Loading...
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