HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/25/15City of
"� WheatR4jge
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
June 25, 2015
A training workshop for all Board Members will begin at 5:30 p.m.
in the 2" d floor conference room. Dinner will be provided.
Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of
Adjustment on June 25, 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal
Building, 7500 W. 29`h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the
agenda.)
4. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Case No. WA -15-06: An application filed by David L. Fisher for request of approval of a 21 -
foot variance (84%) from the 25 -foot setback requirement for side yards facing a public street,
resulting in a 4 -foot setback from the property line for a detached garage on property zoned
Residential -Two (R-2) located at 2990 Marshall Court.
5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of Minutes — May 28, 2015
B. Study Session Continuance — Public Hearing Debrief
7. ADJOURNMENT
Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of
Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public Information Officer at 303-235-2826 at least one week in
advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance.
CITY
•
F WHEAT RIDGE
BOARD
pM y tJune 2015
A2jvintrnent and
s
councilThe shall make all appointments
specify the term of office of each individual in order to all boards i commissions and shall
to achieve overlapping
boards • commissions shall have approximately
equal representation i
council
members shallbe residentsof
councilsubject to removal for just cause by the council. The
i make
appointments
to fill vacancies for• .i
Power2. ,
Board.
A. Generally •i' of • •
a. The board of adjustment
shall
. i uests i � ii
authorityi decide
rtnces zoning • i
flood -plain • i ordinance, and sign code,
of i ` • i ` codes ithe subdivision.i a #
subjecti i guidelines forthset
h• i e i
Section i i • iapproved by the city
councilin the
form Of official rules ii
.i
a i board of
a The board Of adjustment has
` responsibility,accordance
the Zoning Ordinance, Section 26.13; [now 26-115.D.31, to permit in
any district a temporary building
which is used for a permitted use
district,in that or ii
of i not allowed
i .i
that district; such permit is to be issued for no longer than
` i'application.
i
exercisingIn the above-mentioned ii
wers, the board may, in
conformity ith other appropriate
provisions of _ or
whollyor partly, or i i
order, requirement,
decision or determination appealed from and
shall make such
• •-requirement,decision or i_
• opinion ought
to be .#' in the premises, t to that end shall have all the
powers of i • administrator,
B. VarianrP/VVqiyare/*rn, Permits/lnteRE91@1!M§. Code
"Section 26-115A
of Laws
` •` .,* i s. s. .•i
The Community Development Director is given authority to grant variances and
waivers of 50 percent or less from certain development standards, subject to the
same criteria applicable to the board of adjustment's consideration of variance
requests (Code 26 -115 -CI).
C. Review Criteria for Variances and Waivers: Code of Laws Sec. 26-
11 5(C)4.
The community development director, board of adjustment, planning commission
or city council shall base its decision in consideration of the extent to which the
applicant demonstrates a MgLority of the following criteria have been met,
a The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use,
service or income if permitted to be •used only under the conditions
allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located.
The variance would not alter the essential character of the lo
b cality.
C. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property
with this application, which would not be possible without the
variance.
d . The particular physical surrounding, shape or typographical
condition of the specific property involved results in a particular and
unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere
inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out.
e The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any
person presently having an interest in the property.
f. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the
neighborhood in which the property is located, substantially or
permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of
ador
jacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property, increasing the congestion in public streets
increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or
substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the
neighborhood.
91The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance
request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the
property.
K g of the variance would result in a rart sonab
Grantinle
accommodation of a person with disabilities.
i. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable
set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Ma
standardsnual.
I
a. One-year temporary permit for buildings and signs. Criteri-I
• Will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health,
welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working
in the neighborhood of the proposed use, and
• Will not adversely affect the adequate light and air, nor cause
significant air, water or noise pollution, or cause drainage
problems for the general area; and
• Will not result in unique traffic congestion or traffic hazards, or
unsafe parking, loading, service or internal traffic conflicts to the
detriment of persons whether on or off the site; and
• Will be appropriately designed, including setbacks, heights,
parking, bulk, buffering, screening and landscaping, so as to be
in harmony and compatible with character of the surrounding
areas and neighborhood, especially with adjacent properties;
and
Will not overburden the capacities of the existing streets,
utilities, parks, schools, and other public facilities and services,
b. Temporary nonoperative vehicle permits. Criterill
9 Will not alter the character of the locality, and
* Will not contribute to blight in the neighborhood; and
Will be adequately screened from adjacent properties and public
streets; and
',TrVill not create environmental hazards (use of paint, body wor
welding, ground contamination). I
The board of adjustment may also take into consideration the
history of compliance, or of zoning variances by the applicant
and any other factors relevant to the specific application.
The basic intent and purpose of words, phrases or paragraphs
as applied to a specific proposal or instance.
Use of property as an "other similar use" however, in no
instance shall the Board make an interpretation that a particular
use may be permitted in a zone district where that use is
specifically enumerated in a higher, more intensive zone district.
Approval of an appeal of a decision to deny a variance, or
conditions of approval imposed on a variance by the Community
Development Director provided that a written appeal is
submitted by the applicant within ten (10) days of the decision.
Limitations on the Board's Authority
"In no instance shall the Board of Adjustment hear or grant a variance as
to use or as to an activity or development which is prohibited by this
chapter or by Section 5.10.1 of the Charter [concerning maximum buildini,
height and residential density limitations.]" Code 26-115.C.3
MMM
While "hardship" is in the mind of the beholder, some important elements should
be a part of the applicant's case:
A, Hardship should not be self-imposed. Did the applicant buy the property
knowing that it was too small for the required lot size in the single family
zoning district, or with knowledge that the front setback would force the
building to be exceptionally narrow?
B. The conditions creating the hardship should be peculiar to that property
and not shared generally in the zone district. Are all of the lots in this area
platted at less than needed for a "normal single-family home such that it is
not possible to build a conforming structure without the need for a
variance? What is the motivation for the claim of hardship?
C. It is not enough for the applicant merely to prove that it would be more
convenient to have the variance.
DThe applicant has no right to the highest and best use of his property, and
the Board need not grant a variance to ensure this.
E. Is the motivation for the variance simply financial? Does the applicant
merely wish to avoid the cost of compliance with the regulations?
F Has the impact on the surrounding area and the health, safety and welfare
with the public been documented? It may be that even though true
hardship is proven, to grant the variance would decrease the quality of life
for the neighborhood. The applicant's burden of proof extends beyond
proving its own hardship to include also proving that granting the variance
or reversing the administrative officers decision will not injure the public or
the surrounding property owners.
0
. . *iJR,7X-*f.r- M-:YTTr# -• 0 --
A. As an appellate body, the Board's task is not to solve each problem
brought to it, but instead to determine whether the necessary standards of
hardship have been met and, even if so, whether reversing the
administrative decision or granting a variance will not injure the public
health, safety and welfare. It is to be expected that the Board will deny the
appeal in many cases, or grant less than the requested variance.
13The burden of proof is upon the applicant to prove that the requirements of
the Code of Laws have been met. The standard is that the Board shall
base its decision on "the extent to which the applicant demonstrates a
majority" of the criteria of Code 26-115.C.4 are met: (hardship not self-
imposed; unique attributes of the property; public health, safety and
welfare not affected,
C. On appeal, the reviewing court will not substitute its judgment for that of
the Board unless the Board's discretion has been clearly abused.
A. The Board of Adjustment's function is to serve as an independent body to
review special and exceptional cases, and to be a "court of last resort" for
persons who feel that an administrative official's decision is unfair. This
allows the City Council the freedom to implement general policies, and to
act upon them as development proposals move forward. The City Council
is less capable of serving in the highly individualized, case specific
appellate role filled by the Board of Adjustment.
R. Similarly, the administrative officials charged with administration of the
zoning and building regulations of the jurisdiction should not be placed in
the position of granting exceptions to the rules they are asked to enforce,
To it so would be to compromise their ability to enforce the rules in each
case. For example, if the building official granted an exception to the
required distance between finished grade and the floor joists for residential
construction, each applicant for a building permit would request the same
exception, claiming that "you gave the exception to the last applicant; you
should give it to me."
C. Zoning and building control regulations are enacted for a purpose: to
protect public health, safety and welfare. Good regulations are designed
to apply in most cases. It is the exceptional cases which give rise to the
need for a Board of Adjustment. The function of the Board of Adjustment
gives both elected and appointed officials the freedom to do their jobs.
T. The guasi-Judicial Standard
Actions of the Board on variance or waiver requests or appeals from
administrative officials are guasi-judicial, not jpgja!gj�Le. The Board sits as an appellate
body (a judge), not as the decision maker in the first instance. The consequences of
the fact that the BOA's function is quasi-judicial are several:
Right to present witnesses and evidence.
Right to cross-examination?
• Right to legal argument.
0 Right to rebuttal.
0 No ex parte contacts allowed.
Rules of evidence: informal.
• Conflicts of interest.
7. Ex -Parte Contacts
A. Defined: Contacts between the applicant or opponents and the members
of the Board of Adjustment outside of publicly scheduled hearings and
meetings on the application.
B. Why should these contacts be avoided? The consequence of engaging in
such contacts can be as severe as invalidating the action of the Board.
C. How can ex parte contacts be avoided? Once approached or called by
the applicant or opponent and the matter is identified by them,
immediately advise them that, as a Board member, it is improper for you
to talk about the case outside of the hearing room, and urge them to bring
their points of view and testimony to the hearing room.
DThe prohibition extends to written materials as well: Make sure any
materials you receive outside of the hearing room are copied and shared
with everyone at the time of hearing.
E. What to do if an ex parte contact has occurred: Disclose the contact to
the Board at the beginning of the hearing; describe its content as
completely as possible. If the contact was extensive, you may be required
to step down and not further participate.
F Site visits- Avoid any contact with either side at the site. Even
"informational" contact is still an ex parte contact.
G. Contact with Staff: always permitted; it is not an ex parte contact.
Notwithstanding any other provision in this section, the following voting rules
shall be in effect for all matters requiring decision by the board of adjustment to grant
any variance, waiver, temporary building or use permit, any interpretation or floodplain
special exception permit (or for any matter requiring decision by the planning
commission or the city council):
Members Present Votes Needed to Approvd
8
6
7
6
6
5
5
4
All . . . . . . . . . .
C. Public testimony
10, Taking TesfiLnon_!
Goal: That board members and public attendees leave the hearing feeling that it
was fair and that their views were heard and appreciated. Explain the rules for conduct
of the hearing at the outset,
B. Suggest speakers don't repeat prior testimony if they can state they agree
with an earlier speaker (but be patient if they don't follow that suggestion).
C. Make sure that all attendees at the public hearing know they have the right
to speak
D. Okay to permit organized groups to block their testimony
E. Relaxed rules of evidence apply in administrative hearings
F. Hearsay is admissible: I heard Dahl say that." [Where Dahl is not present
and cannot be cross examined.]
N
C. There is no prohibition or limitation on kind or nature of testimony in the
Wheat Ridge Code of Laws.
H. Don't argue with the applicant.
1. Thank all the speakers for appearing.
J. It is appropriate for the board to consider the weight and credibility of
testimony.
11. Taking Action
A. Consider all the testimony and evidence. Don't let the number of people
for or against the application determine your decision.
B. Compare the evidence against the standards and the Code
C. Draw conclusions from the evidence
D. Rely upon and state your conclusions in the motion
E. "[A] record of proceedings before the Board must contain details of the
evidence presented and proper grounds and reasons to support its
decision."
Apply the same standards of relevance you would want to see in
public testimony.
0 Okay to grant a smaller variance; not a larger one.
MMUMMM
H. Written findings of fact and resolution. Code of Laws See. 2-61 (d).
Conditional Approval: Conditions are perfectly appropriate, and, in fact,
encouraged. You have the authority to modify the order or decision being
appealed from, not merely to grant or not grant the appeal or variance.
Conditions should be reasonable and should relate to the impacts of the
project.
J. Term; Expiration: Variances and waivers expire 180 days after being
granted unless:
0 a building permit issued, before that time, or
M
0 a different term is granted in the resolution.
•
A. Appeals from a decision of the Board of Adjustment must be filed under
Rule 106(a)(4) C.R.C.P. with the district court within 30 days of final
action. Code of Laws, Sec. 26 6(D)(5); Rule 106 (a)(4) C.R.C.P. Failure to
do so results in dismissal of the appeal.
B. Substantially improved chances if there is a preponderance of the
evidence in the record on each of the required elements, and if that
evidence is summarized in written findings.
C. Generally, the courts will not substitute their judgment for yours unless you
have clearly abused your discretion.
D. You have the authority to rehear an application for a variance, but only if
new evidence is submitted which could not have been available at the first
hearing, or one year has passed since the prior decision. The Board may
reopen and review past decisions when it is alleged that the Board has
exceeded its authority, or when the applicant allegedly violates the terms
of the variance which has been granted.
0
TO:
CASE MANAGER:
CASE NO. & NAME:
City of
W heat�idge
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
Board of Adjustment
Lauren Mikulak
WA -15-06 / Fisher
MEETING DATE: June 25, 2015
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 21 -foot variance from the 25 -foot setback requirement for side
yards facing a public street for property located at 2990 Marshall Court and
zoned Residential -Two (R-2)
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 2990 Marshall Court
APPLICANT (S)
OWNER (S):
APPROXIMATE AREA:
David Fisher
David Fisher
11,683 Square Feet (0.27 Acres)
PRESENT ZONING: Residential -Two (R-2)
PRESENT LAND USE: Single Family Residential
ENTER INTO RECORD:
(X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
Location Map
Board of Adjustment
Case No. WA -15-06 /Fisher
Site
JURISDICTION:
All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to make an
administrative decision.
I. REQUEST
The applicant is requesting approval of a 21 -foot (84%) variance from the 25 -foot setback requirement
for side yards facing a public street. The purpose of this variance is to allow for the construction of a
two -car detached garage with a 4 -foot setback on the northern portion of the property.
Section 26-115.0 (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Board of
Adjustment to hear and decide on variances from the strict application of the zoning district
development standards. Because this application includes a variance request that exceeds 50% of the
development standards, the application is not eligible for administrative approval and is required to be
heard at a public hearing before the Board of Adjustment.
II. CASE ANALYSIS
The applicant, David Fisher, is requesting the variance as the property owner of 2990 Marshall Court.
The variance is being requested so that the applicant may construct a 24' x 36' detached two -car
garage on the north side of the property adjacent to W. 30`x' Avenue (Exhibit 1, Aerial).
The property is zoned Residential -Two (R-2), a zone district that provides for high quality, safe, quiet
and stable low to moderate -density residential neighborhoods, and prohibits activities of any nature
which are incompatible with the residential character. The site is surrounded by other residentially
zoned properties, including those zoned Residential -One (R-1), Residential -One C (R -1C),
Residential -One A (R-1 A), and Residential -Two (R-2). Single-family homes surround the property to
the west and south. Across the street to the northwest is a church (Exhibit 2, Zoning
According to Jefferson County records, the parcel has an area of 11,683 square feet and contains a
two-story single-family home that was constructed in 2002. The home is located on the far southern
end of the lot. A paved driveway provides access off of Marshall Court. Currently, there is a two -car
garage attached to the south side of the home. This garage is positioned at an awkward angle in
relation to the driveway and street which makes it difficult to navigate larger vehicles and equipment
into and out of the garage (Exhibit 3, Site Photos). The proposed garage will accommodate vehicles
and recreational items that are currently stored in view of the right-of-way.
Three notable features significantly reduce the buildable area of the lot. First, the property is a corner
lot which requires enhanced 25 -foot setbacks from both street frontages. Second, the topography of
the site results in a change in grade of about 10-12 feet from north to south across the site Wxhibitf,
Topo Map). Lastly, a 60 -foot wide easement bisects the property; it contains a water main and is
recorded on the subdivision plat as a "D.M.W.W. Right of Way" (Exhibit 5, Recorded Plat). The
easement consumes the middle third of the property and explains why the existing home is built on the
far southern end of the site.
The applicant purchased the property in 2002 shortly after the home was constructed by a previous
owner. A small portion of the existing home appears to extend into the easement and will be allowed
to remain, however no new permanent structures are permitted to be constructed within the easement.
Board ofAdjustment
Case No. WA -15-06 / Fisher
Because no structures may be constructed in the easement, the garage is proposed to be located at the
northern end of the property with a 4 -foot setback from the W. 30`h Avenue right-of-way (Exhibit 6,
Proposed Plans).
The reasons for the minimal 4 -foot setback are twofold. Section 26-625 of the zoning code prohibits
detached garages from having a setback between 5 and 18 feet. The purpose of this regulation is to
prevent a vehicle from parking in the driveway and conflicting with the street. The garage is located 4
feet from the property line and approximately 20 feet from the edge of the street which is an ideal
setback based on the code requirements. The topography of the site also explains the minimal setback.
The site is slightly steeper in the middle and continues to rise toward the south. Moving the garage
further south gets increasingly challenging based on the topography of the lot.
As mentioned above, the variance request would result in a 4 -foot side yard setback, but the proposed
garage would meet all other development standards including height and maximum size. The
following table compares the required R-2 development standards with the actual and proposed
conditions:
R-2 Development Standards: Required Actual
Lot Area 9,000 square feet (min) 11,683 square feet
Lot Width 80 feet min on each frontage) 80 feet / 127 feet
Major Accessory Structures:
Required
Proposed Garage
Building Size
1,000 square feet (max)
864 square feet
Height
15 feet max
±12 feet
Front west Setback
25 feet min
25 feet
Rear (east Setback
10 feet min
17 feet
Side (north) Setback
25 feet min
4 feet
The 15 -day notification period for the public hearing is currently in progress. As of June 18, 2015 no
objections or inquiries have been received.
III. VARIANCE CRITERIA
In order to approve an administrative variance, the Board of Adjustment must determine that the
majority of the "criteria for review" listed in Section 26-115.C.4 of the City Code have been met. The
applicant has addressed the application's compliance with the variance criteria (Exhibit 7, Applicant
Analysis). Staff provides the following review and analysis of the variance criteria.
1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if
permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in
which it is located.
If the request were denied, the property would continue to yield a reasonable return in use. The
property would continue to function as a single-family residence, regardless of the outcome of
the variance request.
Staff finds this criterion has not been met.
Board of Adjustment
Case No. WA -15-06 /Fisher
2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
The variance is not likely to alter the character of the area. While the garage has a significantly
reduced setback, the City's right-of-way maps indicate about 16 feet of unbuilt right-of-way
between the edge of asphalt and the property line. This open space results in a perceived
setback of about 20 feet which helps to reduce the visual impact of the garage within the
setback area (Exhibit 3, Site Photos).
The oversized property to the east is undeveloped along the street, so there are no structures
immediately adjacent to the subject site against which the garage would be visually compared.
The nearest structure to the east is about 230 feet away.
The proposed garage would be designed to complement the existing house with similar
windows, siding, roof pitch, and other material selections. The primary material will be 8" lap
siding. The variance request may improve the character of the area by allowing enclosed
storage of large items that are currently stored on the side of the property and visible from the
public right-of-way.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application,
which would not be possible without the variance.
The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property, which would not be
possible without the variance. A detached garage that provides off-street covered parking is
expected to add value to the property.
As documented in the case analysis above, the 60 -foot easement and topography necessitate a
setback variance from W. 30`h Avenue. There is no alternative location for a detached garage
on the property.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific
property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried
out.
The unique hardships on the subject property relate directly to the topography of the lot and the
easement that encumbers development in the middle third of the site. Because no permanent
structures may be constructed in the easement, locating permanent structures on the site is a
unique physical challenge.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an
interest in the property.
Board of Adjustment 4
Case No. WA -I 5-06 / Fisher
The hardship described above was not created by the current property owner or any person
currently having an interest in the property. Based on subdivision records, the 60 -foot
easement existed at least as early as 1952. The current owner purchased the property in 2002,
and thus is not responsible for the existing conditions of the property.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located,
by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or
development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing
the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or
impairing property values within the neighborhood.
The request would not be detrimental to public welfare and would not be injurious to
neighboring property or improvements. It would not hinder or impair the development of the
adjacent properties. The adequate supply of air and light would not be compromised as a result
of this request. The request would not increase the congestion in the streets. It would not cause
an obstruction to motorists on the adjacent streets and would not impede the sight distance
triangle.
The request will not diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The
proposed garage may in fact have a positive affect on the neighborhood by allowing covered
storage of vehicles that have previously been parked in or near the public right-of-way.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in
the neighborhood and are not unique to the property.
The 60 -foot easement that necessitates the variance request is not unique to the subject
property. Plat documents for the surrounding subdivisions show that the easement bisects
multiple lots in area, including in the Jalamar and Stebbin's subdivisions. Aerial images show
how the easement has resulted in unusual placements of structures on some lots (Exhibit 8,
Neighborhood Conditions).
Staff finds that this criterion has been met.
8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with
disabilities.
Single family homes and their accessory buildings are not required to meet building codes
pertaining to the accommodation of persons with disabilities.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the
Architectural and Site Design Manual.
Board o/'Adjustme nt
Case No. WA-15-06/Fisher
The Architectural and Site Design Manual does not apply to single and two family dwelling
units.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends
APPROVAL of a 21 -foot variance from the 25 -foot setback requirement for a side yard facing a public
street. Staff has found that there are unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant
approval of a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval for the following reasons:
1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible
without the variance.
3. Topography and easements on the property significantly reduce the buildable area of the lot.
4. The alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the
property.
5. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare.
6. No objections were received regarding the variance request.
With the following conditions:
1. The design and architecture of the proposed garage shall be consistent with representations
depicted in the application materials, subject to staff review and approval through review of a
building permit.
Attachments:
1. Resolution Template
Board of Adjustment 6
Case No. WA -15-06 /Fisher
oil=45
03010
5, 0649 r
06405
W 30th Avenue
ur r
T I -
j M;
06580 06550 06530
H
02990
v I fy
06417
02998 02991_ {
02986 I P'
02998
02955 J!�
02986
02980 0641mi�,
2980j 064750641
EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP
Board of Adjustment
Case No. WA -1S-06 /Fisher
EXHIBIT 3: SITE PHOTOS
Board of Adjustment
Case No. WA -15-06 /Fisher
5
_1
W 30th Avenue
aim -
V � ,
EXHIBIT 5: RECORDED PLAT
Blair Subdivision was recorded in 1958 and shows a 60 -foot wide D.M.W.W. Right -of -Way (yellow)
bisecting the entire subdivision, including a significant portion of the subject property (red).
GLAIR 5UBD'1VI,510N
A RE5US01VISIOMPF A PORTION OF LOT SLOCK5 HENDER5ON'3 5UBDIVINOW AMENDED FILING
LOCATED 1N THE SW Y4 OF SECTION 25.T35, R69W
JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO
� � Y
0
�.
m / 4 �03 u :N
"0 A
/ � o
� r
n /
n /
1 Sc.cr i Is. ae'
SOUTH LIKE OF NOS.TM Z9& ACRRO S as 51'•Zz- STT.OS'
Lot 2. DLOC.• 5
UNSUDDIVIDEO
5CAL&
S FOOT EA&EM&NT! AR& R&lRRV&O ALOHA R[AR IINCN _ SO FRRT
LOT LINEA FOR UTILITY IN &TALL ATION AMO MA.N T&N ANC[
Board gfA4justment
Case Na WA -1 S-06 / Fisher
UN SU OONIORO
NOETM !i �REVIOV lLY DEROED
N
W E 31 30 TH AVENUE
i
'0
N.
6Y SEF'ARATR 09-E0
---
til. X'
So'
So'
40'
Mio
E%C EPTEO
P�
r
F'
C.x u
o)
O
O
W
o)
V
1
I:
05
0
C
ILS'
150.4' sot•
JO
u
�
u
r o.
a
>
3
0s
r'
_
0
Oi /�
E
000
<
N
-�
� � Y
0
�.
m / 4 �03 u :N
"0 A
/ � o
� r
n /
n /
1 Sc.cr i Is. ae'
SOUTH LIKE OF NOS.TM Z9& ACRRO S as 51'•Zz- STT.OS'
Lot 2. DLOC.• 5
UNSUDDIVIDEO
5CAL&
S FOOT EA&EM&NT! AR& R&lRRV&O ALOHA R[AR IINCN _ SO FRRT
LOT LINEA FOR UTILITY IN &TALL ATION AMO MA.N T&N ANC[
Board gfA4justment
Case Na WA -1 S-06 / Fisher
EXHIBIT 6: PROPOSED PLANS
The following site plan was submitted by the applicant and shows the proposed garage in relation to
the 60 -foot wide easement.
si kf)
3� rt Auc-
A
Board of Adjustment 12
Case No. WA -15-06 / Fisher
The image below shows the location of the proosed garage in relation not only to the easement, but
also in relation to the edge of asphalt on W. 30` Avenue—there is about 16 feet of unbuilt right-of-
way, so the building will be about 20 feet from the street.
Board ofAdjustment
Case No. WA -15-06 /Fisher
The image below is represents a side elevation that illustrates the topographic challenges on the site.
-77 -,� - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ll , 2, - - - - - - - - -
y' x I
X2,6•
i F
Cr -,de
7-
J, J
_ C4
Grc�1e
14
Board of Adjustment
Case No. WA -15-06 / Fisher
EXHIBIT 7: APPLICANT ANALYSIS
Fisher — Detached Garage Variance Request
2990 Marshall Ct.
1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if
permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it
is located.
a. Not Applicable
2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
a. The proposed building will be constructed with siding, roofing and paint to match the
existing house.
3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which
would not be possible without the variance.
a. The total investment for this project will be approximately $30K for materials only. I will
provide the labor with the exception of the cement work.
4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property
results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere
inconvenience.
a. The significant slope of the property requires the garage be located at the north end of
the property parallel to 30`h Ave. with access from this street.
5. Is there a particular or unique hardship, the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created
by any person presently having an interest in the property.
a. The mandated setback from the Denver Water easement that traverses my I
requires the garage to be located north of the easement (see attached site p
"he granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injuri(
property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. , by, among
other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of
adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the
danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing
property values within the neighborhood.
a. The proposed building will be located on a portion of the property that is not near any
of the adjoining properties.
b. The proposed building will not block line of sight for traffic on 301h Ave. or Marshall Ct.
7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the
neighborhood and are not unique to the property.
a. The aforementioned Denver Water easement affects multiple properties in the
neighborhood.
8. Granting the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities.
a. Not Applicable
9. The application is in substantial compliance standards set forth in the Architectural and Site
Design Manual.
a. Not Applicable
Board ofAdjustment 15
Case No. WA-15-06/Fisher
NEVYL� "W
� I ,
a:
oma. y i i w �itt 7. r
CD
w
(D �. O N ►�
vii O O ' m ��■ - �_
0 co
F—vEl
.
w
fD
'04
w
O _
Q KENDALL STAmmm�
CCD CD
a• n
r,
WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION (TEMPLATE)
CASE NO: WA -15-06
APPLICANT NAME: David Fisher
LOCATION OF REQUEST:
WHEREAS, the application Case No. WA -15-06 was not eligible for administrative review; and
WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law and in recognition that
there [were / were nol 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; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Adjustment application Case No.
WA -15-06 be, and hereby is, APPROVED.
TYPE OF VARIANCE: Request for approval of a 21- foot variance to allow a 4 -foot setback in
a side yard adjacent to a public street, in the R-2 zone district and for the construction of a
detached garage.
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be
possible without the variance.
3. Topography and easements on the property significantly reduce the buildable area of the
lot.
4. The alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in
the property.
5. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare.
6. No objections were received regarding the variance request.
7.
91
a
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The design and architecture of the proposed garage shall be consistent with
representations depicted in the application materials, subject to staff review and approval
through review of a building permit.
11
7
at
g
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Minutes of Meeting
May 28,2015
The meeting was called to order by Chair HOVLAND
Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29"')
2. ROLL CALL
Board Members Present:
Alternates Present:
Board,
Stagf
&
3. Pu,
0'
No one
4. PUBLIC
A. Case
to speakthis time.
:01 p.m_ in the City Council
iue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
, City Attorney
ffi Reckert, Sr. Planner
aggoner, Recording Secretary
Mr. Dahl stated the Board conducted the required public hearing on April 23, 2015.
The hearing was closed with a final action. The hearing is not being reopened. Tile
decision was to deny. He prepared findings as requested by the applicant and the
Board. The resolution has been included in the packet. The resolution is a record of
what happened at the hearing. Code citations were provided. A simple majority vote
would be required to pass a motion for this consideration. If a motion fails, the
findings will not be adopted. It does not change the denial of the request and a
standard resolution will be entered into the record.
Board of Adjustment Minutes May 28, 2015
Ms. Reckert stated Member GRIFFETH should abstain from the vote as he did not
hear the case.
It was moved by Member BANGHART and seconded by Member PAGE to
as the Resolution, Findings of Fact and Decision for Case No. WA -15-03
pf
packet.
Motion Approved with a vote of 7-0-1 with Member GRIFFETH abstaining.
B. Case No. WA -15-01
This case was presented by Meredith Reckert, She stab
approval of an appeal to conditions of approval and der,
variances. She entered the presentation, the contents of
materials into the record. All notification and posting r(
The Board has jurisdiction to bear the case. The Board
decision of the Community Developrent Director as a]
The decisions on appeal are approval of a f(
allow an eight foot high fpnee along portior
fence height variance to allow an eight foot
property.
the applicant is requesting
of two administrative
,e case file and packet
tirements have been met.
,n reverse or change the
wed by municipal code.
variance with conditions to
stem perimeter and denial of a
on the eastern perimeter of the
On May 13, 201,5,the Community Development Director approved the fence height
variance for the 441ce,
on the west perimeter with the condition that the eight foot high
fenceon be allo, n"bere it abuts the eight foot fence on the property to the west.
The irecinied t6
"'��',46ce height variance ice on the eastern boundary of the
subdivision as,t erea
rq� , � uinque circumstances and the adjacent lot to the east with
,
►iso'tti ward "Iter ABB 's questions, Ms. Reckert replied it is
ii howll the 6T"' foot high fence has existed on the property to the west.
V'67'"':
like it w"ginail"y" �six foot high but has been modified over time to make it
Board Nfeniber ABBOT opined the fence looked dilapidated and inquired if there
were any otdiiian,,c-,6,%,,,,,"igainst dilapidated fences. It was not visible in the past but it is
now eniinentlyF", e as the subject parcel is being prepared for development.
Ms.
Ms. Reckert replied that is a judgement call. Since it has not been visible to the public
that may be the reason why there has not been any code enforcement action.
Member BELL reiterated that the developer is proposing an eight foot high fence on
the west side of the property and would remove existing fences from the adjacent
properties.
Ms. Reckert stated that is correct. The applicant will be able to build an eight foot
Mom fence if the variance is granted.
Board of Adjustment Minutes May 28, 2015 2
Member BELL stated the proposed fence would provide a more aesthetic appearance
on the west side and could contribute to reducing traffic noise on the cast side as the
trees and vegetation is not sufficient to reduce the traffic noise. The fence would not
be visible or adjacent to Wadsworth. She asked if the eight foot fence would continue
on the diagonal portion of the north side of the property.
Ms. Reckert stated the applicant views the ditch as an amenity for homeowners and is
going to build a split rail fence along the northern boundary of the subdivision
Member BELL asked if the applicant is proposing a split rail fence on the south and
east side near Wadsworth.
AIUMMMMM�
Member PAGE inquired about the zoning for the
Ms. Reckert stated the subdivision has been recently rezoned as a Planned Residential
Development.
Chair HOVLAND inquired, -about the
Ms. Reckert stated a staff report was prepared for the administrative variance and
included in the p
pq, et as retcren
cc for the board. A memo was also included
he applicant.
Member ACTT hy the trees to the east are considered in the equation
when they zmay nit contte to exist as the lot to the east that abuts Wadsworth
""IN access to Wadsworth for a potential
site a""locati' to
The future is unknown for the property and the trees.
pypgg
10827' c Terra b at Te ad'ONLittleton C.0
Mr. Fnti'Abtcd the
"AWivision will be a unique, high quality subdivision with all
urban feel. JIMe d fence will provide continuity for the neighborhood and a
serve as a no , r. Many of the adjacent neighbors are in favor of the proposed
eight foot fence e west and east sides of the subdivision. It will not be a public
nuisance or create a site problem.
Mertiber ABBOTT stated he was pleased to see cottage homes coming to Wheat
Ridge. He expressed his concern about the existing 8 foot fence to the west. A fence
has to be engineered to be effective at sound attenuation. There is no evidence of that
in the packet. He asked the applicant if they have looked into the engineering issues
related to sound attenuation.
Mr. Fritz stated the eight foot fence would provide some noise reduction.
Board of Adjustment Minutes May 28, 2015 3
Member BANGRART asked the applicant if he would look into it now that be was
aware of it for a better sound barrier.
Mr. Fritz stated he can look into it but the project is over budget due to increased
development costs.
Member PAGE inquired about the lot sizes.
Mr. Fritz replied from 32nd Avenue the lots are wider and narrower at about 65 feet
wide and 80 feet deep. Around cul-de-sac the lotsp",55 feet wide by 83 to 89 feet
"p
deep. Lots 13 and 14 are larger.
Member PAGE inquired about the thin lot .41 N1,1111
Mr. Fritz stated a retention pond
Member GRIFFETH asked how
in the past five years and within
Mr. Fritz replied this will
partner has done projects
Fritz stated
Triple pane
size and first in
similar to this
east over to
Staff suggested a
one story or two stories on the eastern
an eight foot fence will not provide sounds screening for
will provide noise abatement when the residents are outside.
will be installed to reduce noise on the interior of the homes.
Pat Hott
3330 Yarrow St.
Ms. Hott stated she is in favor of the eight foot fence for aesthetic reasons. Though it
may not do away with the sound it will provide more privacy. It makes sense to
match both sides of the subdivision.
In response to Chair HOVLAND's inquiry, Ms. Lott stated her home is next to tile
Board of Adjustment Minutes May 28, 2015 4
home with the existing eight foot fence. She also said she would be removing the
fence oil her property.
Mike Green
3300 Yarrow St.
Mr. Green stated the current eight foot fence was there when he purchased the
property. He is in favor of the proposed fence.
Member GRIFFETH asked Mr. Green if he lived on the property. He stated lie drove
by the site and noticed light enters the subdivision on the south side. He asked if a
twelve foot fence would be appropriate to block thj,#uht.
Mr. Green replied he lives on the property and.1iII4i1�131,YK
it foot fence is sufficient.
Member ABBOTT reiterated that sever indicated they would
remove their fence and asked Mr. G c plans on
ing his fence.
Mr. Green stated the ground drops"INI , i the inside of his fe6ft,,The developer has
11 41611
g
k
been bringing in dirt to level tile area roposed e'i"J""
tated �fqot fence is a
gwam
valuable asset to the subdarill,,v ion and the "i"if files.
1141TE6
t 111}11
Pat Hott
Ig
0 E
3330 Yarrow St.—6,
Ms. Hott stated that her propeny
propdffy sit higher than the other
adjacent properties. The fill dirt" fX
ftrought in has helped but she
does not know how the prop p after grading is complete.
Miller A15OU I i askea the applicant - r
ut the g ade change.
Fritz stated they have e brought iii dirt and will be bringing in more. The site will
level.
the public hearing.
MWERF stated she appreciated the input from the neighbors and the
� for the City.
Member GRIFFETH stated that he intends on supporting the requests.
Upon a motion by Member BELL and seconded by Member BANGnART, the
following motion was stated:
WHEREAS, application Case No. WA -15-01 (West) was eligible for
administrative review and approved with conditions by an administrative
officer; and
Board of Adjustment Minutes May 28, 2015 5
WHEREAS, Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -15-01 is an appeal to this Board
frEm 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 WheatRidge
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that
Case No. WA -15-01 be, and hereby is APPRIN
TYPE OF VARIANCE: two foot fence A
high fence on the west side of the pro .,','the
FOR THE FOLLOWING REA
1. The fence would provide for tentt
subdivision and a sgW,
,iK—_of on
W _
e s
changes in the stru4
of Adjustment application
to allow an eight foot
�ngth of the perimeter
#rance c ,,,,,,,est side of the
to South with eight
n the
Th h
i amendme#,),' e omeownerso
1. He thong
a s a I for va lit it was
rA
4111
thosc,,, IN,"C
opt' iiiot just the general
Case No. WA -15-01 (East) was denied permission
and
WHEREAS, Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -15-01 is an appeal to this Board
from the decision of an administrative officer; and
WHEREAS, the propert-
y has been posted the fifteen days required by low 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
Board of Adjustment Minutes May 28, 2015 6
J
U
64��=Ilffwi 1 11712 IN a MET#
TYPE OF VARIANCE: two foot fence height variance to allow an eight foot
high fence on the east side of the subdivision
1. It would provide a consistent appearance.
2. There were no objections by the property owners on the east.
3. It would help to mitigate or minimize the noise coming off Wadswo
Boulevard. tr� I
Member ABBOTT offered a fourth reason for approval. The fence is a visual
advantage given the exposure to Wadsworth and the futures of the trees on the
eastern lot are questionable.
Member BELL accepted the friendly am
seconded
Member .1,.RB*TT stat
evidence or engineerin
He said lie would vote
Motion apPro"W94,
Mike Green
Mr. Green stated staff And the Board has a difficult job. He appreciates what has been
done tonight. He expressed his concerns about high density housing.
Chair HOVLAND stated the role 4the' Board is to review each case individually.
The Board cannot chance the rult-.,-,-
am
A. Ms. Reckert stated she would like to schedule a study session on June 25 at 6:00 p.m.
(the start time has been changed to 5:30). Member BRADFORD and PAGE and are
unavailable to attend. Mr. Dalil stated the study session will serve as a training session to
review procedures, concerns, how standards vary for appeals and interpretations and a
discussion in an informal setting.
A. Approval of Minutes — April 23, 2015
Board of Adjustment Minutes May 28, 20115 2
and seconded B' Member BELL
to approve the minutes as written. The motion passed 7-0-1 with Member
GRIFFETH abstaining.
U
Chair HOVLAND adjourned the meeting at 8:38 p.m.
Paul Hovland, Chair
11.14 MIXYT, InI411113misam
Board of Adjustment Minutes May 28, 2015 8