Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/26/2002 O'""\'~INAl t\iVI . CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting September 26, 2002 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chair MONTOYA at 7:30 p.m. on September 26,2002 in the city council chambers of the municipal building, 7S00 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Tom Abbott Bob Blair Paul Drda Bill Echelmeyer Paul Hovland Bob Howard Jerry Montoya Kent Young Staff Present: Meredith Reckert, Sr. Planner Travis Crane, Planner Mike Pesicka, Planning Tech Ann Lazzeri, Secretary The following is the official set of Board of Adjustment minutes for the Public Hearing of September 26,2002. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office ofthe 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-02-08: An application filed by The Buckeye Group for approval of (A) a IS-foot front yard setback variance from the required 30-foot front yard setback from dedicated right-of-way resulting in a IS-foot front yard setback. This would include (B) a request for additional setback encroachment of up to 6 feet from the required 30 foot setback from the intersection of two right-of-way lines of Lamar Street for property zoned Residential-One C (R-I C) and located at 6390 West 39th Avenue. This case was introduced 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 presented photos and site layout pertaining to the application. Variance Board of Adjustment 09/26/02 Page J criteria for both requests (A and B) were reviewed. Staff recommended denial of th* application as outlined in the staff report. In response to questions about whether or not Lamar would be extended or vacated, way for Lamar remains. Sidewalk will be required along 39 th Avenue and Mr. Crane indicated it was not clear at this time whether or not it would be required to go around the comer down Lamar Street. 3895 Lamar Street Mr. Wells was swom in by Chair MONTOYA. He stated his opposition to the application. He expressed concern about lack of parking if the variance were granted. He didn't believe the location of the house would fit in with the existing neighborhood if the variance were granted. Kay Wells 3895 Lamar Street Ms. Wells was sworn in by Chair MONTOYA. She spoke in opposition to the application for the same reasons stated by Mr. Wells, Board of Adjustment Pag 2 09/26/02 Mary Shell 3885 Lamar Street Ms. Shell was sworn in by Chair MONTOYA. She spoke in opposition to the application and expressed concern about parking and traffic congestion. Vince DiManna 3920 Lamar Street Mr. DiManna was sworn in by Chair MONTOYA. He spoke in opposition to the application. He stated that he was advised by staff not to pursue a S-foot variance for a freestanding garage request last spring and didn't feel it was fair to grant a IS-foot variance to the applicant. He also expressed concern about parking, traffic congestion and consistency in the appearance of the neighborhood. Josie Larson 3900 Lamar Ms. Larson was sworn in by Chair MONTOYA. She spoke in opposition to the application. She expressed concern about parking, traffic congestion and consistency in the neighborhood. Board Member YOUNG suggested redesigning the house to push the garage back to be even with the front ofthe house. This would result in a 6-foot variance rather than a IS- foot variance and would be the same as the variance in request B. This configuration would also provide for a larger back yard. Board Member ABBOTT expressed concern about the proposed IS-foot driveway and its conflict with the driveway on Lamar. He asked the builder if it would be possible to design the house to put the garage on the other side of the house. Mr. Burch returned to the podium and stated that he didn't believe it would work well to move the garage to the other side of the house. The suggestion made by Board Member YOUNG to move the garage back to be in line with the house was discussed with the builder and the Board. Mr. Burch agreed that such a compromise would be satisfactory to him. Chair MONTOYA asked the neighbors how they felt about the compromise. No opposition to the compromise was voiced by the neighbors. There was indication they were all in favor of the revised configuration. 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 Board of Adjustment 09/26/02 Page 3 Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A-02-08(A) 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 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- 02-08(A) be, and hereby is, APPROVED. Type of Variance: A request for approval of a 6-foot front yard setback variance resulting in a 24-foot front yard setback. For the following reasons: 1. The general intent of setbacks is to provide separation between adjacent structures and streets within the neighborhood. This is to provide an open view perspective within the neighborhood among other things. The proposed structure actually sits well beyond the recognized 30-foot setback from West 39th Avenue, therefore this structure will appear to the neighborhood as well set back from average. Lamar Street extending only some 30 feet south from its intersection with West 39th creates an anomalous and technical basis for setback measurement. 2. The average front yard setback in the neighborhood is approximately 24 feet. If this 6-foot variance from the standard is applied there will be no tangible visual difference from the requested 6 feet, therefore it would seem to be a practical and non-detrimental plan and variance. 3. The lot size far exceeds the minimum lot size requirement of 5,000 square feet in the R-l C zone district. 4. The request would mostly likely not have an effect on property values in the neighborhood. The motion passed 7-1 with Board Member HOWARD voting no. Chair MONTOYA advised the applicant that part A of his variance request had been approved. Upon a motion by Board Member HOVLAND and second by Board Member DRDA the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the applicant was denied permission by an administrative officer; and Board of Adjustment 09/26/02 Page 4 Whereas, Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A-02-08(B) 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 protests registered against a portion of this application; 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- 02-08(B) be, and hereby is, APPROVED. Type of Variance: A request for a 6-foot variance from the required 30-foot setback from the intersection of two right-of-way lines of Lamar Street. For the following reasons: 1. Approval of this request would not alter the essential character of the locality in that at this location the home is approximately 60 feet back from 39th Avenue which is the apparent frontage. The motion passed 7-1 with Board Member HOWARD voting no. Chair MONTOYA advised the applicant that part B of his variance request had been approved. B. Case No. W A-02-09: An application filed by Connie Gibson for approval of (A) a 7 Yz-foot rear yard setback variance from the required IO-foot building setback for a deck or patio resulting in a 2 Yz-foot rear yard setback and (B) approval of a 9-foot 2-inch side yard setback variance from the required IO-foot building setback for a deck or patio resulting in a lO-inch side yard setback to allow for an existing deck and patio on property zoned Residential-One (R-I) and located at 38S0 Urban Street. This case was introduced 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 presented photos and site layout pertaining to the application. Variance criteria for both requests were reviewed. Staff recommended denial of the application as outlined in the staff report. Page 5 Board of Adjustment 09/26/02 Connie Gibson 3850 Urban Ms. Gibson, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair MONTOYA. She testified that when she hired the contractor to build the deck she assumed he obtained a permit. In answer to a previous question from Board Member ECHELMEYER regarding the city's knowledge of the violation, she stated she assumed it was her next door neighbor who called the city. Board Member ABBOTT asked who is responsible for pulling permits. Travis Crane replied that the normal procedure is for the contractor to come in and obtain the permit. In response to a question from Board Member MONTOYA, Mr. Crane stated that no permits were ever issued for the fence or the deck. The contractor did apply for a permit on July 12,2002, but a permit was never approved. In response to a question from Board Member HOWARD, Mr. Crane replied that a stop work order was issued on June 27, 2002. Mike Black 3850 Urban Mr. Black was sworn in by Chair MONTOYA. He testified that when the stop work order was issued, the contractor told the applicant that he was going down to the city to get a permit. He told the applicant that he did obtain a permit and he proceeded to finish the deck. He stated that he and Ms. Gibson took the contractor at his word and explained that they did not intentionally violate the permit procedure. In reply to questions from the Board, Mr. Crane explained that a denial of the variance request would require replacement of the deck to conform to proper setbacks. Waltrout Klaus 3830 Urban Ms. Klaus was sworn in by Chair MONTOYA. She stated she had no problem with the deck but expressed concern about storm water drainage problems between her property and the applicant's property. She testified that the problem existed before the applicant's deck was installed although the concrete posts may be adding to the problem. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Crane explained that the city is not responsible to resolve drainage issues between private properties. This would have to be resolved with all property owners involved. Connie Gibson returned to the podium. She testified that grading between the properties was not altered when the deck was installed. She also stated they cut a hole in the fence to allow unobstructed drainage. Page 6 Board of Adjustment 09/26/02 Mike Black returned to the podium. He also testified that the grading had not been changed but stated they would be willing to install a french drain or whatever is needed to alleviate the drainage issues. Board Member YOUNG asked if the hot tub could be relocated. Mr. Black stated that the deck was designed to hold the weight of the hot tub in its present location. If the hot tub were to be moved, they would have to test the deck to see if it would hold the weight. Upon a motion by Board Member ABBOTT and second by Board Member DRDA, 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-02-09 is an appeal to this Board from the decision of an administrative officer; and Whereas, the property has been posted the fifteen days reqnired by law; and in recognition that no protests were registered against it; 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- 02-09 be, and hereby is, DENIED. Type of Variance: Request for approval of a 9-foot 2-inch side yard setback variance resulting in a 10-inch side yard setback. This request also includes approval of a 7-foot 6-inch rear yard setback variance resulting in a 2-foot 6-inch rear yard setback. For the following reasons: 1. The structure, as it occurs, substantially impairs the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the city. 2. If the request is denied, the property may still receive a reasonable return in nse. The property is currently utilized as a single-family residence and its use may continue. 3. The deck could be relocated or reconfigured while meeting required setbacks. 4. The request would not result in a contribution or benefit to the neighborhood and wonld solely be an enhancement for the property owners. 5. The persons having interest in the property have created the hardship possibly throngh the errors and omissions of their contractor. Board of Adjustment 09/26/02 Page 7 In response to a question from the Board, Mr. Crane stated that it was acceptable to deny both portions of the variance request under one motion. The motion passed 8-0. Chair MONTOYA advised the applicant that the request for a variance had been denied. The applicant inquired about an appeal process. Chair MONTOYA advised the applicant that an appeal may be made through district court within 30 days. Travis Crane advised the applicant that he would send a letter to the applicant explaining the appeal process. C. Case No. WA-02-10: An application filed by Jolm Daus for approval of (A) a 10- foot side yard setback variance from the required IS-foot side yard setback resulting in a S-foot side yard setback and approval of (B) a I-foot front yard setback variance from the required 30-foot front yard setback resulting in a 29- foot front yard setback for the purpose of adding two additional dwelling units to an existing single-family residential structure on property zoned Residential- Three (R-3) and located at S83I West 29th Avenue. This case was introduced by Mike Pesicka. 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 presented photos and site layout pertaining to the application. Variance criteria for both requests were reviewed. Staff recommended denial of the application as outlined in the staff report. He entered a letter of opposition into the record which was received the morning of the hearing from a resident at 288S Gray Street. Board Member DRDA expressed concern that ingress/egress for two additional dwelling units could add to traffic congestion on 29th. John Daus 5831 West 29th Avenue Mr. Daus, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair MONTOYA. He referred to the staff report that said the rear easement was granted to him by the Denver Water Board. He explained that he granted the easement to the Denver Water Board. This ten-foot easement is actually a hill and is unusable and he asked that this be taken into consideration. He questioned the request for four (instead of two) parking spaces for the existing home. He understood that there would only be a necessity for six parking spaces and four required spaces for the house would bring the total to eight. He noted that there are other multi-family units in the neighborhood and there is only one home that was built in 1909. He stated that his plans are in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. He is requesting the additional ten feet on the side yard to build a third garage so there would be a garage for each unit. Board of Adjustment 09/26/02 Page 8 A copy of the letter of opposition which was earlier entered into the record was given to Mr. Daus for his review. Mr. Daus disagreed with the statement in the letter that there was not enough room for his proposed additions. Board Member HOVLAND expressed concern about ingress/egress from the garages proposed to face 29th Avenue. Board Member YOUNG asked if Mr. Daus had considered changing the plan to build the garages to face the east. Mr. Daus explained that he wanted to keep the side yard for landscaping. Chair MONTOYA asked if there were anyone present who wished to address this matter. There was no response. Upon a motion by Board Member DRDA 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-02-1O(A) 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 a protest was registered against it; Whereas, the relief applied for MAY 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- 02-10(A) be, and hereby is, DENIED. Type ofVariauce: Request for approval ofa 10-foot side yard setback variance from the required 15-foot side yard setback resulting in a 5-foot side yard setback. For the following reasons: 1. The variance could alter the character of the locality. 2. The request does not constitute a unique situation for the property. 3. The hardship has been created solely by the applicant. 4. The request could increase congestion to public streets and possibly endanger public safety. 5. The requested variance would result in benefit solely to the applicant and would not contribute to the neighborhood or the community. 6. There is no unique situation attributed to this request. Board of Adjustment 09/26/02 Page 9 Board Member YOUNG asked for clarification of the motion where Board Member DRDA stated that "relief applied for mav be granted..." Board Member DRDA explained that he did not say it could be granted without detriment to the public welfare. Board Member HOWARD commented that there is a unique situation with the Denver Water Board reservoir adjacent to the property. This is a situation that will never change. Chair MONTOYA and Board Member BLAIR agreed with Board Member HOWARD's comments. Board Member ABBOTT commented that, although there is a reservoir adjacent to the property, other negative criteria do apply in this case. The motion for denial was approved 5-3 with Board Members MONTOYA, BLAIR and HOWARD voting no. Chair MON!OY A advised the applicant that part A of his variance had been denied. Upon a motion by Board Member DRDA 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-02-10(B) 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 a protest was registered against it; Whereas, the relief applied for MAYbe granted without detriment to the public welfare. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A- 02-10(B) be, and hereby is, APPROVED. Type of Variance: Request for approval of a I-foot front yard setback variance from the required 30-foot front yard setback resulting in a 29-foot front yard setback. For the following reasons: 1. This request may not be detrimental to the public welfare. Page J 0 Board of Adjustment 09/26/02 The motion passed by a vote of 7-1 with Board Member ECHELMEYER voting no. Chair MONTOYA advised the applicant that part B of his variance request was approved. D. Case No. W A-02-11: An application filed by Kimery Marchese for approval of a variance to the fence height standard in a front yard from 48 inches to 6 feet on property zoned Commercial-One (C-I) and located at 10400 West 38th Avenue. This case was presented by Mike Pesicka. 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 presented photos and site layout pertaining to the application. Variance criteria was reviewed. Staff recommended approval of the application as outlined in the staff report. Kimary Marchese 10400 West 38th Avenue Ms. Marchese, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair MONTOYA. She stated that she is requesting the fence variance as a sound barrier from West 38th Avenue. She submitted a letter from Claudia Worth ofthe Wheat Ridge Historical Society indicating support ofthe applicant's project. She plans to live in the main structure and maintain a guest house for missionaries in the other structure. The grounds will also be available to use for group meetings, retreats, etc. In response to questions from the Board, the applicant explained that the proposed fence would be a solid picket type fence. Chair MONTOYA asked if there were anyone present to address the matter. There was no response. 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-02-11 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; 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. Page II Board of Adjustment 09/26/02 Now, therefore, be it resolved that Board of Adjustment Application Case No. W A- 02-11 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. Type of Variance: Request for approval of a variance to the fence height standard in a minimum front yard setback for au increase from the four-foot maximum height requirement to six feet. For the following reasons: 1. The six-foot portion of the fence will extend only fIfty feet and will be a picket style feuce with decorative archways at both ends of the fence. The properties to the west aud east are commercial and would not be negatively impacted by this request. 2. Granting the variance would not diminish property values or geueral appearance and character of the neighborhood. 3. The requested variance may produce a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood and commuuity by enhancing a historic property. 4. The applicant testified that she felt that the fence, as proposed, had received positive feedback from Claudia Worth, President of the Wheat Ridge Historical Society. With the followiug conditions: 1. The fence must be pickets as proposed or otherwise compatible and complimentary in design and color to this particular historic property. 2. The variance shall apply only to the portion of the frontage as illustrated in the application and at no less a setback than applied for. The motion passed 8-0. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair MONTOYA declared the public hearing closed. 6. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Board. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Minutes of Julv 25, 2002 - It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member YOUNG to approve the minutes of July 25, 2002. The motion passed unanimously. Page 12 Board of Adjustment 09/26/02 B. Chanl!e in Meetinl! Date - Due to conflict with the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays, the November and December meetings must be rescheduled. It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member YOUNG to combine the November and December meetings to be held on Wednesday, December 4, 2002. The motion passed 8-0. C. Televised board meetinl!s - Chair MONTOYA stated he had been directed to solicit opinion from Board members as to whether they wish to have the Board meetings televised. There was a mixed reaction from the Board. four members were opposed and four members stated it made no difference to them whether or not the meetings are televised. 8. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Board Member DRDA and seconded by Board Member HOWARD to adjourn the meeting at 12:05 a.m., September 27, 2002. The motion passed 8-0. r:L~ Ann Lazzeri, Secretary Board of Adjustment Board of Adjustment 09/26/02 Page 13