HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/28/16I
City of
WheatPdge
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
January 28, 2016
Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board
of Adjustment on January 28, 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the
Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29" Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC FORUM (TMs is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on
the agenda.)
4. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Case No. WA -15-14: An application filed by Carolyn DiPietro for approval of a 2 -
foot (50%) variance from the 4 -foot maximum fence height permitted in a front yard, for
a solid fence, resulting in a 6 -foot fence for property zoned Residential -One A (R -1A)
and located at 3400 Garrison.
5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
6. OLD BUSINESS
7. NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of Minutes— October 22, 2015
B. Resolution 01-2016: Establishing a designated public place for posting of meeting
notices as required by the Colorado Open Meetings Law
C. Election of Officers
S. ADJOURNMENT
Individuals with disahilities are encouraged to participate in all puhlie meetings sponsored by
the City of WheatRidge. Call Heather Geyer, Puhlie Information weer at 303-235-2826 at
least one week in advance of a meeting ifyou are interested in partieipating and need inclusion
assistance.
City of
�Wh6atRi:L.d
�ge
TO:
CASE MANAGER:
CASE NO. & NAME:
ACTION REQUESTED:
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
Board of Adjustment MEETING DATE: January 28, 2016
Zack Wallace
WA -15-14 / DiPietro
Approval of a 2 -foot variance from the 4 -foot maximum fence height (for a
solid fence in a front yard) for a property zoned Residential -One A (R-1 A) and
located at 3400 Garrison Street.
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3400 Garrison Street
APPLICANT (S):
OWNER (S):
APPROXIMATE AREA:
PRESENT ZONING:
PRESENT LAND USE:
Carolyn DiPietro
Carolyn DiPietro
41,797 Square Feet (0.96 Acres)
Residential -One A (R-lA)
Single Family Residential
ENTER INTO RECORD:
(X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
Location Map
(X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION
Board ofAdfustment
Case No. WA-15-141DiPietro
Site
JURISDICATION:
All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this
case.
I. REQUEST
The applicant is requesting approval of a 2 -foot variance from the 4 -foot maximum front yard fence
height permitted in a front yard for a solid fence, resulting in a 6 -foot solid front yard fence (a fifty
[50] percent variance). The purpose of this variance is to allow for the replacement of the current
wrought iron fence with a solid cedar fence.
Section 26-115.0 (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Director of
Community Development to decide upon applications for a variance from the strict application of the
zoning code, if the variance is not in excess of fifty (50) percent of the development standard, and if
objections are not received during the public notification period.
The applicant was denied an administrative approval by the Director of Community Development
because objections were received during the public notification period. Therefore, the Board of
Adjustment is empowered to hear and decide upon the variance request at a public hearing. Additional
information regarding the administrative review is detailed in Section III.
II. CASE ANALYSIS
The property is zoned Residential -One A (R -1A), a zone district that provides for high quality, safe,
quiet and stable low-density residential neighborhoods, and prohibits activities of any nature which are
incompatible with the low-density residential character.
The subject property is located on Garrison Street, between 32°d Avenue and 35u' Avenue, in the
Goodhart Stoddard Subdivision, adjacent to and extending into the North Henry Lee Reservoir (Exhibit
1, Aerial). The surrounding area is predominately low-density residential, with Residential -One A (R -
1A) and Residential -Two (R-2) zone districts dominating the area (Exhibit 2, Zoning Map). For
locational reference: Wheat Ridge High School is located approximately 0. 15 miles to the west; Wide
Horizon Nursing Facility is located approximately 0.2 miles to the north; and the Exempla Lutheran
Medical Center Campus is located approximately 0.5 miles to the east.
According to the Jefferson County Accessor the subject site has a recorded area of 41,797 square feet
(0.96 acres) and contains a two-story single-family home. Approximately sixty-eight (68) percent
(roughly 28,280 square feet) of the property's area is occupied by the North Henry Lee Reservoir. This
home was originally constructed in 1973, with a large renovation or expansion (`adjusted year built')
in 1989, per the Jefferson County Assessor.
A variance is being requested to allow the property owner to construct a 6 -foot solid fence in the front
yard (west side) of the property (Exhibit 3, Site Plan. There is an existing wrought iron fence,
approximately 6 -feet tall running along Garrison Street. The wrought iron fence sits atop a brick base.
If the variance is granted, the applicant would modify the fence such that the brick base would remain
in place, and the wrought iron would be replaced by solid cedar fence. The fence, with brick base,
would total 6 -feet in height.
Board ofAdfustment
Case No. WA-15-141DiPietro
Per the applicant, the hardship prompting this variance request stems from three main issues:
1) The orientation of the home at 3400 Garrison Street, in relation to the street frontage (front
yard).
2) The double frontage of homes along Garland Street, which back Garrison Street creating an
`alley effect' on the east side of Garrison Street.
3) The infeasibility of moving the proposed 6 -foot solid fence further inward (past the
minimum setback requirements) due to the proximity to the reservoir, and the potential of
altering the existing trees along the water front by staking a new fence that might alter their
roots.
Staff has the following comments regarding the items listed above.
1) 3400 Garrison Street Orientation
The property at 3400 Garrison Street is oriented towards North Henry Lee Reservoir, the shoreline of
which is oriented northwest -southeast. The property is situated along Garrison Street, a north -south
running street. As such, the home sits askew compared to other homes in the area, and faces away from
the primary street frontage with the front door oriented to the south rxhi bit 4, -We Orientation).
Due to this orientation, what is considered the front yard, abutting Garrison Street, functions as the
property's side or rear yard. Solid fences up to 6 -feet tall are allowed in side and rear yards.
2) Garland Street double frontage
The homes one block west of Garrison Street, on Garland Street, have two frontages, one on Garland
Street and one on Garrison Street. Most of the homes face Garland Street and back up to Garrison
Street. Many of these homes have garages on Garrison Street, creating an `alley effect' on the west
side of Garrison Street due to garage doors and driveways facing Garrison (Exhibit 5, Site Photos). The
applicant overlooks another property's garage area which, she states is often utilized as a drop off and
pick up location for plumbing supplies. According to the applicant, the frequency of trucks loading and
unloading equipment is enough to prompt the request for this variance to allow a 6 -foot solid fence to
block this view.
3) Infeasibility of relocating the fence to meet setback requirements
The applicant is aware that she can build a 6 -foot solid fence behind the minimum front yard setback
requirement of 25 -feet, and has considered that option. However, she states that this option is
infeasible for two main reasons. First, the proximity to the reservoir results in a high water table on the
property, according to the applicant. As such, digging to place posts will result in the hole filling with
water, as the applicant states occurred while she was working on another project. Second, the applicant
does not want to disturb the existing trees on her property. Many of the trees are very old, and the
applicant worries that digging posts into the ground for a fence will disturb the roots and impact the
trees on her property. She prefers to use the existing brick fence base, and replace the existing wrought
iron with solid wood.
III. VARIANCE REQUEST CASE PROCESSING
This variance request began as an administrative application, as the Director of Community
Development may decide upon a variance that deviates from a development standard by fifty (50)
percent or less. Due to objections received during the 10 -day public notification period, administrative
approval was denied by the Director of Community Development (Exhibit 7, Objection Letter. The
Board of Adjustment is empowered to heard and decide upon the variance request at a public hearing.
Board ofAdjustment
Case No. WA-15-141DiPietro
A 15 -day public notification period for the Board of Adjustment public hearing is currently in
progress. As of January 22, 2016 no additional objections or inquiries have been received.
IV. VARIANCE CRITERIA
The Board of Adjustment shall base its decision in consideration of the extent to which the applicant
demonstrates that amajority of the "criteria for review," listed in Section 26-115.C.4 of the City Code,
have been met. Thea licant has provided an analysis of the application's compliance with the
variance criteria k Criteria Responses).
Staff provides the following review and analysis.
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.
2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
Most homes along the east side of Garrison Street in the surrounding area do not have front
yard fences. While the west side of Garrison Street is actually the rear of the homes facing
Garland Street, fences are still largely non-existent or low -height, open -type fences. As such, a
6 -foot tall solid fence has the potential to alter the character of the locality.
Staff finds this criterion has not 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 proposed 6 -foot solid fence is not a substantial investment in the property.
Staff finds this criterion has not 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 orientation of the home has presented a unique hardship on this property, as the
functionality of its front, side, and rear yard spaces does not match the defined front, side, and
rear yard locations, per the location of the property's street frontage. Contributing to this
hardship is the double frontage of the Garland Street homes, which back onto Garrison Street,
creating an `alley' type feel on the west side of Garrison Street.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
Board ofAdfustment
Case No. WA-15-141DiPietro
5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an
interest in the property.
The Goodhart Stoddard subdivision was platted in 1947 with a right-of-way along the reservoir.
At some point between 1947 and 1973 (when the house was constructed) the right of way was
vacated, and the home was built in this vacated right of way. The double frontage Garland
Street homes were built throughout the 1960s.
The house at 3400 Garland Street was built in 1973 with renovations/additions in 1989, well
before the current owner purchased the property in 2013. As such, the owner had no hand in the
creation of this lot, or construction of the home.
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 for a fence height variance would not be detrimental to public welfare and would
not be injurious to neighboring property or improvement.
The request would not increase the congestion in the streets, nor would it cause an obstruction
to motorists on the adjacent streets. The fence would not impair the driveway sight distance
triangle for the property to the south and would not increase the danger of fire. It is unlikely
that the request would negatively impact property values in the neighborhood.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in
the neighborhood and are not unique to the property.
Other homes in the neighborhood are oriented towards the lake, and sit askew to their
frontages. Additionally, the double frontage along Garland Street extends from 32°d Avenue to
35th Avenue.
Staff finds 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.
Board ofAdfustment
Case No. WA-15-141DiPietro
9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the
Architectural and Site Design Manual.
The Architectural and Site Design Manual does not apply to single and two family dwelling
units. Received
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
V. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Having found the application in compliance with the majority of the review criteria, staff recommends
APPROVAL of a 2 -foot (50%) variance from the 4 -foot maximum for a solid fence in a front yard on
property located at 3400 Garrison 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 current owner had no hand in the platting or construction of the home askew to the
property frontage.
2. The orientation of the home and double frontage of homes on Garland Street present a unique
hardship on the property.
3. The fence would not be detrimental to public safety or welfare.
4. The conditions necessitating the variance are present in the neighborhood.
A template for the Certificate of Resolution can be found on the following page.
Board ofAdfustment
Case No. WA-15-141DiPietro
WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION (TEMPLATE)
CASE NO: WA -15-14
APPLICANT NAME: Carolyn DiPietro
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3400 Garrison Street
WHEREAS, the application Case No. WA -15-14 was denied permission for an administrative
review; 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. WA -15-14 be, and hereby is, [APPROVED/DENIED].
TYPE OF VARIANCE: Request for approval of a 2 -foot variance from the 4 -foot maximum
fence height (for a solid fence in a front yard) for a property zoned Residential -One A (R-1 A)
and located at 3400 Garrison Street.
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1.
2.
3. ...
Board ofAdfusbnent
Case No. WA -15-14 /DiPietro 7
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
2. ...
Board ofAdfustment
Case No. WA-15-141DiPietro
EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL
Board of-4djustment
Case No. W4-15-14 /DiPietro
City of Wheat Ridge
Geographic
Information Services
3400 Garrison Street
Legend
O3400 Garrison Street
.M
r
N
sam.N .Daabaatewa.0a,
A
CNa,ada Cental Zm e
w. .A mwm:euoed
a
WheatR�idge
Cay a Meat Rgge,C lorada
75M MM 29M Avenue
Meet wd9a, co ew0 -43wl
303.23C.59W
Dale ScarceCXy W Meat Rode
EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP
City of Wheat Ridge
Geographic
Information Services
3400 Garrison Street
Legend
O3400Garrison Street
City Limits
O Jefferson County
Displayed Zone Districts
Residential -One (R-1)
Residential -One A (R -1A)
Residential -Two (R-2)
Planned Hospital District 1
M N
sets Pte. �bmeRt de, A
CNe,ede CeMn� Zme
p��d®, mwm:ruoea
Whe��r
atR�idge
City aMeat Ridge, Colorado
75MW M-i"AVanue
Meet Ms., Co awsadW 1
a0a.23C.59W
rete Scu Cia eMeat Rbde
Board of-4djustment 10
Case No. W4-15-14 /DiPietro
N ti P,
Proposed location
6 -foot solid fence.
E�
6 -foot solid fence.
The proposed fence
will be of the same
style & construction
EXHIBIT 4: HOUSE ORIENTATION
City of Wheat Ridge
Geographic
Information Services
3400 Garrison Street
Legend
Boundaries
3480 Garrison Street
0 Building Outlines
North Henry Lee Reservoir
W Y icige
City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado
7500 Wool 29N Avenue
WM1eat Ritlge, CO 8033-8001
303.230.5900
Data Cource. City of Wheat Ridge
Board of-4djustment 12
Case No. W4-15-14 /DiPietro
.I
state Plane CoorEmate Projection
I1
cold do Cemnl2one
N
oawm: RAoes
W Y icige
City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado
7500 Wool 29N Avenue
WM1eat Ritlge, CO 8033-8001
303.230.5900
Data Cource. City of Wheat Ridge
Board of-4djustment 12
Case No. W4-15-14 /DiPietro
EXHIBIT 5: SITE PHOTOS
Board ofAdjustment 13
Case No. WA -15-14 /DiPietro
Board of-4djustment 14
Case No. W4-15-14 /DiPietro
Board of-4djustment 15
Case No. W4-15-14 /DiPietro
EXHIBIT 6: CRITERIA RESPONSES
Variance for 3400 Garrison St
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Carolyn DiPietro 303-669-2295
1. There would be no change in use, service or income and will be used under the conditions by
regulation for the district in which it is located.
2. The variance would not alter the essencial character of the locallity, however, will provide
security for the homeowner.
3. This is an investment in the property with the quality of fence, also providing saftey and
security for the property.
4. Different vehicles stopping or people remaining in vehicles, creates an uneasy feel for the
property owner. Fence would also create a barrier for my 2 new dogs barking at everything
that goes down the street.
S. Not that I am aware of.
6. No.
7. No.
Board ofAdjwtment 16
Care No. WA-15-141DiPietro
EXHIBIT 7: OBJECTION LETTERS
In order of reception:
Exhibit 7.A. 3390 Garrison Street
Exhibit 7.13. 3420 Garland Street
Exhibit 7.C. 9000 W. 35th Avenue
Exhibit 7.1). 3400 Garland Street
City of Wheat Ridge
Geographic
Information Services
3400 Garrison Street
Legend
O3400 Garrison Street
objection Letter Received
Call Son— Cil, of Meat Ridge
Board of-4djustment 17
Case No. W4-15-14 /DiPietro
N
bYab Plan Coo"Pate Rotecoo�
A
Colo.. Cental Zm.
real NF�3
�cny
or
Wheat}Ldge
City of Mail Ridge, Cobrada
1800 Mit 2ft Avenue
Meat Ridge, CO 80433-8001
303.236.5800
Call Son— Cil, of Meat Ridge
Board of-4djustment 17
Case No. W4-15-14 /DiPietro
Exhibit 7.A.
Page 1 of 2
LACY A. SCOTT
3390 Garrison Street, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 (303) 619-9320
November 24, 2015
City of Wheat Ridge Community Development Department
7500 West 29th Ave.
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033
RE; Case Number: WA -15-14
Property Address: 3400 Garrison St., Wheat Ridge, CO
To Whom It May Concern:
We own and reside at property located at 3390 Garrison, St., Wheat Ridge, CO which is
directly adjacent to 3400 Garrison St., Wheat Ridge (hereinafter "3400 Garrison"). It is our
understanding that 3400 Garrison is requesting to build a six (6) foot solid wood fence in the
front yard of the property. We adamantly object to this request for the following reasons:
1. Safety Concerns
We believe that a six-foot solid wood fence in the front yard of 3400 Garrison would
obstruct our view of Garrison Street and pose a safety concern when we back out of our
driveway. Numerous people walk on Garrison Street whether it be neighbors, neighbors and their
dog(s), children, or employees of Lutheran Hospital. As such, a clear view of Garrison Street is
vital when we back out of our driveway. A six-foot solid wood fence would prevent us from a
clear and unobstructed view of Garrison Street until we reach the street itself. As such, this
poses as a safety concern and traffic hazard.
2. Harmony and Compatibility
A six-foot solid wood fence in the front yard of 3400 Garrison would completely destroy
the harmony and compatibility with the area and our property. First we do not have a fence in
our front yard and to allow the property directly adjacent to ours to have a six-foot solid wood
front yard fence would destroy the harmony and compatibility of our house. Further, there are
no houses in our neighborhood or surrounding neighborhoods that have a six-foot solid front
yard fence. To allow this exception would destroy the harmony and compatibility of our
neighborhood. We moved into Wheat Ridge and our neighborhood for the character of the
homes which were harmonious and compatible with each other. To allow 3400 Garrison to build
a fortress with a six-foot solid wood fence would completely destroy the character of our
neighborhood.
18
Exhibit 7.A.
Page 2 of 2
Further, in the Letter Notice we received, it notes that 3400 Garrison would preserve the
existing brick pillars and remove the wrought iron and replace it with cedar. If this variance is
granted it is imperative that the wrought iron is removed. 3400 Garrison did not remove the
wrought iron on her existing fence adjacent to our property and this is an eye sore for us and if
the wrought iron is not removed for 3400 Garrison's front yard fence it would be a complete eye
sore for the neighborhood and destroy the harmony and compatibility of the neighborhood.
Variances should only be granted when there is a unique physical problem. 3400
Garrison does not have a unique physical problem. It has a regular land plot shape. Further,
there are not similar conditions of neighbors having a six-foot solid front yard fence in our
neighborhood, or even in the City of Wheat Ridge. Finally, a six-foot solid front yard fence at
3400 Garrison would be a detriment to the neighborhood by destroying the harmony and
compatibility of our neighborhood.
For the reasons stated above, we respectfully request that 3400 Garrison's request for a six-
foot solid wood front yard fence be denied.
Sincerely,
Ld A. JC6 /V
44 d
ko�
Lacy A. Scott
Troy D. Scott
3390 Garrison St.
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
(303) 619-9320
19
Exhibit 7. B .
Page 1 of 2
City of Wheat Ridge Community Development
7500 West 29`h Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001
Re: Case No. WA -15-14; 3400 Garrison Street
November 25, 2015
Dear Community Development Department, Zach Wallace and/or Zoning Administrator,
We are opposed to the solid 6 foot fence variance request by Carolyn Di Pietro at 3400 Garrison Street.
This letter is intended to voice our concern and opposition as requested in your Letter Notice dated
November 20, 2015.
The following is an outline of our concerns. Due to the very limited time for response with the
Thanksgiving holiday, we have limited our comments to the few that come immediately to the surface
and are not inclusive of all of our concerns.
1. Safety.
By installing a 6' fence in the front yard, the visibility is greatly reduced when residents
or guests are leaving 3400 Garrison. Garrison is a street that is heavily used by area
residents who walk and ride bikes and wheelchairs. Our neighborhood has many
children and elderly who use Garrison for recreation and exercise. They use is very early
in the morning and late at night in low or no light conditions. Decreasing visibility is of
great concern for the safety of many people. The extreme caution that would be
required for the residents and guests of 3400 Garrison is not practical that they would
maintain a high level of caution for the years and decades that the fence would be in
place.
Our garage directly faces the proposed fence. A 6' solid fence would create a safety
hazard for us and the residents and guests of 3400 Garrison. If we both exit our garage
or driveways at the same time, there will be a greatly reduced amount of time to
recognize a potential collision.
A hazard is created by the narrow field of vision caused by the 6' solid fence so close to
Garrison Street. Cars exiting 3400 Garrison facing forward will have to pull partially onto
Garrison in order to view the street in both directions to see oncoming traffic,
pedestrians, or cars exiting 3400 Garland or 3420 Garland. Cars backing out of the 3400
Garrison driveway would be even more of a safety hazard.
Neighborhood aesthetic.
a. Many people choose to live in our Wheat Ridge neighborhood because of the feeling of
our eclectic mix of housing designs and the open feeling of the low or no fencing
surrounding each of our properties. This is particularly important in the properties that
are on or adjacent or within sight distance of North Henry Lee Lake. Many people plan
their walking routes in order to include an enjoyable view of the lake. By installing a 6'
solid wood fence, it would limit the view for not only the people walking the
neighborhood but the adjacent neighbors further up the street.
b. We are concerned that it would set a precedent in our neighborhood for the other
neighbors to also request fence height variances in their front yards. It can start to
affect the overall community feeling and look of our neighborhood. We can
immediately think of 2 of the neighbors on Garland and one other on Garrison that
20
Exhibit 7.B.
Page 2 of 2
could possibly want a 6' fence as well. If a variance is granted for 3400 Garrison without
any compelling reason that I am aware of, there would be less reasons why the other
requests be denied.
Property value.
a. We are concerned that limiting the view of North Henry Lee Lake, even if it is not
directly over the water, would decrease our property value at 3420 Garland and the
property value of our neighbors which in turn would decrease our property value.
When we purchased 3420 Garland Street 20 years ago, the real estate flyer used the
lake view as a selling point.
We strongly urge you to deny the request for a variance. Thank you for your time in considering our
concerns.
Sincerely,
z �/-Uwmw
Wayne and Alice Hinkle
3420 Garland Street
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Cell phone 303-946-8921
21
Exhibit 7.C.
Page 1 of 1
November 30, 2015
Case #WA -15-14
Re: fence height variance at 3400 Garrison Street
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to express my opposition to the variance being sought at the above
referenced address.
As one navigates the streets that border the North Henry Lee Reservoir, what is striking
is that the vast majority of homes have either no fence around their front yards, or, in
some cases, a very minimal, low and open fence. As one walks through the
neighborhood, there is a friendly, welcoming feeling to the streetscape.
I believe that the proposed 6' high, solid fence in the front yard would negatively impact
that friendly feeling. It is also totally out of character with the other homes in the
neighborhood.
Also relevant to this petition is the fact that the front of the home is already bounded by
a tall, iron fence. While this is unusual for the neighborhood, I believe the existing fence
creates an excellent balance between security concerns and, at the same time, not
creating an impenetrable visual barrier that isolates the home from the neighborhood.
It is for these reasons that I request that the homeowner's petition for a variance be
denied.
Sincerely,
Steffen Andrews
9000 West 35th Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
22
Exhibit 7. D .
Page 1 of 2
Cleo Omer
3400 Garland St.
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
(303) 202-0593
November 25, 2015
City of Wheat Ridge Community Development Department
7500 West 29`x' Ave.
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033
Re: Case Number: WA -15-14
Property Address: 3400 Garrison St., Wheat Ridge, CO
To Whom It May Concern:
I reside at 3400 Garland St. and face directly across Garrison from the subject property. The
proposed 6 foot high solid privacy fence is unacceptable for many reasons as stated below.
Existing Situation: There presently exists a wrought iron fence on top of about a 2 foot high brick
wall. I doubt if this fence built about 5 years ago had a building permit. It is higher than 4 feet
and possibly should be torn down so it is in compliance with the Zoning Code Regulations that
limit front fences no higher than 4 feet.
Zoning Code Ordinance: The Zoning Code Regulations, Section 26-603 of the Municipal Code
is very clear on limiting fences in the front yard to 4 feet. Exceptions are permitted for
decorative, open -type fences (such as wrought iron) and for posts or column caps". The proposed
fence is not one of these fence types. If you permit a 6 foot high fence and it is placed on the
existing 2 foot brick wall, the fence would be nearly 8 foot tall. The only fence that you can
presently permit is a 2 foot fence on top of the approximately 2 foot high wall.
Envision Wheat Ridge: This document developed over many years by Wheat Ridge is suppose to
guide development so that it is consistent with "... the overall character and vernacular of the
surrounding neighborhood". An 8 foot high solid wall is not in keeping with this Envision goal.
Envision also had a Policy that the City promote neighborhood -level planning so neighborhoods
would retain unique identifying features. If the City allows an 8 foot fence or even a 6 foot high
fence they are basically dictating to the neighborhoods what the City feels the neighborhoods
should look like.
23
Exhibit 7.D.
Page 2 of 2
Summarv:
➢ The existing 5 year old fence was probably built without a permit and is already in
violation of the Zoning Code.
➢ A 6 foot or potentially an 8 foot high fence is a violation of the Zoning Code Regulations.
➢ The proposed fence is not compatible with Envision Wheat Ridge goals and policies.
It is unfortunate a resident is requesting to make a mockery of Envision Wheat Ridge, but as a
City Representative you have an ability to stop the fence.
Sincerely,
Cleo Omer
2
24
I
City of
Wheatfk�qge
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Minutes of Meeting
October 22, 2015
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chair HOVLAND at 7:01 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29a' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
2. ROLL CALL
Board Members Present:
Thomas Abbott
Sally Banghart
Janet Bell
Paul Hovland
David Kuntz
Betty Jo Page
Dan Bradford
Alternates Present:
Michael Griffeth
Board Members Absent:
Lily Griego
Staff Members Present:
Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner
Lisa Ritchie, Planner II
Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary
3. PUBLIC FORUM
No one wished to speak at this time.
Ms. Reckert introduced the two new staff employees, Lisa Ritchie, Planner II and Tammy
Odean, Administrative Assistant.
4. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Case No.WA-15-10
The case was presented by Lisa Ritchie. She entered the contents of the case file, packet
materials, the zoning ordinance and the digital presentation into the record. She stated all
appropriate notification and posting requirements have been met and advised the board
there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She reviewed the presentation and staff report.
Board of Adjustment Minutes — October 22, 2015
The applicant is requesting approval of a 360 -square foot (60%) variance from the 600 -
square foot maximum size standard to allow a 960 -square foot detached garage located at
3615 Teller Street.
Staff recommends approval of this variance.
Member ABBOTT had an academic question related to the staff recommendation; is the
proposed investment consistent with the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy (NRS)
and other documents supported by the city that encourage property improvements. He
mentioned it is recommended in the following case, but not this one.
Ms. Ritchie stated it would apply in this case also.
Member BANGHART asked that if the garage were to be attached to the house there
wouldn't be a need for a variance.
Ms. Ritchie stated that is true, but the owners want to maximize solar orientation and not
get rid of windows by attaching a garage to the house.
Member ABBOTT asked that if the maximum square footage for an accessory building
in R-1 is 1000 sq. ft. as opposed to a maximum square footage in R-3 being 600 sq. ft.
Ms. Ritchie stated that R-3 has a fairly restrictive size because the lot sizes are generally
smaller and that is why staff is supporting this variance.
Member ABBOTT wanted to know the limit for a detached garage in R-2.
Member KUNTZ said it is 1000 sq. ft.
Member HOVLAND commented that if the property were in a different zone district
there would be no need for a variance.
Member GRIFFITH complimented Ms. Ritchie on her site plan exhibit.
Member BELL asked where the driveway will be placed so it can reach the garage.
Ms. Ritchie stated that because of the horseshoe drive currently there, which is compliant
with code, the applicants will have to connect to it.
Caroline Mallory and Charlotte Kettering (applicants)
4001 Marshall Street, Wheat Ridge
Ms. Mallory and Ms. Kettering were sworn in. Ms. Mallory stated that this is her family
homestead property and she would like to be able to go back to it as a senior and enjoy
living in a house that is one level and is safe. They are concerned about security in the
neighborhood right now and recently had a break in at the house. They would like to
have an area where they can secure things; they would also like to upgrade the house and
make an improvement in the city of Wheat Ridge.
Board of Adjustment Minutes — October 22, 2015
Member BRADFORD asked what the timelines for the additions on the house would be.
Ms. Kettering stated they hope to start in April of 2016. They plan to start with additions
on the house, and then work on the garage.
Member ABBOTT asked if the architecture on the garage will match that of the house.
He stated the importance of the matching architecture for the neighborhood.
Mr. Ritchie gave the members another exhibit to look at showing the garage elevations
and materials and Ms. Mallory added the gabled roofing on the garage will match those
on the house as will the siding.
Member HOVLAND asked what the need is for a garage this large, but after seeing the
Exhibit he saw the need to fit three cars and a workshop, tandem in set up.
Ms. Mallory said they want to keep the garage consistent with the neighborhood and not
have the neighbors see three garage bays from the street.
Ms. Reckert stated the R-3 zone allows the construction of housing from single family up
to high density residential. The applicants could have chosen to demolish the house and
build four apartments in its place. So in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood, staff
supports the variance because it is appropriate and in context.
Member ABBOTT stated it is important to encourage indoor storage with the fourth
tandem bay because it makes things look better outside.
Ms. Reckert stated that with regards to neighborhood revitalization, this is a big
investment and it is supported by our guiding documents.
Ms. Ritchie stated that in the proposed language for the conditions, staff recommends a
condition that the design and architecture be consistent with representations presented to
staff.
Member KUNTZ believes that the garage will be a good screen from the view of the
apartments in the backyard.
Member HOVLAND commented that it looks like a lot of thought has been put into in
trying to make it fit and it looks like a good plan. Again, if the property was in a different
zone this wouldn't be an issue.
Steve Stamps
3699 Teller, Wheat Ridge
Mr. Stamps was sworn in. Mr. Stamps thinks this plan is an excellent idea and the
addition will be an improvement for the neighborhood.
Board of Adjustment Minutes — October 22, 2015
Member ABBOTT added number 6 and 7 to "For the Following Reasons" below. He
stated it is good to add to the list why the Board Members were persuaded to vote in
favor of the application.
Upon a motion by Member ABBOTT and a seconded by Member BELL, the
following motion was stated:
WHEREAS, application Case No. WA -15-10 was not eligible for administrative
review; and
WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law; and
WHEREAS, the variance applied for may be granted without detriment to the
public welfare and without 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 -15-10 be, and hereby is APPROVED
TYPE OF VARIANCE: Request for approval of a 360 -square foot (60%) variance
from the 600 -square foot maximum size standard to allow a 960 -square foot
detached garage.
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. There are unique conditions of lot size and variability within the
neighborhood which will result in an accessory structure that is compatible
with the surrounding area and the existing home. The proposed garage will
appear incidental to the home, and significant property investment will occur
as a result of approval of the variance.
2. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.
3. The alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an
interest in the property.
4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare.
5. No objections were received regarding the variance request.
6. There was positive neighborhood testimony given.
7. The proposed investment is consistent with the Neighborhood Revitalization
Strategy and other documents supported by the city that encourage property
improvements.
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.
Motion carried 8-0
Board of Adjustment Minutes — October 22, 2015
B. Case No. WA -15-11
The case was presented by Lisa Ritchie. She entered the contents of the case file and
packet materials, the zoning ordinance and the digital presentation into the record. She
stated all appropriate notification and posting requirements have been met and advised
the board there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She reviewed the presentation and staff
report.
The applicant is requesting approval of a 5 -foot variance from the 100 -foot minimum lot
width standard to allow a two-family dwelling in the R-2 zone district located at 7075 W.
32nd Avenue.
Staff recommends approval of this variance.
Member ABBOTT wants to know if the parking plan meets the City standard.
Ms. Ritchie stated that the staff is going to look at the driveway connecting to the street
and it will be reviewed when the building permit is submitted.
Member BELL wanted to know if there is going to be a garage once the addition and all
the work is done on the property. She is concerned about off street parking for visitors.
Ms. Ritchie believes there is going to be a car port constructed. There is adequate room
on the property for off street parking.
Member BELL hopes there will also be parking available during the time of construction.
Member PAGE asked how many parking places will be needed on the property.
Ms. Reckert stated it is four per unit which also includes the garage. There is a lot of
room so it should not be a problem.
Member GRIFFETH asked if the other two- dwelling homes in the neighborhood were
built legally.
Ms. Ritchie stated that they appear to be so. Some of the homes were built before the
City incorporated in 1969 so the City doesn't have all the building records.
Member GRIFFETH asked if a two- family home has to be connected.
Ms. Ritchie stated yes, it has to be one structure.
Member HOVLAND pointed out that if the map is extended to the east side of Pierce, a
lot of those homes appear to be two- family homes.
Ms. Ritchie agreed.
Board of Adjustment Minutes — October 22, 2015
Member BELL stated the southeast corner of Pierce and 32nd was permitted at one time
to be a housing project and that is why there are multifamily homes built there.
Dean Smith and Karen Smith
7075 W. 32nd Avenue, Wheat Ridge
Mr. and Ms. Smith were sworn in. Mr. Smith thanked the members for bringing up the
parking issue. He stated there is a single curb cut off of 32nd Avenue now and it doesn't
get used a lot, but it is a place to park. Because of the topography of the site they are
lucky enough to be able to turn around in the driveway and pull out front ways onto 32nd
instead of backing out. A carport will be constructed on the site and part will be
enclosed. Also, architecturally the second unit will be setback as to not compete with the
original structure.
Member HOVLAND asked if the height of the new structure is going to be much higher
than what is there currently.
Mr. Smith stated about 3-4 feet higher, which is well below what is allowed.
Member ABBOTT appreciates the design of the new structure because it is
complimentary to the existing structure and the neighborhood. It also looks like there
will be no impact to the property on the east.
Mr. Smith stated there are some big trees and a fence on the east side of the property and
at one time they wanted the addition to be on the east, but after careful thought decided to
push it back. The neighbors to the east will be impacted the most. They are renters and
there have been discussions with them and they have given nothing but very positive
feedback.
David Cooley
7060 W. 32nd Place, Wheat Ridge
Mr. Cooley was sworn in. Mr. Cooley stated he is a senior citizen and has lived in and
out of his house since 1957. He is not opposed to the addition, but it will impact his
backyard a bit more. He would like to know the purpose of the second dwelling.
Ms. Ritchie stated the applicants intend to rent out the front original part of the home and
the owners will reside in the new addition.
Member ABBOTT stated that his understanding is the property is zoned Residential -Two
(R-2) so there can be two-family residences on the property whether it is rented or not.
The board is looking at whether a two-family structure can fit appropriately on a 95 -foot
lot as opposed to a 100 -foot lot. The architect has done a good job to put a nice, visually
acceptable structure in view of Mr. Cooley's backyard.
Jim Varner
7070 W. 32"d Place
Mr. Varner was sworn in. Mr. Varner didn't know what to expect tonight, but is
extremely pleased. He doesn't see the variance having any negative impact on him or his
Board of Adjustment Minutes — October 22, 2015 6
property and is in full support. They only concern Mr. Varner has, is in regards to the
privacy he gets from the foliage on the property line. He doesn't see the three foot high
addition being much of a problem because of the foliage. He thinks it is a good
improvement for the City of Wheat Ridge.
Member ABBOTT asked if there is landscaping in the backyard.
Mr. Varner stated there is vegetation growing on the 7075 W. 32°d property side and he is
hoping it will not be pulled out because it is nice for privacy.
Mr. Smith stated there is a fair amount of landscaping on the property line and they are
going to do everything they can to save it. Some trees may be lost to disease and will
have to come out eventually, but only one tree is slated to be removed. It is an evergreen
tree neat to the addition.
Mr. Varner also mentioned a drop in elevation from his property to the Smith's so he
really doesn't see any problem with the new addition height.
Member KUNTZ stated that it looks like the north facing elevation windows are
relatively small and that should also help with privacy.
Member PAGE added number 5 to "For the Following Reasons" below, and stated it is
good to add to the list to show why the Board Members were persuaded to vote in favor
of the application.
Upon a motion by Member PAGE and a second by Member KUNTZ, the following
motion was stated:
WHEREAS, application Case No. WA -15-11 was not eligible for administrative
review; and
WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law; and
WHEREAS, the variance applied for may be granted without detriment to the
public welfare and without 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 -15-11 be, and hereby is APPROVED
TYPE OF VARIANCE: Request for approval of a 5 -foot variance from the 100 -foot
minimum lot width standard to allow a 2 -family dwelling.
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
Board of Adjustment Minutes — October 22, 2015
2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may
not be possible without the variance.
3. The proposed investment is consistent with the Neighborhood Revitalization
Strategy and other documents supported by the city that encourage property
improvements.
4. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare.
5. Historically this property previously had a variance for a two family
dwelling.
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The addition shall be consistent with the architectural representations shown on
the submittal, or other as approved by staff.
Motion carried 8-0
Member BELL and Member ABBOTT gave their compliments to Ms. Ritchie, Ms.
Reckert and the staff for a job well done and setting a good example with the two
variances tonight and how applicants can work together with their neighbors.
5. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
6. OLD BUSINESS
Ms. Reckert stated that a woman contacted her regarding approval of the Class II
Floodplain Permit for an address on 42nd Avenue from the August 27d' meeting. The
homeowner from Hoyt Street claimed she didn't have ample opportunity to speak,
although her husband did speak. It has been discussed with the director of Community
Development and other staff members and it was felt that the members of the Board of
Adjustment had a fair hearing.
Member ABBOTT stated that he understands the best defense is that they received a fair
hearing. The board listened and based the decision on what was heard. The Board of
Adjustment did a good job and all participated and listened. .
Member GRIFFETH stated he had not heard the term Neighborhood Revitalization
Strategy (NRS) yet and does everyone have to comply with it.
Member ABBOTT said he didn't think so; different cases have different aspects worth
accenting.
Ms. Ritchie stated staff evaluates cases and compares them to plans and documents that
have been supported by or adopted by City Council; the NRS is something being used as
criteria, it is an evaluation and may or may not be appropriate.
Member BELL stated that during a site visit on 32nd Avenue, she met a woman walking a
dog and struck up a conversation. The woman's opinion was that she thought the Board
Board of Adjustment Minutes — October 22, 2015
of Adjustment would not listen to her if she came to a meeting. She didn't realize the
Board will always listen to keep the process fair. .
Ms. Reckert stated she thinks the Board does a good job and appreciates Member
ABBOTT's input and additions to the discussions and to keep up the good work.
Member HOVLAND said that Member ABBOTT does a good job of explaining to the
applicants what the BOA can and can't do.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of Minutes — August 27, 2015
It was moved by Member PAGE and seconded by Member BANGHART to approve
the minutes as written. The motion passed 8-0.
Ms. Reckert let the Board know that the November and December meetings will be
combined and held on Thursday, December 10, 2015. As of now there are no cases
scheduled.
Member BELL asked if a sample motion can be included in the packet.
Member PAGE asked if it could be printed on the divider paper.
Member ABBOTT stated he likes all the "WHERE AS's" because it adds an element of
formality because this is not a casual meeting.
Member BELL agrees.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Chair HOVLAND adjourned the meeting at 8:27p.m.
Paul HOVLAND, Chair Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary
Board of Adjustment Minutes — October 22, 2015
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 01
Series of 2016
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A DESIGNATED PUBLIC
PLACE FOR THE POSTING OF MEETING NOTICES AS
REQUIRED BY THE COLORADO OPEN MEETINGS LAW
WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, deems it in
the public interest to provide full and timely notice of all of its meetings; and
WHEREAS, the Colorado state legislature amended the Colorado Open Meetings Laws,
Section 24-6-401, et seq., C.R.S. to require all "local public bodies" subject to the requirements
of the law to annually designate at the local public body's first regular meeting of each calendar
year, the place for posting notices of public hearings no less than twenty-four hours prior to the
holding of the meeting; and
WHEREAS, "local public body" is defined by Section 24-6-402(1)(a) to include "any
board, committee, commission, authority, or other advisory, policy-making, rule-making, or
formally constituted body of any political subdivision of the state and any public or private entity
to which a political subdivision, or an official thereof, has delegated a governmental decision-
making function but does not include persons on the administrative staff of the local public
body".
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the City
of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, that:
1. The lobby of the Municipal Building and the City's website shall constitute the
designated public place for the posting of meeting notices as required by the
Colorado Open Meetings Law.
2. The Community Development Director or his designee shall be responsible for
posting the required notices no later than twenty-four (24) hours prior to the
holding of the meeting.
3. All meeting notices shall include specific agenda information, where possible.
DONE AND RESOLVED THIS day of 2016.
Chair, Board of Adjustment
ATTEST:
Secretary to the Board of Adjustment