 3010 Saulsbury Street. The case was presented by Jeff Hirt. Prior to his presentation, he entered a letter into the record and provided copies to the Board. The letter was signed by nine neighbors expressing support of the application. Mr. Hirt 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 denial ofthe variance for reasons outlined in the staff report. Jerry Cassell 3010 Saulsbury Mr. Cassell, the property owner, was sworn in by Vice Chair DRDA. His reason for requesting a variance is to build a three-car detached garage. He wants to get his vehicles off the street and driveway and into a garage. He stated that the proposed garage would match the house with a hip roof and similar building materials. If he were to extend his single car garage to the south it would necessitate the removal of two 25-year-old shade trees. The only viable location for the proposed garage is the one contained in the application. There is also a safety factor involved with his property being located on the corner. There was one incident of a car crashing through the split rail fence on the corner of his property as well as incidents of vandalism to his vehicles. There is a well-house in the back yard that will not be removed. - 10- Board of Adjustment 01-27-05 Board Member BELL commented that a two-car garage could be constructed without a variance. Mr. Cassell stated that he wanted a three-car garage to get his cars out of the driveway and street. He noted that there were other similar situations in his neighborhood. In response to a question from Board Member ABBOTT, Ms. Reckert stated that the proposed garage space would be within the lot coverage requirements. Patty Polich 3030 Saulsbury Ms. Polich was sworn in by Vice Chair DRDA. She lives two doors from the applicant and indicated her support of the application. There are other neighbors who have received variances which have not hurt the character of the neighborhood. She believed the garage would increase property values. Board Member ABBOTT asked if she had a problem with the driveway entrance being located from 30th Avenue. Ms. Polich replied that she believed the entrance from 30th would be safer than the driveway which faces Saulsbury. Craig Sharbonno 3030 Saulsbury Mr. Sharbonno was sworn in by Vice Chair DRDA. He spoke in favor ofthe application. Getting the cars off the street and out of the driveway would be safer because of careless drivers coming around the corner. Decreasing the size ofthe back yard without the variance would decrease the property's value. Terry Olson 2990 Saulsbury Mr. Olson was sworn in by Vice Chair DRDA. He received a variance in 1994 to build a two-car garage. His lot is smaller than the applicant's lot. The Board decided that there would be sufficient room for a car to be parked in the driveway without encroaching onto a sidewalk based upon the city's regulations for parking space size. The Board's major concern was the character ofthe neighborhood. His garage was built to match his house and appears to have been built at the same time as the house. He stated that he has also experienced problems with careless drivers and vandalism when his cars were parked on the street. 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-04-17 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and - 11 - Board of Adjustment 01-27-05 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- 04-17 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. Type of Variance: A 12 foot side yard setback variance from the 30 foot side yard setback requirement when adjacent to a public street resulting in an 18 foot side yard setback for property zoned Residential-Two. For the following reasons: 1. The garage, as proposed and with conditions to follow, would be an improvement and betterment to the neighborhood. 2. The variance would not cause an alteration to the essential character of the neighborhood nor affect air and light to adjacent properties. 3. The setbacks required on a corner lot signifIcantly reduce the allowable buildable area of the lOt and therefore create a hardship. 4. A petition was submitted signed by nine neighbors who were in favor ofthe variance as requested with the garage door facing West 30th Avenue. 5. Alternative locations arguably would have a negative impact upon the property. With the following conditions: 1. There will be a brick face on the garage and a hip and gable roof to match the house. 2. The board fence will be moved back to be in line with the new garage face from the eastern property line and board fence removed from west of the garage and replaced with split rail as described by the applicant. Board Member HOVLAND offered a friendly amendment to add two more reasons: 6. The requested 18 foot setback from 30th Avenue appears to be more like 24 feet because of the six feet between the lot line and the pavement. 7. The variance would address safety issues described by the applicant and an adjacent neighbor by locating the driveway from 30th Avenue as opposed to the alternative of locating the driveway on the corner of 30th and Saulsbury. The amendment was accepted by Board Member ABBOTT. Board of Adjustment 01-27c05 - 12 - Board Member DRDA asked for clarification about the statement that alternate locations would have a negative impact on the property. Board Member ABBOTT explained that moving and turning the garage another direction in the back would have a negative impact on the use of the yard for a single family house and, argnably, the property value. Board Member DRDA stated that he had difficulty finding a hardship in this case. Board Member ABBOTT commented that options are considerably less on a comer lot because of setback requirements on two sides of the lot. The motion passed 4-1 with Board Member DRDA voting no. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Vice Chair DRDA closed the public hearing portion ofthe meeting. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - August 26, 2004 Board Member HOVLAND offered an amendment to the minutes on page 6, paragraph 3: The sentence should read: "The motion failed (rather than "passed"). It was moved by Board Member HOVLAND and seconded by Board Member ABBOTT to approve the minutes of August 26, 2004 as amended. The motion passed unanimously. B. Resignations . Meredith Reckert submitted copies of a letter from Bill Echelmeyer notifying the Board of his resignation due to a serious health condition. . Ms. Reckert also announced that James Molnar resigned from the Board to serve on the Building Code Advisory Committee. C. Election of Officers It was moved by Board Member HOVLAND and seconded by Board Member HOWARD to select Paul Drda as Chair. The motion passed unanimously. It was moved by Board Member DRDA and seconded by Board Member HOVLAND to select Janet Bell as Vice Chair. The motion passed unanimously. - 13 - Board of Adjustment 01-27-05 D. Complaint There was discussion regarding the copy of an anonymous complaint about the Board which was included in the packet. 7. NEW BUSINESS . Board Member ABBOTT discussed the possibility of amending the Streetscape and Architectural Manual to provide protection for residential neighbors whose properties are directly adjacent to parking lots in back of businesses. . Board Member BELL suggested taking a look at ways to eliminate the need for certain variances in older neighborhoods. Jeff Hirt will bring this recommendation to the consultants who are presently working on a Neighborhood Revitalization Study. Board Member BELL suggested that Board members have input into this study. Since it seems to be almost impossible to write rules which would address all the varied situations in Wheat Ridge, Board Member ABBOTT commented it is practical to have a Board of Adjustment to consider each case. There was some discussion about taking a look at possible changes to the present criteria used in evaluating variances. . Board Member HOVLAND stated that he heard a comment that it might not be necessary to have a super majority vote to approve variances and asked how other Board Members felt about it. Board Member ABBOTT commented that for the super majority vote to work well, it is important to make sure vacancies are filled in order to have a full Board. 8. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member HOVLAND to adjourn the meeting at 11:40 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. /' // / // /;('j~ - c:>if __ ~.!-/.//~?e~ r a, Vice Chair Ann Lazzeri, Secretary Board of Adjustment 01-27-05 - 14 -